Advances in Engineering Education - The Human Dimension of Systemic Department-Level Change: A Change Agent’s Retrospective on a Case of Reform

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Terk

Narrative case study of department-level reform told through the initiating change agent’s retrospective. Over the reform period, the program grew by 40%, largely by retaining students, and showed a 10% net increase in engineering student important rate during the first two years versus a 5% mean export rate for the college. The paper links design of a Department Level Reform grant to goals of retaining women and other underrepresented groups and preparing engineers for global technical challenges, and reflects on faculty impact, convictions, and recommendations.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages31

Reading Time1 h 18 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Lenses for interpreting events

Change-agent role and grant context

Learning in social settings

| | Ad | vances in Engineering Edu | cation | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SUMMER 2011 The Human Dimension of Systemic Department-Level Change: A Change Agent’s Retrospective on a Case of Reform LINDA VANASUPA MATERIALS ENGINEERING California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California ABSTRACT This paper represents a narrative of the process of department-level reform through the eyes of the initiating agent of change. Over the course of reform, our program has grown by 40%, primarily through retaining students. We exhibit a 10% net important rate of engineering students in the first two years of the curriculum relative to the college’s 5% mean export rate. Student freshmen SAT scores also indicate that we are attracting students with more balanced learning interests. The design of our Department Level Reform grant was to advance the knowledge of how to design engineering learning experiences that accomplish two social imperatives: retaining women and other underrepresented groups in the engineering degree programs; and equipping engineers to solve the technical challenges in the context of our complex global society. There is evidence that weare fulfilling our aims, but time will tell. This paper is focused on the impact that our reforms have had on the faculty. In the process of reform, I have emerged with these convictions: 1. Decisions are not made by data but by examining consequences against our values; 2. Humans should not be viewed or treated like mechanistic objects; 3. Structural changes that do not proceed from changes in mental models will not survive; 4. The anxiety around change must be mindfully managed at multiple stakeholder levels; and 5. Sustained change requires interactions with external agents. In this paper, I chronicle the process of change, the agents of change, their actions, and some of the results by the numbers. I also reflect on the meaning and provide recommendations. Keywords: Change agents; diversity; global and societal issues, organizational change INTRODUCTION The growing consensus recognizes that in the course of learning, one is “actively selecting, and cumulatively constructing their own knowledge through both individual and social activity.”(p. 348, SUMMER 2011 1 ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION The Human Dimension of Systemic Department-Level Change: A Change Agent’s Retrospective on a Case Reform Biggs, 1996) In the same way, we researchers actively select from the available spectrum of data and assign meaning to our chosen subset of data. Before beginning our story then, I must identify the lenses through which the events were viewed. The first one is that of my own. I acknowledge that my observations are filtered through my humanity, despite my intent to present an objective viewpoint. I provide facts, but in the course of implementing our department-level reform (DLR), I learned that the facts one focuses on and the meaning they then assign to them are unconsciously limited by their own beliefs. In other words, as is the case in reproducing a narrative (Bower and Morrow, 1990), people unconsciously replace the facts themselves with the mental model they have constructed. I found that one’s awareness of this process and their willingness to be transparent and inquisitive about their assumptions would ultimately be the key to learning, as suggested by Argyris (Argyris, 1997); thus, I am the first lens. I served as the author and principal investigator of the grant. As the department chair of the program in question (2002–2006), I had a unique, albeit limited view of the grant’s impact. The period of funding was from September 1, 2005 to September 1, 2009. In 2006, I stepped down from the position of chair because I felt that I should lead the most difficult part of the proposed work: the complete integration of all junior-year materials science courses (50% of the junior-level curriculum) i

FAQs

What does the paper focus on regarding the reform process?

It chronicles department-level reform through the initiating agent of change, emphasizing faculty impact, actions, results, and reflections derived from the change experience.

What outcomes does the paper report during the reform?

The program grew by 40%, with a primary emphasis on student retention, and it reports a 10% net increase in engineering students’ rate during the first two years relative to the college’s 5% mean export rate.

What aims guided the Department Level Reform grant?

The grant design aimed to advance engineering learning experiences that retain women and other underrepresented groups and equip engineers to solve technical challenges in a complex global society.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Terk