University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

(USC Thesis Other)

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE
1

A Methodology for Transforming the Student Experience in Higher Education: A Promising
Practice Study

by

Elizabeth A. Kovach-Hayes

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2019

Copyright 2019 Elizabeth A. Kovach-Hayes

2
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Dedication

To my parents, whose love and encouragement led me down the occasionally gnarled path to an
educated life. You never stopped believing in me, and I am truly grateful. To my remarkable
daughter, whose creativity and imagination inspires me and encourages me not to take myself
too seriously. And to Roger, whose love and support is always with me.
3
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Acknowledgments

As Einstein supposedly said, “Never regard study as a duty but as an enviable
opportunity to learn …” That statement reminds me of why I started this journey and epitomizes
the dedication of my Dissertation Committee, Dr. Helena Seli (Chair), Dr. Darline Robles, and
Dr. Sarah Lillo, without whose feedback and encouragement this dissertation would not have
been completed on time, or probably at all. Their expertise and commitment amazes me. I can
only hope to be as dedicated to the students I may eventually teach as they are to theirs.
Thank you to all of the people in the OCL program, including those who only appeared
on screen, who advised me, gave me perspective when I really needed it (Reg), shared their
expertise and taught me how to be fearless in my approach to learning. Dr. Anthony Maddox, Dr.
Doug Lynch, Dr. Sarah Lillo, Dr. Holly Ferguson, Dr. Rodrick Jenkins, Dr. Mark Pearson, Dr.
Darline Robles, Dr. Bill Bewley, Dr. Dave Cash, Dr. Don Murphy, Dr. Frances Kellar, Dr.
Sourena Haj-Mohamadi, and Lauren Yeoman, thank you for your honesty, kindness and
patience. I could not have had better educators to instruct and guide me on this expedition.
Cohort 5, you are my forever gang. I cannot imagine having this experience without you.
Mandy, thank you for the pep rallies and dog stories. Gina, thank you for nagging me to get the
CITI training done and for enticing me out of the house for coffee. Lori, thank you for taking
meticulous notes. Karen and Javier, thank you for listening to me complain, sometimes over
nothing. Jonathan, thank you for taking the time to organize get-togethers, you’re blessed. Dee,
thank you for answering my texts at midnight, and Diane, thank you for your calming presence.
And a huge hug to my lifelong pals in PA, CO, CA, TX and AZ. You have been there to
support me from start to finish. Linda, your insight and friendship brought me to the finish line
(and beyond). Truly, I would not have made it without you.

4
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Table of Contents

Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Organizational Performance Status 11
Related Literature 12
Importance of a Promising Practice Study 12
Organizational Performance Goal and Current Performance 14
Description of Stakeholder Groups 15
Organizational and Stakeholder Performance Goals 16
Stakeholder Group for the Study 16
Purpose of the Project and Questions 17
Methodological Framework 18
Definitions 18
Organization of the Project 19
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 20
Traditional Post-Secondary Education 20
Historical Synopsis of Higher Education 21
The Economy, Society and the Effects on Higher Education 23
Technology and Post-Secondary Education 24
Transformational Learning and Student-Centered Pedagogy 26
Clark and Estes’ Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework 28
5
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Faculty Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 29
Knowledge Influences 30
Motivation Influences 33
Organizational Influences 35
Conceptual Framework 39
Figure 1: How faculty knowledge, skills and motivation interact with
the culture of State Public University 40
Conclusion 41
Chapter Three: Methodology 43
Purpose of the Project and Questions 43
Methodological Approach and Rationale 44
Participating Stakeholders 45
Interview Recruitment Strategy and Rationale 45
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 46
Explanation for Choices 47
Data Collection and Instrumentation 47
Interviews 48
Documents and Artifacts 49
Data Analysis 49
Credibility and Trustworthiness 50
Ethics 51
Limitations and Delimitations 53
Chapter Four: Findings 55
Participating Stakeholders 56
6
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Knowledge Influences 56
Procedural Knowledge 57
Conceptual Knowledge 58
Metacognitive Knowledge 59
Motivation Influences 60
Attribution Theory 61
Self-Efficacy 63
Organizational Influences 64
Experimentation 64
Feedback 65
Change 66
Resources 66
Summary: General Themes 67
Knowledge Assets 67
Motivation Assets 69
Organizational Assets 70
Chapter Five: Recommendations 73
Introduction and Overview 73
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 73
Knowledge Recommendations 73
Motivation Recommendations 77
Organization Recommendations 80
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 83
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 83
7
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 84
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 85
Level 3: Behaviors 86
Level 2: Learning 89
Level 1: Reaction 91
Summary 93
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 93
Future Research 95
Conclusion 96
References 99
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 114
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol 118
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Research 119
Appendix D: Recruitment Correspondence 120
Appendix E: Assessment Plan 121
Appendix F: Course Content 123
Appendix G: Evaluation Instrument - Immediate 124
Appendix H: Evaluation Instrument – Delayed 125

8
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 16
Table 2: Knowledge Influences 33
Table 3: Motivation Influences 35
Table 4: Organizational Influences 39
Table 5: Qualifications of Interview Participants 56
Table 6: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 74
Table 7: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 78
Table 8: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 81
Table 9: Outcomes, Metrics and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 86
Table 10: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 87
Table 11: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 88
Table 12: Learning Goals for Implementing Performance Improvement Initiatives 90
Table 13: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Training Program 91
Table 14: Components to Measure Reactions to the Training Program 92
Table 15: Factors to Increase Employee Performance 97

9
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Abstract
This dissertation is a case study of State Public University (pseudonym), a large, public
university in the United States, and the promising practice that improved student learning by
redesigning an Information Technology course (pseudonym IT-101). The stakeholders were
faculty who were involved in the redesign. As part of this qualitative study, interviews were
conducted to identify faculty assets in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources that enabled them to increase student learning. Supporting data was collected from the
external consultants who assisted them. In addition, documents were reviewed to supplement
data obtained in interviews. The research questions that guided the study were designed to
identify the faculty knowledge and motivation that enabled them to redesign the course to
improve student learning outcomes, to determine the interaction between organizational culture
and faculty knowledge and motivation, and to determine what recommendations may be
appropriate for implementing the promising practice at other organizations. Results showed that
faculty had the expertise to redesign the course, were self-motivated, and that the organization
provided resources to support their effort. A key recommendation is that organizations who want
to improve employee performance should consider the collaboration, stakeholder engagement,
management support, self-efficacy, and willingness to take risks that permitted faculty to
improve student learning at State Public University.

10
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Chapter One: Introduction
In today’s competitive global economy, institutions of higher learning are faced with more
challenges to attract and retain students than in the past. Providing a satisfactory service, such as
a qualified instructor and a comfortable classroom, no longer means a successful outcome.
Universities compete not only for research funding, but also for students on a global scale
(Etzkowitz, 1999), trying to reduce costs while still providing the best instruction. In addition,
traditional universities must now compete with for-profit and corporate universities, as well as
certificate-offering programs (Eckel & Kezar, 2003). Approximately 2000 corporate universities
currently exist (Meister, 2001) and over 1.5 million people earned certificates in information
technology in early 2000 (Adelman, 2000), programs that possibly usurped students from
degree-granting institutions.
According to Bitner, Ostrom and Burkhard (2012), on-time graduation is another challenge
to address in order to remain competitive. In addition to issues like costs and reputation, students
may consider the average time to graduation when deciding on where to attend college. Less than
60% of students enrolled in educational institutions in the United States earn a degree within six
years (Bitner, Ostrom, & Burkhard, 2012). Carey (2015) concurred that approximately 40% of
American students who initially enroll in four-year institutions actually graduate in four years,
and less than two-thirds graduate within six years. Improving student performance may also
improve graduation rates (Carey, 2005).
In order to remain competitive, organizations need to implement more innovative methods
to ensure growth and prevent stagnation (Bitner, Ostrom & Morgan, 2008), and to maintain
loyalty and increase profits (Pine & Gilmore, 2011). The service design methodology is one of
those methods. Its core philosophy of focusing on services has been used to increase student
performance, which increases value for all stakeholders (Bitner et al., 2012).
11
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Organizational Context and Mission
This is a study of a public research university in the United States, hereby referred to as
the pseudonym State Public University (SPU), with approximately 60,000 students in
undergraduate and graduate programs, and with minority students making up approximately 34%
of the student body. Over 21,000 degrees were awarded in the 2014/2015 school year, a 64%
increase in the number of degrees awarded in 2005. Faculty include Pulitzer Prize winners,
members of the National Endowment for the Humanities, fellows of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, and members of the National Academy of Science. SPU is
among the top universities in the nation for Nobel-winning faculty economists and has realized a
40% increase in minority tenured and tenure-track faculty since 2005. Expenditures for research
are in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and scholarship support is an additional multimillion-
dollar investment. The University’s charter notes their commitment to the success of all
students, advancing research, and providing value for the community. Their mission states their
dedication to academic excellence and quality, and their allegiance to establishing themselves as
a global center for interdisciplinary research and discovery within the next six years.
Organizational Performance Status
In 2007, as part of an institutional evaluation, SPU realized that IT-101, an introductory
computer course for students not majoring in Information Technology, was outdated and did not
meet student needs. They also determined that its current format of classroom instruction was
costly when compared to online instruction, which they did not provide at the time. According
to Allen and Seaman (2010), approximately 30% of all students in higher education were taking
one or more courses online.
To align with their mission of being a leader in academic excellence, quality and
accessibility, SPU redesigned IT-101 to improve student performance and course
12
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

cost-effectiveness. The results of a two-year pilot study using the redesigned methodology
showed that 65% of students earned grades of a C or higher compared with 26% of students in
the original course. Student satisfaction improved with online accessibility and course costs
were reduced from $50 to $28 per student. The goals of the pilot program were achieved by
focusing on the customer (student) experience. Because of their success, State Public University
is a model to be studied.
Related Literature
Competing for customers and resources in a 21
st
century global economy is not limited to
manufacturing, but affects other sectors as well, like healthcare and education. Pine and Gilmore
(2011) explained the importance of transforming customer experiences, not just providing a
service, to inspire loyalty and increase profits. Current challenges such as low student retention
and increasing costs affect an educational institution’s ability to prepare its graduates to compete
in a global marketplace (Bitner et al., 2012). Rapid changes in technology and the global
economy have increased competition, and organizations, including academic institutions, must
position themselves for success by redefining their strategies (Craig, 2004). Because the need
for higher education is growing rapidly (Tierney, 2012), more innovative ways of providing
education are necessary to attract more students and remain viable. Eckel and Kezar (2003)
proposed that strategic change is not enough for colleges and universities to remain competitive;
change that transforms individual and collective thinking must take place in order to satisfy a
more diverse and discriminating student and society. Transforming the student experience by
maximizing technology and other resources and implementing pedagogies that address learning
from the student’s perspective, may be what determines success in the future of education.
Importance of a Promising Practice Study
Promising practices may be defined as the processes, procedures, or other elements that
13
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

produce a successful outcome, usually by meeting planned goals or objectives that can be
measured. They combine with other concepts in the organization, such as leadership or employee
engagement, to contribute to organizational culture. There is a depth of information and a
variety of theories on what makes an organizational culture effective, but practices that
consistently lead to successful outcomes, such as improved learning, are typically part of it. A
learning organization is one that is able to adapt, compete and survive in a global economy
(Casey, 2019). Employees gain knowledge not just by hearing what leaders say but also by
observing what they do. According to Marks and Printy (2003), transformational change occurs
when leaders share decision-making with employees and innovate through empowerment.
Research shows that an effective and learning organizational culture is often led by an individual
who is credible and trustworthy, communicates well and openly, engages employees in shared
decision-making, treats employees fairly and with integrity, is committed to cultural diversity,
embraces change, and encourages innovation, among other traits (Bryman, 2008; Fullan &
Quinn, 2016; Schein, 2017). A leader who exhibits these types of traits plays a key role in
forming a culture where promising practices are developed and implemented. This study will
identify what influences in SPU’s organization contributed to the successful redesign of IT-101
that improved student learning in Chapter Two.
It is important to examine SPU’s performance in relationship to their performance goal of
increasing student learning as a promising practice for a variety of reasons. A focus on
efficiency and cost is necessary to compete for students with for-profit universities (Lechuga,
2012). Complying with regulations, meeting accountability demands, competition for students
and funding, and recruiting and retaining researchers challenges the sustainability of many
academic institutions (Fumasoli & Stensaker, 2013), which may ultimately affect state and
national economies (Berdahl, 1999). State Public University has been recognized by major
14
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

publications and in various studies for their innovativeness and leading research on experiential
learning. Transforming the student experience has enabled SPU to set a direction for future
sustainability from which other organizations can learn.
Organizational Performance Goal and Current Performance
As part of their mission toward academic excellence and accessibility, SPU committed to
improving quality while reducing costs. Faculty submitted 16 projects to the state’s grant
program for funding to redesign the courses, based on the goal to increase undergraduate student
learning in courses with large enrollments and to reduce costs. Eight projects were funded,
including IT-101. The National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT) was contracted to
assist with the initiative. The course was redesigned by replacing two instructors with one faculty
coordinator, replacing two graduate teaching assistants with one, replacing four lecture sections
with two hybrid sections and one fully online section, replacing six undergraduate graders with
five undergraduate learning assistants, and increasing each section by 29 students (National
Center for Academic Transformation, 2009). In addition, content shifted from basic concepts to
problem-solving current issues with technology and hands-on assignments (National Center for
Academic Transformation, 2009). Student input was solicited and incorporated into the
redesigned course, with oversight by an Advisory Board that included members of academia and
industry.
SPU’s redesign of IT-101 constitutes a promising practice based on data collected by
NCAT. Their data revealed that 65% of students in the redesigned course earned a “C” or higher,
compared with an average of 26% of students in the original course. Additionally, course
evaluations showed an increase in student satisfaction, and the transition from classroom
instruction to the online format resulted in a cost savings of $22 per student (National Center for
15
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Academic Transformation, 2009). By employing a student-centered approach, SPU increased
student learning and reduced costs.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
A stakeholder group is a group of individuals who directly contribute to and benefit from
the achievement of the organization’s performance goal. Companies who systematically include
the concerns of their stakeholders are more successful, and stakeholder inclusion is a strategic
element for long-term viability in the 21st century (Wheeler & Sillanpää, 1998). At SPU, three
groups of stakeholders with a vested interest in reducing educational costs and improving student
learning are administrators, faculty, and students. As leaders, administrators are obligated to
provide for the collective well-being of the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2013). They share
responsibility for and are held accountable for the success or failure of initiatives. The
administrators at SPU are accountable for ensuring the university’s mission is upheld and goals
are met. Faculty are responsible for delivering instruction, monitoring and evaluating student
progress, and assisting students with achievement. They are directly responsible for student
learning and contribute to the competitiveness of the organization. Students have an economic
and labor-intensive investment in their education. Course design and delivery contributes to
their success.

16
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Organizational and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1

Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals

______________________________________________________________________________
Organizational Mission
______________________________________________________________________________
Be a leader in academic excellence and quality, establish ourselves as a global center for
interdisciplinary learning and research, and enhance our impact on the surrounding community.
______________________________________________________________________________
Organizational Global Goal
______________________________________________________________________________
State Public University will be inclusive, conduct research of public value, and contribute to the
economic, social, cultural and overall health of the communities they serve.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Organizational Performance Goal
______________________________________________________________________________
By the end of the pilot in 2009, increase the percentage of students who earn a grade C or higher
in IT-101.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Stakeholder Goal
_____________________________________________________________________________

By September 1, 2009, complete the implementation of the redesigned IT-101 to improve
student learning outcomes.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
The joint efforts of many stakeholders contributed to the achievement of improving
student learning. However, for practical purposes, the stakeholder group of focus for this study is
limited to SPU faculty who were involved in the course redesign, with supporting data from the
National Center for Academic Transformation [NCAT] consultants who assisted them. These
stakeholders evaluated the existing curriculum and revised it to improve student performance by
using a structured and efficacious process. NCAT’s course redesign process provided structure
and oversight for faculty who interacted with students and collected feedback from them.
Faculty also evaluated student performance and compiled evidence that illustrated the pilot was a
success using established criteria.
17
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

The importance of faculty involvement is illustrated not only through instruction but by
contributing to students’ socialization to college life, particularly for first-year students as
mentors, advisors and confidantes (Renn & Reason, 2013). They can have a profound and
lasting impact on students by modeling intellectual courage, such as addressing any subject no
matter how controversial, challenging students and teaching analytic skills, encouraging radical
ideas and debate, questioning norms, teaching tolerance, and embracing diversity (Cole, 2009).
For example, Frederick Douglass, Eudora Welty, and Malcolm X were influenced and motivated
by teachers, not just in the classroom, but through books and in everyday life (Stanford, 2006).
Faculty are closest to the students and enable sharing of ideas that can then be conveyed to
administrators for efforts at transformation (Rose, 2012). It is important to understand the
promising practices and strategies utilized by SPU faculty as they sought to improve course
content and delivery.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to study SPU’s performance related to a larger problem
of practice, student success. The analysis focused on faculty assets in the areas of knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational resources. While a complete study would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders of this analysis were SPU faculty involved
in the redesign, with supporting data collected from the external consultants who assisted them.
As such, the questions that guided this promising practice study are the following:
1. What faculty knowledge and motivation enabled them to complete the implementation of
the redesigned course, IT-101, to improve student learning outcomes?
2. What was the interaction between organizational culture and context, and faculty
knowledge and motivation?
18
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for implementing the promising practice at another
organization?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a systematic, analytical method that helps to
understand organizational goal achievement. It was adapted to a promising practice study and
implemented as the conceptual framework. The methodological framework used for this study is
a qualitative design. Methodological choices and details will be discussed in Chapter Three.
Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational assets were generated based on the related
literature. These influences were assessed by using document analysis, interviews, and
literature review. Research-based solutions were recommended and evaluated in a
comprehensive manner.
Definitions
BOR: Board of Regents
DFW: Drop/Fail/Withdraw
IRB: Institutional Review Board
NCAT: National Center for Academic Transformation
NPDL: New Pedagogies for Deep Learning
SPU: State Public University
STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
Student learning: Engagement and performance
TA: Teaching Assistant
ULA: Undergraduate Learning Assistant
19
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about increasing student passing
rates in rigorous courses. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the initial
concepts of gap analysis were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature
surrounding the scope of the study. Chapter Three details the methodology, data collection and
analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides
recommendations for practice, based on data and literature, as well as a recommended
implementation and evaluation plan.

20
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review will examine the relevance of student-centered curricula. The
review begins with research on traditional post-secondary education and its outcomes. This is
followed by a discussion on how economical and societal factors affect education, including the
transition of the United States (U.S) economy from one that focused on the production of goods
to one that currently relies on services. Included in this section will be an overview of
technology, its rapid expansion and how it is being used in the classroom to enhance learning,
increase accessibility, and amplify globalization. There will then be an in-depth review of the
importance of using innovative concepts in higher education, such as transformational learning
and student-centered processes, that helps colleges and universities remain competitive by
improving learning outcomes. SPU will be discussed as a promising practice, based on their
redesign of a computer literacy course.
Traditional Post-Secondary Education
There is a dearth of research regarding the history of American education, the economy,
and its effect on higher education. A comprehensive review of the topic goes beyond the purpose
of this dissertation. However, it is necessary to understand the evolution of post-secondary
education in the United States in order to put student-centered learning as a promising practice
into perspective. The role of colleges and universities and the education they provide has
become far more important today compared to a century ago (Bok, 2013/2015), where educating
the populace has gone from being a public good to a private commodity (Walker, 2006). Geiger
(2015) suggested that the basic social purposes of higher education are culture, careers and
knowledge, and that these purposes change with historical context. Curricula and pedagogies
have also changed, and it is important to understand these changes and how they affect student
learning in order to transform education to meet the needs of all stakeholders in the future.
21
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Historical Synopsis of Higher Education
Early colleges were created based on German models and also to emulate Cambridge and
Oxford by educating colonial men as ministers, public servants, scholars and governors in an
agrarian society (Reynolds, 2014; Rudolph, 1990). Curricula emphasized piety, obedience,
moral behavior and character-building (Lucas, 2006; Popkewitz, 2011), which Aldrich (2010)
described as “education for salvation” (p. 5). Harvard College was the first post-secondary
institution in the United States, founded in 1636 with a curriculum based on Puritan theology
(Geiger, 2015; Rudolph, 1990), and heavily influenced by philosophies of the Greeks (Agbo,
2010; Geiger, 2015; Rudolph, 1990). Mathematics and science weren’t introduced into any
curricula until 1727 at Harvard, and extracurricular activities such as debate clubs and literary
societies were later introduced by Yale in 1753 (Rudolph, 1990).
The American Revolution had a profound impact on higher education by initially
increasing governmental oversight, instigating political debates in the classroom and student
boycotts, and creating an environment for religious diversity and educational expansion
(Cohen, 2012). To populate the newly-formed towns, the Land-Grant College Act of 1862
(Morrill Act) gave states the financial incentive to establish public colleges (Power, 1991). The
years between the Revolution and Civil War presented the rare opportunity for women and
African Americans to get an education, although women mostly attended post-secondary
seminaries that did not offer degrees (Cohen, 2012). New York Central College opened as a
coeducational institution in 1849 and allowed biracial students and faculty to participate (Cohen,
2012). The first female post-secondary educational institution was founded in Macon, Georgia
as Georgia Female College in 1836 and prepared elite women to become good wives, although
normal schools for the teaching profession were more common for women who were educated in
the Midwest (Cohen, 2012; Hampel, 2017). The introduction of athletics solicited students and
22
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

enhanced the allegiance to specific institutions, starting with rowing clubs by colleges in the East
(Geiger, 2015).
Discussions of education reform began in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions after the
Civil War, where the economy and infrastructure were still fairly intact compared to the South
(Lucas, 2006). Science began to replace religion as the focus of education, where Darwin’s
theory of evolution challenged existing paradigms of human life and purpose (Aldrich, 2010).
There was also a public interest in more vocational education to address jobs created after the
Civil War (Zakaria, 2015). Colleges (institutions that awarded Bachelor of Arts degrees) became
universities that pursued advanced studies and research, with Johns Hopkins becoming
America’s first university in 1876 (Power, 1991). Mission statements were changed from an
emphasis on teaching to advancement of democracy in a more liberal environment (Scott, 2006).
Membership of governing boards of educational institutions transitioned to businessmen instead
of the religious founders from previous centuries, and began to reflect a political economy
(Rossides, 2004).
In the early 20
th
century, a liberal education with a core curriculum based on classic
works gained traction (Zakaria, 2015). Between 1900 and 1940, college enrollments went from
approximately 250,000 to approximately 1.5 million and public institutions became competitors
of private institutions (Labaree, 2017). The purpose for attending college changed from a desire
to learn to a need to earn a living (Hampel, 2017; Labaree, 2017). Competition for attracting
students and faculty and raising money increased dramatically, particularly after World War II
because of the numerous veterans using the G.I. Bill for education, student deferments during the
Vietnam War (Reynolds, 2014), and when improvements in transportation made out-of-state
colleges more accessible (Bok, 2013/2015).

23
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

The Economy, Society and the Effects on Higher Education
Fumasoli and Stensaker (2013) posited that changes to higher education’s operational
philosophies such as managerialism, accountability, governmental compliance, and approaches
to research may be impacted by major societal and economical events, such as economic
depressions, immigration, and civil unrest. Approximately one million immigrants per year were
fleeing to the United States after World War II, necessitating a need to educate a growing
national population (Rossides, 2004). From an Industrial Economics (IE) framework, the higher
education system in the United States is the most market-oriented system in the world, illustrated
by the aggressive and global competition for faculty, research support, students and financial
contributions (Dill, 2003). Impacts such as large-scale industrialization in the 20
th
century
created corporations and competition via a market economy that affected not just society, but
higher education as well (Cohen, 2012; Lucas, 2006; Shapiro & Purpel, 2008). Petrovska (2010)
suggested that post-secondary education adapts to the social and political climate and to
globalization. For example, with the advent of new construction methodology, new engineering
schools were created that emphasized chemistry, physics and electromagnetism (Shapiro &
Purpel, 2008). Social issues such as racial discrimination, segregation and equal rights were
addressed via federal and state legislation that had a political, cultural and educational impact
(Loss, 2012; Lucas, 2006; Power, 1991; Rudolph, 1990). The launch of Sputnik by the former
Soviet Union prompted the federal government’s increased investment in higher education,
particularly for students pursuing the sciences and technology (Aronowitz, 2008). The end of the
Cold War and collapse of the former Soviet Union emphasized the success of capitalism
compared to socialism, with the focus on the democracy, free markets and material wealth of the
United States (Shapiro & Purpel, 2008).
24
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

During the latter part of the 20
th
century, the decline in manufacturing jobs indicated that
a high school diploma would no longer suffice in getting a job, and higher education became
more of a necessity compared to prior decades (Rury, 2008). Studies by notable economist
Howard Bowen claimed that investment in education was not only important to the individual
but critical to the improvement of society (Thelin, 2004). The introduction of automation and the
transfer of jobs overseas shifted the manufacturing-based economy to one of services, which
required a college degree (Rury, 2008).
Technology and Post-Secondary Education
In 2014, approximately 40% of the world’s population were internet users, with 280
million users in the United States alone (Strange & Banning, 2001/2015). Wilson (2001)
described rapid technological change as the “Internet tsunami” (p. 224) and estimated that
technology will undergo a 100% change approximately every two years. Reynolds (2014)
warned that higher education is approaching a bubble similar to the housing market, with
tuition costs, at an annual growth rate of 7.45% a year, surpassing the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) and healthcare costs. He suggested that reshaping the way instruction is administered by
using advanced technology may be a method to attenuate rising costs (Reynolds, 2014). Strange
and Banning (2001/2015) suggested that using digital technology for post-secondary education
may increase student engagement in their own learning. Technological tools such as the internet
allow students to be actively engaged in their learning and provide coaching opportunities for
instructors (Duttdoner, Allen & Corcoran, 2005), compared to the disciplinary instructor and rote
learning methodology of the past. In addition, course instruction online may prove to be more
cost-effective than in the classroom (Bitner et al., 2012; Carey, 2015; Jones & Sclater, 2010;
Strange & Banning, 2001/2015; Thelin, 2004).
25
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Online education exploded via for-profit distant-education universities such as the
University of Phoenix, Ashford University, Capella University, and DeVry University, and
nonprofit institutions such as Western Governors University and Southern New Hampshire
University’s Center for Online and Continuing Education (COCE), that offer open enrollment,
minimal admissions criteria, and degrees ranging from associates to doctorates, with minimal
expense (Kamenetz, 2010; Thelin, 2004). Commercial online education databases like
eLearners.com and Online Education Database are available to make comparisons using criteria
such as student demographics and student engagement (Kamenetz, 2010). Fullan and Quinn
(2016) suggested using a model they call New Pedagogies for Deep Learning (NPDL), where the
acquisition of new knowledge and skills is accelerated through the use of digital technology.
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are now available to hundreds of thousands of
individuals seeking an education (Davidson, 2017; Kamenetz, 2010; Scott, 2015). Elite
universities have placed coursework and videos of classes online for public access (although no
course credit is given), such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s OpenCourseWare
(OCW), Yale’s Open Yale Courses (OYC), Carnegie Mellon University’s Open Learning
Initiative (OLI), and the University of California Berkeley’s webcast.berkeley.edu (Kamenetz,
2010; Walsh, 2011). Cloud computing and the edgeless university are newly introduced
terminology to describe the technological advancement of online learning environments (Jones
& Sclater, 2010), where according to Brown and Duguid (1996), the most important aspect of
online education is providing students access to a community where they will learn to solve
lifelike problems and learn skills that can be transferred to the workplace. Salman Khan, founder
of The Kahn Academy, concurred that technology can be used to create customized
instruction based on a student’s specific learning style, prepares the student for real world
26
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

problem-solving, and can create a more enjoyable, enhanced learning experience to increase
knowledge retention (Khan, 2012).
The shift from teaching in a conventional classroom to a learner-centered environment
via advanced technology applications, however, presents some challenges, one of which is
faculty buy-in. Cooperation from faculty is critical for the success of the transition to
student-centered learning. They must adjust to the paradigm shift in teaching methodology by
learning new skills with which to engage students (Rogers, 2000). In addition, the introduction
of technology into the classroom may be perceived as a threat to job stability, since reducing
costs via technological efficiency may also mean reducing the number of faculty needed for
instruction (Kamenetz, 2010). Motivation to participate in the IT-101 redesign initiative at SPU
is addressed in Chapter Four.
Transformational Learning and Student-Centered Pedagogy
The typical college student has changed over the last century, where the majority of
undergraduate students in the United States previously was a White teen-age Christian
heterosexual male with no disabilities (Renn & Reason, 2013). Approximately 45% of
post-secondary students today are over the age of 25, and many come from single-parent homes
Kuh, 2001). Today, the college student population represents a higher percentage of women,
African Americans, Latinx, and other diverse ethnicities (Kuh, 2001). Approximately four-fifths
of students now work while attending college, and one third of that group are employed full-time
(Kuh, 2001). The changing demographics of the 21
st
century college student, in addition to a
more competitive globalized economy, are factors that require academic institutions to provide
students with a more realistic, transferrable and sustainable education (Harward, 2012). Scholars
are addressing these changes by studying transformational learning methodologies, including a
focus on student-centered learning.
27
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Transformational learning has been studied for over 30 years by many researchers
applying many different philosophies (e. g. constructivist, postmodern, positivist) to many
different environments (Taylor & Cranton, 2012). Transforming the learning experience may
involve a combination of various pedagogies, depending on the framework, faculty expertise,
and available resources. For example, Fullan and Quinn (2016) described New Pedagogies for
Deep Learning (NPDL) as using pedagogy as the driver and technology as the accelerator to
amplify learning. NPDL requires 1) a collaboration of all stakeholders to develop a model for
teaching and learning, 2) identification and implementation of pedagogical best practices, 3)
building precision into pedagogies that allows faculty to recognize situations that require
intervention and 4) creating pedagogies that illustrate the causal efficacy of how educational
practices make a difference in learning (Fullan & Quinn, 2016).
Johansson and Felten (2014) postulated that if educational institutions wish to thrive, they
must continue to evolve. They advocated for intention and commitment in action when
implementing changes to ensure influences on students are lifelong learning experiences. Their
research involved interviews with faculty, students and alumni of a small private college in
North Carolina, in addition to studies of other institutions and by scholars of higher education.
They posited that transformative learning follows four general steps (although not necessarily
linear):
(1) beginning with a disruption of a previous way of looking at the world,
(2) followed by reflective analysis of one’s underlying assumptions,
(3) verifying and acting on these new understandings, and, finally,
(4) integrating these new ways of being into everyday life (p. 3).
Cranton (2016) explained the importance of transforming the educational process from
the adult learner’s perspective, while Moore (2017) and other scholars addressed the significance
28
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

of learning and transferring knowledge through a mastery of writing. In his research on how
students integrate learning, Barber (2014) determined that transformational learning takes place
when students bring together knowledge, skills and experience by discovering similar ideas
across environments, using knowledge in more than one context, and creating new knowledge by
combining insights. Beatty (2004) advocated the use of metacommunication, where students
collaborate with faculty to address individual learning habits and study the nature and purpose of
effective communication. From a student-centered perspective, Scobey (2012) advised colleges
and universities to act with intention to transform the student learning experience by including
elements such as creative activities, collaboration with faculty, participation in learning
communities, and interdisciplinary studies in order to meet the challenges of the future.
Davidson (2017) supported Scobey’s assertion and presented the example of Professor Sha Xin
Wei at Arizona State University, among others, for going beyond traditional pedagogy by using a
collaborative interdisciplinary approach; a class of engineers and artists worked together to solve
a complex problem that will affect society in the near future. This type of instructional technique
forces students to question their reasoning paradigms and search out more creative and
revolutionary resolutions, a salient and necessary methodology for students in a fluctuating
world (Davidson, 2017).
Clark and Estes’ Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
To identify the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers that prevent
goals from being met, Clark and Estes (2008) advised using a systematic gap analysis
framework. The gap between current performance and the desired performance is identified by
obtaining input from employees and then classifying the issues into the categories of knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers (Clark & Estes, 2008). This framework will be
29
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

adapted for a promising practice where instead of identifying knowledge, motivation and
organizational barriers, the focus will be on identifying assets. Employees with the knowledge
and skills to perform well are part of a learning and growth organization that sustains long-term
success (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). However, if the culture of the organization does not motivate
employees to be productive, then the organization may suffer. Rueda (2011) suggested that
employees with a high level of self-efficacy, who believe in their competence, and who remain
positive are motivated to work harder. In addition, organizations that support a highly skilled
and motivated workforce have a competitive advantage over those who do not (Bolman & Deal,
2013).
Identifying gaps in knowledge, skills and motivation, and identifying barriers that prevent
maximum employee productivity are critical to the success of the organization (Clark & Estes,
2008). Similarly, for continued successful practice within an organization and to potentially
support performance in other similar organizations, identifying assets is also critical. Each of
these elements will be addressed below regarding how they contributed to transforming the
student experience at SPU. The first section will be a discussion of assumed influences on the
stakeholder goal in the context of knowledge and skills, followed by a discussion on the
motivational factors that affected the achievement of the stakeholder goal. Finally, aspects of the
organizational culture that influenced the stakeholders in meeting the goal will be explored.
Each of these assumed influences of knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational
influences on performance will then be examined through the methodology discussed in Chapter
Three.
Faculty Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
In this section, the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on faculty will
be identified using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic conceptual framework, which is
30
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

well-suited for studying stakeholder performance within an organization. This problem-solving
process is based on 1) understanding stakeholder goals with regard to the organizational goal,
and 2) identifying assumed performance influences in the areas of knowledge, motivation and
organization that is based on general theory, context-specific literature, and an existing
understanding of the organization. An explanation of stakeholder-specific knowledge,
motivation and organizational assumed influences is provided in the following segment.
Knowledge Influences
This section reviews the literature that focuses on knowledge-related influences that are
pertinent to the improvement of the learning experience. It is important to examine knowledge
and skills so that instructors know what is required for successful learning to take place and so
that they can hire the right people. To create improvement in the classroom includes learning
skills that provide better communication and learning strategies. Beatty (2004) posited that
instructors must not only master technological skills such as authoring, editing and
troubleshooting, but must also know how to assess a student’s mental state and respond
appropriately by using effective coaching techniques. Teachers must accept a new mindset,
where they are willing to experiment and improvise (Beatty, 2004). To improve learning, it is
critical to create a passion in the classroom and encourage students to make mistakes, so they
learn perseverance and resilience (Fink, 2013). In order to do this, teachers must acquire skills
and knowledge that may not have been required in the past.
Krathwohl (2002) suggested that different types of knowledge are needed for effective
performance outcomes: declarative, procedural, and metacognitive. Krathwohl (2002)
explained that declarative knowledge consists of facts and concepts, procedural knowledge is
needed to make decisions, and metacognitive knowledge is an awareness of one’s strengths and
challenges in knowing the self in relationship to the task at hand. His goal was to provide
31
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

teachers with an updated, clearer and more concise resource (Krathwohl, 2002). It is the transfer
of metacognitive strategies that is the key to learning, and teachers must model them for learning
to take place (Baker & Brown, 1984/2002). For stakeholders to achieve the goal of
transforming the learning experience for students at SPU by improved learning, they must
possess a combination of declarative, procedural and metacognitive knowledge. The following
sections detail the assumed knowledge influences relevant for successful redesign and
implementation of IT-101 to improve student learning outcomes that will be probed for in this
study. These knowledge influences are derived from both general and context-specific research.
Faculty must be proficient in using applicable technology. Improving the student
learning experience in the 21
st
century must incorporate strategies that go beyond traditional
classroom instruction. Craig (2004) advocated for new strategies to improve future learning and
stated that it is essential for leaders to promote innovation and risk taking in order to remain
competitive. Beatty (2004) referred to technology products as classroom communication
systems (CCS) and suggested that the use of CCS increases interaction between students and
teachers that in turn improves the learning experience. Duttdoner, Allen and Corcoran (2005)
maintained that technological proficiency allows teachers to better communicate with the more
highly skilled students found in today’s classrooms, and that it provides a positive, collaborative
environment. The specific technological proficiencies that SPU Information Technology faculty
are assumed to possess are the use of computer software and hardware, video-chat software, and
web-conferencing. Faculty must possess a proficiency in the personal applications and
user-centered digital platforms that engage students in online learning communities, where
documents and multimedia presentations are attached to websites that form context-relevant and
“here-and-now” learning environments (Strange & Banning, 2001/2015, p. 254), and better
32
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

reflect the needs of students and incorporate freedom for experimentation (Elkana, Klöpper, &
Lazerson, 2016). Knowledge of this type is considered declarative or procedural knowledge.
Faculty must be knowledgeable about assessing student performance. Assessing
student performance is essential in order to identify continuous improvement efforts. The
increasing costs of and investment in post-secondary education, and the value of developing
human capital to remain globally competitive have created a national policy debate about the
need and efficaciousness of assessing student performance (Arum & Roksa, 2015). Holding
educational institutions accountable for outcomes is an accompanying discussion among
policymakers that emphasizes the need for an accurate methodology for measuring the quality
and success of academia (Arum & Roksa, 2015). The National Governors Association (2015)
recommended flexibility when conducting assessments and suggested providing them based on a
student’s individual progress, instead of conducting them on the traditional schedule at the end of
a semester or school year. Progressive methods of assessing student learning include rubrics
applied to student work, capstone projects, and e-portfolios (Association of American Colleges
& Universities, 2016). Faculty at SPU are assumed to have the knowledge required to develop
and conduct valid assessment methods that demonstrate student improvement. This type of
knowledge is declarative or conceptual knowledge.
Faculty must reflect on how their teaching affects students. This metacognitive skill is
needed for knowledge transfer and enables teachers to respond to a more progressive classroom
(Baker & Brown, 1984/2002). Faculty must be reflective in order to aid students with the
epistemology of their area of study (Barnett, 2007). Reflecting on experiences, both past and
present, provides insights that may encourage a disruption of rote teaching, challenge
perceptions, and identify areas for improvement that transform the learning experience
(Shadiow, 2013). Faculty at SPU are assumed to use reflection to enhance the learning
33
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

experience for students. This type of knowledge is metacognitive knowledge. A summary of
knowledge types and how they may be assessed is found in Table 2.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Faculty are proficient in using
computer hardware and
software, video-chat software,
and web-conferencing.
Declarative (Procedural) Interview question: Ask
faculty to describe their
proficiency with computer
technology.
Faculty are knowledgeable
about various strategies for
assessing student
performance, such as rubrics,
capstone projects, and e-
portfolios.
Declarative (Conceptual) Interview question: Ask
faculty to describe how they
evaluate student performance.
Faculty must reflect on how
their teaching affects students.
Metacognitive Interview question: Ask
faculty if they use reflection
to determine how their
teaching affects students and
their opinion of the practice
of reflection.

Motivation Influences
This section reviews the literature that focuses on motivation influences that are
important for improving the learning experience. In a demanding and competitive environment,
such as one found in an urban university, it is important to examine what motivates faculty to
teach and students to learn. According to Clark and Estes (2008), individual performance is
driven as much by motivation as it is by the knowledge and skills the individual possesses.
Motivated behavior is manifested in active choice (the active pursuit of a goal), persistence
(continuing the task regardless of distractions), and mental effort (cognitive investment in the
34
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

task) (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2009). There are many theories that can
be investigated to determine what factors motivate individuals. This study will apply attribution
and self-efficacy theories to understand the motivation influences for transforming the student
experience at SPU.
Attribution theory. Attributions refer to an individual’s perception of causes for success
or failure when performing a task (Rueda, 2011). In attribution theory, Weiner (1985) explains
that in order to understand perceived performance outcomes, we must consider the causal
dimensions of locus, stability and controllability. Causal locus may be internal, contingent on an
individual’s own behavior, or external, situations that are more difficult to influence by one’s
own actions (Weiner, 2010). Controllability refers to one’s perception of control over a cause,
and stability refers to whether a cause fluctuates or remains constant (Rueda, 2011; Weiner,
1985). Generally, when individuals perceive the cause to be controllable, whether internal or
external, they are likely to engage in efforts to produce successful outcomes. However, if the
cause is perceived to be uncontrollable, individuals are less likely to engage in assured action.
When individuals believe they lack the ability to improve achievement, that condition typically
remains stable, compared to the unstable condition of believing outcomes can be changed
(Rueda, 2011).
Faculty attributions for student success. In order for faculty to fully own their role in
student success or lack thereof, they need to take responsibility for increasing student learning by
redesigning IT-101. A belief in ability to perform a task successfully with a high expectancy of a
positive outcome leads to high levels of persistence, effort and motivation (Rueda, 2011). In
addition, by soliciting feedback from students and incorporating it into the revised course,
students had a larger role in their learning (Kallick & Zmuda, 2017) and perceived control over
the outcome. The degree to which faculty considered course design and implementation as
35
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

responsible for student achievement rather than students’ lack of ability or motivation will be
investigated.
Faculty self-efficacy. The beliefs that individuals have about their capabilities is called
self-efficacy, and it is a key element in emotional well-being, performance achievement, and
motivation (Bandura, 2006; Pajares, 1996). Self-efficacy may also influence effort and
persistence, where high levels of self-efficacy may cause an individual to use a specific strategy
more effectively (Pajares, 1996). This study will explore the degree to which faculty believed
their ability to redesign IT-101 for student improvement would be successful and the impact of
their efforts on the success of redesign.
Table 3
Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation Influence Motivation Influence Assessment
Attribution (internal locus and controllability)
– faculty believe that they have a
responsibility to improve student achievement
and that it is a variable within their control by
means such as course redesign.
Interview question: Ask faculty why they
became involved in the redesign of IT-101.
Attribution (internal locus and stability) –
faculty understand that student achievement
can be improved because it is unstable and
temporary. They want to increase student
skills and knowledge by changing the
environment via technology.
Interview question: Ask faculty to
describe what they believe were the
reasons for student performance, both
before and after the redesign.
Self-efficacy - faculty believe they have the
ability to redesign IT-101 so that student
outcomes will be improved.
Interview question: Ask faculty to
describe their priorities in redesigning IT-
101.

Organizational Influences
This section reviews the literature that focuses on the importance of the organization’s
culture and how it influences the stakeholders in completing their goals. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), all organizations are systems with their own cultures that influence how employees
36
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

collaborate to get the work done. Culture consists of the values, goals, and beliefs of individuals
in the organization, in addition to processes that interact with them (Clark & Estes, 2008). Schein
(2017) added that culture consists of shared learning among a group that includes the
organization’s mission, structure, and operating processes, and points out that the reward and
punishment system and perceptions about authority and intimacy are critical elements that
determine group dynamics.
The previous sections of this paper addressed the knowledge, skills and motivation that
are assumed to impact faculty’s ability to redesign and implement IT-101. However, to
function effectively, an organization needs more than knowledgeable, skilled and motivated
employees; in order to survive, it needs to retain dependable, cooperative employees and provide
them with resources that encourage innovation and creativity (Katz & Kahn, 1966). In the
context of this study, faculty would have needed organizational support to implement a
redesigned course. Transformational change is more likely to take place when employees have
the freedom and support from leadership to challenge existing paradigms (Greenwood &
Hinings, 1996) and are allowed to express opposing perspectives via a pluralistic organizational
culture (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). This study will probe into the degree to which this was the
case at SPU at the time of the redesign.
The extent to which an organization influences employees is often based on the authority
structure and the interactions between those to whom authority is assigned and subordinates
(Katz & Kahn, 1966). Authority figures exert influence over individuals by enforcing policies,
procedures, regulatory standards and other written and unwritten rules of behavior that are part
of the organization, influences that affect employees’ perception of organizational norms (Katz
& Kahn, 1966). Rueda (2011) referred to these shared perceptions as a cultural model and
suggested that it may support or impede goal achievement. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
37
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

added that cultural models are an individual’s evolved assumptions as to the way an organization
operates, based on responses from changing conditions.
The visible aspects of individuals coming together to achieve a goal is called a cultural
setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001), such as two employees meeting every afternoon to
repair motors in a power plant, or a parent reading to a child every evening at bedtime. Cultural
models and settings represent organizational characteristics that interact with each other and
change over time (Rueda, 2011). It is important to examine these aspects of organizational
culture in the context of organizational change because they provide insight into why the
organization operates the way it does and help identify and prioritize elements that need
addressed.
Encouragement of experimentation. The organization influences administrators, faculty
and students by encouraging them to challenge the status quo. Competition for students and
funding increases the need for universities to retain students and ensure their satisfaction (Eckel
& Kezar, 2003/2012), in addition to preparing them for the workforce (Davidson, 2017). For
example, Professor Sha Xin Wei, a STEM expert and Director of the School for Arts, Media and
Engineering at Arizona State University, integrates disciplines such as religion, geometry, art,
science and philosophy to prepare students to solve complex world problems (Davidson, 2017), a
revolutionary shift from the single-purpose pedagogies of the past. This is second-order change
that transforms the organization by shifting the overall educational paradigm from a linear
process to one that alters the organization’s logic and worldview (Kezar, 2001). In the context of
this study, it will be important to understand the degree to which faculty were allowed to
incorporate changes into the redesigned curriculum of IT-101.
Feedback solicitation from all stakeholders. The organization influences stakeholders by
inviting input and creating opportunities for them to provide it (Eckel & Kezar, 2003/2012).
38
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Interactions with customers provide opportunities for the organization to cultivate a learning
relationship with them, so the organization learns about what the customer needs in order to
improve their experience and maintain their loyalty (Pine & Gilmore, 2011). The educational
setting, whether in an actual or virtual classroom, a professor lounge, a dean’s office, or a dorm
room, offers post-secondary institutions the occasions to solicit input from stakeholders that may
not otherwise occur. Research suggests that transformational leadership behaviors such as
enthusiastic interaction with students, showing genuine concern for student achievement, and
encouraging student autonomy and empowerment had a positive effect on student learning,
motivation, satisfaction and perceived faculty credibility (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2010). In the
context of this study, the degree to which faculty invited input from students and other
stakeholders will be explored.
Embracing change. This cultural model influences the organization by enabling the
changes necessary to remain competitive, retain faculty, improve graduation rates, and increase
overall stakeholder satisfaction. For example, Clemson University and Texas State University
San Marcos have embraced the experiential educational environment by creating unconventional
types of housing, mentoring, and student services that require all stakeholders to be interactive
learners (Pine & Gilmore, 2011). Leaders who embrace change set a direction through a vision,
allow people to make mistakes and learn from them, implement methods for learning based on
the change and establish ways to share promising practices (Fullan & Quinn, 2016).
Provision of necessary resources. This cultural setting provides resources that enable
faculty to increase their focus on value-added tasks such as instruction and curriculum
development, instead of requiring tasks that do not provide value, such as making copies and
other clerical duties. Leaders of the organization must be made aware of the importance of this
specific setting in order to improve the efficiency of the organization and use resources
39
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

prudently. This study will probe into the experience of faculty with the availability of resources
at the time of the course redesign.
Table 4

Organizational Influences

Assumed
Organizational
Influence
Organizational
Influence
Assessment
Organization needs to encourage
experimentation by allowing faculty to
challenge existing paradigms about
post-secondary education.
Interview question: Ask faculty
to describe SPU’s tolerance for
experimentation.

Organization needs to solicit feedback
by engaging stakeholders in the
creation and revision of institutional
policies; provides opportunities for
collaborative learning.
Interview question: Ask faculty
to describe how their feedback
was solicited regarding the
redesign effort.

Organization needs to embrace change
and encourages stakeholders to learn
from mistakes.

Interview question: Ask faculty
to describe how the organization
reacted to the pilot.

Organization needs to provide the
necessary resources and allows faculty
the time needed to focus on activities
that are minimizes irrelevant tasks.
Interview question: Ask faculty
to describe the resources that
were provided for the redesign.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Faculty Knowledge, Motivation and the
Organizational Context
Maxwell (2013) defines the conceptual framework as the visual depiction or narration of
the theory being studied that illustrates how the researcher perceives the theory and its practical
application. Leaders often use frameworks to better explain the need for transformational change
to stakeholders (Eckel & Kezar, 2003/2012). The conceptual framework explains the
relationship between theories, beliefs and assumptions that support the research (Maxwell,
2013).
40
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Although various types of knowledge influences were addressed in the previous section,
it must be emphasized that they do not remain separate from other organizational factors.
Knowledge, skill and motivation interact with organizational supportive measures and barriers to
either move the initiative forward or challenge the momentum (Schein, 2017). Figure 1
illustrates how the knowledge, skills and motivation of SPU’s faculty are conceptualized to
interact with organizational culture and contribute to the success of the change initiative.

Figure 1. How faculty knowledge, skills and motivation interact with the culture of SPU.

The goal of the redesign of IT-101 was to improve student learning by the end of the
scheduled pilot. It was imperative that SPU administrators chose faculty with the necessary
knowledge, skills and motivation to achieve the goal. In addition, they had to ensure that the
41
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

revised cultural model and setting of SPU (i.e., the understanding of how and where classes were
conducted) was emphasized and understood by the chosen faculty.
Rueda (2011) posited that the culture of an organization is a critical component of the
work that is accomplished, particularly in a collaborative manner. Figure 1 shows that the
knowledge, skills and motivation of faculty are part of the organizational culture (large circle) by
reciprocal communication between faculty and administrators. Schein (2017) reported that the
values and beliefs of individuals within the organization are what actually form its culture, and
where transformational leaders articulate goals and then support and allow others to achieve
them (Northouse, 2016). As illustrated in Figure 1, the goal of redesigning IT-101 is achieved
through collaboration between the stakeholders and leaders. The values and beliefs of the
organization’s administrators are reflected and supported in the organization’s culture as assets.
Faculty are held accountable for the outcome, which is improved student learning.
Conclusion
This literature review examined the relevance of transforming the learning experience in
higher education from a student-centered viewpoint. As discussed, research supports a more
creative and innovative approach to higher education. In order to remain competitive in today’s
global economy, educational institutions must recruit more students, increase student learning
outcomes and satisfaction, and ensure they hire the right faculty. In order to be successful in
transforming the student’s experience, faculty must possess specific knowledge and motivation.
The literature revealed that they must have metacognitive knowledge to respond to more
progressive coursework, procedural knowledge to understand the advantages and disadvantages
of different methodologies, and declarative knowledge to understand budgeting, data collection
and data analysis (Krathwohl, 2002). The motivation that is necessary for success is created and
maintained by actively pursuing goals, remaining on task regardless of distractions, and having
42
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

the confidence and self-efficacy to develop creative solutions that will keep students involved in
the learning process (Clark & Estes, 2008). By modeling the desired behavior for students,
faculty exhibit the qualities of transformational leadership that engage students and encourage
their success (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009). Chapter Three will explain the methodology used to
validate the knowledge, motivational and organizational influences that contributed to the
successful transformation of the student experience at SPU.
43
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Chapter Three: Methodology

The previous chapters established why it is important to transform the student experience
in higher education. Chapter One described the economic factors that make a transformative
student experience necessary, theorizing that institutions of higher education must remain
competitive by maximizing resources and designing curricula from the student’s perspective. In
addition, it was proposed that the promising practice of one institution’s innovative use of
technology and a specific pedagogy provides a model from which other organizations can learn.
Chapter Two examined the relevance of student-centered curricula and the knowledge and
motivation needed by stakeholders in order to implement a transformative learning design. It
also identified specific types of knowledge that are needed and how data reflecting that
knowledge will be collected. Finally, Chapter Two explained attribution and goal
orientation theories of motivation and how they influenced the stakeholders to initiate,
implement and assess the transformation process. In this chapter, I will describe the purpose,
design, data collection and analysis methodology of the study.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study endeavors to illustrate how one university improved student
performance to remain competitive, a promising practice that I theorized can be implemented in
other organizations. Eckel and Kezar (2003) described the concept of people taking collective
action to determine a new meaning and what is important to their organization as sense-making,
a framework of collaboration that may be considered a part of transformational change. To
build consistent and successful practices that lead to shared understanding within an
organization, assets that reinforce and sustain clear outcomes must be identified (Fullan &
Quinn, 2016). Knowing specific assets that lead to success may also support a transfer of
44
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

strategies to other organizations. Each of these elements will be addressed below regarding how
they contributed to transforming the student experience at SPU.
Questions that will be used to guide the study are as follows:
1. What faculty knowledge and motivation enabled them to complete the
implementation of the redesigned course, IT-101, to improve student learning
outcomes?
2. What was the interaction between organizational culture and context, and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation and organizational
resources may be appropriate for implementing the promising practice at another
organization?
Methodological Approach and Rationale
For data collection, I used a qualitative approach. I began by interviewing faculty and
consultants who were directly involved in IT-101 course redesign, using open-ended questions to
probe into faculty’s capacity to redesign and implement the course. Interviews allowed a voice to
be given to data gathered from a personal interaction between myself and interviewees (Lasch et
al., 2010) and allowed me to ask follow-up questions for clarification, compared to surveys that
do not offer these advantages. Interviews helped determine the skills required for the initiative
and the organizational resources needed to accomplish the goal. I then reviewed the student
achievement data that had been collected at the end of the course redesign pilot to measure the
accomplishment, in addition to reviewing Advisory Board meeting minutes, faculty notes and
presentations, and documentation from the consultants. To ensure the credibility and
trustworthiness of the study, triangulation, member-checking, and reflexivity were used to
cross-verify the data and conclusions (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
45
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders for this study were faculty at SPU, specifically the group of faculty who
were involved in redesigning IT-101 from a student-centered viewpoint, with supporting data
from NCAT external consultants. Faculty chosen for this initiative had to have knowledge of
instructional design, computer literacy, information technology, learning methodology, and
pedagogy. Experience teaching a diverse student population with varied levels of information
technology knowledge was also critical. These specific faculty had to be self-motivated to affect
a change in traditional instruction delivery so that student learning was improved. The external
consultants had to have expertise in course redesign methodology and assessment of student
learning.
Interview Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
The overall qualitative sampling strategy for this study will be criterion-based selection,
where inclusion criteria will be used to select specific individuals (Johnson & Christensen,
2014). Because only a small population of faculty at SPU met the criteria, data was collected by
telephone using the interview guide approach, where specific topics were addressed through
open-ended questions according to predetermined protocol (Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
Because the process of ensuring collected data is both credible and trustworthy has been
considered controversial by some by some qualitative researchers (Maxwell, 2013) and because
results were based on each stakeholder’s perception and my interpretation, it was important to
use strategies suggested by reputable researchers, such as Merriam and Tisdell (2016).
Triangulation and member checks are among their recommendations to ensure credible and
trustworthy data, and those methods were used in this case study.
The pilot for transforming the student experience at SPU, on which this promising
practice study is based, was initiated in 2007 and ended in 2009. I reviewed student achievement
46
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

data from the traditional course and from the pilot period and used it to gain further insight into
the practices that were applied to increase student learning. This quantitative data was reviewed
in conjunction with the qualitative data that I collected via interviews to illustrate a promising
practice that may be implemented at other organizations.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Internal study participants must have had direct involvement in IT-101
redesign, either as faculty in the Information Technology Department or as a member of the
Advisory Board. This course was specific to the initiative of transforming the student
experience. External consultants must have had experience in course redesign that illustrated an
improvement in student learning. Stakeholders meeting this criterion would have knowledge
about the reasoning for the initiative and improvements that were made to achieve the desired
results.
Criterion 2. Study participants must have had experience teaching IT-101 both in the
classroom and the redesigned course or have had knowledge of computer technology and served
on the Advisory Board or in a consulting capacity. These stakeholders would have the skills to
transition to the application of more advanced technology and offer a perspective on how the
improvement affected student learning.
Criterion 3. Study participants must have had involvement with the IT-101 redesign
initiative and knowledge about continuous improvement and organizational change. These
stakeholders would provide information about how redesigning the course affected the
university’s culture and would be able to offer recommendations on how to implement similar
change initiatives at other institutions.

47
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Explanation for Choices
I chose to use interviews rather than a survey to collect information because I wanted to
personally connect with stakeholders to better understand their knowledge, skills and motivation,
as well as their experiences with the university. Although surveys can be economical, they
typically follow a standardized design (Creswell, 2014). For the purpose of my study, I needed
an instrument design that was more flexible. Also, due to the small sample size, I was not
collecting data to be analyzed statistically and therefore, using a survey was not an appropriate
choice. I asked follow-up questions during interviews, which would not be possible with surveys
unless extra effort was made to contact stakeholders after receiving their responses.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
I used a case-study design to collect data that answered my research questions.
According to McEwan and McEwan (2003), the case study is a way to focus on human behavior
and extract attributes from an organization, which makes it an effective methodology for
collecting data on a promising practice. In addition, the case study provides a descriptive,
in-depth analysis of a particular operating system (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), such as an
academic institution. Using interviews and reviewing documents are common methodologies
to collect qualitative data and discover insights into the research problem (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Interviews offered the advantage of allowing me to further explore answers, obtain detail,
and seek information that contextualized the participants’ experience. Interviews also allowed
me to offer encouragement and understanding, which may put the individual being interviewed
at ease and create trust (Weiss, 1994). In addition, interviews provided an opportunity to show
concern and sincerity, particularly when explaining confidentiality and informed consent, as
suggested by Rubin and Rubin (2005/2012).
48
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

A review of materials used for group presentations, faculty notes, and Advisory Board
meeting minutes supplemented interviews by either verifying or contradicting data collected
from interviewees (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). In the case of contradictory data, I obtained
clarification from follow-up interviews or via email. Documents may also reveal perceptions of
individuals in the organization being studied and insight to why specific decisions were made
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007), or be used to support themes and patterns that are identified during
data analysis. Interviews and documents, as they were used in this study, are described in the
following sections.
Interviews

Four formal interviews were conducted with SPU individuals who were involved in the
redesign of IT-101 and with the external consultants who assisted them; one individual was
interviewed twice. Specific faculty were directly involved in deciding that student learning
needed to be improved, redesigning the curriculum, and teaching the redesigned course. The
interviews were conducted using the “general interview guide approach,” which is a prepared list
of questions that guide the conversation but also allowed me to probe for additional information
if necessary (Patton, 2002, p. 343). This type of interview is also described as semi-structured by
Merriam and Tisdell (2016). Because specific information was needed regarding knowledge,
motivation and organizational culture, the questions must be structured, but open-ended to allow
flexibility for the interviewee to express opinions and feelings about the experience (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007). In addition, structured questions allowed the interviews to be conducted in a
timely manner. Questions about the past (course redesign pilot study), the present (current
teaching methods) and the future (can knowledge gained be used in other industries) were asked
in a sequence and with wording that encouraged the interviewee to answer descriptively, without
predetermined responses (Patton, 2002). Interviews were scheduled according to the convenience
49
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

of the interviewees. The course redesign pilot was conducted in another state and traveling to
the site was not economically feasible. Because telephone interviewing is an effective method for
collecting data (Fink, 2013), I conducted the interviews by telephone and they were audio-
recorded.
Documents and Artifacts

Documents and artifacts (objects in the environment) are considered data sources in
qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Artifacts are not relevant to this study, but
specific documents were used. Public records, such as meetings of the state’s Board of Regents,
were reviewed to analyze organizational culture and its support of improved student learning.
Internal documents from the academic institution being studied, such as Advisory Board meeting
minutes, faculty notes, and presentations were collected and analyzed to assess the motivation
for participating in the pilot study, the knowledge required of specific faculty who redesigned the
course, and aspects of the organization’s culture that supported the initiative. Aggregated results
of student evaluations and assessments for IT-101 classes were reviewed, both before and after
the course redesign pilot.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using specific methods in order to identify meaning, such as
questioning, making comparisons, looking at language and drawing upon personal experience
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). These tools are known as coding, which means assigning words or
phrases to the data to designate meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Before analysis began, interviews were transcribed by service provider Sonix.com. I reviewed
memos I made during the actual interviews to supplement the transcriptions. After analysis,
information was sent to interviewees for review via email to ensure accuracy.
50
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

According to Stuckey (2015), the first step in qualitative data analysis is reviewing the
research questions to stay focused on the purpose for the study or “meta-narrative” (p. 8). The
next step in analyzing interview data is open coding or First Cycle coding (Miles, Huberman &
Saldaña, 2014), that includes in vivo coding (an inductive method that refers to words and/or
phrases verbatim by the interviewees), and a priori coding, a deductive examination of the
narrative that uses words already established to describe emergent ideas and concepts (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008). Second Cycle coding or axial coding continues the analytic process by
identifying nascent patterns or categories of the responses that may reveal explanations,
relationships and/or theoretical constructs (Miles et al., 2014). Miles, Huberman and Saldaña
(2014) recommended creating a codebook to organize codes, themes, and other data that emerge
from the analysis. Codebooks can be handwritten notebooks, index cards or sheets of paper,
although electronic files are more commonly used for their convenience and storage capacity
(Miles et al., 2014). The themes that emerged in my study were analyzed and then correlated to
the conceptual framework in order to develop assertions related to the research questions.
Qualitative analysis and data interpretation is subjective (Harding, 2013), but there are methods
available to increase the credibility and trustworthiness of assertions and findings, which are
discussed in the next section.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

Qualitative research is based on the premise of understanding the lives of individuals
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Strategies such as interviews and observations may intrude by
asking participants questions and watching them in their environment, activities that require
professionalism and trust. Patton (2002) suggested that the quality of information collected is
highly dependent on the interviewer. Showing concern, respect and empathy for research
51
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

participants without judgment conveys trust and provides credibility to the study’s results and to
the researcher (Patton, 2002). Maxwell (2013) suggested that by explaining potential biases and
how they will be addressed in the research proposal indicates integrity. In addition, I had to
recognize that I may influence participants, particularly during interviews, and address that issue
directly (Maxwell, 2013).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommended various ways of ensuring research results are
credible, such as triangulation and member checks. I used triangulation, which involved
comparing the same data using multiple sources, such as interviews and documents. In addition,
I used member-checking by conducting follow-up interviews and sent analyzed data via email
for clarification and to ensure accuracy.
Reactivity (or reflexivity) is described as the researcher’s influence on the individual or
organization being studied and may also be a threat to credibility (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). A strategy to address reactivity is to incorporate a crucial self-reflection of any
assumptions, opinions, and relationships that I may have related to the study and how I may
influence individuals being interviewed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Maxwell, 2013). It may be
impossible to avoid this threat, but by addressing my background and personal experience,
findings will be considered more credible and trustworthy (Creswell, 2014). To address
reflexivity, I wrote memos during and after interviews to reflect on any biases I may have had
regarding the aspects of this study, such as the institution, data, and individuals being
interviewed.
Ethics
As a qualitative researcher, I am responsible for the credibility and ethics of this inquiry
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I applied “intellectual rigor,” as described by Merriam and Tisdell
(2016, p. 260), which relies on the application of trust and integrity in research design,
52
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

methodology, analysis, and interactions with those who were interviewed. The use of ethical
codes of conduct and tools, such as informed consent and confidentiality agreements,
demonstrated my professional knowledge and care for the well-being of participants
(Glesne, 2011). As required by the Code of Ethics and Human Subjects Protection Program of
my academic institution (University of Southern California, 2017), I ensured that all participants
were treated with respect, reminded them that they were voluntarily a part of this study and could
stop their participation at any time, asked permission to record our conversations, honored any
promises that I made, and maintained confidentiality to the best of my ability. These
requirements were met by providing an Information Sheet for Research, a document that
indicated participants understood the nature of this study, were aware of any risks posed, and
acknowledged that they were not forced to participate or compensated (Rubin & Rubin,
2005/2012). The purpose of the study, confidentiality, and contact information for myself and
my institution’s IRB was also addressed in this document. As discussed by Krueger and Casey
(2009), I was required to obtain approval from my Institutional Review Board. State Public
University reported that I did not need approval from their IRB.
I am not an employee of SPU and had no conflict of interest concerns to address. My
interest in SPU’s student-centered practices was obtained by researching related methodologies
of improving student learning in Pine and Gilmore’s (2011) “The Experience Economy.” I
theorized that student-centered practices could be applied not only to student populations but
also to staff and decided to make that hypothesis the subject of my dissertation. The main
stakeholders of this research were SPU faculty, particularly those who were directly involved in
redesigning the computer course used for their pilot study, and I explained my role as researcher
and graduate student. In addition, I acknowledged my educational institution and the purpose of
the inquiry, as required by informed consent (Creswell, 2014). I conducted my research from the
53
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

deontological ethical framework (Glesne, 2011), which encompasses my honesty and respect for
both SPU and their faculty. When collecting and analyzing the data, I attempted to limit the
influence of my own biases and perspectives by focusing on the student-centered methodology
as a promising practice as objectively as possible to determine if the process can be applied to
employees in general and implemented successfully by organizations external to academia.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations to this research study. First, the structure of my specific
doctoral program limited the amount of time for data collection and analysis. It is a three-year
program with a deliberate design and schedule for coursework and dissertation development that
allowed approximately one semester for data collection and analysis. Second, the case study on
which my research is focused is an organization in another state. Because I am located in
California, the distance limited my contact with participants to video chat software such as
FaceTime® or Skype, emails, and telephone, for economic reasons. In addition, I had to consider
the difference in time zones in order to optimize the schedule of interviews for participants
located in states other than California. Third, the promising practice that was studied was a pilot
that took place ten years ago; the information collected via interviews was dependent on the
memories of the study participants and their availability. Fourth, the small sample size limited
the amount of information I was able to collect. The number of faculty who were actually
involved in the redesign of IT-101 was not known until I started to schedule interviews. I had to
trust that self-reported data from participants was accurate and would offer the required amount
of insight into the redesign in order to establish conclusions. Additionally, interviews by
telephone limited the establishment of a deep rapport with interviewees and that may have
impacted the quality of responses. Had I been able to meet face-to-face, the personal interaction
with participants may have prompted other pertinent questions that may have revealed less
54
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

obvious details of the initiative, for example how relationships with others during the redesign
complemented or hindered data collection. However, I believe the results of the data analysis
are valuable to other organizations and the study was worth pursuing.
Because I collected data on a redesigned course and how details of the redesign
affected student learning, it was critical that participants were those who were directly involved
in the redesign and pilot. This choice limited the number of individuals for interviews and should
be considered a delimitation of the study. In addition, I chose to focus on only one effect of the
redesign, improved student learning, instead of including other positive outcomes such as
reduced cost and improved student satisfaction. I made this choice to simplify the study and
meet the required timeline of the dissertation program.

55
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this project was to study SPU’s performance related to a larger problem
of practice, student success. The analysis focused on faculty assets in the areas of knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational resources. While a complete study would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders of this analysis were SPU’s faculty
involved in the redesign of IT-101. External NCAT consultants were also interviewed and
provided reports and information that related to student-centered learning methodology and how
its application improves student learning. As such, the questions that guided the promising
practice study are the following:
1. What faculty knowledge and motivation enabled them to complete the implementation of
the redesigned course, IT-101, to improve student learning outcomes?
2. What was the interaction between organizational culture and context, and faculty
knowledge and motivation?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for implementing the promising practice at another
organization?
All interviews were conducted formally via telephone because some interviewees did not
have available access to Facetime® or Skype and I wanted the interviews to be consistent.
Semi-structured interview protocol consisted of 16 questions that were developed to obtain
information on the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that were needed to
increase student learning. Because the redesign initiative took place ten years ago, I sent the
interview protocol to interviewees approximately one week before the actual interviews to
allow them time to recall information so the allotted interview time was maximized. In
addition, I developed and used a document analysis protocol to review 12 records that
56
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

included committee meeting minutes, presentations, faculty notes, progress reports, and a
final report. Follow-up questions were asked asynchronously via email.
Participating Stakeholders

Fifteen people were solicited via email for participation in this study. Six were
Information Technology faculty who taught IT-101 before or after the redesign. Six others were
part of the redesign Advisory Board, which included faculty from the Information Technology
Department and faculty and administrators from other departments throughout SPU. In addition,
one course graduate student and two NCAT consultants who assisted with the redesign were
solicited for feedback. Six people responded that they did not have any information to provide,
five did not respond after two email attempts, and four agreed to participate, including the leader
and main point of contact for the redesign, who was interviewed twice. All four individuals were
committed to improving student learning and provided a wealth of information because of their
direct involvement in the redesign initiative. A synopsis of participant qualifications is presented
in Table 5.
Table 5
Qualifications of Interview Participants
Education Years in Academia (Faculty, Administrator)
Participant # 1 PhD Computer Science 13
Participant # 2 PhD English 44
Participant # 3 ML Library Science 31
MS Technology Studies
Participant # 4 PhD Consumer Economics 40

Knowledge Influences
Specific questions of the interview protocol were asked to explore the knowledge that
was needed for the redesign to be successful. Procedural knowledge was determined by asking
57
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

“How proficient were you with technology prior to the redesign?” Conceptual knowledge was
determined by asking “How was student performance assessed, both before and after the
redesign?” while metacognitive knowledge was evaluated by the questions “Do you reflect on
your teaching and how it affects students, and what is your opinion of the practice of reflection?”
Procedural Knowledge
Proficiency in using technology. Conversations during interviews conveyed that all
participants were extremely knowledgeable in their specific areas of expertise. One participant
had the procedural knowledge in computer technology required to redesign IT-101.
That individual was an Information Technology professor holding a PhD in Computer Science
and extremely proficient, and three were comfortable using technology for daily tasks but were
not Information Technology professionals; one holds a PhD in English, one holds a PhD in
Consumer Economics, and one holds an ML degree in Library Science and an MS in Technology
Studies. From the interviews and email responses from those who reported they could not
provide relevant information, I learned that only one faculty member was responsible for actually
redesigning IT-101. Participant # 1 reported that she had been a lecturer at SPU, taught a number
of Information Technology courses and was currently a software engineer at another
organization. In redesigning IT-101, she demonstrated a solid understanding of procedural
knowledge by stating that she “put everything on Blackboard, all of the content, all of the
materials, all the assignments were handled that way,” in addition to hiring graduate students to
develop the automated grading software, without which the online curriculum would not have
been possible due to the thousands of students taking the course. No other Information
Technology faculty chose to actively participate in redesigning the course, which will be
discussed in the following Motivation Influences section.
58
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

The other individuals that were interviewed served in an advisory capacity, although one
was proficient enough with technology to be able to develop a class using unique software for
video tutorials and presentations. In describing his proficiency with computer technology,
Participant # 3 explained that he developed a one-hour online class using Camtasia software that
encouraged students to experiment with problem-solving. Participants # 2 and # 4 also served as
advisors and had expertise in course redesign and implementation, not necessarily information
technology. Participant # 4 admitted that she uses computer technology, “but certainly couldn’t
design it.” However, the expertise that Participants # 2 and # 4 provided regarding the redesign
process proved valuable in the successful completion of the initiative.
Conceptual Knowledge
Knowledgeable about performance assessment methodology. Assessing student
performance is a way to hold academia accountable for learning outcomes, which emphasizes the
need for accurate methodology (Arum & Roksa, 2015). When asked how student performance
was assessed, Participant # 3 explained, “. . . is it a written test or is it a show me how you would
do this? An interactive test is better because it is like show me how . . . the act of doing.” He
continued by stating that most of his academic tenure has been as an administrator, not
instructor, with knowledge of basic assessment methodology such as exams. However, he
acknowledged that improved assessment techniques are needed to better assess student
performance. Participant # 1 stated that she used formative and summative surveys to assess
“what the students felt that they learned” and that after taking the newly redesigned course,
“students felt like they learned a lot and were really surprised.” Based on her previous successes
with course redesign and subsequent performance improvement, Participant # 2 explained the
four methods she recommends for more accurate assessment: Compare common final exams,
compare common items from final exams, conduct “pre” and “post” tests, and
59
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

performance-based assessments. “So, if they were going to use common final exams . . . they
had to do it both times. And they needed to use the same common final,” she stated as an
example. Participant # 4 discussed the importance of agreement among faculty on what a
common course is going to look like “so that they could then have common assessments” that
measured learning outcomes more accurately in a consistent and structured way.
The assessment methodology that was used to determine improved student performance
and engagement was one of four choices required by NCAT in the redesign process. They had
assisted in hundreds of redesign projects prior to working with SPU and had collected data that
showed these particular methods measured performance improvement consistently and
accurately, compared to the methodology historically used in academia, such as mid-terms and
final exams. Individuals conducting the redesign had conceptual knowledge of clearly defined
assessment methodology mainly due to the requisites governing participation in the initiative and
receiving the grant.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Knowledgeable about how teaching affects students. All interviewees were asked if
they regularly reflect on their teaching and how it affects students. When I asked the question, I
emphasized that I was not judging them or their teaching methodology and that this question was
only one data point in determining strategies for improving student learning. As discussed in
Chapter Two, reflecting on experiences challenges perceptions and identifies areas for
improvement that transform the learning experience (Shadiow, 2013). When teachers reflect on
their classroom experiences, they may gain insight into how to improve knowledge transfer
(Baker & Brown, 1984/2002). Although all participants stated that they did reflect in some way,
formal, systematic reflection appeared to be an atypical practice for them. Through the
interviews, I learned that the practice of formal reflection, such as documenting a teaching
60
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

experience and students’ reaction to it, was not common among the participants. Participant # 1
explained that she developed her own lecture material and took notes during class based on
student input, then “adjusted material accordingly shortly after, to be ready for the next offering
of the course.” Participant # 2 explained that when she was an instructor, she did not take notes
or keep a journal but met weekly with other instructors who taught the same course to discuss its
organization, content, and impact on students, “making corrections and changes to our plans on
the fly.” She stressed that most of the successful redesign projects in which she was involved
relied on teams who organized and taught the specific course, met regularly to discuss student
reactions, and then made appropriate adjustments to reflect student-centered learning. Participant
# 3 reported on using reflection to evaluate his experience with mentoring students, while
Participant # 4 reflected on student learning and identified time management and procrastination
as issues to address in her current and future courses.
Motivation Influences
Although faculty involved in the redesign effort appeared to be self-motivated, many
other departmental faculty were not and chose not to participate in the redesign initiative. As
mentioned previously, only one faculty member from the Information Technology Department at
SPU chose to become involved in the redesign of IT-101. Exact reasons for not getting involved
aren’t known because those individuals were not interviewed. Perhaps other faculty were
de-motivated because they perceived a threat to their employment status, not knowing how the
results of the redesign would affect them. A review of documents that outlined the strategy for
the initiative showed that, although the redesigned course would require only one full-time
faculty member teaching all sections of the course compared to two faculty teaching two sections
each per semester in the original course, the time of faculty not teaching the redesigned course
would be allocated to guiding learner interaction, mentoring and assessment. Interviewees gave
61
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

no indication that the redesign resulted in a reduction-in-force, even when costs per student were
reduced.
Another suggestion for faculty not participating in the redesign is that they were
entrenched in their position at the center of instruction and did not want that position to change.
In addition, one participant suggested that research is the priority for many tenure-track faculty
and engaging in activities that involve more work in the classroom is less than desirable. She
added that she is familiar with departmental faculty who are very resistant to change and when
given the choice, they choose to maintain the status quo in the classroom because they believe
their responsibility lies more in research. However, as discussed, SPU as an institution has been
recognized for its overall culture of progressiveness and willingness to change in order to
improve the student experience. There may be academic units within the university that maintain
more resistance than others, but this study illustrates the successful redesign of IT-101 as a
promising practice from which to learn.
This section recognizes the influences that motivated specific individuals to get involved.
Specific questions were asked that addressed motivation influences and responses were then
analyzed to identify concepts of attribution theory (internal locus and controllability, internal
locus and stability) and faculty self-efficacy. Questions such as “What initiated the redesign of
IT-101?” and “What was your involvement in the original course?” suggested the factors that
may have motivated individuals to get involved in the redesign initiative. These factors were
categorized into aspects of attribution theory and self-efficacy.
Attribution Theory
Internal locus and controllability. As discussed in Chapter Two, when faculty believe
they have a responsibility to improve student achievement and that it is a variable within their
control, that factor is attributed to internal locus and controllability. Some faculty may believe
62
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

that the responsibility for improved student learning lies with the students and it is out of their
control. For example, one participant reported that she has had experience with faculty who have
said, “well, if you’d send us better students, we’d have more people passing,” but that it is not a
frequent response. The success of the redesign initiative relied on individuals who saw
themselves as being responsible for improving student learning and having control over it.
Participant # 4 commented about her desire to know if students are dissatisfied and if they are,
knowing what to fix. “I believe that undergraduate students need help in structuring their own
learning. I do believe we have a responsibility to help them develop structures that they can look
at a problem and then think [it] through . . .” Participant # 3 stressed his perspective that a good
Information Technology class has to incorporate informational literacy into it and that “Just
because you can manipulate the data and work with it doesn’t mean you know what you’re
doing.” He explained that part of his responsibility is helping students develop critical thinking
skills. As a computer expert, Participant # 1 admitted that she had her own ideas regarding what
needed to be changed in IT-101 to improve student performance but wanted input from others.
“That’s why I got the Advisory group together, because I wanted to hear what other people
thought, so that was my main motivation.”
Internal locus and stability. Although student ability is considered an internal factor, it
is also an unstable and temporary condition that can be changed. Some faculty understood that
they could control the outcome, student learning, by redesigning IT-101 and improving its
delivery, regardless of student ability. They also believed that improving instruction and
providing support for the change was critical to student success. In the original course, students
took exams on paper that were then graded by hand. Assignments were also done on paper,
submitted and graded by hand. There were many complaints because technology was not being
utilized in an Information Technology course. Participant # 4 explained that some faculty saw
63
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

the redesign as an opportunity to fix a problem and “to make a difference for a lot of students.”
In her teaching experience, she supports students by telling them, “. . . never feel as though
you’re bothering me. That’s what I’m here for. That’s my job to help you.” Participant # 3
explained that he got involved in the redesign as part of the Advisory Board because he wanted
to do something that would impact students and improve their learning experience, in addition to
making them more marketable.
After teaching the original course for one semester, Participant # 1 realized why IT-101
was one of the least-liked courses at SPU. She described a room full of blank faces with no
student interaction. “So that was my motivation. I was certainly never going to teach it again the
way that it was. It was a horrible teaching experience. The students hated me. I didn’t blame
them.” After receiving the grant, she placed the entire course online, made assignments
interactive that could be completed asynchronously, and hired graduate students to write
software that graded exams and assignments automatically. Student engagement, satisfaction,
and performance improved. (See data in Appendix G)
Self-Efficacy
Faculty belief in their ability to redesign IT-101. When faculty believe they have the
ability to perform a task successfully, it is evidence of a high level of self-efficacy. All
participants believed they had the ability to redesign IT-101 based on specific areas of expertise.
The belief in ability to redesign the course may have been developed over time and increased
with each success. For example, two participants created the methodology that was used at SPU
and assisted with successful redesigns hundreds of times with numerous institutions, starting in
1999. Interviews and document review showed that another participant had previous experience
with course design methodology. When asked to explain her role in the redesign, Participant # 4
replied, “. . . we have written a guide on how to run a program on a college campus. When we
64
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

ran a program like this one [for SPU], we just notched it up across campuses.” Although he had
just started at SPU, Participant # 3 stated, “. . . I thought it was a really interesting chance to get
involved with somebody and do something that has an impact on students, on student learning.”
After teaching the original course, which hadn’t been changed in approximately 15 years, and
after attending an NCAT workshop on course redesign, Participant # 1 applied for a grant to
redesign IT-101. As Principal Investigator, she explained, “. . . the first thing I did was put
together an Advisory Board of faculty and some people from industry so that we could all agree
on what the content should be . . .” Participant # 2 discussed her background in academic
administration, faculty development, and incorporating technology into teaching methodologies.
She has written numerous articles relating to higher education, has led educational institutions,
and has “run a lot of redesign programs, some of them from the national level . . . and also done
a number at the state level in partnership with either states or systems for higher education.”
Organizational Influences
The culture of the organization influences how employees collaborate to get work done
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Four questions were asked to identify the organizational influences that
contributed to the success of the redesign initiative. Specific influences such as challenging
existing paradigms, soliciting feedback from all stakeholders, embracing change, and providing
resources enabled the redesign to be successful.
Experimentation
Challenging existing paradigms. Encouraging experimentation allows organizations to
shift the overall paradigm from a linear process to one that alters the organization’s logic and
worldview (Kezar, 2001). This paradigm shift then changes the organizational culture from one
that accepts the status quo to one where experimentation is welcomed and encouraged, which
contributes to competitiveness and student satisfaction (Eckel & Kezar, 2003/2012). Participant
65
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

# 3 reported that he believed SPU was an institution that valued change and was very open to
experimentation. He remarked that SPU’s President talked about the necessity of having “to do
things in a very different way than we’ve done them before” and made the point by explaining
how the President merged some existing colleges, eliminated others, and regularly moved staff to
other departments for new learning opportunities. Participant # 4 discussed SPU’s willingness to
experiment by explaining they had multiple redesign projects taking place. “. . . because they had
so many projects and they were successful, I think overall SPU clearly benefited from this and
knew it.” When discussing her experience at SPU, Participant # 1 reported that although the
University overall may be recognized for innovativeness, specific colleges within the university
may be less willing to change than others. She described her experience teaching at a particular
university school in the downtown area as being “ very innovative, forward-thinking, wanting to
change . . .” compared to another school where the culture was “the polar opposite.” However,
for the redesign, she added that she had the complete support and cooperation of Administration.
Feedback
Soliciting feedback from stakeholders. Getting feedback from stakeholders presents
opportunities to establish learning relationships and share information that may improve
experiences and create a reciprocal sense of loyalty (Pine & Gilmore, 2011). The redesign of
IT-101 incorporated feedback not only from faculty, but from businesses within the community
in order to prepare SPU graduates for the workplace. Participant # 3 explained that the redesign
initiative included “a partnership with some private businesses… ” Participant # 1 solicited
feedback by inviting “ a faculty member from each of the other two campuses” to join the
Advisory Board, in addition to individuals from Administration. The initiative also included
workshops where faculty could share ideas with personnel from other institutions to learn from
mistakes and improve their chances for success.
66
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Change
Embracing change. Fullan and Quinn (2016) explained that for transformational change
to take place, leaders must allow people to make mistakes and learn from them, implement
methods for learning based on the change and establish ways to share promising practices.
Leadership at SPU appeared to have embraced this approach by working with the state’s Board
of Regents and NCAT to identify large enrollment courses with poor student performance and
incorporate creative methodologies to improve student learning. When describing the
University’s commitment to change and restructuring the library, Participant # 3 explained, “The
idea is that students . . . they don’t use the printed books very much, and that the space in the
library should be used for creativity and other experiences, collaborating, of working together,
that type of thing…” He added that the President of SPU was “a very innovative thinker about
Higher Ed.” From a practical perspective, Participant # 1 explained that in addition to improving
student performance, SPU supported the redesign because it was also “a huge cost savings,”
which may have been an added incentive to proceed with the initiative. Overall, the Information
Technology Department may have determined that the redesign was “an opportunity to fix a
problem that they had,” a viewpoint reported from Participant # 4.
Resources
Providing necessary resources. As explained by Katz and Kahn (1966) and Greenwood
and Hinings (1996), in order to function effectively and encourage transformational change, an
organization needs to provide employees with resources to encourage innovation and creativity
that challenges existing paradigms. Frustration may occur when resources such as office space,
supplies, time and money are not available, which may then affect the success of the initiative.
Faculty at SPU were provided with office space, the use of office equipment and supplies, and
the time needed to complete the redesign of IT-101. In addition, NCAT provided the framework
67
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

in which to structure the redesign that included planning forms to explain costs and report
results. Participant # 1 reported that SPU provided meeting space for the Advisory Board, in
addition to a room for graduate students who were hired to write grading software. The
Provost’s office assisted by reviewing DFW rates for courses and then contacting specific
departments by explaining “ . . . this is an opportunity for you to work on your scores, [a course]
which clearly has some learning problems” as reported by Participant # 4. Time for involvement
was flexible, as Participant # 3 remarked, “As a Director, I had some flexibility . . . so I was able
just to juggle my calendar.”
Summary
General Themes
Specific themes were identified by analyzing data collected through interviews and
reviewing documents. These themes were categorized into knowledge, motivation, and
organizational assets in order to answer the three research questions discussed earlier in this
study. To answer the first question, I needed to identify the knowledge and motivation assets
that faculty had to possess to improve student learning via the redesign of IT-101.
Knowledge assets. The importance of procedural knowledge revealed itself as a
prominent asset throughout the data collection process. In order to redesign IT-101 and
complete the implementation (pilot) successfully, having knowledge and expertise in the subject
matter was critical, particularly in this case. With only one IT faculty member actually
redesigning the course, it was important for that individual to have the procedural knowledge to
do it. This individual had both the education and teaching experience to recognize the
weaknesses of the original course and redesign it for improved student performance. A review
of the initial redesign proposal sent to NCAT and BOR revealed that this individual had prior
experience modifying IT courses for improvement at SPU and that her expertise included the use
68
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

of tools for course management, test generation, training, assessment, blogs, website editing, web
data repositories and discussion boards. She was pursuing a PhD in Computer Science at the time
of the redesign initiative, in addition to having knowledge on basic learning theory such as
learning behaviorism and cognitive information processing. Other interviewees admitted they
did not have the technical knowledge required to actually redesign IT-101, although their
involvement was relevant in other ways. The procedural knowledge of two interviewees
consisted of knowing how to conduct course redesigns by using a structured process that was
proven to be successful, and another interviewee used procedural knowledge to provide guidance
on how to incorporate informational literacy into the redesigned course.
Knowing that performance assessment can lead to an improved learning experience via
effective evaluation methodologies is another asset in this case study, although some faculty, in
general, may not be aware of alternatives to traditional exams. Faculty must know what to do
(conceptual knowledge) before taking action. NCAT provided the framework for student
assessment by suggesting four different assessment methods: 1) Compare common final exams,
2) Compare common items from final exams, 3) Conduct “pre” and “post” tests, and 4) Conduct
performance-based assessments. Participant # 4, with expertise in student evaluation stated that,
in general, “… faculty aren’t really good at measuring learning. And the idea that they’re going
to measure it twice with the same instrument was, to some, a difficult conversation.” Participant
# 2 reported, “Most faculty don’t really understand assessment. And so we teach them about
these methods and ask them to choose one of the four methods.” A review of the final redesign
proposal showed that the assessment methods used for the pilot and the following semester,
where the redesigned course was fully implemented, were comparisons of common content items
selected from exams, comparisons of course grades using common criteria, DFW rates, and
69
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

student end-of-semester surveys. Documentation of assessment methods can be found in
Appendix E.
Metacognitive knowledge is understanding personal strengths and weaknesses and using
that knowledge to improve experiences and the experiences of others (Kratwohl, 2002). As
discussed previously, the practice of reflection is a form of metacognitive knowledge and
research shows that it can provide teachers insight on how to improve student learning (Larrivee,
2008; Rodgers, 2002; Shadiow, 2013; Watts and Lawson, 2009). Although all of the
interviewees revealed that they reflected on various aspects of teaching at times, none indicated
that they practiced reflection formally (e. g., by documentation) or that they reflected on a
routine basis. In addition, responses about reflection focused more on student reactions to course
material, student outcomes, and student behavior rather than using the practice as a way of
gaining personal insight into teaching methodology.
Motivation assets. The individuals that were interviewed alluded to their responsibility,
as faculty and leaders, to improve student performance and learning because they believed it is a
variable within their control. They also acknowledged that low levels of performance can be
improved, in this case, by the use of technology and incorporating input from stakeholders,
because performance levels are temporary. In addition, they believed that, by using their
expertise, they had the ability to be successful with the redesign of IT-101.
These motivation assets were not held by other Information Technology faculty,
however, in the opinions of those interviewed. Participant # 1 stated “We didn’t have any other
interested faculty . . . the faculty in my department . . . were all very adverse to change. They’re
all about their research” and weren’t interested in additional classroom work. When asked why
the University, as a whole, is publicly recognized for change and innovation when there is so
much resistance to change, Participant # 1 continued, “SPU is a huge university, with a lot of
70
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

colleges inside of it . . . I think you can say things about the University in general, but that may
not apply to a specific college within the University.”
More personal motivational aspects for participating in the redesign of IT-101 were not
identified, for example, incentives or university recognition. To my knowledge, no one was
provided an incentive to improve student learning at SPU, nor were they provided an incentive to
participate in this study. What motivates one individual may not motivate another. Participants in
this study may be motivated by the personal satisfaction of helping others, or the opportunity to
share accomplishments. As previously discussed, personal interaction with participants may have
prompted me to ask more detailed questions that may have revealed more personal motivational
factors.
Organizational assets. To answer the second research question, I gathered data to
identify the aspects of SPU’s culture that interacted with faculty knowledge and motivation in
order for the redesign to occur and be successful at improving student learning. This interaction
is illustrated in the Conceptual Framework in Figure 1, Chapter One. As discussed in Chapter
Two, culture consists of the values, goals, and beliefs of individuals in the organization (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The processes that support shared learning throughout the organization, such as
reward and punishment, training, and change initiatives, in addition to leadership support and
communication of the organization’s mission and vision, also contribute to culture (Schein,
2017).
Through the interviews, it was reported that the president of SPU embraced and
encouraged change and innovation. As explained to me, he restructured SPU by combining
some schools and eliminating others. He moved campuses and created new ones. He increased
the number of Rhodes scholars and communicated a new vision that would welcome a more
diverse population of students. He did not want employees to stagnate in their jobs and
71
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

forewarned them about periodic transfers to other departments and campuses. He welcomed and
encouraged interdisciplinary learning. This type of visible leadership support for change
encourages others to take risks and embrace change as well, which may be considered an
organizational asset.
When the BOR notified the public universities under their purview about the opportunity
to participate in redesign projects through a competitive grant process, Participant # 4 explained
that SPU’s Provost helped identify courses that were potential projects and communicated the
data to the appropriate departments. Participant # 1 reported that an Information Technology
Director reached out to her to teach the traditional course one semester and provide her opinion
as to the quality and value of it. With support from leadership, in this case the Provost and
Director, faculty who were motivated to do so, were able to initiate a change to improve student
learning. The redesign of IT-101 was one of six completed course redesigns throughout SPU at
the time. The overall culture of SPU encouraged experimentation, welcomed feedback, and
embraced change, which contributed to the project’s success. The overall culture of the
Information Technology Department, however, was not as accepting of the redesigned course,
although it was eventually implemented as redesigned after the pilot period. A review of the
redesign proposal, grant proposal, and planning documents stated that the relevant department
and school provided full support of the redesign, but as explained in interviews, many
department faculty were resistant to the change and chose not to be involved. Review of course
readiness reports, meeting minutes, and other documents showed at least six individuals, in
addition to those who were interviewed, served in a capacity related to the redesign effort who
chose not to be involved or did not respond to my efforts to contact them for this study. A
comment taken from a written description of program outcomes reported the difficulty of
convincing department faculty and administrators that the implementation of the redesigned
72
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

course would be successful at increasing student performance and reducing costs. They did not
buy-in to the new course until the results of the pilot were confirmed.
The provision of resources that helps a change occur may also be considered an asset.
When asked what kinds of resources were provided for the IT-101 redesign, one individual
responded that work space and office supplies were provided by SPU. According to the
initiative proposal, a publishing company provided sample textbooks that were used to develop a
custom text for the redesigned course. The students that were hired to develop automated
grading software and course website, and the computers they used, were financed via the grant,
as Participant # 1 explained, “… a lot of the success of the course depended on those automated
grading programs. . . it was expensive and I don’t think [SPU] would have paid for that if I didn’t
have [grant] money for it.” The time that was spent by those SPU employees conducting the
IT-101 redesign and participating in Advisory Board meetings was absorbed into regular job
duties but was in addition to already-required teaching and administrative responsibilities. The
implication regarding the cultural aspects of SPU that allowed the initiative to take place and be
successful is that positive aspects do exist, such as a president who welcomes and initiates
change (Leadership) and a department administrator who assists faculty efforts (Support), but
there are areas where individuals are not held accountable for engaging in continuous
improvement efforts, even when that effort is improving student learning.
Specific individuals who participated in this study have been publicly recognized for the
redesign of IT-101; that publicity is how I became aware of SPU’s vigor for innovation and
shifting paradigms. Although they are used in this study as an example for successful change
because of their course redesigns, SPU must hold everyone in the organization accountable for
continuous improvement efforts. The third research question regarding recommendations for
implementing the promising practice at other organizations are addressed in Chapter Five.
73
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Chapter Five: Recommendations

Introduction and Overview

Data analysis and findings were presented in Chapter Four. In this chapter, I present
recommendations on how the knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) factors that
enabled SPU’s redesign of IT-101 to increase student learning may be applied in other
organizations to improve employee performance, which addresses the third research question.
Recommendations are incorporated into a written program that uses both formative and
summative methods to evaluate knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment of
participants (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The program uses the four levels of
Kirkpatrick’s New World Model of Training Evaluation. The program is evaluated using
surveys and observations to determine if employee performance has improved, if learning has
taken place, and to identify areas for improvement. A more detailed explanation of Kirkpatrick’s
New World Model and how it may be applied is discussed in the Integrated Implementation and
Evaluation Plan section of this chapter.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. A systemic gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) was used to
identify five knowledge influences that contributed to this promising practice study. They were
then prioritized based on the feasibility of implementation, the gravity of the problem and the
greatest impact to the organization. The three prioritized influences were identified through the
use of interviews and are listed in Table 6 as they would be applied in other organizations. I then
made recommendations using information processing theory and metacognition theory, as
explained by Schraw and McCrudden (2006) and Baker (2006), respectively.

74
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Employees are knowledgeable
about various strategies for
assessing performance
accurately and consistently.
(C)
To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire
component skills,
practice
integrating them,
and know when to
apply what they
have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
Provide employees with
information on up-to-date
and accurate methods to
measure and evaluate
performance.

Employees are proficient in
using advanced technology, for
example, 3-D printing, cloud-
based learning tools, and
smartphone applications. (P)
To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire
component skills,
practice using
them, and know
when to apply
what they have
learned (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006).
Provide employees with
professional development
to guide them on using
advanced technology in
job-related tasks.

Employees must reflect on how
their actions affect coworkers.
(M)
The use of
metacognitive
strategies
facilitates learning
(Baker, 2006).
Provide employees with
training on how to reflect
on their job-related
experiences to identify
areas of improvement.
*Knowledge type: (C) conceptual, (P) procedural, (M) metacognitive

Increasing employee knowledge about performance evaluation methodology.
Employees, particularly supervisors and managers, must be knowledgeable about strategies for
assessing performance, since it is typically a key part of their job. Today, there are additional
tools available, mostly due to technological advances (Baker, 2006), such as software designed
specifically to conduct performance reviews. In the field of education, holding institutions
accountable for outcomes is a discussion among policymakers that emphasizes the need for an
accurate methodology for measuring the quality and success of academia (Arum & Roksa,
2015). The Association of American Colleges & Universities (2016) found that there are more
75
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

progressive and accurate methods of assessing student learning that include rubrics applied to
student work, capstone projects, and e-portfolios.
In academia, to promote new learning, faculty must help students use their prior learning
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006), by understanding students’ current level of achievement before
introducing new material. Specific methodologies can be applied to assessment strategies to
assure more accurate and fair results, as revealed in the interviews. As discussed in Chapter
Four, to determine if student learning was improved, NCAT provided four methods for assessing
performance and faculty were required to choose one of those methods. For example, evaluating
students by comparing common content items selected from exams, one of the NCAT methods,
implied that results were more representative of student learning compared to the results of
various mid-term and final exams used in the traditional course. Assessing students by using a
compilation of projects, such as e-portfolios and capstone assignments, allows students to be
evaluated on the actual work performed, in addition to knowledge retention measured on exams.
In their discussion of New Pedagogies for Deep Learning (NPDL), Fullan and Quinn
(2016) recommended that teachers, together with students, determine success criteria and
evaluate progress and growth in order to engage students more in their own learning.
Non-academic organizations can similarly engage employees in developing ways to evaluate
performance. Arvey and Murphy (1998) suggested that an individual may be valued by an
organization not only because they perform a job well, but also because they exhibit specific
traits, such as valuing diversity, and that evaluating performance may include a variety of
organizational activities, not just specific job tasks. The recommendation, then, is to provide
employees with information on varied performance evaluation strategies and their application,
perhaps through workshops, in order to measure performance so that it can be improved.
76
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Increasing employee knowledge about technology. Employees must be proficient in
using advanced technology that can improve learning and performance. Faculty learning is
transferred through selecting, organizing and integrating information into a new instructional
platform (Mayer, 2011) and then practicing the application. Although the IT-101 redesign made
the delivery easily transferrable to instructors from semester to semester with no need for
revisions by placing the content online (compared to teaching it with a projector and screen in
the classroom), faculty still need to be knowledgeable about how to use advanced technology to
enhance teaching and engage students in learning. The introduction of automated grading and
self-paced learning methodology into IT-101 contributed to an increase in student satisfaction
and performance.
Correspondingly, in order to be successful with using technology and implementing more
innovative solutions, employees need instructional guidance (Behar-Horenstein, Pajares, &
George, 1996). Assistance with learning a new skill and acquiring new knowledge is necessary
for discovery, engagement, and application (Mezirow, 1997). Schraw & McCrudden (2006)
suggested that organizing content via visual media is one of the most effective ways to facilitate
learning new information. So that employees can reflect their knowledge of new skills, integrate
them into job duties and apply them to improve performance (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006), I
recommend that employees be provided with professional development opportunities, at least
annually, to learn more sophisticated technology applications.
Teaching employees formal reflection practices. Employees must reflect on how their
actions affect coworkers and the organization so they can enhance working relationships and
contribute to improved performance. In order to process information, individuals must
understand their capacity for learning, a knowledge about oneself called metacognition (Baker,
2006). Because metacognition promotes learning (Baker, 2006), I suggest training employees
77
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

how to reflect on their job-related experiences and document them so that learning and
performance can be improved.
In academia, metacognitive skill is needed for knowledge transfer and enables teachers to
respond to a more technologically-centric classroom (Baker & Brown, 1984/2002). Faculty must
be reflective in order to aid students with the epistemology of their area of study (Barnett, 2007).
A meta-analysis of the effects of metacognitive instruction on students’ reading comprehension
in computerized reading contexts implied the importance of teachers using metacognitive
strategies to improve student learning (Lan, Lo, & Hsu, 2014). Accordingly, when employees are
able to reflect on the level of knowledge that is necessary for their own learning, they are able to
positively impact performance by transferring that knowledge through instruction. The
recommendation is to provide employees with training that teaches them how to formally reflect
on their job-related experiences in order to improve performance. Some individuals may need
more instruction and practice than others. Depending on an individual’s prior knowledge and
experience with reflection, training may need to be customized to ensure it is efficacious and
motivating for all participants. Instruction may be offered annually or semi-annually as a
professional development opportunity.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was used to identify
the motivation influences that enabled faculty to redesign IT-101. The influences that are
identified as having the most impact are listed in Table 7 and address employees. The
recommendations regarding motivation influences are made based on attribution theory (Weiner,
1985, 2010) and self-efficacy theory (Pajares, 2006).

78
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Table 7
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations

Increasing employee accountability for change. In this study, some faculty believed
they had a responsibility to improve student performance. This internal causal belief may have
contributed to those individuals taking action to redesign the IT-101 course at State Public
University. Internal locus has been linked to pride and self-esteem (Weiner, 1985, 2010),
emotions that may have been an additional contributing factor that led to the redesign. Schlenker,
Britt, Pennington, Murphy, and Doherty (1994) theorized that responsibility is linked to
prescriptions that govern conduct, the event that occurred, and the individual’s identity, all of
which are elements that lead to producing a judgment. The accountability, commitment,
self-image, and perception of roles that envelop identity may influence an individual’s judgment
to participate in a specific activity (Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty, 1994). A
Assumed Motivation
Influence

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Attribution (internal
locus and
controllability) –
employees believe that
they have a
responsibility to
improve their
performance and that it
is a variable within
their control.
Causal locus may be
internal, contingent on an
individual’s own
behavior, or external,
situations that are more
difficult to influence by
one’s own actions
(Weiner, 2010).

Controllability refers to
one’s perception of
control over a cause
(Weiner, 1985).
Provide employees
with the opportunity
to train others for
improved learning
and performance.
Self-efficacy –
employees believe they
have the ability to
improve performance.
Provide goal-directed
practice coupled with
frequent, accurate,
credible targeted and
private feedback on
progress in learning and
performance (Pajares,
2006)
Provide employees
with the opportunity
to offer feedback and
encouragement to
other employees.
79
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

belief in ability to perform a task successfully with a high expectancy of a positive outcome leads
to high levels of persistence, effort and motivation (Rueda, 2011).The recommendation is to
provide employees with the opportunity to train others for improved individual and
organizational performance. This information transfer can be offered as a professional
development opportunity with personal recognition as an incentive for both the employees
providing the instruction and the employees attending it. Involvement in at least one training
activity annually may also be incorporated into job requirements and performance evaluations.
Providing employees with opportunities to control performance outcomes. This case
study revealed that some faculty believed that student achievement is a variable within their
control by means of course redesign. When individuals perceive the cause to be controllable,
whether internal or external, they are likely to engage in efforts to produce successful outcomes
(Weiner, 2006). Faculty who were involved in the redesign initiative may have been committed
to the curriculum revision because the project was compatible with existing belief systems about
their control of a successful outcome (Behar-Horenstein et al., 1996).
A commitment to shared intentions, purposeful forethought, and visualized goals are
necessary to achieve a specific outcome (Bandura, 2006). Employees must take work seriously
in order to illustrate an understanding of the organization and processes to coworkers (Barnett,
2007), and provide input into decision-making to believe they have control of the outcome
(Behar-Horenstein et al., 1996). To share successes on the job, the recommendation is to provide
opportunities for employees to demonstrate how they increased performance. As previously
mentioned, this opportunity could be offered as a professional development opportunity with
personal recognition as an incentive for both the employees providing the instruction and the
employees attending it.
80
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Providing employees opportunities to provide feedback and coaching. Learning and
motivation are enhanced when learners have positive expectancies for success (Pajares, 2006). In
this study, some faculty believed they had the ability to redesign IT-101 so that student outcomes
would be improved. Self-efficacy may also influence effort and persistence, where high levels of
self-efficacy may cause an individual to use a specific strategy more effectively (Pajares, 1996).
Self-efficacy related to teaching is instrumental for a successful outcome (Behar-
Horenstein et al., 1996). Self-regulatory strategies, such as positive self-talk, may be helpful to
improve motivation and increase self-efficacy (Pintrich, 2004). Soliciting and providing
feedback may have a positive impact on learning and achievement (Kallick & Zmuda, 2017).
The recommendation then is for employees to provide feedback to peers that encourages them to
remain goal-focused and supports their success on the job. Employees should be encouraged to
share information, either formally (e. g., written material) or via informal conversations.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The Clark and Estes (2008) framework was used to identify the
organizational influences that enabled faculty to redesign IT-101. The influences that are
identified as having the most impact are listed in Table 8 and address employees in
non-academic organizations. Recommendations regarding organizational influences were made
based on the work of Colquitt, Scott and LePine (2007) and Waters, Marzano and McNulty
(2003).

81
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Table 8
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations

Assumed
Organization
Influence

Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Organization needs to
embrace change and
encourage employees to
learn from mistakes.

Organizations with
high levels of cultural
trust tend to produce
high quality products
and services (Colquitt,
Scott & LePine, 2007)
Provide employees
with feedback that
encourages them to
take risks.
Organization needs to
provide the necessary
resources and allows
employees the time
needed to focus on
relevant tasks.
Ensuring staff resource
needs are being met is
correlated with
increased learning
outcomes (Waters,
Marzano & McNulty,
2003)
Provide employees
with the resources
they need to improve
learning and job
performance.

Creating a culture of trust. Culture consists of the values, goals, and beliefs of
individuals in the organization, in addition to processes that interact with them (Clark & Estes,
2008). These elements combine as shared perceptions that form a cultural model, which may
support or impede goal achievement (Rueda, 2011). In order for faculty to redesign IT-101 for
improved student learning, they had to surpass traditional methodology by trusting that
administrators would accept more creative strategies. By trusting the organization, faculty could
focus on the task at hand and not be preoccupied with their vulnerability to rebuke (Colquitt,
Scott, & LePine, 2007).
A change that transforms the organization by shifting the overall educational paradigm
from a linear process to one that alters the organization’s logic and worldview is known as a
second-order change (Kezar, 2001). Preparing students and employees to solve complex world
problems may require such a change for institutions to remain competitive (Davidson, 2017).
Leaders must provide positive feedback to employees to encourage them to take risks. Leaders
who embrace change set a direction through a vision, allow people to make mistakes and learn
82
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

from them, implement methods for learning based on the change and establish ways to share
promising practices (Fullan & Quinn, 2016). The faculty who chose to redesign IT-101 were
able to do what was necessary to improve student learning because there was a level of trust
within the organization. They used a structured process with oversight from experts who were
approved by the state’s Board of Regents and SPU administrators, which illustrated the
University’s trust in the process. In addition, faculty were able to proceed with a high level of
autonomy, which again demonstrated Administration’s trust in faculty ability to complete the
task successfully.
Costigan, Ilter and Berman (1998) proposed that employee trust in an organization is
reflected more by decisions made by management rather than personal interactions with them.
I recommend that organizational leaders provide feedback on a regular basis that encourages
employees to work beyond the status quo and that taking risks and learning from mistakes is
acceptable. Improving performance is a responsibility of all employees and an organization’s
leaders are responsible for holding employees accountable for achieving it.
Providing Resources. The visible aspects of individuals coming together to achieve a
goal is called a cultural setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001), such as faculty gathered to
redesign a course. A cultural setting must provide the resources employees need for them to
focus on value-added tasks, such as those activities related to compliance and operational goals.
Leaders of the organization must be made aware of the importance of this specific setting in
order to improve the efficiency of the organization and use of resources. According to Waters et
al. (2003), effective leaders know how to create learning environments that provide the
knowledge, skills and resources needed for all stakeholders to succeed. SPU provided resources
that allowed the course redesign to proceed, such as office space and supplies.
83
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Together with cultural models, cultural settings represent organizational characteristics
that interact with each other and change over time (Rueda, 2011). They provide insight into why
the organization operates the way it does and help identify and prioritize elements that need
addressed. Organizational supportive measures combine with knowledge, skills and motivation
to either move the initiative forward or challenge the momentum (Schein, 2017). Although office
space and supplies were provided for the redesign, some interviewees expressed concern about
SPU’s receptiveness to providing financial support. It was believed that the redesign would not
have occurred if the project had depended on SPU to finance it. The reality is that all
organizations have budgets with which to adhere and resources are usually limited. However, in
order to improve organizational and employee performance, I recommend that organizations
budget for and provide the resources necessary for employees to implement solutions that
improve learning and performance.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
For a change initiative to be effective, organizations should proceed through specific
phases to maximize time and effort (Kotter, 1995/2007). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
recommended four phases, or levels, in their New World Kirkpatrick Model, which is based on
the original Kirkpatrick Model first created in the 1950’s by Don Kirkpatrick and then first
published by him in 1993 (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). I used the New World Kirkpatrick
Model to develop an implementation and evaluation plan for non-academic organizations to
implement the recommendations that were made and to identify critical behaviors and drivers
that affect the achievement of the desired outcomes.
As explained by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), plan development starts at Level 4
to define results in measurable terms (metrics) in order to illustrate value to the organization’s
84
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

stakeholders. Level 3 requires the identification of critical behaviors and drivers that lead to the
desired results and incorporate organizational accountability. Level 2 embeds the knowledge,
skills and dispositions into training, and Level 1 uses evaluation to determine whether the
training was engaging, relevant and value-added.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of SPU states their dedication to academic excellence and quality, and their
allegiance to establishing themselves as a global center for interdisciplinary learning and
research. Their purpose is to provide academic excellence that includes improving quality of
instruction while reducing costs. An internal evaluation revealed that only 26% of students in an
introductory Information Technology course, IT-101, passed it with a grade C or higher. The
goal, then, was to increase the percentage of students that passed IT-101 with a grade C or
higher, with an emphasis on student-centered methodology.
The stakeholder group of this study was faculty, with supporting data collected from
NCAT consultants. Faculty are responsible for delivering instruction, monitoring and evaluating
student progress, and assisting students with achievement. They are directly responsible for
student learning and contribute to the competitiveness of the organization. Course design and
delivery contributes to the success of students, who invest time and finances in their education.
The faculty goal to complete the redesign and implementation of the pilot in order to improve
student learning outcomes is directly aligned with the organization’s mission of academic
excellence and quality and performance goal of increasing the percentage of students passing
IT-101 with a grade C or higher.
According to Rousseau (2006), encouraging individuals to take risks by providing
relevant feedback is an example of evidence-based management, where a principle from research
translates into a practice that solves organizational problems. Providing accurate and
85
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

task-specific feedback is a mechanism of social cognitive theory that increases persistence and
mental effort and facilitates learning, factors that are necessary for problem-solving (Rueda,
2011). In addition, providing feedback on effort may increase self-efficacy, which may then lead
to feeling more in control of outcomes and an increase in autonomy, factors that contribute to a
learning environment (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016). The expectation is that by receiving
positive feedback and considering mistakes as learning opportunities, individuals will
accomplish the goal and model the behavior to transfer the learning to others. Making mistakes
without negative repercussions also creates trust in the organization, which then leads to
high-quality outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2007).
Providing resources, for example professional development opportunities, additional
personnel and upgraded technology, illustrates an organization’s support for new initiatives and
may serve as recognition for hard work and achieving goals (Eckel & Kezar, 2003). Having
enough resources also fosters an environment where new learning can take place (Schein, 2017).
The organizational expectation is then that employees will use the resources allocated to them to
implement solutions that improve performance.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Results. The global goal of SPU is to be inclusive, conduct research of public value, and
contribute to the economic, social, cultural and overall health of the communities they serve.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) would consider this a Level 4 (high level) result, which is
aligned with SPU’s performance goal of increasing the percentage of students achieving a grade
C or better in IT-101, and with the stakeholder goal of redesigning and implementing IT-101 for
improved student learning. Training, support and accountability determine the degree to which
specific outcomes occur (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Leading indicators are the evidence
that critical behaviors are being conducted and outcomes are achieved (Kirkpatrick &
86
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Kirkpatrick, 2016). The leading indicators (metrics) identified to successfully implement the
recommendations at another organization are identified in Table 9.
Table 9

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award for performance
excellence
Illustrate continuous improvement
in overall performance and response
to customers by meeting or
exceeding specific criteria
Presented by the President of
the United States

Accepted into OSHA
Voluntary Protection Program
Meet or exceed specific criteria
Injury rates below industry standard
Letter of recognition
Flag
Achieve Fortune 100 Best
Companies to Work For list
Meet specific criteria
Employee responses on Trust Index
Survey
Public recognition
Internal Outcomes
Increase in creative and
innovative solutions for
challenges.
Number of nontraditional solutions
developed to address challenges
Employee recognition
and rewards
Improved performance Decrease in injuries and customer
returns
Company recognition
Improved employee satisfaction
with work environment
More positive comments on employee
survey
Improved company culture

Level 3: Behaviors
Critical behaviors. In order for stakeholders to reach their goal of redesigning and
implementing IT-101 to improve student learning outcomes, a variety of critical behaviors are
needed. Faculty must be willing to take risks with curriculum design and use mistakes as
learning opportunities. Faculty must also identify the necessary resources that help achieve the
goal and request them from administrators. For example, temporary employees or graduate
students may have to be hired to perform clerical duties so faculty can focus on designing and
implementing new curricula and documenting results. Faculty will need to provide positive
feedback and encouragement to other faculty in order to engage all stakeholders in future
initiatives. These critical behaviors and their application are indicated in Table 10.
87
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Table 10

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Employees experiment
with nontraditional
business methodologies.
Number of nontraditional
methodologies attempted
Employees document types
of methodologies with which
they experimented
Annually
2. Employees identify and
request needed resources.
Number of requests made Employees document
requests and submit to
supervisors
Annually
3. Employees coach peers
on strategies for
performance improvement.
Number of coaching
interactions with peers
Employees document
coaching sessions and peer
sign-off
Quarterly
4. Employees engage
coworkers by soliciting
feedback.
Observations Discussions in staff meetings
Document observations
Weekly

Required drivers. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described required drivers as the
“processes and systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward performance of critical
behaviors on the job” (p. 14). For example, as it relates to this study, the critical behavior of
faculty experimenting with nontraditional teaching methodology must be driven and reinforced
by being encouraged to take risks, as shown in Table 11. Drivers are required because they
ensure that critical behaviors are applied on the job (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). For a
program to be successful, the drivers and critical behaviors must be executed and monitored
appropriately (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

88
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Budgeting for additional
personnel and equipment
(providing resources)

Providing positive feedback
Annually

Monthly
2

1, 2, 3, 4
Encouraging
Providing feedback to
encourage risk-taking

Coaching for improved
performance
Monthly

Quarterly
1, 3, 4

1, 3, 4

Rewarding
Recognition for outstanding
results and meeting goals
Annually 1, 3, 4
Monitoring
Observing employees Quarterly 1, 4

Organizational support. Executive support and sponsorship is a critical element for the
success of any change initiative (Sirkin, Keenan, & Jackson, 2005). Management must
understand basic concepts of human behavior and model the behavior they want to see from
employees if they want to change the organization (Roughton & Crutchfield, 2008). It is the
leaders who create the culture of the organization and must establish organizational goals and
norms by holding employees and themselves accountable for successes and failures (Schein,
2017).
Rasche and Esser (2006) defined accountability as the justification for one’s actions and
accepting responsibility for making mistakes. In the United States, regulations such as the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) hold K-12 public and charter schools accountable for student
achievement (Kirby & Stecher, 2004). For post-secondary educational institutions, performance
funding may be used by state regulators as an accountability measure for student outcomes
89
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

(Dougherty & Reddy, 2013), in addition to achieving accreditation through organizations
recognized by the U. S. Department of Education.
To achieve success, such as accreditation or improved employee performance, leaders
must be committed to the initiative by holding themselves and others accountable for the
outcome. To do this, leaders must document their expectations in writing and meet with
stakeholders on a regular basis to review progress. In addition, performance evaluations can be
used to hold all employees accountable for incorporating critical behaviors into the work
environment. Leaders must reinforce, encourage, reward and monitor via the drivers in Table 11
as a way of supporting faculty to perform the specific behaviors (Table 10) that lead to
successful outcomes (Table 9).
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Transformative leaders make learning a collaborative activity by
participating in training and learning activities with subordinates to create a learning culture
within the organization (Fullan & Quinn, 2016). Schein (2017) suggested that leadership is the
key to learning because a leader holds the power to demand a behavioral change in order to
achieve a specific purpose. In the New World Kirkpatrick Model, individuals learn based on
their attitude, confidence, commitment, and the amount of knowledge and skill they acquire as a
result of the learning activity (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). For an organization to fulfill its
purpose and meet its goals, employees must perform the critical behaviors listed in Table 10 and
know what drivers will assist them in doing so (Table 11). They must also know the specific
learning goals so that the purpose of the learning activity is clear and results can be evaluated.
The learning goals for organizations to improve employee performance are listed in Table 12.

90
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Table 12
Learning Goals for Implementing Performance Improvement Initiatives
1. Apply various strategies for assessing employee performance (C)
2. Use information technology applications to deliver training (P)
3. Document reflections on job-related experiences (M)
4. Provide positive feedback and coaching to others (Attribution - Internal Locus)
5. Teach others how to implement improvement strategies (Self-Efficacy)
6. Encourage others to risk making mistakes and consider them as learning opportunities
(Attribution - Internal Locus)
7. Determine what resources are needed for specific initiatives and how to provide them
(Attribution - Controllability)
8. Engage employees in their own learning and self-improvement (Self-Efficacy)

Training program. The achievement of the learning goals listed in the previous section
will depend on the number of employees to be trained and the complexity of the initiative. For
example, a small organization may be able to achieve learning goals by having employees attend
sixteen hours of training in four half-day sessions, where the first day consists of instruction that
addresses two learning goals and practice exercises, with the other learning goals taught in
consecutive days in a similar structure. The program does not have to be mandatory and may be
offered to employees who volunteer for the learning opportunity. During instruction, employees
will be grouped and each group assigned a coach. The coach will reinforce learning via
practicums that include providing encouragement and positive feedback, using technology,
asking for resources, and engaging employees in their own learning.
Evaluation of the components of learning. It is important to evaluate what has been
learned to ensure that critical behaviors are transferred and practiced on the job (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). In addition, evaluations may be used to show value to the organization
91
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 13 lists the tools that may be used to evaluate the
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment of participants and the timing of their
use.
Table 13
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Training Program
Method or Activity Timing
Conceptual Knowledge “I know it.”
Pre and post tests Beginning and end of training
Question and answer periods During and after training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Demonstrations During training
Observations After training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Evaluations During and after training
Discussions During and after training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Observations During and after training
Coaching in groups During training
Coaching individually After training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Feedback During training
Observations After training

Level 1: Reaction
It is important to evaluate the reaction of participants in order to collect information that
may be used to promote the training effort and increase employee buy-in, in addition to
incorporating feedback to improve it (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Various methods may
be used for evaluation. Table 14 lists the tools that may be used to measure engagement,
relevance and employee satisfaction and when they will be used to maximize effectiveness.

92
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Table 14
Components to Measure Reactions to the Training Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observations during practice exercises During training
Coaching After training
Relevance
Number of employees who attend Before and at beginning of
training
Anonymous survey End of training
Employee Satisfaction
Feedback During training
Anonymous survey End of training

Evaluation Tools

Immediately following the training. A survey should be distributed immediately after
the program implementation to assess employees’ engagement and satisfaction with the training,
and to determine the level of learning. It will evaluate Level 1 and Level 2 of Kirkpatrick’s New
World Model. If necessary, data collected may be used to revise elements of the training to
increase satisfaction, to ensure the program is relevant, and to ensure it adds value to employees
in the work environment. The survey is contained in Appendix G.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. A survey that measures
compliance with all four levels of Kirkpatrick’s New World Model should be distributed
approximately two months after the initial program implementation. The rationale for the delay
of the second instrument is to determine if critical behaviors are being conducted in the
workplace as required and to determine if information has been retained. The data collected will
enable improvements to be made to the training program, based on employee feedback. The
survey is contained in Appendix H.
Data Analysis and Reporting
93
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Data collected from both surveys will be represented graphically to better illustrate
results. Leaders must be made aware of the results of the program to gage success and determine
what improvements must be made (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Evaluating participant
reactions immediately after the program and then a few months later will enable leaders to
determine if critical behaviors are actually being implemented and if those behaviors are
efficacious in meeting organizational goals.
Summary
To ensure that organizational goals are realized, I developed an implementation plan and
evaluation tools using the four levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model for Training
Evaluation. Working through the model at each level provides the structure needed to ensure the
reaction of participants is evaluated effectively (Level 1), that learning goals are reached (Level
2), that behaviors critical to implementing what was learned into the work environment are
identified and enacted (Level 3), and that accountability is assigned so that targeted outcomes are
achieved (Level 4). Leading indicators were defined, based on stakeholder input, to measure
critical behaviors and internal and external outcomes, which demonstrates success of the
initiative and a return-on-expectations (ROE). Kirkpatrick’s New World Model of Training
Evaluation allows formative evaluations so that problems can be addressed before goals are
compromised. More importantly, it provides the opportunity to collaborate with stakeholders so
that expectations for success can be defined together and connected to business outcomes. This
connection provides the necessary buy-in from stakeholders for a timely implementation and
efficacious outcome.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
For this study, the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis methodology was reframed in
order to identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational assets (instead of gaps) that were
94
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

needed for the redesign of IT-101 to improve student learning. A strength of this approach is
that the methodology is based on international research that identified performance-based best
practices for solving organizational problems (Clark & Estes, 2008). Best practices based on this
particular framework have been implemented at large reputable corporations such as IBM,
General Electric, Xerox, and Toyota (Clark & Estes, 2008), which gives the methodology
credibility. Additionally, when doing research, it is sometimes difficult to determine where to
begin; the Clark and Estes (2008) framework allowed me to begin my study with a thorough
understanding of the specific data I needed to collect and how to organize it, common pitfalls I
may encounter and how to address them, and strategies for evaluating results. The framework
allowed me to work methodically at data collection and analysis, which maximized my time.
Categorizing data into knowledge, motivation and organizational assets kept me focused and
organized as I collected data to answer the research questions.
A weakness of the Clark and Estes (2008) framework as it was used in this study is that it
focused on only three factors, when there may be more. For example, the psychology of the
workplace could affect problem-solving efforts, but that parameter isn’t specifically addressed.
Although it could be argued that elements such as individual perceptions, confidence levels and
employee interactions are psychologically related to motivation, the topic may be too ambiguous
to result in a definitive answer and so I consider it a separate element.
Kirkpatrick’s New World Model of Training Evaluation was used to develop a plan for
implementing recommendations and evaluating the success of those recommendations. An
advantage of using this model is that it provides a structure that identifies critical behaviors
which can be measured with metrics that show outcomes have been achieved. Measurable
results can illustrate what is actually being done in the workplace so that areas for continuous
95
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

improvement can be identified. Success can be measured and demonstrated to stakeholders,
which offers the credibility that less structured methodology may not.
A weakness of Kirkpatrick’s approach is that working through the four levels is
time-consuming and depends on stakeholder participation. Some individuals may not be
comfortable identifying critical behaviors that will be observed and measured, particularly if they
will be held accountable for them. If negative consequences are used to enforce the process,
stakeholders may resist participating in the improvement initiative. Management must give
careful consideration to how individuals will be held accountable for participation, such as
conducting observations, providing positive feedback, and coaching others. Employees must
trust that they won’t be punished for making mistakes and management must understand that
implementation and achieving success is a long-term, continuous improvement process.
Future Research
This study investigated the methodology used to redesign an Information Technology
course that improved student learning at a large, public university. The knowledge, motivation
and organizational factors that contributed to success were identified. In addition to test scores,
student engagement and satisfaction increased. Input from the business community was solicited
so that students would be more prepared to add value in the workplace. Future research, such as
a study of student learning improvement methodology at the primary school level, may prove
valuable to increased student success in secondary school. Although state and federal
regulations may mandate specific actions to improve accountability and increase success for all
students, e. g., Every Student Succeeds Act 2015 (ESSA), I believe there is more to be learned
by doing a longitudinal cohort study with a focus on the use of non-traditional instruction
methods in primary school and how that teaching methodology impacts the success of those
96
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

students in secondary school. Knowledge, motivation and organizational influences could be the
focus, or other influences such as behaviors used during instruction could be studied.
Conclusion

The purpose of this promising practice study was to identify the knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences that allowed State Public University to improve student learning in
the Information Technology course, IT-101, and to determine if those influences could be
applied at other organizations to improve employee performance. The KMO framework can be
used to identify the knowledge that employees need to perform a job, what is needed to motivate
them, and the organizational factors that need to exist to support their success. Methodology like
Kirkpatrick’s New World Model can help identify specific behaviors to meet goals, metrics to
measure them, and systems for evaluation. Table 15 identifies my recommendations that can be
applied at other organizations.

97
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Table 15
Factors to Increase Employee Performance
Employee Knowledge
• Expertise in subject area
• Expertise in use of technology
• Self-awareness of influence on others
Employee Motivation
• Dedication to improvement
• Control of personal improvement
• Responsibility for personal actions
Organization
• Management provides positive feedback regularly
• Management provides necessary resources
• Management supports risk-taking and learning from mistakes
• Culture of transparency, inclusion, collaboration and accountability
Internal Processes
• Problem-solving
• Professional development
• Identify behaviors that lead to success
• Establish measurable performance outcomes (metrics)
• Reliable and fair evaluations
• Formal coaching
• Formal reflecting

It appears that State Public University increased student learning in IT-101 through the
motivation of one individual with the needed expertise, self-motivation and dedication to
students, in addition to assistance from consultants with expertise in course redesign. The
organization provided the space, although the required funding was obtained from a grant offered
by the state’s Board of Regents. The grant enabled the hiring of students to develop grading
software and the purchase of computers, without which the redesign would not have occurred.
The faculty member who led the redesign had the independence to collaborate with others to
gain input, such as creating and working with the Advisory Board, although the redesign project
was in addition to teaching regularly scheduled courses. The organization as a whole was led by
a president who encouraged experimentation and innovation, however most of the faculty in the
98
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Information Technology Department decided not to participate in the change effort. Some
faculty chose to continue teaching via an elapsed and unchallenged paradigm, perhaps to have
more time to focus on particular research or maybe because they did not perceive the necessity of
improving student learning.
Ideally, the president’s support of risk-taking should encourage more experimentation,
especially in those academic areas where data show improvement needs to occur. Faculty who
teach courses with high DFW rates should be held accountable for reevaluating teaching
methodology and curricula, making the necessary changes and collecting data to illustrate that
improvements were made. Research shows that fair and reliable evaluations and formal coaching
and reflecting practices are particularly valuable for engaging students, motivating them, and
identifying areas for improvement. Although coaching and reflecting were not used formally at
SPU to improve student learning in IT-101, interviewed individuals who did reflect on how their
teaching affected students appeared to find it meaningful and provided insight into improving
instruction. Organizations that embrace a culture of experimentation, engage all stakeholders in
reaching goals, and encourage resourceful practices such as reflection may be better able to
compete in a global economy.

99
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

References

Adelman, C. (2000). A parallel postsecondary universe: The certification system in information
technology. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED).
Agbo, S. A. (2010). The cultural politics of educational inequality: Discarding the prevailing
Eurocentric formulations of academic failure. In T. Claes & D. S. Preston (Eds.),
Frontiers in higher education (pp. 7-24). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
Aldrich, R. (2010). Education for survival: An historical perspective. History of Education,
39(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1080/00467600802331895
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States, 2010.
Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://files.eric.gov/
fulltext/ED529952.pdf
Aronowitz, S. (2008). Higher education as a public good. In H. S. Shapiro & D. E. Purpel (Eds.),
Critical social issues in American education: Democracy and meaning in a globalizing
world (pp. 107-119). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/
reader.action?docID=234243&ppg=5
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2015). Measuring college performance. In M. Stevens & M. Kirst
(Eds.), Remaking college: The changing ecology of higher education (pp. 169-189).
Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/reader.action?docID=
1866484&ppg=180
Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review
of Psychology, 49, 141-168. Retrieved from https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1146/
annurev.psych.49.1.141
Association of American Colleges & Universities (2016, February 17). Trends in learning
outcomes assessment: Key findings from a survey among administrators at AAC&U
100
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

member institutions. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/
2015_Survey_Report3.pdf
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984/2002). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R.
Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-
394). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(2), 164-180. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable
/40212163
Barber, J. P. (2014). Integration of learning model: How college students integrate learning. In P.
L. Eddy (Ed.), Connecting learning across the institution: New directions for higher
education (pp. 7-17). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Barnett, R. (2007). A will to learn: Being a student in an age of uncertainty. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/reader.action?docID=332672&query=Will+
to+learn%3A+being+a+student+
Beatty, I. D. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems.
EDUCAUSE, 2004(3). Retrieved from https://arxiv-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/abs/physics/
0508129
Behar-Horenstein, L. S., Pajares, F., & George, P. S. (1996). The effect of teachers’ beliefs on
students’ academic performance during curriculum innovation. The High School
Journal, 79(4), 324-332. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364501
Berdahl, R. (1999). Universities and governments in the 21st century: The US experience. In D.
Braun & F. Merrien (Eds.), Towards a new model of governance for universities? A
comparative view (pp. 59-77). London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique
101
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66-94.
doi: 10.2307/41166446
Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Burkhard, K. A. (2012). Service blueprinting: Transforming the
student experience. EDUCAUSE Review, 47(6), 38-50. Retrieved from
http://er.educause.edu.libproxy1.usc.edu/articles/2012/11/service-blueprinting-
transforming-the-student-experience
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Bok, D. (2013/2015). Higher education in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2009). Transformational leadership in the classroom: Fostering
student learning, student participation, and teacher credibility. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 36(4), 296-306. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://
search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/213903328?accountid=14749
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Artistry, choice & leadership: Reframing organizations.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1996). Universities in the digital age. Change, 28(4), pp. 10-19.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/40165396

Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in
Higher Education, 32(6), 693-710. doi:10.1080/03075070701685114
Carey, K. (2005). Choosing to improve: Voices from colleges and universities with
better graduation rates (Research Report January 1, 2005). Retrieved from The
Education Trust website: https://edtrust.org/resource/choosing-to-improve-voices-
from-colleges-and-universities-with-better-graduation-rates/
Carey, K. (2015). The end of college: Creating the future of learning and the University of
102
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Everywhere. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Casey, A. (2019). Organizational identity and memory: A multidisciplinary approach. New
York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1853874&authtype=sso&custid=s8983984
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Cohen, M. D. (2012). Reconstructing the campus: Higher education and the American Civil
War. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Cole, J. R. (2009). The great American university: Its rise to preeminence, its indispensable
national role, why it must be protected. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity:
A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk-taking and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909-927. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Costigan, R. D., Ilter, S. S., & Berman, J. J. (1998). A multi-dimensional study of trust in
organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, X(3), 303-317. Retrieved from https://

www.jstor.org/stable/40604201

Craig, C. M. (2004). Higher education culture and organizational change in the 21st century.
Community College Enterprise, 10(1), 79-89. Retrieved from
https://bkbardi.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/craig-2004.pdf
Cranton, P. (2016). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide to theory
and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
103
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Davidson, C. N. (2017). The new education: How to revolutionize the university to prepare
students for a world in flux. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Dill, D. D. (2003). Allowing the market to rule: The case of the United States. Higher Education
Quarterly, 57(2), pp. 136-157. doi: 10.1111/1468-2273.00239
Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2013, June 18). Performance funding for higher education: What
are the mechanisms, what are the impacts. ASHE Higher Education Report, 39(2). doi:
10.1002/aehe.20008
Duttdoner, K., Allen, S., & Corcoran, D. (2005). Transforming student learning by preparing the
next generation of teachers for type II technology integration. Computers in the Schools,
22(3-4), 63-75. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J025y22n03_06
Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2003). Key strategies for making new institutional sense: Ingredients
to higher education transformation. Higher Education Policy, 16(1), 39-53. doi:
10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300001
Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2003/2012). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher
education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Elkana, Y., Klöpper, H., & Lazerson, M. (2016). The university in the twenty-first century:
Teaching the new enlightenment at the dawn of the digital age. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/reader.action?docID=4692495&ppg=1
Etzkowitz, H. (1999). Academia agonistes: The ‘triple helix’ of government-university-industry
relationships in the United States. In D. Braun & F. Merrien (Eds.), Towards a new
model of governance for universities? A comparative view (pp. 78-99). London,
England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
104
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Fink, J. L. (2013). True grit: 10 tips for promoting strength, resilience, and perseverance among
your students. Instructor, 122(4), 26-31. Retrieved from https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/
ares.dll?SessionID=D145733175H&Action=10&Type=10&Value=129532
Fullan, M, & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fumasoli, T., & Stensaker, B. (2013). Organizational studies in higher education: A reflection on
historical themes and prospective trends. Higher Education Policy, 26, 479-496. doi:
10.1057/hep.2013.25
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5

Geiger, R. L. (2015). The history of American higher education: Learning and culture from the
founding to World War II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing
together the old and the new institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review,
21(4), 1022-1054. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1996.9704071862
Hampel, R. L. (2017). Fast and curious: A history of shortcuts in American education. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: From start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Harward, D. W. (2012). The theoretical arguments and themes. In D. W. Harward (Ed.),
Transforming undergraduate education: Theory that compels and practices that succeed
105
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

(pp. 15-43). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Headrick, D. R. (2009). Technology: A world history. Retrieved from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/detail.action?docID=430926
Johansson, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Transforming students: Fulfilling the promise of higher
education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Jones, C., & Sclater, N. (2010). Learning in the age of digital networks. International
Preservation News, 51, 6-10. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview
/747129172?accountid=14749
Kallick, B., & Zmuda, A. (2017). Orchestrating the move to student-driven learning. Educational
Leadership, 74(6), 53-57. Retrieved from https://eds.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/
ehost/command/detail?sid=1d87ea41-6e31-41f6-9c8f-f3f3af51d223ac%40sessionmgr
4009&vid=5&hid=4205
Kamenetz, A. (2010). DIY U: Edupunks, edupreneurs, and the coming transformation of higher
education. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Katt, J. A., & Condly, S. J. (2009). A preliminary study of classroom motivators and
de-motivators from a motivation-hygiene perspective. Communication Education, 58(2),
213-234. doi: 10.1080/03634520802511472
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21
st
century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
106
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Khan, S. (2012). The one world schoolhouse: Education reimagined. New York, NY: Hatchett
Book Group.
Kirby, S. N., & Stecher, B. (2004). Introduction: Accountability in education. In B. Stecher & S.
N. Kirby (Eds.), Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education
from other sectors (pp. 1-10). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). College students today: Why we can’t leave serendipity to chance. In P. G.
Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense of American higher
education (pp. 277-303). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kuh, G. D., & Schneider, C. G. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who
has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges & Universities.
Kuh, G. D., Ikenberry, S. O., Jankowski, N. A., Cain, T. R., Ewell, P. T., Hutchings, P., &
Kinzie, J. (2015). Using evidence of student learning to improve higher education. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Labaree, D. F. (2017). A perfect mess: The unlikely ascendancy of American higher education.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.
Reflective Practice: International Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9(3), 341-360. doi:
10.1080/14623940802207451
Lasch, K., Marquis, P., Vigneux, M., Abetz, L., Arnould, B., Bayliss, M., . . . Rosa, K. (2010).
107
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

PRO development: Rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Quality of
Life Research, 19(8), 1087-1096. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40927744
Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-
analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602-640. Retrieved from
https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu//10.3102/0034654315617832

Lechuga, V. M. (2012). Who are they? And what do they do? In G. C. Hentschke, V. M.
Lechuga, & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), For profit colleges and universities: Their markets,
regulations, performance, and place in higher education (pp. 47-70). Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uscisd/detail.action?docID=10545743
Loss, C. P. (2012). Between citizens and the state: The politics of American higher education in
the 20
th
century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lucas, C. J. (2006). American higher education: A history. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-10841-8_9
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. doi:10.1177/0013161X03253412
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Meister, J. C. (2001, February 9). The brave new world of corporate education. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 47, 8-10.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
108
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Moore, J. L. (2017). Five essential principles about writing transfer. In J. L. Moore & R. Bass
(Eds.), Understanding writing transfer: Implications for transformative student learning
in higher education (pp. 1-12). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/
socal/reader.action?docID=4791229&ppg=6
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-
725. doi: 10.2307/259200

Morse, R. (2016, September 13). Most innovative schools methodology. U.S. News & World
Report. Retrieved from http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/
rankings/national-universities/innovative
National Center for Academic Transformation (2009). The state’s Board of Regents: Learner-
centered education course redesign initiative. Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/
National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, Education Division. (2015, October
27). Expanding student success: A primer on competency-based education from
kindergarten through higher education. Retrieved from https://www.nga.org/files/live/
sites/NGA/files/pdf/2015/1510ExpandingStudentSuccess.pdf
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research
66(4), 543-578. doi: 10.2307/1170653
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Petkovska, S. (2010). Questioning the idea of the university in the contemporary world. In
T.Claes & D. S. Preston (Eds.), Frontiers in higher education (pp. 7-24). Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Rodopi.
109
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (2011). The experience economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Review.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated
learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459-470. Retrieved
from http://doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00015-4
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation
terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1),
92-104. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1017
Popkewitz, T. S. (2011). Curriculum history, schooling and the history of the present. History of
Education, 40(1), 1-19. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2010.507222
Power, E. J. (1991). A legacy of learning: A history of western education. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability.
Journal of Business Ethics, 65(3), 251-267. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-5355-y
Renn, K. A., & Reason, R. D. (2013). College students in the United States: Characteristics,
experiences, and outcomes. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Reynolds, G. H. (2014). The new school: How the information age will save American education
from itself. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/detail.action?
docID=3029372&query
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8306/5a718ecebe57d7dea8a80f6d2a746c7b7a86.pdf
Rogers, D. L. (2000). A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new
millennium. AACE Journal, 1(13), 19-33. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/
110
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

primary/p/8058/
Rose, M. (2012). Back to school: Why everyone deserves a second chance at education. New
York, NY: The New Press.
Rossides, D. W. (2004). Knee-jerk formalism: Reforming American education. The Journal of
Higher Education, 75(6), 667-703. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2004.0039
Roughton, J., & Crutchfield, N. (2008). Job hazard analysis: A guide for voluntary compliance
and beyond. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of
Management Review, 31(2), 256-269. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.20208679
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005/2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452226651
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA: University of
Georgia Press.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Rury, J. L. (2008). Democracy’s high school? Social change and American secondary education
in the post-Conant era. In H. S. Shapiro & D. E. Purpel (Eds.), Critical social issues in
American education: Democracy and meaning in a globalizing world (pp. 43-73).
Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/reader.action?docID=
234243&ppg=5
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle
model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101(4), 632-652. doi:10.1037/0033-

295X.101.4.632

111
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2009). Motivation in education: Theory, research
and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Scobey, D. M. (2012). A Copernican moment: On the revolutions in higher education. In D. W.
Harward (Ed.), Transforming undergraduate education: Theory that compels and
practices that succeed (pp. 45-58). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations. The
Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 1-39. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.
2006.0007
Scott, W. R. (2015). Higher education in America: Multiple field perspectives. In M. W. Kirst &
M. L. Stevens (Eds.), Remaking college: The changing ecology of higher education.
(pp. 19-38). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Shadiow, L. K. (2013). What our stories teach us: A guide to critical reflection for college
faculty. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/reader.action?
docID=1153519&ppg=25
Shapiro, H. S., & Purpel, D. E. (Eds.). (2008). Critical social issues in American education:
Democracy and meaning in a globalizing world. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/reader.action?docID=234243&ppg=5
Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005). The hard side of change management. Harvard
Business Review, 83(10), 108-118.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the
entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Stanford, J. A. (2006). Now and then: Current issues in historical context. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Stiglitz, J. E., & Greenwald, B. C. (2015). Creating a learning society: A new approach to
112
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

growth, development, and social progress. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001/2015). Designing for learning: Creating campus
environments for student success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stuckey, H. L. (2015). The second step in data analysis: Coding qualitative research data.
Journal of Social Health and Diabetes, 3(1), 7-10. doi: 10.4103/2321-0656.140875
Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (2012). Reflecting back and looking forward. In E. W. Taylor & P.
Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research and practice
(pp. 555-574). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Tierney, W. G. (2012). The public good in a changing economy. In G. C. Hentschke, V. M.
Lechuga, & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), For profit colleges and universities: Their markets,
regulations, performance, and place in higher education (pp. 171-187). Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uscisd/detail.action?docID=10545743
Walker, M. (2006). Higher education pedagogies: A capabilities approach. Berkshire, England:
Open University Press.
Walsh, T. (2011). Unlocking the gates: How and why leading universities are opening up access
to their courses. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Watts, M., & Lawson, M. (2009). Using a meta-analysis activity to make critical reflection
explicit in teacher education. Teacher and Teacher Education, 25(5), 609-616.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.11.019

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
113
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of
ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28-36. doi: 10.1080/00461520903433596
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wheeler, D. & Sillanpää, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long
Range Planning, 31(2), 201-210. Retrieved from https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?
SessionID=S151733338A&Action=10&Type=10&Value=134483
Wilson, J. M. (2001). The technological revolution: Reflections on the proper role of technology
in higher education. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense
of American higher education (pp. 202-226). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Zakaria, F. (2015). In defense of a liberal education. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &
Company.

114
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Appendix A

Interview Protocol

I want to thank you for taking time out of your schedule to meet with me and agreeing to
participate in my study by answering some questions. This interview will take about an
hour. Another interview may be scheduled just to follow up on some things for clarification.

I am currently enrolled in a doctoral program at USC and am conducting a promising
practice study on SPU’s redesign of IT-101, Information Technology, and how the redesign led
to an increase in student achievement. I am not here as an employee of this organization or to
make a professional assessment or judgment of your performance as a leader. I would like to
emphasize that today I am only here as a researcher collecting data for my study. The
information you share with me will be placed into my study as part of the data collection. This
interview is completely confidential and your name or responses will not be disclosed to anyone
or anywhere outside the scope of this study and will be known only to me specifically for this
data collection. While I may use a direct quote from you in my study, I will not provide your
name specifically and will make the best effort possible to remove any potential identifying
information. In the study, the pseudonym State Public University (SPU) will be used, and the
pseudonym for the Information Technology course will be IT-101. I will gladly provide you with
a copy of my final product upon request.

During the interview, I will be using an audio recording device to help me capture all of your
responses accurately and completely. This audio recording will not be shared with anyone
outside the scope of this project. The audio recording will be transferred to my password-
protected files on a cloud file storage account and will be deleted from the recording device
immediately upon transfer. I will be using a third party to transcribe the audio recording and all
files will be returned to me upon finalization of the transcription. The audio recording will then
be destroyed after two years from the date my dissertation defense is approved. All information
obtained during the interview is confidential, your participation is voluntary and you may stop
this interview at any time. You were not offered any incentive to participate.

With that, do you have any questions about the study before we get started? If not, please
review the information sheet and then I would like your permission to begin the interview. May I
also have your permission to audio record this conversation? Thank you.

Background Questions:

B1. To start out, I’d like to get to know you a little bit. Can you please share your current role
and describe your main responsibilities?
B2. How long have you been teaching?
B3. How long have you been at SPU?
B4. Has your role changed since the IT-101 redesign pilot ended?
115
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Probe – If yes, please explain how. If no, just to clarify, then you’re still in the same role
as you were during the IT-101 redesign and pilot?
Core Questions:
1. What initiated the redesign of IT-101?
Probe - Do you know of any complaints about the original course? If yes, what was the
nature of the complaints and by whom (students, faculty, administrators, etc.)?
Probe - How and why was IT-101 chosen for redesign?
2. What do you believe were the reasons for students’ prior level of performance in the class?
3. Walk me through the redesign from start to finish, as much as you remember it, from an
organizational perspective; who was involved, how did they get involved, what did that
involvement look like?
Probe - How was faculty input incorporated into the redesign?
4. How well does SPU tolerate failure?
Probe - How did administrators react to faculty who declined to get involved (if any)?
Probe - How did administrators plan for setbacks, e. g., falling behind schedule?
5. How did administrators allow for experimentation with curriculum redesign?
Probe - Please explain any instructions that were given and oversight provided.
Probe - Please give an example of how you were able to be creative with redesigning
IT-101.
6. What kinds of resources did SPU provide to help faculty?
Now I would like to explore your specific involvement in the redesign pilot. In order to do that,
I will need you to go back in time and think about your personal experience.

7. What was your involvement in the original course?
Probe – How was technology used in the original course?
Probe – How did you engage students?
116
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Probe – Did you have concerns about student performance? If yes, why? If no, why did
you get involved in the redesign?
8. Walk me through your specific involvement, from the start of the initiative to the end of the
pilot.
Probe - Did you volunteer and if yes, why?
9. How was the original course curriculum designed compared to the newly redesigned course?
Probe – What was changed in the redesigned course?
10. How comfortable were you with technology prior to the redesign?
Probe - Please describe any challenges you had with learning and implementing new
technological applications.
11. What were your priorities with the redesign?
Probe – How did you prioritize issues?
Probe – What were the goals of the initiative?
12. Tell me how you prioritized your time during the redesign.
Probe - How did you manage your time?
Probe - Please explain any challenges of staying on schedule and meeting other
obligations.
13. Please describe how student performance was assessed, both before and after the redesign.
Probe - What types of assessment methods were used and why?
Probe – How else do you determine student learning (besides testing)? Please provide
examples.
14. Please explain your teaching philosophy (e. g., all lecture, critical thinking exercises, active
discussions?)
Probe – Has it changed because of the redesign? If yes, how?
117
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

15. How have students reacted to the redesigned course?
Probe – How do you measure student satisfaction and how often do you do it?
16. How has the university in general reacted to the pilot?
Probe – Have you noticed any change in faculty’s receptiveness to redesigning curricula?
If yes, please describe.
Do you have anything you’d like to add?
Thank you so much for your time.

118
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Appendix B
Document Analysis Protocol
Aggregated student test scores in the traditional and redesigned courses:

1. How many students passed the course with a “C” or better?
2. What was the percentage of students passing with a “C” or better in each course?
Advisory Board meeting minutes:
1. Is there an agenda that includes attendance?
2. What departments are involved?
3. Do Administrators attend?
4. How often are meetings held?
5. What kinds of activities does the Advisory Committee partake in?
6. Are actions plans documented and responsibilities assigned?
7. Are challenges with the initiative addressed?
Content of IT-101 before and after the redesign:
1. What types of activities for student engagement are included?
2. How was technology used before and after the redesign?
3. Are there prerequisites for the course? If yes, what are they? If no, should there be?
4. What kinds of student assessments were used and were the same methods used in both
the traditional and redesigned course? If they were different, how did they compare?
Was there a difference in performance outcomes due to different assessment
methodology? If yes, why?
5. Is the grading policy the same in both the traditional course and the redesigned course? If
no, what has changed?

119
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Appendix C
Information Sheet for Research

A Methodology for Transforming the Student Experience in Higher Education: A Promising
Practice Study

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Elizabeth A. Kovach-Hayes at the
University of Southern California. Please read through this form and ask any questions you might have
before deciding whether or not you want to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand how State Public University (SPU) improved student performance
to remain competitive. Based on the goal to increase undergraduate student learning in courses with large
enrollments and to reduce costs, IT-101, Information Technology, was redesigned to emphasize problem-
solving with technology in lieu of traditional classroom methodology. Data collected will be analyzed to
make recommendations for other organizations who seek to improve performance.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
You have been invited to be in this study because you were a faculty member who took part in the course
redesign and instruction. Approximately 6-8 subjects will participate. Your participation in this study may
last up to ninety minutes for an interview (by telephone or video chat) and one hour over the next two
months reviewing the transcript. All interviews will be audio-recorded. Questions are open-ended and
will explore your experience during the redesign process, your teaching strategies and organizational
resources. Transcripts from the interview will be made available for your review upon your request.

COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no payment for participating in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. At the
completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed and the de-identified data may be used for
future research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should not participate.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Elizabeth A. Kovach-
Hayes at kovachha@usc.edu or 562-446-6632.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the research
in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of
the research team, please contact the University of Southern California University Park Institutional
Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272
or upirb@usc.edu.

120
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Appendix D
Recruitment Correspondence
Hello. My name is Elizabeth Kovach-Hayes and I am a doctoral student at the University
of Southern California. I am studying SPU’s redesign of IT-101 as a promising practice and
your name was provided to me by ________ as a faculty member who was directly involved in
the pilot of redesigning the course and then teaching it. I am conducting a qualitative study and
collecting data through interviews and some document analysis. It would be extremely helpful if
you would agree to be interviewed for this study regarding your experience with the redesign.
The interview will take approximately one hour to 90 minutes via telephone and I will be using a
specific interview protocol to stay within that time frame. If you are interested, please respond to
this email by 5:00 pm PST on _________ so we can schedule the interview in a timely manner.
Thank you.

121
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Appendix E
Pilot Assessment Plan

122
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Full Implementation Assessment Plan

123
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Appendix F

IT-101 Course Content

Traditional Course

Redesigned Course

124
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Appendix G

Example Evaluation Instrument – Immediately After Training

1.This training will assist me with improving my performance (L2)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

2.This training has taught me how to provide feedback and coaching effectively (L2)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

3.This training has taught me how to engage others in their own learning (L2)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

4.Making mistakes is an opportunity for learning (L2)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

5.The practice exercises will make it easier for me to transfer critical behaviors to the workplace
(L2)
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

6.I am motivated to use technology to improve my performance (L1)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

7.I will recommend this training to peers (L1)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

8.I was fully engaged in the training and believe it is relevant to my job (L1)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

125
TRANSFORMING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Appendix H

Example Blended Evaluation Instrument – Delayed

*If you choose an answer marked with an asterisk, please provide an explanation for your
choice.

1.I feel confident in my ability to improve my performance (L4)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral* Disagree* Strongly Disagree*
5 4 3 2 1

2.I believe I have support from my supervisor to be more creative and innovative in my job (L4)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral* Disagree* Strongly Disagree*
5 4 3 2 1

3.Do you ask peers for feedback on a regular basis? (L3) Please explain.

4.Do you coach peers on a regular basis? (L3) Please explain.

5.When and how do you document your reflections on your work? (L2)

6.How do you assess performance improvement and how often do you do it? (L2)

7.How likely is it that you will recommend this program to your peers? (L1) Please circle your
answer and explain.

Not very likely Maybe Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4

8.How relevant is this program to your work? (L1) Please circle your answer and explain.

Not very likely Maybe Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation is a case study of State Public University (pseudonym), a large, public university in the United States, and the promising practice that improved student learning by redesigning an Information Technology course (pseudonym IT-101). The stakeholders were faculty who were involved in the redesign. As part of this qualitative study, interviews were conducted to identify faculty assets in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources that enabled them to increase student learning. Supporting data was collected from the external consultants who assisted them. In addition, documents were reviewed to supplement data obtained in interviews. The research questions that guided the study were designed to identify the faculty knowledge and motivation that enabled them to redesign the course to improve student learning outcomes, to determine the interaction between organizational culture and faculty knowledge and motivation, and to determine what recommendations may be appropriate for implementing the promising practice at other organizations. Results showed that faculty had the expertise to redesign the course, were self-motivated, and that the organization provided resources to support their effort. A key recommendation is that organizations who want to improve employee performance should consider the collaboration, stakeholder engagement, management support, self-efficacy, and willingness to take risks that permitted faculty to improve student learning at State Public University.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An evaluative study of accountability and transparency in local government: an executive dissertation

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

Job placement outcomes for graduates of a southwestern university school of business: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation

PDF

Supporting administrators in successful online co-curriculum development: a promising practices study of contributing factors

PDF

The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice

PDF

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students

PDF

Reducing the environmental impact of mining - a promising practice study

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that shape a special education teacher’s ability to provide effective specialized academic instruction

PDF

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

PDF

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

PDF

Underutilization of employer-funded higher education: a gap analysis

PDF

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

PDF

Improving instructor skills (IIS): a Needs analysis

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

Asset Metadata

Creator Kovach-Hayes, Elizabeth A. (author)

Core Title A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 02/15/2019

Defense Date 01/23/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag course redesign,increasing student performance,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational factors for success,promising practice in higher education,stakeholder knowledge and motivation,student-centered learning,transforming the student experience

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Lillo, Sarah (committee member), Robles, Darline (committee member)

Creator Email kovachha@usc.edu,lizk33@verizon.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-122487

Unique identifier UC11676727

Identifier etd-KovachHaye-7077.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-122487 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KovachHaye-7077.pdf

Dmrecord 122487

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kovach-Hayes, Elizabeth A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA