Figure 1
SIIP Organizational Structure.
Table 1
Participant Demographics Summary List.
| Pseudonym | Rank | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Ashley | Associate Dean* | Administration |
| Cynthia | Associate* | EIF |
| DeWhite | AP | Faculty Development |
| Jack | Full* | EIF |
| James | Associate* | EIF |
| Jamie | Full* | EIF |
| Marge | AP | External Evaluator |
| Peyton | Full* | EIF |
| Ricky | AP | EIF |
| Sarah | AP | Faculty Development |
| Taylor | Associate* | EIF |
| Tim | Associate* | EIF |
[i] Note: The listed pseudonym does not reflect the gender of the participant; AP = Academic Professional, EIF = Education Innovation Fellows.
* Tenure-track professors.
Table 2
Summary of Themes and Clusters and Operationalized Definitions.
| Community Themes | Cluster | Operationalized Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Building | Entry and First Contact | Participant experiences that led to their awareness and knowledge of the goals of the program and how they joined the leadership team |
| Motivation | The professional character or the self-perception of their COP membership within the context of their department culture and the reasons for a COP member speaking/acting in a particular way | |
| Behaviors | Shared Leadership | Team dynamics were collaborative and collegial that fostered respect among colleagues by emphasizing collective ownership of innovation. Effective program management, communal decision making, and collective accountability |
| Teamwork and cooperation | Coordinated and collective effort by the leadership team interacting with the innovation teams to support the interests of the common community goals |
Table 3
Full Codebook.
| Codes | Operational Definition |
|---|---|
| Current Perspective on Teaching | Individual and group change in attitude and beliefs about teaching where teaching improvement is a group activity |
| Disposition of SOT (Scholarship of Teaching) | Exposure and awareness of SOT literature for the purpose of understanding the problem of teaching instruction issues |
| Entry and First Contact | Entry into program from previous professional relationship or colleagues |
| Identity | Self-identification as an in-group or out-group member of the COP |
| Leadership Team Dynamics | Shared leadership and responsibility with complementary skills |
| Motivation | Personal motivation to improve undergraduate education led to engaging with the COP |
| Peer Recognition | Combining acknowledgment by out-group members and recognition of in-group knowledge, skill, and abilities (KSA) to gain administration support |
| Project Team Dynamics | SIIP teams established their rules and assigned individual roles |
| Program Goals | Goal of program was to improve curriculum to enhance student learning and faculty satisfaction with instruction; COP focused on instructional innovation and the admin focused on sustainable change with evaluation as an important part of program |
| Project Goals | Removal of departmental structural barriers and collaborative curriculum revision to meet desired outcomes |
| Teamwork or Collaborative Skills | COP members learned to work cooperatively and collaboratively on an educational venture with both in and out group members |
| Working Well | COP promoting teaching as part of engineering culture with supporting resources and the objective of sustainability |