Making Sense to Make Change: How Community College Faculty Perceptions of Math Contextualization Shape Instructional Change

Abstract

Objective: In numerous calls for reform to community college math instruction, contextualization has been identified as an effective approach to teaching and learning. Yet, little is known about how faculty contend with math contextualization and how they make decisions about its adoption. This study explored how community college faculty teaching math make sense of contextualization as a result of related professional development, and how faculty make decisions about whether to apply contextualization to teaching math as they make sense of contextualization and other individual or organizational factors. Method: This study adopted a case study approach, drawing upon interviews, observations, and professional development materials from two large, comprehensive 2-year colleges in a Midwestern state. Results: Findings revealed five themes under two main umbrellas: making sense and making change. Three interconnected themes comprised making sense: orientation to contextualization, prior teaching and field experiences, and dual identities as teacher and learner. Two themes characterized making change: external and structural constraints of implementing contextualization and comfort level in operationalizing contextualization. Contributions: This study illuminated the complex process of faculty sensemaking of math contextualization, and how this sensemaking, in light of individual and organizational factors, shapes their decisions around math instructional change.

Keywords

community college faculty math instruction contextualization faculty development organizational change sensemaking

The teaching and learning of math continue to be a prominent issue of concern in community colleges’ efforts to improve students’ academic success. Approximately 59% of students entering community colleges enroll in at least one developmental math course, with only half of them completing the course; for those starting in college-level math courses, completion rates hover around 48% (Chen, 2016). Given that passing developmental or foundational college-level math is often a prerequisite, not being able to complete these courses may halt students’ college progression altogether.

There have been numerous calls for reform to math instruction that develop faculty in effective math instructional approaches (Bragg, 2011), with contextualization as an oft-cited example (e.g., Wang et al., 2017). Contextualization refers to a set of approaches that connect content, knowledge, and skills with real-life applications or contexts of relevance to students (Mazzeo, 2008). Despite the potential of contextualization in transforming math instruction (e.g., Wang et al., 2017; Wiseley, 2009), little is known on the front end about how faculty make sense of contextualization as part of their professional development and how that sensemaking process shapes their decision to implement contextualization toward instructional and institutional change. With their authority and influence over curriculum (Cohen et al., 2014), community college faculty represent ground-level sensemaking and change agents in improving math teaching and student outcomes.

Understanding how faculty make sense of math contextualization and related professional development has several implications for math education at community colleges. Although student learning and success are a much hoped for byproduct of faculty development, we cannot achieve this outcome unless we unpack what motivates or inhibits faculty members’ decisions to make changes. Faculty make sense of new teaching approaches by engaging their pedagogical beliefs that are highly linked to instructional change (Pelch & McConnell, 2016). Teasing out how faculty make sense of math contextualization due to their professional development can help us better understand why faculty pick up and retain certain teaching innovations while others fall away, thus removing barriers to faculty development that would ultimately result in student learning.

At the institutional level, professional development around contextualization needs to be explored more deeply within organizational contexts to determine its efficacy and sustainability and whether such efforts can truly affect change. This is especially important as there continue to be issues around scaling up teaching improvement efforts (Gehrke & Kezar, 2017). A faculty perspective can pinpoint exemplary areas and those in need of improvement, as well as aspects to expand to other departments and schools. Without considering faculty voices, professional development opportunities, including those around contextualization and other individual and organizational factors at work, will only represent an attempt to solve potentially longstanding institutional issues.

Focusing on how faculty make sense of contextualization and their subsequent instructional decision-making, our study identifies the benefits, drawbacks, and other notable issues associated with math contextualization professional development and implementation at community colleges. To that end, we conducted a multiple case study to explore the following questions:

How do community college faculty teaching math make sense of contextualization as a result of related professional development?

How do faculty make decisions about whether to apply contextualization to teaching math as they make sense of contextualization and other individual or organizational factors?

Background Literature

Contextualization refers to:

a diverse family of instructional strategies designed to more seamlessly link the learning of foundational skills and academic or occupational content by focusing teaching and learning squarely on concrete applications in a specific context that is of interest to the student. (Mazzeo, 2008, p. 3)

Instructors can draw upon contextualization to illustrate how math is applied to students’ academic, professional, and personal lives (Berns & Erickson, 2001). Empirical evidence from several states, including California, Oregon, and Washington, shows that students in contextualized courses or programs have a higher likelihood of passing as compared with students in non-contextualized math courses (St. Clair & Gardner, 2016; Wiseley, 2009), being continuously enrolled, earning higher basic skills test scores and program credits, and completing occupational credentials (Jenkins et al., 2009).

Math contextualization also creates a larger motivational environment that positively transforms students’ learning and confidence in math and college overall (Wang et al., 2017).¹ Yet, without appropriate faculty preparation and implementation of innovative practices, students cannot even begin to enjoy the benefits of contextualization. With teaching innovation comes faculty training to equip instructors to address the wide academic needs of students who enter community colleges (Cohen et al., 2014). This need for faculty preparation led us to delve into the existing empirical work on faculty development since that is arguably an important transformative space where faculty engage with new information and practices.

Faculty development in community colleges remains an empirically underdeveloped area of study, with research documenting (e.g., Eddy, 2005) and/or examining faculty development programs (e.g., Murray, 2001). Scholars explored development among new or early career faculty (e.g., Eddy, 2010; Fugate & Amey, 2000; Murray, 2005) or at rural versus urban community colleges (e.g., Eddy, 2007). More recent scholarship addresses how faculty learn as a result of professional development (e.g., Eddy et al., 2018). Eddy et al. (2018) found that disciplinary, work, and life experiences shaped geoscience faculty learning. Moreover, applying and testing new strategies and developing networks with other faculty helped support their learning and teaching.

Although advancing new teaching and learning efforts is one of several priorities of faculty development programs (Eddy, 2010), we know little how development around specific instructional approaches comes full circle back to faculty teaching. Faculty development regarding math contextualization has been documented (e.g., Shore et al., 2004; St. Clair & Gardner, 2016), along with different contextualization delivery modes as described by faculty (e.g., Baker et al., 2009). Yet, research is lacking on how faculty make sense of such professional development opportunities and contextualization as an instructional strategy, as well as their decisions for implementation. Empirical work is warranted to extend and guide work on this topic in a more holistic manner to determine the value and efficacy of such math teaching innovations and faculty development in the community college context.

Conceptual Framework

Research on math contextualization has integrated frameworks on student learning and motivation (e.g., Baker et al., 2009). Notwithstanding the value of such theoretical perspectives, they are suited to investigate student experiences rather than the instructional and organizational contexts that situate faculty work. For our study, organizational change is an appropriate lens to explore the meaning-making process related to contextualization and how that shapes decisions about change at the individual and, ultimately, the institutional levels. Organizational change refers to altering organizational purposes and processes (Levy & Merry, 1986) and has served as a viable framework for community college research (e.g., Garza Mitchell, 2009; Locke & Guglielmino, 2006; McKinney & Morris, 2010). Change processes include implementing institutional initiatives to improve student learning or success, either through professional development, curriculum revision, or other strategies.

Acknowledging the complex and multidimensional nature of organizational change (Levin, 1998), our study draws upon organizational change in terms of processes (math contextualization and related professional development) and forces (faculty). It is important to note that organizational change can happen in degrees: an incremental and evolutionary manner, retaining the core of an organization (first-order), or in major, transformative ways that irreversibly change the core (second-order; Levy & Merry, 1986). In our study, math contextualization represents first-order change, a minor adjustment to or effort related to teaching math, but it does not change the overall structure or function of the community college.

Given this focus on incremental level change that involves individual faculty adjustments to their teaching practices, sensemaking then becomes a salient underlying mechanism in our framework, which may support or inhibit change. Sensemaking plays an important role in organizational change (Eckel, 1998; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), as it aims to bring about understanding, adjustment, and adaptation to facilitate change (Weick, 1995; Weick & Quinn, 1999). Sensemaking in an organization tends to be prompted by a policy, program, or other event (Weber & Manning, 1991). It is an ongoing process that can occur both individually and socially within the dynamics and contexts of an organization (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). As individuals make sense of situations and change, they then use their meaning toward action and change (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). In our study, the sensemaking process involves not only math contextualization, but also the other social and institutional factors and contexts that shape the meaning they make regarding change. As such, this framework allows us to focus on a specific type of organizational change (math contextualization) and how related actors’ (faculty) sensemaking within their contexts shapes that change toward instructional practices in math.

Research Design

Study Context and Sample

Our study is grounded within a collaborative relationship among a university and two large, comprehensive 2-year colleges, referred to as Two Lakes College (TLC) and West Shore College (WSC), in a Midwestern state. The project explores faculty engagement with and use of professional development around math contextualization, including both developmental and college math courses offered within technical education and math departments. Table 1 describes various institutional and student enrollment information for each college.

Table 1.

Institutional Characteristics and Student Population.

Institutional characteristics	Two Lakes College	West Shore College
Institution type	Comprehensive public 2-year	Comprehensive public 2-year
Approximate enrollment	33,000	34,000
Approximate number of certificate/degree programs	150	200
Student population
Gender
Women	55%	53%
Men	45%	47%
Race/ethnicity
African American	7%	29%
American Indian	1%	1%
Asian	5%	7%
Hispanic	10%	20%
Multiracial	3%	2%
White	74%	41%
Low-income	24%	45%
Single parent	3%	5%
Average student age	29	30

Both institutions independently selected and developed the professional development formats they viewed suitable for their contexts. Faculty from college math, technical education, and developmental math programs were invited to participate in a series of workshops and support activities on math contextualization at each college without requiring that they adopt contextualization. A total of 32 faculty members voluntarily participated at TLC and 33 at WSC, comprising the sample for our study. See Table 2 for background information of the faculty participants.

Table 2.

Faculty Sample Characteristics of the Study.

	Two Lakes College	West Shore College	Total
Program area	18	13	31
College math
Technical education	8	14	22
Developmental education	6	6	12
Employment status
Full-time	24	28	52
Part-time	8	5	13
Gender
Women	11	14	25
Men	21	19	40
Total by institution	32	33	65

The professional development at TLC involved a 2-day workshop in May 2017 administered by Carnegie Math Pathways. Presenters from the organization provided an overview of contextualization and sample lessons to help faculty understand the contextualization process, experience authentic contextualized lessons, and develop their own lessons to present for feedback. After the workshop, there was a series of webinars during the summer for faculty to continue discussions, receive support, and share lessons. At the end of August 2017, a lead faculty member held a 1-day workshop consisting of a review of contextualization and lesson development. One faculty member practiced an entire contextualized lesson for feedback, with three faculty members acting as observers and others as “students.” The professional development concluded with the lead faculty offering regular support and a few group meetings for faculty to come together and share their experiences throughout the year after the August workshop.

WSC’s professional development began with a similar 2-day workshop in August 2017. Two faculty members from a Northeastern 2-year college, referred to as Hudson Community College (HCC), facilitated the workshop, both having prior experience with contextualization working with Carnegie Math Pathways. On the first day, the HCC facilitators presented an overview of contextualization, followed by sample lessons to help faculty understand contextualization and design lessons. The second day consisted of lesson development and faculty presenting and receiving feedback on the lessons they started to develop. Faculty were not required to integrate the lessons into their courses. Two lead faculty members from WSC coordinated a 1-day workshop at the end of October 2017, allowing attendees to discuss and make further sense of contextualization, as well as guidance for faculty planning to use contextualized lessons in their upcoming spring courses. After these activities, faculty continued developing lessons for their courses with ongoing support from the lead faculty and other colleagues at WSC on a need basis.

Multiple Case Study

We adopted a case study approach, which is appropriate when exploring a phenomenon, process, program, or organization (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), and for studying educational innovations (Merriam, 1988). We utilized multiple case study, as the math contextualization professional development was offered at two colleges within their respective structures and contexts. This allowed for an in-depth investigation of faculty sensemaking of contextualization and the professional development, as well as the subsequent influence on their plans to teach math within and across different contexts and environments. Moreover, multiple cases permit variation and comparison across findings, offering more broad-ranging findings and enhanced validity (Miles et al., 2014). Case studies are uniquely defined by their unit of analysis, entailing a bounded system (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For our study, the bounded systems were the math contextualization professional development at each college, with the units of analysis being the faculty professional development participants.

Data Collection and Analysis

Case studies draw upon multiple forms of data, including interviews, records, artifacts, documents, and observations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), allowing for a rich understanding of local meanings and happenings that occur among individuals within different settings (Merriam, 1988). Given their integral role in case studies (Merriam, 1988), in-person interviews conducted with faculty from each college constituted our primary data source. In addition, we integrated observations, field notes, and professional development and related instructional materials as complementary data sources.

We recruited all 65 faculty members from both institutions who attended the professional development to learn more about their experiences, reflections, and insights around professional development and math contextualization. A total of 14 faculty members from TLC consented to in-person interviews in Fall 2017 and 18 faculty from WSC during Spring 2018 (see Table 3 for interview participant details). The interviews were semi-structured and lasted about 60 to 90 minutes. The interview protocol consisted of questions on the faculty’s prior experiences with math contextualization, their professional development, what contextualization meant to them, building a community around contextualization, and plans or need for support for contextualization going forward. Observations were conducted during the workshops and support activities. For both interviews and observations, we took field notes and reflective memos to document emerging findings. We also collected materials and artifacts from the professional development.

Table 3.

Faculty Interview Participant Characteristics.

	Gender	Program area	Employment status
Two Lakes College
Jim	Man	College math	Full-time
Thomas	Man	College math	Part-time
Tina	Woman	College math	Part-time
Paul	Man	College math	Full-time
Ann	Woman	College math	Full-time
Robin	Woman	College math	Full-time
Jackson	Man	Technical education	Full-time
Greg	Man	Technical education	Full-time
Pete	Man	Technical education	Full-time
Carpenter	Man	Technical education	Full-time
Charley	Woman	Technical education	Full-time
Francis	Man	Developmental math	Full-time
River	Man	Developmental math	Part-time
West Shore College
Christine	Woman	College math	Full-time
Daniel	Man	College math	Full-time
Karen	Woman	College math	Full-time
Margaret	Woman	College math	Full-time
Jack	Man	College math	Full-time
Marlene	Woman	College math	Full-time
Joe	Man	College math	Full-time
Hannah	Woman	College math	Full-time
Diamond	Woman	College math	Part-time
Walter	Man	Technical education	Full-time
William	Man	Technical education	Full-time
Kevin	Man	Technical education	Full-time
Samuel	Man	Technical education	Full-time
Robert	Man	Technical education	Full-time
Linda	Woman	Technical education	Full-time
Jay	Man	Technical education	Full-time
Mercedes	Woman	Developmental math	Part-time
Hal	Woman	Developmental math	Full-time

A multiple case study approach involves several analytical processes to construct and analyze the cases. We formulated detailed descriptions for an in-depth sense of each case through the data sources outlined earlier. To analyze our cases, we applied initial, in vivo, and evaluation coding (Saldaña, 2013) to the interview data to create preliminary codes, which we refined further toward categories. The initial and in vivo coding assisted in opening up and examining the data, and attuning ourselves to faculty perceptions and viewpoints, whereas the evaluation coding helped explore the professional development and institutional structures or patterns to lend insight into and across the cases (Saldaña, 2013). As we developed categories based on the codes, we distilled them toward themes. Once the themes emerged, we further analyzed the observations, field notes, and workshop and instructional materials to triangulate, reinforce, and deepen the themes. We also conducted a cross-case theme analysis to form higher-level assertions and generalizations (Merriam, 1988), engaging in multiple rounds of discussion, clarification, and convergence on a set of cross-case themes. We continued to revisit the themes several times to ensure that they reflected the data and aligned with the research questions.

Trustworthiness

It is essential to undertake careful procedures to ensure the study’s trustworthiness. Data collection procedures were the same for both cases for consistency and robustness of the data across cases. We persistently observed and attended the professional development activities at each institution. Observations were primarily non-participatory as we sat in the background after introducing ourselves, but faculty came to know us over repeated observations and interacted with us over breaks. This allowed us to build rapport and trust with faculty and gain authentic insight into institutional contexts and cultures in non-intrusive ways. In addition, both researchers performed several rounds of cross-checking and calibration throughout the process. Member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) in the form of presenting emergent findings (Thomas, 2017) at group meetings gave faculty the opportunity to review, question, and discuss preliminary results. Triangulation is inherent in multiple case studies due to its incorporation of several data sources. In addition to interviews, we integrated observations, field notes, and professional development and instructional materials. Given the nature and duration of our study, we may not have comprehensively captured the incremental process that can characterize change. However, our study reflects faculty potential for change and how sensemaking of teaching strategies, particularly contextualization, plays into faculty instructional plans. Our focus is not on the endpoint, but the process.

Researcher as instrument

In qualitative inquiry, the researcher represents the primary data collection and analysis instrument and can introduce subjectivity into the process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Recognizing that it is impossible to eliminate subjectivities fully, we diligently monitored ourselves and our actions throughout the research process. For the professional development observations, as previously noted, we primarily took an observer role. We made our purpose and activities known to the faculty and engaged in occasional conversations to remain transparent and authentic. At the same time, we kept mainly to the peripheral so as to not interfere with the flow of activities and allow faculty to go about their natural behaviors and interactions with one another. When conducting the interviews, we did minimal talking by posing interview questions and appropriate follow-ups, ensuring that the participants had the full space to lead and share their thoughts or experiences. We strove to be keen listeners without overly approving or disapproving as participants provided responses. Both researchers coded and analyzed the data. This helped us reflect, question, and calibrate toward our findings. We also presented our emergent findings to faculty involved in the study. Doing so ensured that their voices and the findings were accurately portrayed. In addition, presenting to faculty allowed for feedback and further scrutiny toward robustness of the findings.

Findings

Five themes emerged from our analysis that fell under two main umbrellas: making sense and making change. Three interconnected themes undergirded making sense: orientation to contextualization, prior teaching and field experiences, and dual identities as teacher and learner. Making change was characterized by two themes: external and structural constraints of implementing contextualization and comfort level in operationalizing contextualization.

Getting Oriented to Make Sense of Contextualization

The first theme underlying faculty sensemaking of contextualization was orientation, which referred to the reference point, definitional and conceptual, from which faculty came to make sense of contextualization. Faculty from both colleges relied on three points of reference when wrestling with the notion of contextualization: lending context to math, storytelling, and searching for a definition.

All about context

Many faculty across both colleges made a quick, initial sense of contextualization based on “context” as its inherent element, regardless of their prior awareness of this approach. The word “context” served as an immediate definitional reference. Faculty interpreted contextualization as “having the context driving the lesson,” as Brian, a TLC math instructor, put it. Jim, another TLC math instructor, said, “I don’t know if I ever heard the word ‘contextualization,’ I guess. But, I mean, obviously that would mean putting things in context. . . to get the problem to be as close to real-life applications as you can.” Margaret, a math instructor at WSC, echoed this: “I’m just thinking that it’s just putting everything in context. So, real-world examples so that students can use, real-world examples or something that’s important to them.” A WSC technical faculty member, Samuel, also considered contextualization to be “learning the situation in a way that it would kind of be done—for that situation, in context.”

Based on our observations at the initial workshop at both colleges, when contextualization was introduced, faculty organically picked up “context” with ease. This straightforward definitional connection allowed them to further engage with the workshop facilitators and the professional development materials (e.g., PowerPoint presentations), which all highlighted explicit connections (i.e., clearly establishing relationships among math concepts and procedures, what students already know, and disciplinary contexts) as one defining characteristic of contextualization. The workshop included sample lessons on culinary arts, personal finance, and health as various topics students might encounter in their daily life or work.

Putting math into a story

Beyond this literal reference point as “context,” many faculty at both colleges resorted to a storytelling orientation as a mechanism to engage more deeply with the notion of contextualization. Numerous faculty saw contextualization as a compelling story or narrative crafted to fit individual contexts and situations in their classes. Tina, a TLC math instructor said:

Well you can wrap a story around a math problem or include a math problem in a story kind of thing and in context is the story, what I call the—you have to wrap some words around it, that’s just the simple way of saying it.

Francis, a TLC developmental math instructor, mentioned: “I think of it as, there has to be a good story involved because that’s how we tend to think. We tend to think in terms of stories, so math contextualization is more about presenting an engaging story.” This storytelling provided the faculty a way to think about how to convey the math concepts to students within the context of real-world examples.

Diamond, a WSC math instructor, spoke to the engaging and coherent nature of contextualization as storytelling, but that “it’s not a big, huge, fall-out, here’s a start, a middle, and an end.” Different from the definitional orientation based on “context” that came naturally for faculty, the storytelling tendencies emerged in different ways at the two colleges. Based on our observations, at TLC, the workshop facilitators did not explicitly relate contextualization to stories; it was rather a group of faculty who independently appealed to their storytelling orientation, inspiring interest among their colleagues. At WSC, the workshop facilitators heavily emphasized contextualization as a narrative to capture students’ interest and curiosity, and tap into the natural storytelling people do. We observed that the WSC workshop facilitators challenged faculty to create contexts and characters for math problems, or as Hannah, a WSC faculty lead and math instructor, put it, to develop “a story and captivating students with a concept.” Despite the different approaches used by the workshop facilitators, both groups of faculty found that storytelling served as a means to impart math concepts.

Searching for a definition

Several math faculty at WSC grappled with a definitive conceptualization of contextualization. Karen, a math instructor, said, “Well then I don’t know what contextualization is. So, yeah. I have a problem with it. I don’t know that I know what contextualization is.” Daniel, another math instructor, mentioned one conversation during the professional development:

We were going around in circles at the meeting, and people were like, “Well, is there—what exactly is it?” So, Hannah would kind of try to say what it is. And then they’d be like, “So is it kind of like this?” And it’d be like, “Well, kind of, but. . .”

Because these faculty were not quite able to put their fingers on contextualization, they struggled to make meaning of it. Hannah pointed out the messy nature of processing new knowledge and faculty members’ desire to be given information rather than coming to understand new concepts, including contextualization, in their own way:

. . .guiding our own knowledge of what contextualization is. And that’s sloppy, right? It was not like, “Here it is!” And that’s a problem that a lot of our faculty have is that they want, “Here it is,” right? They want, “This is what this is,” “This is what you do,” “This is. . .”

At TLC prior to the professional development, Robin, the lead faculty, had developed and taught a few contextualized courses in the math department, along with a handful of other colleagues who attended some of the workshop activities. She had not conducted any professional development on contextualization before the workshops. Much as there had been resistance and a lack of receptivity to her efforts, as Robin shared with us, TLC math faculty had some familiarity with contextualization in general or through their departments and faculty colleagues. Yet, this did not mean that they had a definitive orientation to contextualization, as some of them were also searching for a definition.

Making Sense of Contextualization Within Field and Teaching Experience

Faculty also drew upon the experiences they gained as instructors and professionals in the field to make sense of contextualization, which we describe in detail below.

Teaching experience

Sensemaking varied based on faculty experiences teaching or working in their respective fields. When it came to math faculty, those at WSC tended to situate contextualization within their teaching experiences. Joe, a math teacher, said, “You can always do it [contextualization] in every classroom. . .Once they see the relationship and the relevance, then they should do better. That’s what I find in my experience.” At TLC, only a couple of math faculty saw contextualization as part of their teaching experience because of prior training, such as Brian and Robin, both of whom taught some of the Quantway courses at the college.² Outside of these instructors, our observations and interviews indicated that few math faculty thought about contextualization in relation to their teaching. WSC’s institutional mission emphasizes education and training that align with industry needs. Faculty across different programs may thus be inclined to connect what they teach to what students will need to know in the industry before entering the workforce. The mission at TLC focuses on lifelong learning and success within the community. With a broader mission, this may lead to greater variation in faculty teaching approaches, with some aligning more or less with contextualization.

Field experience

In our observations, several faculty members at both colleges often identified with their discipline or profession. Technical faculty tended to refer to their field, even after having transitioned into teaching roles. In a similar way, math faculty would indicate their discipline, saying, “He is about electronics. I am about math.” At WSC, our observations and interviews revealed that many faculty made sense of contextualization as a natural occurrence in their field experience. Christine said, “I’ve always come from that, because I taught in IT and I do woodworking at home. I use math all the time with everything that I do. You can’t do computer programming without it.” William pointed out the integral role of math in shaping a project’s success in the industry: “We’ve all been in our particular field and we’ve all had good things and bad things happen. And very often they—numbers are involved.” William elaborated on this with his teaching, “. . .I’d been pretty much doing [contextualization] because I thought it was a good way to do it, and a good way for people to learn. . .” Christine and William, along with their faculty peers sharing similar industry backgrounds, related contextualization to the math they encountered in their work and teaching.

Similarly, at TLC, we observed several technical faculty connecting contextualization to their experiences as engineers or programmers during the professional development. Many of these instructors commented in the interviews that contextualization was something they had been “drifting towards that over the years. Without knowing what it was called,” as Greg, a technical instructor, put it. Pete, another technical instructor, said, “. . .the contextualization thing, I feel I do it every day, you know. What I do every day is a natural thing to do this.” Carpenter reinforced this:

. . .it shined a light on something we’ve already been kind of doing. Didn’t know it had a name. Didn’t know it had a term and it was a thing until we went to this and went, “Oh, that’s kind of what we already do.”

Overall, faculty teaching in the technical areas situated contextualization within their prior industry and current teaching experiences. They identified contextualization as an innate part of their class structure and teaching and did not exhibit more intentional efforts toward making further sense of it.

Teacher and Learner Collide: The Role of Dual Identities in Sensemaking

A third theme pointed to the dual identities that faculty possessed, as teachers or learners, that dictated how they engaged with sources of prior and/or new knowledge and experiences. On the one hand, leaning on a teacher identity tended to deflect new knowledge experienced through the professional development. On the other hand, faculty employing the learner identity were receptive to new information. We noticed a co-existence of multiple identities, not because faculty explicitly mentioned they were one or the other, but in how they described the ways they interacted with contextualization.

Tapping into the learner identity

At both colleges, faculty members viewing themselves as learners were receptive to contextualization. Samuel, a technical instructor at WSC described himself as “always trying to learn something new” and had a lot to learn:

I didn’t go to school to be an educator. This is kind of something that kind of evolved into—as being a good welder—kind of led me to this opportunity. So, I’m still trying to learn how to be a great educator.

Daniel, a WSC math instructor, similarly expressed that he would “like to keep learning more about it so I understand it better.” Although faculty may not have been entirely familiar with contextualization, their learner identity acted as an amplifier to learn more about it and become a better teacher. At TLC, River, a newer developmental education instructor, saw improvement in himself. He did not “have formal teacher training at all” and “any training [he] can get is beneficial.” Francis, a more seasoned instructor, put on his learner cap when he mentioned how he enjoyed “talking about how to teach mathematics better.”

Reconciling the teacher and learner identity

Being a learner in a professional development context added a level of complexity and contradiction for those who primarily viewed themselves as teachers. A number of WSC faculty perceiving themselves as teachers did not feel they had any new knowledge to absorb and process. Karen, a math teacher, noted, “I’m basically a professional teacher.” She elaborated, “And I teach the way I was taught, and what I find has worked well for me.” Jay, a technical faculty member, said, “What I learned about it is I kind of already do that in my teaching.” Margaret, another math instructor, echoed this, “But I kept thinking—we do this.” These individuals had already practiced some form of contextualization and tended to be comfortable with their existing instructional approaches or believed they already used contextualization according to how they interpreted it. However, this interpretation via a teacher identity can be narrow because they only see it as something they are doing rather than what else they could do. The teacher identity may thus block engagement with new knowledge and prevent faculty from further developing themselves as instructors.

Shifting from teacher to learner

Although the dual teacher and learner identities were present in distinct ways at WSC, a switch was happening at TLC. Several TLC faculty initially operated primarily within their teacher identity, but after making further sense of contextualization, they tended more toward a learner identity. Carpenter demonstrated this switch: “And so it was like, ‘Oh, well we already kind of do this. Oh, there’s a way to do it better. Oh!’ But then giving it a name and seeing more strategies to be more successful. . .” Charley, a technical faculty, said:

Since we’re an applied program I was like, “We really kinda always contextualize stuff.” . . .And then after the first training I went, “Well maybe not,” and you know, had to take that step back and go, “Okay, how can we use this?”

This shift suggests the faculty members’ openness to embracing a learner identity. Although WSC faculty had not yet experienced this shift, it may eventually occur through continued exposure to contextualization. Viewed together, these fluid interactions between the teacher and learner identities took on various forms within professional development and broader institutional contexts at the two colleges, yet they all were indicative of faculty’s richly evolving journey where they wrestled with math contextualization’s potential in changing and improving their practices as teachers.

Making or Breaking Change: Faculty Work and Institutional Factors

As faculty made sense of contextualization, they also considered what this approach would mean in light of making changes to their instruction within their individual and institutional contexts. This leads to the next theme, which revolved around three factors related to organizational structures and responsibilities that could make or break potential change: finding time to make change, putting in effort to make change, and institutional structures shaping change.

Finding time to make change

Time was a common and significant issue for faculty at both colleges as they made sense of contextualization. This included concerns around time inside and outside the classroom to implement contextualization, especially in light of instructors’ multiple roles and responsibilities. This can make it challenging to find time to test and apply new teaching strategies such as contextualization. When faculty expend time not only on their existing courses, but also within their department and across the institution, they may hesitate to add another item to their to-do list.

At WSC, Christine was hesitant about contextualization because it “takes a lot of time. . . .I don’t see how I could do that without making it a project external to the class. . .” Margaret said, “. . .if I have this many minutes to teach this many topics, and I’m gonna take one of those topics and use all of that time. Where is that time coming from?” During the workshop, we also observed faculty commenting on how bogged down they were by course materials. When course content and schedules are set and packed for that matter, faculty struggled to find time in class to accommodate a new instructional approach and cover all concepts they needed students to learn.

The issue of time played out differently at TLC. Reconciling faculty work and time to develop contextualized lessons turned out to be complicated at TLC. As Charley put it, “Usually it’s just time, when do you have time to do it because the demands on the faculty are large.” She elaborated on the time taken to become familiar with contextualization: “I had to spend a significant amount of time going back through the documentation. I probably spent days if not weeks just going over the documents and figuring out how I’m supposed to approach this. . .” Then, to develop lessons, Jim said: “. . .that’s like 100 hours of work for three hours in the classroom. . . .But yeah, I mean, I think it can take a long time, I think, would be one of the drawbacks.”

Putting in effort toward change

Effort came to light when faculty noted that making sense of contextualization would involve a lot of effort, especially for lesson development and revision. WSC faculty tended to focus on the perceived effort associated with the process of contextualizing courses, often without having actually applied it. Linda, a technical instructor, said, “I thought it looks like it’s a lot of work, to be honest with you. To be able to get something like that going. It’s going to take some effort.” Other faculty, like William, who was involved in previous contextualization efforts at WSC, immediately recognized the amount of effort: “It’s not easy. That’s where the work is. And I think that’s where the work is for both the math and the technical instructors.” As a result, some did not attempt contextualization because they had already decided it was too much work, while others who had experience with it were explicit about the effort associated with contextualization.

In contrast, at TLC, many faculty members did not perceive a great deal of work when initially introduced to math contextualization. Rather, it took their actual experiences of implementing it for them to appreciate the amount of effort involved. Charley reflected on how she made sense of the work at the beginning of the professional development: “And so I came into this thinking it’s not gonna be that much work, it’s really not gonna be that much work because we already contextualize everything.” After having gained experience with contextualization, she mentioned, “. . .it’s [contextualization] a lot of work. It’s not easy. . .” Robin also pointed out the work involved to build and revise contextualized curriculum:

It’s a ridiculous amount of work to do a really good job with it. And then you’re not done. . . .There’s so much revision you have to do, because you’re trying to have problems to build, so students can work. And then you do it and you’re like, “Well, that didn’t work.” It’s this really extremely labor-intensive process.

Jim observed such efforts second-hand through his colleagues: “So he spent a whole semester just working on that. . . .So, I think it does take a lot more work and stuff.”

To mitigate the effort involved to contextualize courses, sample lessons were made available to faculty during the workshops and online after the activities concluded. We also observed that they were encouraged to work with one another when creating lessons. Having templates and collaborating may help faculty make a better and more informed sense of the effort needed, potentially alleviating their apprehension around implementation. Although faculty drew upon some of the templates to develop lessons, few faculty at either institution had yet worked together to do so beyond the professional development.

Institutional factors shaping change

Another factor that faculty contended with in relation to change was institutional support and structures. Across both institutions, faculty recognized that support from top leadership as well as peer support were essential to enact real change. At TLC, Robin commented: “If we had that support for contextualizing math—everybody would do it. I would have no problem. Because nothing survives—I think not just here, but any college—unless you have faculty buy-in and administrator support.” Jackson, a technical faculty member, also emphasized leadership backing initiatives to demonstrate commitment to change:

And I think the bigger issue on a lot of that is maybe at the management level, to encourage it more. It’s okay to cancel a class. “. . .On Wednesday, we’d like you to get together for a couple hours.” . . .the other level of administrators saying, “It’s okay. This would be better for the college long-term.”

Despite faculty desire for institutional support, Robin said, “There’s a lot of autonomy here. But there’s not a lot of oversight. Different areas are held more accountable than others. So, convincing them that—to spend their energy here [on contextualization]—is harder.” The decentralization at TLC represented an added challenge as faculty made sense of support for contextualization and instructional change.

At WSC, Robert, a technical instructor, expressed a need for a collective effort from everyone in the college to help faculty feel supported when contemplating potential change:

It’s hard to change a curriculum in the program. And if their goal is to change the curriculum, I need some support from [the associate dean], that’s saying, “Yes, we are willing to change the curriculum.” . . .But just to go through the motions and it just sits there. And it’s support from other instructors too. I want this to be, you know, everybody supporting this here. . .

The way leadership communicated about contextualization at WSC shaped faculty sensemaking, support, and motivation differently across departments. As Hannah explained:

. . .the math department has that added dimension of having the administration saying, “Hey, you need to change.” And then we’ve got faculty who are afraid of losing their jobs who are involved in contextualization because of it—not because they want to change. That’s difficult.

Leadership mandates for change may be perceived by faculty as coercion rather than real motivation, resulting in faculty taking on new instructional activities as a means to comply without an authentic interest in making change. Although leadership support for change is essential, institutions should consider alternatives to communicating a simple need for change, such as reward structures for exploring innovative teaching and increases in student success rates.

Faculty also navigate layers of cultures and contexts that vary across disciplines, departments, and schools that can add to the complexity of faculty sensemaking, support for each other, and making change. This was evident at both colleges not only based on the findings above, but also from the onset of the professional development when faculty clustered together by departments and disciplines. A WSC faculty member said: “Well he’s STEM and we are not, and that is why we are going like this [hand gesture with hands wide apart].” Robert reflected on his experiences during the WSC professional development: “I preferred working with the technical faculty as opposed to the math faculty, ‘cause they’re two different worlds sometimes.” At TLC, Jim mentioned:

Every place has tensions between groups of people. I just wonder if, like—I mean, I think maybe people in the automotive department and stuff like that resent people like us. . . .So, I don’t know if there’s an animosity barrier there. . .

Faculty colleague and disciplinary tensions and perceptions can reinforce silos and inhibit collective sensemaking, support, and change, even though improving student learning and outcomes in math may be a shared issue.

“There’s a Fear, There’s a Comfort Level, and There’s Time”: Vulnerable to Change

In the end, faculty engaged in an internal, vulnerable, or very personal sensemaking process to determine to what extent they were comfortable implementing contextualization, which faculty exhibited differently across the colleges. WSC faculty members’ sensemaking and resulting comfort level with contextualization were tied to how much they knew about it. They were not comfortable implementing it unless they had a good grasp of what it was and what it would look like in the classroom. Karen said, “I have a really hard time with contextualization unless I have an idea of where it can be applied.” As a result, Karen did not plan to use contextualization, at least in the immediate future, until she could understand the application. Samuel had similar concerns:

I still kind of left there wanting to know a little bit more about what contextualization really is when it comes to math, and how to approach it with my students. So, I definitely still feel like there’s more I need to know about it to do it effectively.

Other WSC faculty members jumped in and started trying out contextualization. This hands-on, experiential approach helped them make incremental sense of contextualization and become increasingly comfortable with it. Marlene, a math instructor, engaged with contextualization in gradual ways:

Yeah, I kind of took that, and I added just little pieces in. I wouldn’t quite say I’m teaching using contextualization yet. But I think I’m getting closer and ready to go with that. And I am getting more comfortable trying some of those things in there. . . .And I think it has actually made a big difference in how I teach.

As faculty made sense of contextualization, they ranged in their comfort level with it in personal and complex ways, factoring into their decisions to implement it.

On the other hand, TLC faculty members’ sensemaking of and comfort level with contextualization were based more on instructional style or preferences and overall effectiveness. Paul, a math instructor, expressed that teaching “is a very personal thing. It’s more of an art than a science.” He had mixed feelings about using contextualization because he viewed it as prescriptive:

. . .it strikes me as very artificial and it doesn’t suit the way I—I like some of the ideas but I like flexibility and I like to suit the way that I want to do it, based on my own experience. . . .I can go a little bit off my centerline, but you take me too far off and I’m going to be very clumsy, because I’m no longer acting naturally and I am no longer presenting things naturally.

TLC faculty reactions to contextualization and comfort level were also tied to proof that contextualization was effective. Before making the commitment to contextualize, they needed to be assured that improved student success would follow. Thomas was strongly interested in contextualization, but still apprehensive:

We could contextualize all the course, and that might be our goal, but not until we can show that, yeah, we did that and now our students came out and now my students are doing better—can I be fully convinced that that’s gonna be a benefit to the student.

Although part of the professional development at TLC came from the Carnegie Foundation, which had extensive experience training on contextualization and conducted research on the promise and success of it, faculty may remain uncomfortable unless they see it working at their own institution and its unique dynamics and contexts.

Discussion

Faculty sensemaking of contextualization is both an individual and a broader situational process. At the individual level, this sensemaking process is informed by different orientations, prior field and teaching experiences, and dual identities as both a teacher and a learner. More broadly situated, it is a process that also occurs outside of math contextualization and within the contexts, interactions, and other factors within an organization. That culminating sensemaking flows into the complex decisions that faculty make about their teaching practices in light of the many organizational structures they navigate and their personal comfort level in adopting contextualization. These interactive dynamics shape math instructional change. In the following sections, we delve deeper into the findings and reflect on them in light of previous empirical work and organizational change.

The Sensemaking and Sensegiving of Orientation Toward Change

Our findings indicate that if faculty are able to make clear sense of contextualization and other organizational and change factors, they are more open to change, and acting upon the potential of math contextualization in the change process. This confirms sensemaking as an important underlying process toward organizational change (Kezar & Eckel, 2002). Our results reveal several key barriers to bringing clarity to sensemaking. For instance, the difficulty that some of the WSC math faculty experienced may have arisen from a sheer lack of prior exposure to this approach. Before the professional development, WSC did not offer contextualized courses in their math department. Although their technical department had developed some contextualized courses, they were limited to a few technical programs without dissemination beyond those programs at the college. As a result, the math faculty were completely new to this concept. In addition, since contextualization encompasses a family of teaching strategies, its inevitable ambiguity may have caused faculty to grapple with it. This is not a surprising reaction, as ambiguity can be particularly challenging when it comes to sensemaking and change (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Nonetheless, if faculty cannot resolve the ambiguity through sensemaking, change efforts may stall.

In addition to barriers such as lack of prior exposure and ambiguity, our results also speak to the power of sensegiving as part of sensemaking in bringing about action toward change (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Some faculty engaged with storytelling as a way to give sense to contextualization. With facilitators’ emphasis on narratives, characters, and creativity, faculty made sense of contextualization as a story. It is interesting to note that sensegiving through this particular approach—storytelling—was prominent among faculty from math departments. These faculty often do not teach within specific contexts, as compared to technical faculty who operate within particular program areas. As such, these math faculty may have been inclined to draw upon storytelling since they were not predisposed to distinct program contexts. Therefore, sensegiving may take on unique forms across disciplinary contexts.

The Role of Identity in Facilitating Change

Identity is also an important element of the sensemaking and change process (Weick, 1995) that emerged from our findings, which suggest that several identities co-existed and interacted. To begin, faculty took on the identity of adult learners who resorted to prior experiences (Merriam, 2008) when making sense of new information (Knowles, 1980), in this case, professional development, contextualization, and other factors. During this process, if faculty were not able to see contextualization’s utility in their own teaching, they found it difficult to construct meaning, as there was a lack of meaningful connection to their work or previous experiences (Taylor & Lamoreaux, 2008). If faculty struggle within their adult learner identity to situate and make meaning of contextualization and other individual and organizational factors, they may be slow to or have difficulty enacting change.

Our results revealed an emerging shift that occurred for some faculty from a teacher to a learner identity. This shift suggests that a learner identity can be developed (Kolb & Kolb, 2009), likely as a result of transformative learning and the questioning of previous assumptions, leading to an openness to change (Mezirow, 2003). While some identities may make individuals resistant to change, our findings showed that identities can be malleable and reconstructed with time. As these shifts occur and individuals’ identities evolve, they may then make sense of and become more open to enacting change. Our findings may also indicate a potential for second-order change (Levy & Merry, 1986), as these transformative changes in faculty can fundamentally change math teaching and learning more broadly across the institution.

The Push and Pull of Change: Institutional Structures and Cultures

As faculty made sense of contextualization and what it might entail, they perceived it as requiring time and work toward making change to their instruction. Because of increasing and evolving workloads and roles among faculty (Eddy, 2005), it is arguably challenging to find time to make sense of, test, and apply new teaching strategies such as contextualization. Faculty making sense of contextualization at WSC were primarily concerned with time constraints within the classroom and existing content. This may point back to organizational factors, such as WSC’s mission shaping faculty sensemaking of contextualization and change. With a mission that focuses on education and training for industry needs, WSC faculty may not see contextualization as something that fits within their already highly structured curricula. At TLC, faculty were overwhelmed by what they perceived as additional time needed to learn and apply contextualization. These findings reinforce the complexity of organizational change (Levin, 1998), such as different dimensions of faculty time and work that emerge within and across organizations. Faculty may ultimately decide not to enact change, not because they are unwilling, but because of how they make sense of their existing workload and course structures, which may not be conducive to change.

Another push or pull factor revealed by our findings was institutional support and structures. Across both institutions, as faculty made sense of contextualization and how to make it happen, they identified support from top leadership as essential to enact real change, which reinforces previous research (e.g., Austin, 2011; Murray, 2002). Faculty also highlighted the importance of peer support to motivate them to implement contextualization toward instructional change. Aligned with organizational change, active support, and commitment from large groups of both leaders and other individuals with information, expertise, and relationships across all levels of an institution are crucial for successful change (Kotter, 2012). Although leadership plays an undoubtedly important part in engaging with and facilitating change, our study highlights the significance of actors at all levels. Support from multiple areas helps open up more opportunities for individuals to participate and interact toward larger, more effective, organization-wide sensemaking and change, rather than limiting it to a few individuals at the top (Eckel & Kezar, 2003).

Faculty operate within layers of cultures and contexts across disciplines, departments, and schools, with a range of power structures, resources, and other nuances (Kezar & Lester, 2009; Klein et al., 2019) that can add to the complexity of faculty making sense, supporting each other, and making change. Faculty colleague and disciplinary tensions are not an unfamiliar issue in community colleges (e.g., Martinez, 2019). However, these perceptions and tensions can be detrimental to collective sensemaking, support, and change, regardless of the faculty members’ shared concerns and goals around student success in math. At the same time, these findings reveal the importance of cultural factors in sensemaking and change, including better understanding the unique departmental and disciplinary assumptions and behaviors and how they play into change efforts (Schein, 1992).

Maintaining Authenticity in the Wake of Change

Our results highlighted that vulnerability is not an unusual sentiment among faculty. This is not surprising given the inevitable trials and errors that can discourage initial attempts at change (Black & Gregersen, 2002). At the same time, this study showed that being authentic about the sensemaking, experiences, and persisting through the discomfort may enact real motivation to change. Our findings regarding faculty comfort level, fear, or uncertainty around contextualization exemplify how these emotions drill down to the individual and vulnerable places that are not always apparent. Over time, however, as faculty continue to engage with contextualization authentically, the fear or uncertainty falls away and faculty comfort level increases. This finding is crucial because it disrupts the assumption that community colleges and those within the college are acting rationally (Levin, 1998) and highlights the psychological and emotional aspects of sensemaking that remain overlooked (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weick et al., 2005). Institutions may remove all other structural barriers, freeing faculty to test and implement various approaches. However, if instructors do not have the self-efficacy and authenticity to make sense of and carry out contextualization, or more important, the support to build up the necessary self-efficacy to do so, change becomes a fruitless effort. This discussion leads to a number of implications.

Implications

There are several implications for practice, policy, and research moving forward. To begin, it is essential to support faculty in their continuous development of orientations and identities as teachers and learners, allowing them to open up to exploring and processing new teaching approaches. Identity construction and reconstruction is an ongoing process as individuals make sense of themselves and their roles within an organization and during change (Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Weick, 1995). As such, new identities can be developed to enhance faculty receptivity to new knowledge and deeper sensemaking of change. This can be done through intentional reflection or retrospect (Weick, 1995). Workshop facilitators can integrate activities that require faculty to pause, assess, and challenge what they know, their identities, and sensemaking at multiple points through reflective logs, critical group discussions, among other strategies. Questioning prior knowledge, identities, sensemaking, and reaching a deeper meaning of new knowledge can better position faculty to engage with sensemaking and new identities to enact change.

Both community colleges and faculty need to revisit structures and tasks to create more opportunities that facilitate change. Faculty can often feel depleted of time and effort (Bailey et al., 2015) in their existing organizational contexts, especially toward evaluating and improving their teaching. If faculty are able to make better sense of their priorities being teaching and student success, instead of less consequential administrative activities or tasks, they are more likely to find time and invest effort to make change (Kegan & Lahey, 2009). At the same time, there has to be commitment and support from college leadership in terms of giving faculty the freedom to reduce duties or meetings so they can make sense of and engage with potentially valuable opportunities (Bailey et al., 2015), including those related to professional development, teaching practices, and collaborating with other faculty around contextualization.

More intentional work is needed beyond periodic professional development to dismantle silos and create organizational environments that encourage collective sensemaking and change. This might involve implementing initiatives that make cross-college collaboration an explicit part of those efforts or integrating cross-departmental relations into incentive structures or work expectations (Bailey et al., 2015). Administrators and faculty are also crucial actors in breaking down these walls. Establishing events, meetings, or professional development activities that include multiple departments or disciplines can help expose individuals to one another and create lasting relationships. These interactions can subsequently tap into broader and more diverse networks to make sense of and share teaching ideas, cultivate collaboration, and motivate and sustain each other toward change.

The emotional and psychological aspect of change—faculty comfort level with contextualization—needs to be recognized and addressed to bring faculty to a place where they can make sense of and actualize change. A few of the faculty in our study made sense of and tested contextualization in ways they deemed personally safe doing. Although sensemaking and practicing contextualization in incremental pieces in the classroom can be a good place to begin, other lower stake venues have potential to increase faculty comfort with making sense of and using contextualization. For instance, faculty can try this instructional approach among their own colleagues during professional development activities. This can be a safe space and provide faculty with immediate feedback, as these interactions allow for further sensemaking and change. If faculty continue to be apprehensive of trying contextualization in front of a group of people, rehearsing lessons in front of individual faculty colleagues may represent a safer entry point at which to practice and make sense of new teaching strategies. This is also important for faculty so they can move past the discomfort and go from novice to expert (Black & Gregersen, 2002).

While we were able to gain an initial understanding of how faculty make sense of contextualization and how they make decisions about whether to apply contextualization as they make sense of it along with other factors, longitudinal work can delve further into evolving faculty sensemaking over time, and how that might shape their decisions and teaching practices throughout their career. Another important element to examine further is the psychological and emotional factors that shape sensemaking and change (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weick et al., 2005), as these need intentional exploration. Future research should investigate how faculty sensemaking of contextualization translates into actual teaching practices, including whether sensemaking aligns with actions, and how the various contextualization approaches influence student learning and outcomes. Research is needed to understand which contextualization strategies work the best for students. That way, we move closer to bringing our understanding of the contextualization process full circle, with the hope that faculty sensemaking and change-making transpire into fruitful student experiences and outcomes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Pam Eddy and anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was conducted as part of a larger research project supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. DUE-1700625). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

ORCID iD

Kelly Wickersham

Notes

Author Biographies

Kelly Wickersham is a research associate in the Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research centers on student pathways, mobility, and success in higher education, as well as community college STEM education, experiences, transfer, and completion.

Xueli Wang is the Barbara and Glenn Thompson Endowed Professor in Educational Leadership at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research focuses on community colleges and STEM education, aiming to identify practices, structures, and policies toward transformative change for equitable student outcomes.

References

Austin

(2011). Promoting evidence-based change in undergraduate science education. National Academies National Research Council. https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072578.pdf

Bailey

Jaggers

Jenkins

(2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges: A clearer path to student success. Harvard University Press.

Baker

Hope

Karandjeff

(2009). Contextualized teaching and learning: A faculty primer. Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges. https://www.careerladdersproject.org/docs/CTL.pdf

Berns

Erickson

(2001). Contextual teaching and learning: Preparing students for the new economy (The Highlight Zone: Research @ Work No. 5). National Research Center for Career and Technical Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED452376.pdf

Black

Gregersen

(2002). Leading strategic change: Breaking through the brain barrier. Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Bragg

(2011). Two-year college mathematics and student progression in STEM programs of study. In Olson

Labov

J. B.

(Eds.), Community colleges in the evolving STEM education landscape: A summit (pp. 81–106). National Academies Press.

Chen

(2016). Remedial coursetaking at U.S. public 2- and 4-year institutions: Scope, experiences, and outcomes (NCES 2016–405). U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016405.pdf

Cohen

Brawer

Kisker

(2014). The American community college (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Eckel

P. D.

(1998). How institutions discontinue academic programs: Making potentially adverse decisions in an environment of shared decision making [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland.

10.

Eckel

P. D.

Kezar

(2003). Key strategies for making new institutional sense: Ingredients to higher education transformation. Higher Education Policy, 16, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300001

11.

Eddy

(2005). Faculty development in community colleges: Surveying the present, preparing for the future. The Journal of Faculty Development, 20(3), 143–152.

12.

Eddy

(2007). Faculty development in rural community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2007(137), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.271

13.

Eddy

(2010). New faculty issues: Fitting in and figuring it out. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(152), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.423

14.

Eddy

Hao

Markiewicz

Iverson

(2018). Faculty change agents as adult learners: The power of situated learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(8), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1507848

15.

Fugate

Amey

(2000). Career stages of community college faculty: A qualitative analysis of their career paths, roles, and development. Community College Review, 28(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155210002800101

16.

Garza Mitchell

. (2009). Online education and organizational change. Community College Review, 37(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552109338731

17.

Gehrke

Kezar

(2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education. American Educational Research Journal, 54(5), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736

18.

Gioia

D. A.

Chittipeddi

(1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604

19.

Jenkins

Zeidenberg

Kienzl

(2009). Educational outcomes of I-BEST, Washington State Community and Technical College System’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training Program: Findings from a multivariate analysis (CCRC Working Paper No. 16). Community College Research Center. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/educational-outcomes-of-i-best.pdf

20.

Kegan

Lahey

(2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock to potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press.

21.

Kezar

Eckel

P. D.

(2002). Examining the institutional transformation process: The importance of sensemaking, interrelated strategies, and balance. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 295–328. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014889001242

22.

Kezar

Lester

(2009). Organizing higher education for collaboration: A guide for campus leaders. Jossey-Bass.

23.

Klein

Lester

Rangwala

Johri

(2019). Learning analytics tools in higher education: Adoption at the intersection of institutional commitment and individual action. The Review of Higher Education, 42(2), 565–593. https://doi:10.1353/rhe.2019.0007

24.

Knowles

(1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). Cambridge Books.

25.

Kolb

(2009). On becoming a learner: The concept of learning identity. CAEL Forum and News, 5–13.

26.

Kotter

(2012). Leading change. The Harvard Business School Press.

27.

Levin

(1998). Organizational change and the community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1998(102), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.10201

28.

Levy

Merry

(1986). Organizational transformation: Approaches, strategies, theories. Praeger.

29.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.

30.

Locke

Guglielmino

(2006). The influence of subcultures on planned change in a community college. Community College Review, 34(2), 108–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552106292518

31.

Lüscher

L. S.

Lewis

M. W.

(2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.31767217

32.

Maitlis

Christianson

(2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.873177

33.

Martinez

(2019). “The rules change”: Exploring faculty experiences and work expectations within a drifting community college context. Community College Review, 47(2), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552119835022

34.

Mazzeo

(2008). Supporting student success at California community colleges: A white paper. Career Ladders Project for California Community Colleges.

35.

McKinney

Morris

(2010). Examining an evolution: A case study of organizational change accompanying the community college baccalaureate. Community College Review, 37(3), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552109351185

36.

Merriam

(1988). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Wiley & Sons.

37.

Merriam

(2008). Adult learning theory for the twenty-first century. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2008(119), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.309

38.

Merriam

Tisdell

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

39.

Mezirow

(2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172

40.

Miles

Huberman

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.

41.

Murray

(2001). Faculty development in publicly supported 2-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(7), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920152407883

42.

Murray

(2002). The current state of faculty development in two-year colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2002(118), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.67

43.

Murray

(2005). Meeting the needs of new faculty at rural community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(3), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920590901167

44.

Pelch

McConnell

(2016). Challenging instructors to change: A mixed methods investigation on the effects of material development on the pedagogical beliefs of geoscience instructors. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(5), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0039-y

45.

Perin

(2011). Facilitating student learning through contextualization: A review of evidence. Community College Review, 39(3), 268–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552111416227

46.

Saldaña

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE.

47.

Schein

E. H.

(1992). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.

48.

Shore

Boggs

(2004). Allied health applications integrated into developmental mathematics using problem based learning. Mathematics and Computer Education, 38(2), 183–189.

49.

St. Clair

Gardner

. (2016, July). An innovative and collaborative community college and high school algebra project: Contextualizing math and applied algebra I & II [Paper presentation]. Education and New Learning Technologies 8th International Conference, Barcelona.

50.

Taylor

Lamoreaux

(2008). Teaching with the brain in mind. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2008(119), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.305

51.

Thomas

(2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435

52.

Wang

Sun

Wickersham

(2017). Turning math remediation into “homeroom”: Contextualization as a motivational environment for remedial math students at community colleges. The Review of Higher Education, 40(3), 427–464. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0014

53.

Weber

P. S.

Manning

M. R.

(1991). Cause maps, sensemaking, and planned organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(2), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886301372006

54.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE.

55.

Weick

K. E.

Quinn

R. E.

(1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361

56.

Weick

K. E.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Obstfeld

(2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

57.

Wiseley

(2009). Effectiveness of contextual approaches to developmental math in California community colleges [Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses]. University of the Pacific.