Applying Two Change Frameworks to Address Change Processes and Barriers in Instructional Change: A Case of STEM Instructors’ Adoption of Active Learning During Abrupt Online Transition

Background STEM higher education has been undergoing instructional changes, such as shifting from traditional lecturing to active learning, transitioning from physical classrooms to online or blended settings, and integrating transformative educational technologies. These instructional changes tend to be systemic (e.g., instructional changes across multiple STEM departments or institutions), yet research on such changes is limited. Change theories have been advocated to guide research on instructional changes, but their inappropriate or insufficient application partly contributes to the challenges in successfully adopting these changes. This study applies two change frameworks, the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) and the Four-Category Barrier Framework (FCBF), to investigate a systemic instructional change and explore change processes and barriers at both individual and contextual levels. We used STEM instructors’ adoption of active learning during the abrupt transition to online learning as a case, conducting focus groups with 32 STEM instructors at U.S. higher education institutions. Results Regarding the change processes identified through CBAM, participants’ behaviors were primarily categorized as initial steps toward using active learning in online settings, although their concerns ranged from handling logistics to the impact of the abrupt transition on their students. In terms of barriers identified using FCBF, participants faced personal issues related to time, comfort, and control over their classes, as well as contextual barriers related to students (e.g., student participation), teaching (e.g., instructional support), and institutional factors (e.g., policies regarding support and teaching modes). We synthesized the results of the two change frameworks, finding that specific participants’ behaviors and concerns were intricately connected with contextual and individual barriers, which differed at various stages in the change process. This work, with concrete evidence from the synthesized results, demonstrates STEM instructors need tailored support and personalized assistance, especially when faced with abrupt systemic instructional changes. Conclusions: Applying two change frameworks enables us to investigate STEM instructors’ adoption of systemic instructional changes through the lenses of change processes and individual and contextual barriers, offering insightful and comprehensive findings. We recognize and advocate for using multiple change theories to take advantage of each framework and conduct thorough research on instructors’ adoption of systemic instructional changes.