Learning Resources

Abstract: For most institutions of higher learning to thrive amid the shifting demographics, financial outlooks, and value propositions of the 21st century, they must design and implement change that is comprehensive rather than compartmental. Since such change comes hard to institutions steeped in century-old traditions, there are few colleges or universities that have undertaken it. Hiram College (OH) is an exception. Given the dearth of lessons from the field, the Hiram College president offers this constructive and realistic example of systemic change and the five possible steps that academic leaders and trustees elsewhere might consider before triggering it.

Abstract: This article applies the three stages of change (mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization) to the academic curricular process change that occurred during the 2014–2015 academic year at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Reflecting on the manner in which this major initiative was conceptualized and executed has revealed an inadvertent yet seamless application of Curry’s (1992) organizational change model. Throughout each stage of this organizational change, some inherent principles were maintained while balancing the required condensed timeline for completion. These principles included consistent and transparent consultation with many branches of the university community and revision of proposed processes based on feedback from community members. The goal of the authors in sharing the change process at IUP is to provide potential insights for others on recognizing a need for organizational process revision. The authors highlight the actions taken at IUP, offer recommendations, and identify potential hazards to institutions contemplating organizational change.

Abstract: A mid-century campus confronted issues of aging infrastructure and tectonic shifts in pedagogy by implementing a comprehensive modernization plan focused on enhancing the student experience. Working with a limited budget, Laurentian University managed to transform its facilities through selective revitalization of nine buildings and some discerning construction to create a new identity, greater connectivity, and a new campus heart to support student interaction and engagement. The creative impetus stemmed from a holistic approach to rejuvenation rather than straightforward expansion—of choosing to build in, not out. This architectural response will enable the university to plan for the next 50 years with consistency and design continuity.