PofoliaShared via Pofolia

International Journal of STEM Education· 2026Q1

A framework for institutional change in the age of AI

David Perl‐Nussbaum, Noah D. Finkelstein

Short summary

A new framework adapts institutional change models for generative AI by considering AI's rapid evolution, lack of established evidence base, and broad impact, proposing six dimensions for reform focused on local inquiry and pedagogical approaches over specific tools.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Generative AI necessitates adapting existing STEM education institutional change models due to its nature as an 'arrival technology'.
  • The proposed framework identifies six dimensions for change: tool's evidence base, rate of change, scope, and the roles of faculty, change agents, and students.
  • Key design implications include privileging humble, local inquiries and organizing reform around pedagogical approaches rather than specific AI tools.
  • Change agents should be repositioned as facilitators of collective inquiry, and students engaged as partners in reform.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Generative AI is rapidly reshaping STEM higher education. Not only are our educational practices changing, but how we think about educational transformation must also adapt. Existing models of institutional change in STEM, aimed at interactive engagement, have largely followed an adoption logic: relatively stable, well-researched educational practices are evaluated and then scaled. These assumptions do not hold for generative AI, which is an arrival technology – entering classrooms before a sufficient pedagogical evidence base could form, and requiring institutions to act under uncertainty. Building on recent decades of work on STEM education institutional change, we propose a framework identifying six dimensions along which prior models of change must be adapted in light of AI: three concerning the tools at the center of reform (the tool’s evidence base, rate of change, and scope), and three concerning the people involved in change (faculty, change agents, and students). For each dimension, we examine how AI-era assumptions differ from those underlying prior STEM education reforms and derive design implications, including: privileging humble and local inquiries; organizing reform around pedagogical approaches rather than specific tools; repositioning change agents as facilitators of collective inquiry; and engaging students as partners in reform. Collectively, the six dimensions and design implications constitute a framework for adapting change models to support institutions under conditions of genuine uncertainty. Finally, we illustrate how the framework may be applied through a brief case-study of a faculty workshop series carried out in a university physics department to support instructors adapting to this modern AI era.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. International Journal of STEM Education, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Computer Science Applications

Computer Science ApplicationsComputer Science