**2. Understanding the contagion approach**

We divide the literature that undergirds our application of the contagion model into four distinct approaches. We begin with an exploration of the benefits of CCD in instructors' pro‐ fessional development, and in promoting a collaborative culture among faculty and staff. We then explore the potential obstacles between curriculum development and implemen‐ tation, and how the likelihood of implementation might be increased. Third we explore the logic behind the collaborative contagion model. Finally, we compare the literature surrounding CDIs with an integral part of the contagion model: the disruptive innovation workshop (DIW).

#### **2.1. Benefits of CCD for teachers and educational faculty**

Multiple studies show how collaborative curriculum design aids in the professional develop‐ ment and learning of instructors [1–4]. Common to these studies is the conclusion that instructors who assist with curriculum development show "increased self‐confidence, increased pedagogi‐ cal content knowledge, a deeper understanding of subject matter content, refined ideas of cur‐ riculum development in their personal practice, and perceptions of good teaching and being a good teacher" [2]. The collaborative process is also an opportunity for instructors to interact with peers and experts in an environment that both broadens teaching perspectives and builds the leadership skills required for curriculum implementation [3, 4].

Beyond the professional development of individual teachers, the educational climate at an institution also benefits from CCD approaches to curriculum design and review [5]. Robert Rothieaux, the facilitator of a new, collaboratively‐built MBA curriculum at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, has found indications that collaboration on innovative curriculum can prompt longer‐term institutional change and develop a culture of collabora‐ tion more generally [6]. To this end, Rothieaux encourages bringing faculty, staff, and admin‐ istrators, including those who would not typically participate in collaborative curriculum development, into the collaborative process [6]. Collaboration in this sense becomes a cata‐ lyst for greater knowledge sharing and interaction among faculty. In short, a wide variety of studies focused on the process of curriculum development has found that CCD approaches benefit individual instructors specifically, and educational institutions more generally.

#### **2.2. Bridging the gap between curriculum development and adoption**

gathering input from academic networks using targeted colloquia and workshops, we have begun implementing a new model for curriculum development and distribution we call the

The collaborative contagion model was conceived both to yield a curriculum designed utilizing collaborative curriculum design (CCD), teacher design teams (TDTs), and course design intensives (CDIs) and to foster the adoption of that curriculum by leveraging the established professional and educational networks of the educators who worked to create the curricular

To begin the process, we hosted a series of four‐day disruptive innovation workshops (DIWs) with participants from across the United States. K‐12 teachers and administrators, education professionals, college professors, and university administrators all took part in the proceedings. We then developed an online forum for generating, hosting, revising, and rapidly distributing modules for BE&E curricular content for both the K‐12 and college constituencies. This chapter summarizes the literature behind the collaborative contagion model, tracks its early implemen‐

We divide the literature that undergirds our application of the contagion model into four distinct approaches. We begin with an exploration of the benefits of CCD in instructors' pro‐ fessional development, and in promoting a collaborative culture among faculty and staff. We then explore the potential obstacles between curriculum development and implemen‐ tation, and how the likelihood of implementation might be increased. Third we explore the logic behind the collaborative contagion model. Finally, we compare the literature surrounding CDIs with an integral part of the contagion model: the disruptive innovation

Multiple studies show how collaborative curriculum design aids in the professional develop‐ ment and learning of instructors [1–4]. Common to these studies is the conclusion that instructors who assist with curriculum development show "increased self‐confidence, increased pedagogi‐ cal content knowledge, a deeper understanding of subject matter content, refined ideas of cur‐ riculum development in their personal practice, and perceptions of good teaching and being a good teacher" [2]. The collaborative process is also an opportunity for instructors to interact with peers and experts in an environment that both broadens teaching perspectives and builds the

Beyond the professional development of individual teachers, the educational climate at an institution also benefits from CCD approaches to curriculum design and review [5]. Robert Rothieaux, the facilitator of a new, collaboratively‐built MBA curriculum at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, has found indications that collaboration on innovative

tation, and explores the model's potential for broader deployment.

**2. Understanding the contagion approach**

**2.1. Benefits of CCD for teachers and educational faculty**

leadership skills required for curriculum implementation [3, 4].

collaborative contagion model.

176 Global Voices in Higher Education

materials in the first instance.

workshop (DIW).

One of the primary challenges for curriculum designers has been bridging the gap between curriculum development and its adoption. Ideally, the professional development benefits from CCD would translate into improved classroom practice, and potentially, enhanced student outcomes. The reality is somewhat less clear. Professional development of any sort often falls short of substantive change to classroom practice. During a workshop, instructors have to navigate an unfamiliar design process, and reflect on new pedagogical methods and novel subject matter, which often supports the development of a host of new skills and knowledge [3, 7]. Unfortunately, instructors often return to classroom environments where responses to innovation are blunted, support of new skills is limited, and which are generally unresponsive to innovation [4, 8]. Without adequate support during and after the curricu‐ lum design process, it is unlikely instructors will experience anything more than short‐term teaching changes [1].

In response to these concerns, Clark and Hollingsworth developed a model of Professional Development. Their Interconnected Model of Professional Growth (IMPG) highlights a set of domains in which long‐term change in teaching practice might be achieved through collab‐ orative curriculum design. We focus primarily on three of these domains as most important to our understanding of how to engage the collaborative process to substantively improve teach‐ ing practice: (a) the personal domain (in which instructors change their knowledge, beliefs and attitude); (b) the domain of practice (in which instructors change via professional experi‐ mentation); and (c) the domain of consequence (in which the collaborative process produces salient outcomes for instructors and/or students). A fourth domain in the model, known as the external domain, provides instructors with external sources of information or stimuli, but is largely outside of our approach to curriculum development. Indeed, our own experience suggests this domain is unlikely to drive long‐term changes [1].

Active consideration of each of the domains by those interested in facilitating collaborative curriculum design is especially useful, as enactment and reflection in one domain may have an impact on the others [1]. Change through these domains can lead to simple, short‐term teaching changes, or even long‐term professional growth. The realization of the latter depends on, among other things, the level of ongoing support from colleagues and administration, resources and equipment, and the broader context in which instructors work [1, 9].

Researchers have investigated the support needs of curriculum designers required for curriculum adoption and long‐term implementation of alternative teaching practices [4, 10]. In addition to limitations on time and knowledge, instructors often lack the design expertise required for curriculum development [10]. Incorporating design specialists into TDTs enables instructors to apply their knowledge, skills, and contextual understanding to content and pedagogy efficiently. Another option is to provide instructors with "existing or exemplary curriculum materials … to help [them] define the goals and design task" [4]. In any case, ongoing support and guidance by external facilitators and specialists improved instructors' overall learning during the design process [4, 10]. Voogt et al. also discuss the importance of maintaining an explicit focus on implementation during the design process, but curriculum implementation ultimately hinges on "teachers' ownership of and their knowledge about reform ideas" [10]. In other words, instructors are more likely to adopt and use, over the lon‐ ger term, curricular changes in which they are involved [2, 3].

Building from these foundations, and desiring to facilitate the support needs required for curriculum adoption, we have built two follow‐up workshops into our BE&E curriculum design process. We designed these conferences to provide ongoing support for instructors facing unforeseen contextual challenges and to build the network in a continuous fashion. Additional support is provided through a curriculum specialist at Utah State University, and a website that cultivates a community of curriculum adopters.

#### **2.3. Description of the contagion model**

Given the indication in the literature of the substantial value of collaboration in the curricu‐ lum design process, we were further interested in how significant adoption of collaboratively designed curriculum might be facilitated. We take our basic approach from an observation from Sorenson and colleagues and our own experience that "knowledge spreads from its source not in concentric circles, but along conduits laid by social connections". New innova‐ tions are adopted in a manner that resembles an epidemic spreading through a population, moving slowly at first but later engulfing nearly the entire population [11]. Social connections and proximity to the original source affect where new innovations in education are adopted, and the rate at which they spread [12].

Without adopting the epidemic analogy in its entirety, our expectations for the collaborative contagion model share in many aspects of Sorenson et al.'s description of knowledge spreading [11]. Curricular contagion begins at the collaborative design conferences, disruptive innovation workshops (DIWs) and relies on the efforts of workshop attendees and their own individual networks. After the workshops, which are designed in part to create a working community of conference attendees, we provide support for instructors to refine, adopt, and share developed materials with their colleagues. Deploying a curriculum through established networks enables us to reach a variety of new faculty, students, entrepreneurs, and policy makers well beyond the people who attended our events.

Our own experience suggests that the dissemination of these curricular materials, their adap‐ tation and implementation has been far more successful in navigating the internal politics, accreditation requirements, and general inertia against innovation precisely because they are the product of ongoing collaboration between faculty members rather than simply curriculum supplied by an outside group. At its essence, the collaborative approach provides a natural review process where every instructor using the materials is free to adapt, modify, and then share those modifications with their collaborators in the process.

### **2.4. Comparing and contrasting CDIs and DIWs**

In addition to limitations on time and knowledge, instructors often lack the design expertise required for curriculum development [10]. Incorporating design specialists into TDTs enables instructors to apply their knowledge, skills, and contextual understanding to content and pedagogy efficiently. Another option is to provide instructors with "existing or exemplary curriculum materials … to help [them] define the goals and design task" [4]. In any case, ongoing support and guidance by external facilitators and specialists improved instructors' overall learning during the design process [4, 10]. Voogt et al. also discuss the importance of maintaining an explicit focus on implementation during the design process, but curriculum implementation ultimately hinges on "teachers' ownership of and their knowledge about reform ideas" [10]. In other words, instructors are more likely to adopt and use, over the lon‐

Building from these foundations, and desiring to facilitate the support needs required for curriculum adoption, we have built two follow‐up workshops into our BE&E curriculum design process. We designed these conferences to provide ongoing support for instructors facing unforeseen contextual challenges and to build the network in a continuous fashion. Additional support is provided through a curriculum specialist at Utah State University,

Given the indication in the literature of the substantial value of collaboration in the curricu‐ lum design process, we were further interested in how significant adoption of collaboratively designed curriculum might be facilitated. We take our basic approach from an observation from Sorenson and colleagues and our own experience that "knowledge spreads from its source not in concentric circles, but along conduits laid by social connections". New innova‐ tions are adopted in a manner that resembles an epidemic spreading through a population, moving slowly at first but later engulfing nearly the entire population [11]. Social connections and proximity to the original source affect where new innovations in education are adopted,

Without adopting the epidemic analogy in its entirety, our expectations for the collaborative contagion model share in many aspects of Sorenson et al.'s description of knowledge spreading [11]. Curricular contagion begins at the collaborative design conferences, disruptive innovation workshops (DIWs) and relies on the efforts of workshop attendees and their own individual networks. After the workshops, which are designed in part to create a working community of conference attendees, we provide support for instructors to refine, adopt, and share developed materials with their colleagues. Deploying a curriculum through established networks enables us to reach a variety of new faculty, students, entrepreneurs, and policy makers well beyond

Our own experience suggests that the dissemination of these curricular materials, their adap‐ tation and implementation has been far more successful in navigating the internal politics, accreditation requirements, and general inertia against innovation precisely because they are the product of ongoing collaboration between faculty members rather than simply curriculum

ger term, curricular changes in which they are involved [2, 3].

and a website that cultivates a community of curriculum adopters.

**2.3. Description of the contagion model**

178 Global Voices in Higher Education

and the rate at which they spread [12].

the people who attended our events.

Our approach to facilitating collaboration is in large part rooted in the model for large‐scale e‐learning applications developed by Oxford Brookes University in 2003. In that model, course design intensives (CDIs) promote innovation and networking through curriculum design workshops. In a span of three to 4 days, CDIs yield tangible course materials as output [In a 2012 evaluation, Dempster and colleagues described how CDIs utilize extended teams alongside assistance from technologists, curriculum specialists, educational developers and subject librarians]. CDIs focus explicitly on cross‐disciplinary networking, using "multiple program teams working in parallel…" [13].

Instead of leaving lecturers to their "usual subject‐focused autonomy," CDIs encourage participants to work collaboratively at the program level, thereby engaging a wider array of stakeholders with various skills and experiences "to confront and to engage with alter‐ native and better conceptions and practices" [13]. Dempster et al. measured CDI success using tangible deliverables, confidence in and collective ownership of developed materials, networking beyond department colleagues, and conceptual and pedagogical changes for lecturers [13].

DIWs share many foundational elements with CDIs. Both workshops aim to produce tangible output in the form of modules, with another expressed goal being broadening participants' networks. Like CDIs, DIWs use parallel sets of extended teams, equipped with experts to analyze theory, discuss technical obstacles and solutions, and draft modules. Dempster et al.'s measures for successful CDIs apply equally to our internal measures for gauging curricular contagion [14].

Unlike DWIs, CDIs "are not a tactic to initiate change or raise awareness" [14].<sup>1</sup> We intend our DIWs to change the delivery and design of BE&E courses through heightened awareness and outreach. The contagion effect depends on participants' willingness and ability to share resources and improve BE&E course quality.

The composition of teams also differs between CDIs and DIWs. The CDIs reviewed by Dempster et al. assembled teams from faculty and staff at a single university. Our DIWs, on the other hand, hosted educators from multiple institutions ranging in size, approach, scope, and location. It was our goal to create an environment that would address a broad range of programmatic needs heretofore inhibited by geographic and institutional siloing, thereby encouraging nationwide curriculum adoption.

<sup>1</sup> While this is generally true, there are small exceptions. La Trobe University, for example, has used CDIs for curriculum renewal purposes [14].
