“Application of Kotter’s 8-Step Change Management Model and Administrative Strategies for Effective Curriculum Change in Universities”. A Systematic Literature Review

“Application of Kotter’s 8-Step Change Management Model and Administrative Strategies for Effective Curriculum Change in Universities”. A Systematic Literature Review

Mercy M. Mugambi, Phylisters D. Matula

Faculty of education University of Nairobi

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9010277

Received: 06 January 2025; Accepted: 10 January 2025; Published: 15 February 2025

ABSTRACT

The rapid evolution of global educational demands implies the need for continuous curriculum changes in higher education institutions to remain responsive to evolving social need and educational trends. The implementation of such reforms typically create substantial institutional and administrative problems, therefore universities must adopt effective strategies to ensure global competitiveness. The paper is based on systematic literature review through analysis of existing literature, case studies, and theoretical frameworks from a global perspective to explore how each stage of Kotter’s model can be applied to address common obstacles  faced in curriculum change such as: regulatory or policy barriers; institutional bureaucracy and governance; balancing tradition and innovation; faculty opposition due to concerns over increased burden of workload, loss of autonomy, or doubts regarding the need for change; lack of stakeholder engagement; funding and resource constraints; time constraints; communication barriers; changing student expectations; and assessment and evaluation. The analysis emphasizes the necessity of strong leadership, active stakeholder participation, and transparent communication in managing curriculum changes successfully.

Through an in-depth synthesis of academic and practical sources, the paper concludes with recommendations for administrators aiming to improve curriculum change processes to adopting structured change management practices. This review offers ideas for higher education administrators and policymakers as intellectual basis for defining a vision and strategic direction which is evidence-based and is also a contribution to the larger conversation on educational change management.

Keywords: Curriculum change, Change Management, Kotter’s 8-step change management model, administrative strategies, Universities, Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION

World over, systems of education are adopting the Competency Based Curriculum which translates to Competency Based Education and Training for universities to align education more closely with the skills and competencies needed in the modern workforce. Curriculum change involves revising and updating educational content, goals, teaching methods, and assessment strategies to align with evolving educational objectives and societal needs. This process often mirrors changes in knowledge, teaching practices, cultural values, and technology (Miller, 2020). Implementing curriculum change is complex and requires collaboration among various stakeholders, including teachers, administrators, policymakers, and communities, to ensure the curriculum meets current standards and learners’ needs. The overall goal of curriculum change is to improve educational outcomes and to equip learners with the 21^st century skills essential for learners to succeed in a globalized world. Curriculum change aims to enhance the relevance, inclusivity, and adaptability of education systems, fostering students’ critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration skills (Fullan, 2007; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Ornstein & Hunkins,2018; OECD,2020; Sahlberg and Walker, 2021 and UNESCO,2022). However, we need to keep in mind that curriculum change is a complex, multi-dimensional process that demands not only content updates but also strategic management to achieve effective and lasting transformation. The implementation of such reforms typically create substantial institutional and administrative problems among these, resistance to change, inadequate or lack of resources, limited collaboration across education levels, insufficient professional development, institutional politics, bureaucratic hurdles, maintaining momentum and ensuring that all stakeholders remain committed to the change over time (Oloruntegbe, 2011; Priestley et al, 2015; Hall and Hord,2019 and UNESCO, 2021).  Kotter’s Model for change Management stands out among various change frameworks since it provides a structured approach that takes into account both the technical and human components of change (Kotter, 2012; Bassey, 2016; Scharmer, 2018). The systematic literature review examines the application of Kotter’s 8-Step Change Management Model within university settings, with a particular focus on how its principles and related administrative strategies can enable effective curriculum change. By analyzing recent studies and case examples, this paper seeks to highlight critical success factors, potential challenges, and best practices for implementing Kotter’s model in higher education. Through synthesizing existing literature, this review offers university administrators, policymakers, and educators valuable insights into how Kotter’s model, alongside effective administrative strategies, can promote responsive and sustainable curriculum reform in universities.

Kotter’s 8-Step Change Management Model

This model provides a clear sequence that promotes urgency, establishes a guiding coalition, creates and communicates a vision, empowers action, and solidifies new practices within the organizational culture thereby providing actionable steps that help create the conditions necessary for successful change (Kotter, 1996; Kotter, 2012).

1. Create a sense of urgency: due to evolving educational needs or market demands, curriculum reforms are necessary. In this regard, administrators must highlight the need for change. without a strong rationale for change, stakeholders are unlikely to participate in the curriculum change process. This sense of urgency can be fostered through data-driven evaluations of current performance and by clearly communicating the potential risks of not addressing existing issues. In their study “Building a Culture of Urgency for Curriculum Change in Kenyan Universities: Challenges and Opportunities” Kiptoo and Muga (2021) found that a culture of accountability and shared responsibility among faculty and administration fostered urgency. However, the study pointed out that entrenched traditions and fear of change created significant obstacles to building this culture. Akinyi and Ochieng (2020) surveyed on the “Strategies for Generating Urgency in Curriculum Development in Kenyan Universities.” Findings indicate that leveraging external pressures, such as accreditation requirements and global educational standards, effectively increased urgency among faculty and administration. Additionally, the study revealed that recognizing and celebrating early successes in curriculum changes helped sustain the urgency over time. A study by Masese (2019) on “Understanding Faculty Perceptions of Urgency in Curriculum Change at Kenyan Universities.” Found that faculty members were more likely to feel a sense of urgency when they perceived a direct impact on student outcomes and employability. The study also emphasized that open communication and transparency from leadership regarding the reasons for change fostered a heightened sense of urgency. A study on The Role of Institutional Leadership in Fostering Urgency for Curriculum Change in Kenyan Higher Education by Ngoya & Nyakundi (2018) highlighted that strong leadership is crucial in establishing a sense of urgency for curriculum change. Leaders who communicated a clear rationale for change and involved faculty in the decision-making process were more successful in creating urgency. The study noted that faculty engagement through workshops and meetings significantly improved the sense of urgency, although bureaucratic hurdles often delayed implementation.” Ochieng (2017) study on “Creating Urgency for Curriculum Reforms in Kenyan Universities. “found that emphasizing the need for relevance to job market demands and global standards was effective in mobilizing stakeholders. The study also identified that sharing data on student performance and employer feedback significantly increased the perceived need for urgent change. However, resistance from faculty and lack of a clear vision were identified as challenges. Fullan (2001) highlighted the necessity of urgency in educational reform, stating that it must be accompanied by a clear vision on what the change entails. He argues that a sense of urgency helps to overcome resistance and galvanize support from educators and stakeholders, making it essential for successful curriculum change. A study by Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) examining the role of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards technology integration as part of curriculum change found that establishing a sense of urgency about the necessity for technology integration was crucial in motivating teachers to adopt new teaching strategies. By emphasizing how technology affects student engagement and learning outcomes, leaders can establish a strong justification for change.

2. Build a guiding coalition: University leaders should form a coalition of influential stakeholders, including faculty, administrators, and external partners, to drive the change. DuFour and DuFour (2016) on the study “Collaborative Teams: The Key to Successful Curriculum Change.” Found that collaborative teams are essential for successful curriculum change. The authors highlight that shared leadership, a focus on student learning, and ongoing communication are critical. Effective teams leverage data to guide their decision-making and foster accountability among members. Additionally, the study highlights that collaboration boosts teacher efficacy and supports professional development. A study that explored the establishment of collaborative learning communities within Kenyan universities to facilitate curriculum change by Oduor (2021) indicates that such communities enhanced professional growth and fostered a culture of continuous improvement among faculty. The study highlighted that regular workshops and meetings were crucial for sustaining collaboration, though limited institutional support posed challenges. Mwangi and Ng’eno (2020) study “Collaboration in Curriculum Development: A Case Study of Kenyan Universities.” found that collaborative teams fostered innovative ideas and improved curriculum relevance to industry needs. The study emphasized that effective collaboration resulted in greater engagement from stakeholders, including students and employers; however, challenges such as bureaucratic red tape slowed down the decision-making process. Aduol and Akinyi (2020) studied on “Challenges and Strategies for Collaborative Curriculum Change in Kenyan Universities.” The findings revealed that while collaboration could lead to more effective curriculum delivery, factors such as institutional policies, communication gaps, and resistance to change hindered progress. The study recommended strategies like capacity building and creating a supportive environment to enhance collaborative efforts. Karanja and Sigei (2019) from their study on “The Role of Collaborative Curriculum Development in Enhancing Quality Education in Kenyan Universities” found that collaborative curriculum development processes among faculty members enhanced the quality of education offered. The study underscored the significance of teamwork in incorporating interdisciplinary approaches and maintaining curricula that are aligned with global trends. However, the study pointed out that limited time for collaboration due to heavy workloads posed a significant barrier. Mokaya (2018) studies the “Impact of Team-Based Learning on Curriculum Implementation in Kenyan Universities” with findings revealing that collaborative learning teams led to improved student engagement and academic performance. Faculty members reported that working in teams enables them to share resources and best practices, which enriched the learning experience. However, varying levels of commitment among faculty members affected the overall effectiveness of teamwork. A study by Sifuna (2016) on “Challenges of Curriculum Implementation in Kenyan Secondary Schools revealed that collaboration among teachers enabled them to tackle challenges like insufficient resources and varying levels of preparedness. It emphasized that effective communication and teamwork are essential to successfully overcoming these obstacles leading to effective curriculum implementation

3. Develop a vision and strategy: Clear goals for curriculum change and a well-structured strategy must be communicated to all stakeholders to ensure alignment. Kenya’s universities are implementing curriculum reforms to align higher education with national development goals, driven by the need to develop a knowledge-based economy and foster skills that meet regional and global demands. University curricula in Kenya are increasingly designed to align with Vision 2030, which envisions Kenya as a middle-income, industrialized economy fueled by technological advancement and innovation (Government of Kenya, 2018). To support this goal, universities are prioritizing the development of essential skills in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), as well as in entrepreneurship and digital literacy, equipping students to meet evolving industry needs and contribute effectively to a modern economy (UNESCO, 2023a). A World Bank report indicates that Kenyan universities are embracing innovative teaching approaches, such as blended and online learning, to enhance curriculum delivery and increase access to higher education. These reforms align with the country’s broader national development goals and reflect a strategic initiative to position Kenya as a knowledge-driven economy. By advancing education and updating curricula, these efforts aim to meet contemporary educational demands (World Bank, 2021).

In addition, Kenyan universities are increasingly integrating research and innovation into their curricula to promote problem-solving skills and foster creative thinking. This approach encourages both faculty and students to engage in research projects that tackle the country’s economic, environmental, and social issues. Such efforts contribute to building a knowledge economy and nurture an entrepreneurial mindset among graduates

4. Communicate the vision: Consistent, transparent communication about the change process is essential, which helps reduce resistance and promotes buy-in. Research by Fullan (2007) on educational change emphasizes the importance of transparent communication in curriculum reform. Clear and consistent messaging can address concerns, clarify misconceptions, and build a collaborative culture around the new curriculum. Studies show that when teachers and administrators understand the purpose of the changes, they are more likely to be engaged and proactive in implementation​. A UNESCO report on curriculum reform across multiple countries, including Kenya, highlights that insufficient communication often leads to delays or failures in implementing curriculum changes. The report emphasizes that universities that consistently provide updates, host workshops, and facilitate open forums for discussion on curriculum changes are generally more successful in ensuring faculty and students are aligned with and supportive of the new vision (UNESCO, 2023b). According to a World Bank (2021) report engaging all stakeholders through regular, clear communication is critical in aligning university curricula with national goals like Kenya’s Vision 2030. This approach allows universities to gather feedback, foster understanding, and create an environment where everyone is prepared and motivated for change.

5. Empower broad-based action: Remove barriers (like insufficient resources or rigid policies) that could hinder the implementation of the new curriculum. Administrators need to empower staff to take ownership of the changes. The study by Mungai (2021) emphasizes that weak leadership is a significant barrier to the successful implementation of reforms in Kenyan universities, often resulting in resistance from both faculty and students. To facilitate a smoother transition, it is crucial for effective leaders to clearly communicate the vision for change and actively support faculty throughout the process. This aligns with findings from other studies that underscore the importance of strong leadership in driving educational reforms (Jumba & Muriuki, 2020; World Bank, 2021). Leaders in higher education must be proactive in addressing policy barriers and promoting a culture that embraces innovation and continuous improvement within the curriculum. ​ A study by Jumba and Muriuki (2020) emphasizes the need for professional development programs for faculty to equip them with the skills necessary to implement new curricula effectively. The authors note that resistance to change is often rooted in a lack of confidence among educators regarding new teaching methods and content​. A study by Nyabundi and Okwiri (2019) identified inadequate funding and limited resources as major obstacles to effective curriculum change in Kenyan universities. They recommend that institutions prioritize the allocation of resources to enhance new curriculum initiatives, particularly in areas such as technology, instructional materials, and infrastructure. This finding aligns with researches highlighting the importance of adequate support for successful educational reforms (Mungai, 2021; Jumba & Muriuki, 2020).

6. Generate short-term wins: Celebrate early successes in the change process (e.g., positive feedback on pilot programs or faculty training), which can build momentum. Research by Jumba and Muriuki (2020) emphasizes that demonstrating early successes in curriculum changes can help build trust among faculty and students. When stakeholders see tangible results, they are more likely to support and actively participate in the ongoing reform process. This sense of progress can mitigate resistance and enhance collaboration. A World Bank report (2021) highlights the significance of quick wins in engaging stakeholders throughout the curriculum reform process. By showcasing successful initiatives, universities can garner support from faculty, students, and the broader community, which in turn facilitates the implementation of more comprehensive changes in the future. This strategy is supported by findings from Jumba and Muriuki (2020), who indicate that demonstrating early successes builds trust and fosters collaboration among all involved parties. Aligning university curricula with national development objectives is crucial for realizing Kenya’s Vision 2030, and demonstrating short-term successes plays a key role in this process. By showcasing these initial achievements, universities can reinforce the significance of reforms and highlight their relevance to the country’s economic and social aspirations. This approach not only validates the importance of curriculum changes but also fosters ongoing investment and support from stakeholders (Mungai, 2021; Jumba & Muriuki, 2020) ​.

7. Consolidate gains and produce more change: After initial success, administrators should continue to address challenges, making necessary adjustments to ensure long-term sustainability. According to Mungai (2021), a clear strategic vision is essential for consolidating gains. Universities need to create frameworks that not only recognize short-term wins but also outline the steps for further development and innovation in the curriculum. This alignment with national objectives is vital for maintaining stakeholder support. A World Bank report (2021) highlights that consolidating gains often requires ongoing investment in resources, such as training for faculty and updates to technology and infrastructure. This investment ensures that initial successes can be built upon and expanded into more comprehensive curriculum changes​. Jumba and Muriuki (2020) stress the importance of involving faculty and students in the consolidation process. When stakeholders feel a sense of ownership regarding the changes, they are more inclined to positively contribute to further curricular developments. This engagement not only enhances collaboration but also eases the transition to more comprehensive reforms, as noted in the literature on effective change management in educational settings (Mungai, 2021; World Bank, 2021).

8. Embed new approaches deeply within the organizational culture to ensure they become lasting practices. This can be achieved through ongoing professional development and revisions of institutional policies. Jumba and Muriuki (2020) highlight that embedding new curricular approaches into the existing culture of an institution can facilitate acceptance and support among faculty and students. They argue that when curricular changes resonate with the values and practices of the university community, it fosters a smoother implementation process.​ Mungai (2021) highlights the importance of fostering an institutional culture within universities that prioritizes continuous improvement and innovation. By establishing an environment that promotes experimentation and adaptability, universities can effectively integrate new curriculum initiatives and enhance their long-term viability. Additionally, Mungai (2021) emphasizes the need for universities to revise their policies in order to facilitate innovative teaching and learning methods. This adaptation involves developing flexible curricular frameworks that encourage experimentation and the integration of new pedagogical approaches. By updating existing policies, universities can more effectively address emerging educational trends and cater for the diverse needs of their student populations, aligning with the recommendations of Nyabundi and Okwiri (2019), who argue that responsive policy frameworks are crucial for meaningful curriculum reform. Well-defined policy frameworks are essential for guiding curriculum reforms in Kenyan universities. The authors argue that policy changes should focus on aligning educational practices with national goals, ensuring that curricula meet the needs of the economy and society. This alignment helps to secure stakeholder buy-in and fosters a conducive environment for reform.

Utilization of Kotter’s model by universities and Researchers

In an effort to transform Siloed Education structure to a culture of interprofessionalism, Rush University Medical Center in Chicago applied the model as follows:

1. Create a Sense of Urgency: The need for inter professional education (IPE) was emphasized due to evolving healthcare demands and accreditation requirements.
2. Build a Guiding Coalition: Leaders from various departments, including the President and Provosts, formed a coalition to drive the change.
3. Form a Strategic Vision: The vision was to integrate IPE into the university’s curriculum, fostering collaboration among different healthcare disciplines.
4. Enlist a Volunteer Army: Faculty and staff were encouraged to participate in developing and implementing the IPE curriculum.
5. Enable Action by Removing Barriers: Barriers such as lack of time and resources were addressed by securing funding and support for the IPE office.
6. Generate Short-Term Wins: Early successes included the approval of the IPE curriculum as a quality improvement initiative and its inclusion in the university’s strategic plan.
7. Sustain Acceleration: Continuous improvements were made, and the IPE curriculum was expanded based on feedback and evolving needs.
8. Institute Change: The IPE curriculum became a required part of the education program, embedded in the university’s vision, mission, and strategic plan

Another case is that of Private universities in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam which aimed to improve faculty capacity to support diverse student success. Where the steps were applied as follows:

1. Create a Sense of Urgency: The increasing demand for high-quality education and the need to support diverse student populations created a sense of urgency.
2. Build a Guiding Coalition: A team of educational administrators and faculty leaders was formed to guide the change process.
3. Form a Strategic Vision: The vision was to enhance faculty capacity through targeted professional development and support initiatives.
4. Enlist a Volunteer Army: Faculty members were encouraged to participate in professional development programs and contribute to the change efforts.
5. Enable Action by Removing Barriers: Barriers such as lack of training and resources were addressed through comprehensive support and development programs.
6. Generate Short-Term Wins: Early achievements included increased faculty engagement in professional development and improved teaching practices.
7. Sustain Acceleration: The change efforts were continuously refined and expanded based on ongoing feedback and data analysis.
8. Institute Change: The new faculty development programs were integrated into the universities’ routine operations, ensuring sustained improvements in teaching quality

In “Implementing Change in Public Sector Organizations: A Case Study of Strategic Renewal through Kotter’s 8-Step Model”, Caldwell, et al (2008) investigated the practical application of the model in the context of public sector reform key findings indicate that:

1. Strong leadership and a clearly defined vision were essential for initiating and sustaining change. Leaders who effectively communicated the purpose and benefits of the reform succeeded in building momentum among employees and reducing resistance.
2. Engagement and Buy-in Through Stepwise Implementation following Kotter’s structured 8-step model allowed leaders to strategically engage employees at each phase. This stepwise approach facilitated incremental buy-in and kept employees focused on achievable goals, building commitment to the reform process.
3. Assembling a guiding coalition of key stakeholders early in the change process was crucial. This coalition helped to advocate for the change, model the desired behaviors, and provide support throughout the organization.
4. By establishing open communication channels and sharing frequent updates, leaders reduced employees’ resistance to the reform. Transparent communication around the change process was linked to greater understanding, support, and trust within the organization.
5. Short-term Wins were motivation boosters thus achieving and celebrating small, short-term victories helped maintain motivation and morale, which were critical in the lengthy public sector reform. These wins also served as proof points to demonstrate that change efforts were yielding tangible results.
6. Institutionalizing and sustaining changes proved difficult with many public sector organizations often struggling with embedding new practices into the organizational culture, which risks backsliding into old routines.

A study by Pollack and Pollack (2015) analyzed the practical application of Kotter’s 8-Step Change Management Model in a real-world organizational setting, with a focus on a change program in a large corporation. The study:

1. Confirms the effectiveness of Kotter’s model in providing a structured, step-by-step approach for managing organizational change. The model was particularly helpful in guiding the organization through complex changes and ensuring consistency across departments.
2. Highlights that while Kotter’s model generally worked well in its intended sequence, some flexibility was necessary. Managers occasionally had to revisit earlier steps, such as “creating a vision” and “communicating for buy-in,” to reinforce the change message or address emerging resistance.
3. Found that the initial steps of creating a sense of urgency and building a guiding coalition were essential for gaining the support of employees and key stakeholders. These steps helped establish the foundational momentum needed for the program’s success and ensured the commitment of influential leaders.
4. Confirms that recognizing and celebrating short-term wins was vital for maintaining morale and sustaining employee engagement throughout the change process. These wins provided visible evidence of progress and encouraged further participation from employees.
5. Observed that institutionalizing the change was challenging. While the change program achieved initial successes, ensuring that new practices were embedded into the organization’s culture required additional time, effort, and follow-up actions beyond Kotter’s framework.
6. Notes that effective communication by leaders, particularly in explaining the “why” behind the change, was critical in managing resistance and enhancing acceptance of the program. Leaders who consistently communicated the benefits of the change helped reduce employee anxiety and resistance.
7. Highlights that Kotter’s model needed to be adapted to fit the organization’s unique needs. Pollack and Pollack note that leaders sometimes needed to go beyond the model’s steps, integrating other tools and techniques to support the change process.

The study by Jones and Reilly (2017) which applied Kotter’s model to encourage student-centered learning in curriculum reform found that building urgency around the need for curriculum relevance and achieving early successes in pilot programs helped in gaining buy-in from faculty and students.

A study by Chen and Kramer (2018) examined how Kotter’s model guided the shift to digital and hybrid curricula at a university. The study confirmed that the model’s structured approach helped address resistance to online learning by emphasizing the importance of short-term wins and coalition-building among faculty and administrators.

Galli (2018) conducted a comparative analysis of widely recognized change management frameworks, such as Kotter’s 8-Step Model and Lewin’s Change Model and ADKAR, assessing their utility and challenges when applied in real-life organizational settings. Major findings reveal that:

1. Kotter’s 8-Step Model is particularly effective in structured and hierarchical environments, such as large corporations or government organizations. The model’s stepwise nature helps create order, sequence, and predictability in managing complex change processes.
2. Kotter’s model stands out for its emphasis on building a sense of urgency and forming guiding coalitions, both of which are seen as essential to initiating and driving change forward. The study highlights that these initial stages are often pivotal for gaining early buy-in and aligning stakeholders with the change vision.
3. The importance of cultural adaptation, noting that Kotter’s model—and change models generally – may struggle in contexts with differing cultural norms around authority, communication, and collective decision-making. Leaders may need to adjust or combine steps to ensure cultural alignment and better relevance to specific organizational climates.
4. In line with other studies, Galli notes that institutionalizing change remains a common challenge across models, including Kotter’s. Long-term sustainability of change often requires continuous reinforcement and additional strategies that may fall outside the scope of the original model.

Cameron and Green (2020) examined how Kotter’s 8-Step Change Management Model was applied to drive change in higher education, focusing on faculty engagement in a curriculum reform initiative. The study found that:

1. Creating a sense of urgency was particularly effective in motivating faculty to engage with the change process. Faculty members responded positively when they understood the need for reform to address educational demands and remain competitive in a changing academic landscape.
2. Developing a shared vision collaboratively with faculty members contributed significantly to their buy-in. By involving faculty in the visioning process, the institution was able to align the curriculum changes with faculty values and professional goals, leading to greater acceptance and commitment.
3. Building a guiding coalition of influential faculty leaders was critical to the success of the change process. These leaders served as advocates for change, providing support to colleagues, clarifying misunderstandings, and maintaining momentum throughout the initiative.
4. Consistent and transparent communication was significant in reducing resistance and fostering trust. Leaders used multiple channels to communicate updates, respond to faculty concerns, and clarify goals, which kept faculty members informed and engaged at each stage.
5. Celebrating short-term wins, such as successful pilot programs or positive student feedback on revised curriculum elements, was essential for maintaining faculty morale. These incremental achievements demonstrated the tangible benefits of change and motivated faculty to continue participating in the process.
6. Challenges in sustaining change in institutionalization phase to this end sustaining the curriculum changes required ongoing reinforcement and support mechanisms to ensure faculty continued to adopt and adapt to the new curriculum standards
7. While Kotter’s model was generally effective, certain steps required adaptation in Higher Education context. Faculty engagement required a more decentralized approach, with flexibility in timing and emphasis on collaboration, compared to the more hierarchical application seen in corporate settings.
8. To embed changes fully, the study noted the importance of investing in faculty development programs. These programs equipped faculty with the necessary skills and confidence to effectively implement new teaching practices, ensuring the sustainability of the change

A study by Allen and Wright (2021) “Adapting Kotter’s Change Management Model to Graduate Curriculum Reform” found that guiding coalition, led by department chairs and faculty leaders, was instrumental in aligning curriculum goals and achieving short-term wins to validate changes in real-time.

Another study by Lopez and Grant (2021) Applying Kotter’s Model to Build Inclusivity in Curriculum Reform found that the steps of creating a guiding coalition and celebrating short-term wins were particularly effective in securing faculty commitment and embedding inclusive practices in curriculum content.

Weaknesses of the Kotter’s Change Management Model

Studies Caldwell et al,2008; Pollack and Pollack ,2015; Galli ,2018; and Cameron and Green ,2020) indicate some weaknesses of the model as:

1. An overemphasis on linear progression may not always align with the iterative nature of real-world change projects. Galli suggests that successful application often requires revisiting previous steps or adapting the order, which traditional change models may not accommodate well.
2. Inflexibility in dynamic or rapidly changing environments. The rigid steps may not adapt well to projects requiring agile responses, making it challenging for leaders in volatile or startup settings.
3. Institutionalizing change remains a common challenge. Long-term sustainability of change often requires continuous reinforcement and additional strategies that may fall outside the scope of the model.

Despite these weaknesses, this model provides a holistic approach that university administrators can follow to manage curriculum changes effectively, addressing both the challenges and strategic solutions within the institution.

Adaptability of Kotter’s model in different cultural and institutional contexts

The effectiveness of the model largely hinges on its adaptation to the unique characteristics of the organization or sector and is thus widely recognized for its adaptability across different contexts. According to Kotter (1996), the model was Originally developed for corporate settings to guide organizational transformation, the model has been effectively utilized in businesses to enhance operational efficiency, adopt new technologies, and drive cultural shifts. In the education sector, Kotter’s model has been applied to drive curriculum reforms, facilitate technology integration, and enhance teaching methodologies. Its structured approach is instrumental in overcoming resistance to change and fostering stakeholder alignment within hierarchical frameworks (Deißinger, T., & Gonon, P. (2016). In public administration, the model has been used to address bureaucratic resistance and ensure stakeholder buy-in for policy changes (Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G.2006). Kotter’s model has been tailored by NGOs to strengthen community engagement, optimize operational processes, and execute strategic initiatives. Its iterative steps offer a practical framework for navigating change, particularly in resource-limited settings. In the sector of Technology and Innovation, the model has played a pivotal role in facilitating digital transformations, including the adoption of new software systems and shifts in business strategies. Its step-by-step approach enables organizations to stay agile and focused during periods of rapid change (Thite, (2004).   Final but not least, Healthcare organizations have adapted Kotter’s model for implementing patient-centered care, digitizing health records, and promoting inter professional collaboration. The model’s emphasis on communication and short-term wins is crucial in high-stakes environments like healthcare (Small, & Rentschler,2000). The aforementioned points highlight that the model can be adapted in regard to; cultural adaptation, institutional contexts, iterative approaches and resource constraints

CONCLUSION

The review confirms that Kotter’s Model provides a strong framework for managing curriculum changes in universities with each step – such as creating urgency, forming coalitions, developing a vision, and celebrating short-term wins—playing a pivotal role in driving successful change. Effective administrative strategies, including committed leadership, resource allocation, and ongoing faculty development, are essential to support the implementation of Kotter’s model. The literature emphasizes that engaging faculty and stakeholders through transparent communication and participatory processes helps to reduce resistance and fosters a collaborative culture. Establishing a guiding coalition with diverse perspectives ensures that curriculum changes are relevant and widely supported. A key challenge identified is the sustainability of curriculum changes beyond the initial implementation; therefore, continuous monitoring, evaluation, and reinforcement are needed to embed new practices and secure lasting commitment from faculty and administration. The review also highlights the importance of adapting Kotter’s model to specific university contexts, as factors like institutional culture, faculty dynamics, and external pressures necessitate a flexible approach to implementing curriculum changes effectively.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To address financial limitations administrators should adopt innovative funding approaches by seeking partnerships, grants, and non-monetary contributions from private sector organizations.
2. Administrators should ensure effective monitoring and evaluation by designing straightforward and quantifiable metrics to track progress, enabling timely adjustments.
3. To address rapidly changing educational environments, crisis management protocols should be put in place by establishing robust plans to navigate unexpected disruptions.
4. Administration in universities should delegate authority to departmental teams, allowing them to tailor strategies to their specific needs while maintaining alignment with institutional objectives.
5. Administrators should acknowledge that every university possesses distinct cultural, social, and structural characteristics. They should adapt Kotter’s model with flexibility, considering the institution’s culture, faculty dynamics, and external factors to ensure that the model aligns effectively with the university’s specific context.
6. Practitioners and university leaders are advised to implement a systematic approach when applying Kotter’s model in conjunction with administrative strategies. Drawing on insights from existing literature can help universities strengthen their ability to manage curriculum change effectively and meet shifting educational requirements.
7. Galli (2018) notably recommends using a combination of models to address limitations within individual frameworks. For instance, integrating Kotter’s steps with the ADKAR model’s focus on building awareness and desire offers a more comprehensive approach to change, accommodating both structured and adaptable elements of the process.
8. University administrators should demonstrate a firm commitment to curricular change by active participation in the process, clear guidance, and reaffirmation of the change’s significance. To encourage trust and dedication among stakeholders, leadership should be evident at every stage of the model.
9. Investing in Faculty Development: It is important to give faculty members access to ongoing professional development programs that will give them the tools, resources, and expertise they need to successfully implement new curriculum. To promote transition readiness, this could involve training sessions, workshops, and group planning.
10. Establishing open communication channels to raise awareness of the change’s goals and benefits, and maintain consistent, transparent communication with all stakeholders, particularly students and faculty. Frequent updates and public forums may allay worries, offer clarification, and guarantee that everyone is on board with the curriculum change vision.
11. Form a guiding coalition with representatives from various departments and roles within the university to incorporate diverse perspectives into the decision-making process. This coalition can help legitimize the curriculum change process, making it more inclusive and pertinent
12. Universities should establish monitoring and evaluation systems to consistently assess and report on the progress of the curriculum change. These systems should incorporate measurable objectives and feedback loops to guarantee that the implementation aligns with the desired outcomes and facilitates necessary adjustments.
13. To avoid reverting to outdated practices, universities should integrate the new curriculum into their institutional routines and support systems. This may include adjusting policies, offering incentives to faculty who successfully implement changes, and conducting follow-up evaluations to ensure the sustainability of new practices.
14. Faculties should develop feedback mechanisms that enable faculty and students to share their experiences regarding the curriculum change process. This feedback is essential for ongoing improvement, ensuring that the curriculum change stays attuned to the needs of those directly involved or affected by it.

RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The paper highlights the necessity for empirical research to investigate the long-term impacts of Kotter’s model on curriculum change outcomes. It recommends exploring specific case studies to uncover best practices and insights gained across different higher education contexts. Future studies could be conducted on:

1. How the Kotter’s model can be adapted to fit the unique structure, culture, and governance of higher learning institutions
2. Integration of Technology and Kotter’s Model in Higher Education
3. Application of Kotter’s model for implementation of Competence Based Education and Training in resource-constrained universities in Kenya.

REFERENCES

1. Aduol, A., & Akinyi, B. (2020). Challenges and strategies for collaborative curriculum change in Kenyan universities.
2. Akinyi, B., & Ochieng, J. (2020). Strategies for generating urgency in curriculum development in Kenyan universities.
3. Allen, J., & Wright, D. (2021). Adapting Kotter’s change management model to graduate curriculum reform. Educational Research Review, 19(3), 276-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100305.
4. Bassey, M. (2016). Applying Kotter’s eight-step process for leading change in a public academic institution. Journal of Educational Change,17(3), 275-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9283-7.
5. Caldwell, S. D., Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2008). Implementing change in public sector organizations: A case study of strategic renewal through Kotter’s 8-step model. Public Management Review, 10(1), 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030701763656.
6. Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2020). Leading change in higher education using Kotter’s 8-step model: An analysis of faculty engagement. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(5), 975-989. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2019-0368.
7. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass.
8. Deißinger, T., & Gonon, P. (2016). Educational transfer as transformation: A case study on curriculum reform in vocational education in Switzerland. Comparative Education, 52(2), 175-192.
9. DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2016). Collaborative teams: The key to successful curriculum change. In Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (pp. 105-125). Solution Tree Press.
10. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551.
11. Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168-176.
12. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
13. Fullan, M. (2007). Change the system. In The new meaning of educational change (4th ed., pp. 11-28). Teachers College Press.
14. Galli, B. J. (2018). Change management models: A comparative analysis and concerns for their practical application. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), 797-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.01.003.
15. Government of Kenya. (2018). Kenya Vision 2030 and its implementation in the education sector. Nairobi: Ministry of Education.
16. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2019). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Pearson.
17. Jones, S., & Reilly, T. (2017). Applying change management models to curriculum reform: Engaging faculty and students. Innovative Higher Education, 42(4), 319-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9405-2.
18. Jumba, I. O., & Muriuki, J. M. (2020). Faculty development and curriculum change in Kenyan universities: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Education Management, 34(4), 635-645. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2019-0203.
19. Karanja, J. M., & Sigei, J. K. (2019). The role of collaborative curriculum development in enhancing quality education in Kenyan universities.
20. Kiptoo, C., & Muga, B. (2021). Building a culture of urgency for curriculum change in Kenyan universities: Challenges and opportunities.
21. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
22. Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
23. Lopez, M. S., & Grant, S. P. (2021). Applying Kotter’s model to build inclusivity in curriculum reform. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(4), 337-354. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000169
24. Masese, J. (2019). Understanding faculty perceptions of urgency in curriculum change at Kenyan universities.
25. Miller, K. (2020). Understanding curriculum change: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Education Press.
26. Mokaya, S. (2018). Impact of team-based learning on curriculum implementation in Kenyan universities.
27. Mungai, M. W. (2021). Leadership and governance challenges in implementing curriculum changes in Kenyan universities. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 6(1), 22-34.
28. Mwangi, J. K., & Ng’eno, E. (2020). Collaboration in curriculum development: A case study of Kenyan universities.
29. Ngoya, R., & Nyakundi, F. (2018). The role of institutional leadership in fostering urgency for curriculum change in Kenyan higher education.
30. Nyabundi, A. N., & Okwiri, S. E. (2019). Resource allocation and curriculum change: A case of public universities in Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 10(7), 45-52. https://doi.org/10.7176/JEP/10-7-06.
31. Ochieng, P. (2017). Creating urgency for curriculum reforms in Kenyan universities: Resistance from faculty and lack of a clear vision were identified as challenges.
32. Oduor, A. (2021). Building collaborative learning communities for curriculum change in Kenyan higher education institutions.
33. OECD. (2020). Curriculum overload: A way forward. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrs3b4b7g9j-en
34. Oloruntegbe, K. O. (2011). Teachers’ involvement, commitment, and innovativeness in curriculum development and implementation. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 2(6), 443-449.
35. Ondimu, S. M. (2018). Teachers’ Preparedness for Implementation of the Competency-Based Curriculum in Private Pre-Schools in Dagoretti North Sub-County, Nairobi City County, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(12), 86-93.
36. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Pearson.
37. Pollack, J., & Pollack, R. (2015). Using Kotter’s eight stage process to manage an organizational change program: Presentation and practice. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-015-9352-2.
38. Priestley, M., & Biesta, G. (2013). Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice. Bloomsbury Academic.
39. Sahlberg, P., & Walker, T. D. (2021). In teachers we trust: The Finnish way to world-class schools. W.W. Norton & Company.
40. Scharmer, C. O. (2018). The essentials of theory U: Core principles and applications. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
41. Sifuna, D. N. (2016). Challenges of curriculum implementation in Kenyan secondary schools. International Journal of Educational Development in Africa, 3(1), 31-49.
42. Small, A., & Rentschler, R. (2000). Organisational change and health care marketing. Journal of Management in Medicine, 14(5-6), 292-310.
43. UNESCO. (2021). Educational planning and management in a time of change. UNESCO Publishing.
44. Thite, M. (2004). Managing people in the new economy: Targeted HR practices that persuade people to unlock their knowledge power. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 28-40.
45. UNESCO. (2022). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing.
46. UNESCO. (2023a). Higher education reform in Kenya: Aligning with Vision 2030 and global competencies.
47. UNESCO. (2023b). Curriculum in transformation mode: Rethinking curriculum for the transformation of education and education systems. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387188.
48. World Bank. (2021). Kenya economic update: Enhancing STEM skills to boost innovation and industrialization. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/622581632054074666/kenya-economic-update-enhancing-stem-skills-to-boost-innovation-and-industrialization.