Although knowledge about effective teaching and learning exists, and theories of change strategies are considered, the lack of the understanding of the behavior of engineering faculty during curricular change remains a major contributor against robust efforts for change. In this work, faculty adaptability is conceptualized as self-regulation during curricular change. Faculty participants were recruited from two divergent curricular change contexts: one that is prescribed with interdependence while the other is emergent with uncertainty. In this study, attitude toward context’s strength is conceptualized along the four dimensions of clarity, consistency, constraints, and consequences of the context, while faculty’s self-efficacy and willingness for adaptability are conceptualized along the three dimensions of planning, reflecting, and adjusting. This study uses a mixed method, quantitative-qualitative, sequential explanatory research design. The quantitative phase addresses the question of “How does faculty group in the first context differ from faculty group in the second context in terms of self-efficacy and willingness for planning, adjusting, and reflecting?” The qualitative phase addresses the question of “How do faculty respond to curricular change, as exhibited in their activities of planning, adjusting, and reflecting during change?” Findings point to differences in patterns of correlations between attitude toward context with both self-efficacy and willingness across the two contexts, even though analysis showed no significant differences between attitude toward context, self-efficacy, and willingness across the two contexts. Moreover, faculty participants’ willingness for adjusting, in both contexts, was not correlated with neither attitude toward context’s clarity nor constraints. Furthermore, in the prescribed context, Group A faculty (self-identified as Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, or Adjunct Faculty) showed higher willingness for planning, adjusting, and reflecting activities, compared to Group B faculty (self-identified as Assistant, Associate or Full Professors). Also, in the prescribed context, Group A faculty showed no overall significant correlation with attitude toward context. This study has implications on the way change is conceived of, designed, and implemented, when special attention is given to faculty as key change agents. Without the comprehensive understanding of the adaptability of faculty as key change agents in the educational system, the effective enacting of curricular change initiatives will remain unfulfilled.