Managing Educational Innovations

Audrey Nicholls

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351040846
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Didattica generale

Originally published in 1983. This book deals with theories of innovation and activities of innovating and the relationships between them, and will help to clarify some of the underlying theories and enable practitioners to make a more professional response to the demands and pressures for innovation.

The book analyses some case studies of educational innovations carried out on both sides of the Atlantic and suggests what lessons might be learned from them. It stresses the importance of the active involvement of teachers in the decision-making process and emphasises the importance of a rigorous and broadly based evaluation of innovation. The controversial issue of the use of external consultants in schools is discussed. Written in a clear style, free from jargon, theories are not discussed in isolation or for their own sake, but are applied and related to educational practice.

Chapter 1

Innovation: Some Issues and Problems

To manage innovations effectively implies elements of planning, control, direction and order. Management has been analysed as involving the activities of planning, regulating, commanding, coordinating, controlling and evaluating (Urwick, 1963). The alternative to effective management of innovation is likely to result in a waste of time, money and effort and the possibility of a poorer quality of education because the desired improvement does not become a reality. Clearly, at a time of severe financial restrictions, when the most efficient use of human and material resources is essential, and at a time of increased concern about the quality of education, it becomes particularly important that those wishing to introduce educational innovations should do so as effectively as possible.

There is some evidence to suggest that attempts by teachers to innovate have not always been successful, in spite of considerable innovative activity (Gross et al., 1971; Schmuck and Miles, 1971; Smith and Keith, 1971; Bealing, 1972; Tomlinson, 1978; Nicholls, 1979). Lack of success has been seen variously as failure to implement innovations, innovation without change and the replacement of one rigid and static practice by another. Observers offer several reasons for this state of affairs. Some believe that knowledge of planned organisational change is limited (Miles, 1964a; Bennis, 1966; CERI, 1973); others believe that there is insufficient knowledge of the implementation of innovations (Hoyle, 1970; Gross et al., 1971); some argue that it is lack of attention to what is known about the processes of innovation that results in failure (Guba, 1968; McLaughlin, 1976; Nicholls, 1979).

The purpose of this book is to present knowledge and ideas about innovation drawn from several disciplines and fields of study, and to suggest how these might be applied to educational innovations, in the hope that readers might draw from it what seems relevant to their own situation. In such a complex enterprise as the promotion of educational innovation, which is so much influenced by its own particular setting and by the participants, no guarantees of success or even do-it-yourself manuals can be offered. However, what can be offered is a body of relevant knowledge and examples of previous experience which can provide the educational innovator with a more secure theoretical and practical background on which to base his decisions.

WHAT IS INNOVATION?

In everyday usage the words change and innovation are frequently used interchangeably and while this is also to be found in the literature a clear distinction between the two is also made. For example, innovation is seen as being something which is essentially new rather than a re-ordering of something which already exists into a new pattern; change calls for a response but innovation requires initiative (Owen, 1973). In the context of education this notion of innovation seems somewhat strict, especially in the light of the commonly held view that there is nothing really new in education. A more lenient view, while acknowledging that the terms change and innovation are used synonymously in schools, makes a distinction between the two and suggests that it would be incorrect to regard every change as an innovation. According to this view, an innovation must imply an improvement towards a predetermined objective and always presupposes one or more qualitative criteria (Marklund, 1972).

The literature abounds with varied and sometimes conflicting definitions of innovation, but there appears to be general agreement about three aspects: first, that it is fundamental in nature; secondly, that it is deliberate and planned; and thirdly that there is the intention of improvement. One definition, for instance, emphasises the fundamental nature of innovation when it states that any major innovation implies a change in the culture of the school so that ‘authority relationships, communication networks, status groupings, and even friendship cliques are forced to change’ if the innovation is to survive (Schmuck, 1974, p. 108).

In a frequently quoted definition deliberate planning and the improvement of performance are emphasised as characteristics of an innovation:

Generally speaking, it seems useful to define an innovation as a deliberate, novel, specific change which is thought to be more efficacious in accomplishing the goals of a system … it seems helpful to consider innovations as being planned for, rather than as occurring haphazardly. The element of novelty, implying recombination of parts or a qualitative difference from existing forms, seems quite essential. (Miles, 1964a, p. 14)

Similarly, another definition regards innovation as a ‘deliberate attempt to improve practice in relation to certain desired objectives’ (CERI, 1973, p. 36), while an earlier study offers a similar but lengthier definition:

We understand innovation to mean those attempts at change in an educational system which are consciously and purposefully directed with the aim of improving the present system. Innovation is not necessarily something new but it is something better and can be demonstrated as such. (CERI, 1969, p. 13)

The emphasis on the qualitative aspects of innovation implies that an innovation is not introduced simply for its own sake, and this point is made explicitly in another definition:

by innovation we mean any change in one component of the educational system which is not made simply for the sake of change but with the intention of promoting improvements in the aspect concerned and – having regard to the close interdependence of all such aspects – in the system as a whole. (Noel, 1974, p. 29)

While there is a good measure of agreement about the fundamental, deliberate and improvement aspects of innovations, there is less agreement about their uniqueness, as some of the definitions already quoted indicate. The CERI (1969) definition says that an innovation is not necessarily something new and Miles refers to a recombination of parts, while Owen rejects the notion that an innovation can be merely a rearrangement of old constituent parts and looks for essential newness. A significant contribution to this debate is made by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971):

An innovation is an idea, practice or object perceived as new by an individual. It matters little so far as human behaviour is concerned, whether or not an idea is ‘objectively’ new as measured by the lapse of time since its first use or discovery. It is the perceived or subjective newness of the idea for the individual that determines his reaction to it. If the idea seems new to the individual, it is an innovation, (p. 19)

This observation is about innovations in all fields, but it is particularly relevant to educational innovations which frequently require teachers to change attitudes, relationships and roles. There would appear to be no shortage of educational innovations and it is the implementation rather than the creation which presents certain difficulties and problems; and these will operate just as much if the idea or practice is new only to the individuals concerned or is ‘objectively’ new.

This leads to the view of innovation which will be taken in this book; it brings together elements of some of the definitions quoted earlier. An innovation is an idea, object, or practice perceived as new by an individual or individuals, which is intended to bring about improvement in relation to desired objectives, which is fundamental in nature and which is planned and deliberate. Innovation, as just defined, is the concern of this book, rather than change which is seen as a continuous reappraisal and improvement of existing practice and which can be regarded as part of the normal activity of curriculum development. However, the word change is occasionally used, for instance, in references from other writers and in widely used phrases such as ‘planned organisational change’ or ‘processes of change’.

DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH INNOVATION

It is difficult to bring about educational innovation, as earlier references to lack of success have suggested. It has already been mentioned that some writers see lack of knowledge or a disregard of knowledge of planning processes as a problem. However, this is not the only difficulty or problem associated with innovation; some other difficulties will be considered briefly here while possible solutions will be discussed later.

By definition, innovation is fundamental in nature and many educational innovations necessitate considerable changes in teachers’ attitudes. Some involve teachers in changing their traditional roles and bring about new kinds of relationships both among teachers and between teachers and their pupils. Team-teaching is an example of such an innovation. Involvement in team-teaching could mean, for instance, among other changes, that a teacher would move from the privacy of a self-contained classroom to teaching in the presence of colleagues, from planning individually to planning jointly with colleagues, from teaching groups of, say, thirty pupils to working with groups of varying sizes up to as many as a hundred pupils. Not all teachers can make such changes in behaviour easily, even if they are willing to try.

Related to this is the fact that an innovation frequently requires teachers to give up practices in which they feel secure and display high levels of competence and to adopt new practices in which, at least temporarily, they feel less secure and in which they might possibly be less competent. There are expectations that teachers should be competent, and some may not be willing or able to tolerate even a temporary incompetence or to tolerate feelings of insecurity.

The extra workload that innovation brings should not be overlooked. The tasks of planning and implementing innovations bring work in addition to the normal teaching duties of teachers. Some teachers find participation in innovation so stimulating and exciting that they willingly accept the extra work; others might accept the extra work for other reasons: they might, for instance, see involvement in innovation as a way to promotion. There are other teachers, however, less enthusiastic about innovation or perhaps deriving their professional satisfaction from their classroom activities, who are much less willing to take on the additional task of innovating.

Closely related to the extra workload is the time factor. There are two aspects of this: time needed during the working week for planning and the period of time over which planning needs to be carried out. The tasks involved in the planning and implementation of innovations are time-consuming in both the dimensions mentioned, although it is the first which teachers often highlight as a problem. It is said that it is difficult to find time during the week when teachers can come together for planning purposes. Undoubtedly there are problems in this respect, but teachers in some schools find ways of overcoming the problems, either through skilful timetabling arrangements or by meeting after school (Evans and Groarke, 1975; Holt, 1976; Prosser, 1976; Nicholls, 1979). The long-term nature of planning and implementation is less frequently identified by teachers as a problem. Rather, they tend to underestimate the time needed. Innovators are frequently impatient and want to see their ideas put into practice quickly and this can result in the ideas being insufficiently examined and discussed; the final consequence of such impatience is partial or inadequate implementation.

The cost of innovation is often cited as a difficulty. It is a fact that some educational innovations are expensive. This would be true of those innovations that involve new materials or equipment. However, even in the case of such innovations it may be pertinent to ask not only whether the innovation is going to be costly, but whether it is going to be more costly than that which it is to replace. Not all innovations necessitate expensive equipment or materials and it would be most unfortunate if teachers were to think that the present economic restrictions of necessity preclude innovation. Indeed, one can envisage how economic difficulties might actually generate innovation. For instance, a secondary school which is unable to replace teachers who leave might have to implement significant curriculum and organisational innovations.

One factor which sometimes makes it difficult to persuade teachers to become involved in innovation is the difficulty of showing that the innovation will be more successful than present practice. The definition of innovation proposed earlier includes the words ‘intended to bring about improvement’. The problem, common enough in education, is how to show that there is improvement. The difficulties surrounding evaluation in education have frequently led to a situation in which teachers involved in innovation have ignored any evaluation of them. It has been suggested elsewhere (Nicholls and Nicholls, 1975) that any new curriculum can be no more than a hypothesis to be tested for whether it will lead to the achievement of desired ends. However difficult it may be, criteria for the evaluation of an innovation should be included as an essential element. No guarantees can be given that the innovation will prove to be effective, but at least there will be some evidence on which to base decisions about its future.

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO INNOVATE

Given that there are so many problems and difficulties associated with innovation it seems reasonable that teachers may ask why they should innovate. It has become almost a platitude to state that we live not only in a period of rapid social change but also in a period in which the rate of change is still increasing. As institutions established by society, schools are affected by changes in society, and, to some extent at least, what takes place in schools has an influence on certain aspects of society. If society is changing significantly, then it can reasonably be expected that schools, as institutions of society, should also change significantly. This is not to suggest, however, that schools should respond indiscriminately to pressures emanating from other elements of society. Any response should be deliberate and planned and based on an explicit well-thought-out rationale so that decisions made can be defended and justified (Walton and Welton, 1976; Nicholls and Nicholls, 1978).

Not all changes in society may be considered by teachers to be desirable. Indeed, teachers are sometimes expected by the general public to redress some of these changes manifested by young people: changed attitudes to authority, vandalism and hooliganism. Teachers probably have insufficient power or influence to put to rights the ills of society, however willing they may be to try. The problem of teachers having different values from the rest of society is very difficult to cope with. Up to a certain point it might be considered desirable for teachers to display some idealism through what they are trying to achieve, but there are dangers in moving too far from reality. The discrepancy between teachers’ views of school objectives and subjects and those of 15-year-old pupils and their parents was revealed in a government survey (Schools Council, 1968).

If the gap between the values and attitudes of teachers in school and those of the rest of society, particularly pupils, becomes too great, then schools are likely to be ineffective in carrying out their purposes. Pupils are likely to become apathetic, alienated and perhaps disruptive and in these circumstances desired learning will not take place. It is well known that there are schools that have large numbers of such pupils and while it would be unfair and untrue to suggest that this behaviour is the result of the schools’ unwillingness to innovate, it might be considered prudent for all teachers to examine rigorously the curriculum, organisational arrangements, relationships, attitudes and values that operate in their schools.

THE RATE OF INNOVATION

If mature adult members of the general public were to visit schools they would find them very little changed in fundamental ways from when they themselves were pupils. Several writers comment on the slow rate of change in the field of education. Much of the early work in this area was carried out in the United States and one of the earliest writers to comment on the slow rate was Ross (1958) whose observations on a 150 studies were later substantiated by Mort (1964). These early studies indicated that in the American school system innovation went through a very slow process and followed a predictable pattern. There was typically a period of fifty years between insight into a need and the introduction of a way of meeting that need that was destined for general acceptance. Another fifty years was then required for the diffusion of the innovation. Mort says:

during that half-century of diffusion, the practice is not recognised until it has appeared in three per cent of the systems of the country. By that time, fifteen years of diffusion – or independent innovation – have elapsed. Thereafter, there is a rapid twenty years of diffusion, accompanied by much fanfare, and then a long period of slow diffusion through the last small percentage of school systems, (p. 318)

Mort goes on to state that this slow rate can be speeded up under certain circumstances, namely, when there is public demand, a receptive professional leadership in the schools, and inexpensive and all but self-teaching instructional materials.

More recent studies suggest that the rate is faster than was found by Ross and Mort. In a study of the rate of adoption of a mathematics programme in a county, Carlson (1964) found that almost 50 per cent of superintendents had adopted it by the fifth year. He did, however, find the same S-shaped curve noted by Ross and Mort, representing the acceptance process over time, which indicated that the adoption rate was slow in the early period, much faster in the middle period, and then slow again. Carlson’s explanation of this phenomenon is that adoption is not an independent and isolated act since adopters influence each other. Brickell (1961) agrees that the rate of innovation has increased. He noted that the rate of innovation in New York State more than doubled within fifteen months of the launching of the first Russian sputnik.

Whil...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• 1 Innovation: Some Issues and Problems
• 2 Selecting an Innovation
• 3 Introducing and Maintaining Innovations
• 4 The Human Factor in Innovation
• 5 The Role of the Head
• 6 The Setting for Innovation
• 7 Evaluating Innovations
• 8 In Conclusion
• References
• Index