"Islands of Innovation" and "School-Wide Implementations" : Two Patterns of ICT-Based Pedagogical Innovations in Schools

An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments ISSN: 1795-6889 www.humantechnology.jyu.fi Volume 1 (2), October 2005, 202-215 202 “ISLANDS OF INNOVATION”AND “SCHOOL-WIDE IMPLEMENTATIONS”: TWO PATTERNS OF ICT-BASED PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATIONS IN SCHOOLS Abstract: The study reported here is a secondary analysis of data collected in 10 schools as part of Israel’s participation in two international studies: IEA’s SITES Module 2, focusing on innovative pedagogical practices at the classroom level, and the OECD/CERI case studies of ICT and organizational innovation, focusing on ICT-related innovations at the school system level. We identify and analyze two patterns of ICT-based curricular innovations: “islands of innovation” and “school-wide implementations.” In the analysis of both patterns we focus on (a) the levels and domains of innovation reached in schools; (b) the communication agents and school variables affecting the diffusion of the innovation; and (c) the role of internal and external factors affecting the diffusion of the innovation. In the discussion we elaborate the potential value of sustainable islands of innovation models as agents of innovation, and the similarities and differences between both patterns of ICT implementation in schools. Keywords: ICT in education, diffusion of innovation, island of innovation, school-wide implementation. INTRODUCTION Although conceptual and planning work related to the implementation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in schools goes back in history to the early 1980s (Pogrow, 1983), an increased emphasis on the holistic incorporation of the technology into educational systems began during the 1990s. Since then, significant national efforts have been made in many countries to plan this implementation and to allocate the required government © 2005 Alona Forkosh-Baruch, Rafi Nachmias, David Mioduser, & Dorit Tubin and the Agora Center, University of Jyväskylä URN:NBN:fi:jyu-2005358 Rafi Nachmias School of Education Tel Aviv University, Israel Alona Forkosh-Baruch School of Education Tel Aviv University, Israel David Mioduser School of Education Tel Aviv University, Israel Dorit Tubin Department of Education Ben-Gurion University, Israel Islands of Innovation 203 funds (Hoffman, 2002). As a result, in the last decade an increasing number of countries have been promoting, as explicit national policies, the incorporation of ICTs into their educational systems: installing computer networks in schools, connecting these to the Internet, and training ICT-oriented teachers (Venezky & Davis, 2002). Special attention has been granted to the process of diffusion of innovative ICT practices in all aspects of school life, including the curriculum, and the teaching and learning processes. Theories dealing with the diffusion of innovations have been developed in different fields such as economics, business studies, and marketing, in an effort to identify factors affecting the release and marketing of new products (Amendola & Gaffard, 1988). So far most attempts to apply diffusion of innovation theories to education have focused mainly on higher education (Bennett & Bennett, 2003; Macchiusi & Trinidad, 2001), on teachers (Atkins & Vasu, 2000), and on nationwide diffusion of innovation processes (Porter, 2000). Attempts to apply these theories for examining ICT implementation at the elementary and secondary school levels are scarce. Diffusion of innovative pedagogical practices using ICT in schools is the focus of this paper, in which we examine data collected for IEA’s SITES (Second Information Technology in Education Study) Module 2 international study of innovative pedagogical practices using ICT (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement [IEA], n.d.; see also, Kankaanranta, 2005, this issue). The international research included participants from over 30 countries, including Israel. This article reports on a secondary analysis of the data and is part of a series of papers dealing with ICT-based innovations in 10 Israeli schools which participated in the international study (Mioduser, Nachmias, Tubin, & Forkosh-Baruch, 2003; Nachmias, Mioduser, Tubin, Cohen, & Forkosh-Baruch, 2004; Tubin, Mioduser, Nachmias, & Forkosh-Baruch, 2003). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] study (Venezky & Davis, 2002), which was conducted by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), concentrated on case studies as well. Its goal was to analyze how ICT relates to educational innovation; the rise of ICT in education was central to the study. The case studies explored a relationship between successful implementation of educational innovation and successful use of ICT, particularly the school as a social organization: dynamics, conditions, and processes of change. The innovations of interest were those that took place at a school level, with relation to students, teachers, the school organization, or administration. An interesting finding of our previous analyses (Tubin et al., 2003) was the identification of different scopes and patterns in the diffusion process of ICT-based innovations within the schools. We observed two main patterns: “islands of innovation,” in which innovative pedagogical practices included about 15% of the teacher and/or student populations; and “school-wide innovations,” involving 50% or more of the teacher and/or student populations. In this paper we take a step further, analyzing the characteristics of both ICT-implementation patterns and elaborating on these characteristics by means of Rogers’ (1995) diffusion of innovation theory. We believe that studying the different diffusion-of-innovation patterns within schools will improve our understanding of the implementation processes of ICT-based innovations and their transferability and scalability, and may provide useful information to policymakers in this field. Forkosh-Baruch, Nachmias, Mioduser, & Tubin 204 BACKGROUND In recent years major steps were taken in many countries to supply schools with an ICT infrastructure (Pelgrum & Anderson, 1999), in the hope that technology will support innovative pedagogies and improve the teaching and learning processes. However, one of the main difficulties concerning the diffusion of innovative ICT-based practices in schools is finding ways to engage teachers and students in using the new technologies effectively (Dodgson & Bessant, 1996). Rogers (1995) describes diffusion of innovation as the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels, over time, and among the members of a social system. Below we will briefly elaborate the key components of the definition, that is, innovation, communication agents, time frame, and social system. Innovation Innovation is not a clearly defined concept (Bamberger, 1991), and educational innovation using ICT is even more complex. ICT, when implemented in a school, is perceived as innovative per se, regardless of the content addressed in its use (e.g., a skill or a concept), its function (e.g., part of a learning task or a communication tool), or its application scope (e.g., school-wide or limited to a class or small group). In this study, following the definitions adopted by the IEA international research group, ICT-supported innovations are defined as pedagogical solutions and means supporting a shift from traditional educational paradigms towards emerging pedagogical approaches based on our current understanding of learning, such as fostering learner-centered and constructivist processes, and the acquisition of lifelong learning skills (Pelgrum, Brummelhuis, Collis, Plomp, & Janssen, 1997; Mioduser et al., 2003). These skills may include the planning of one’s own learning, self-assessment of learning processes and outcomes, making decisions as to whether and when to act as an active or passive learner, adapting to changes in learning settings, applying collaborative skills, or integrating knowledge from different disciplines using different learning strategies for different situations (Knapper & Cropley, 2000). To conclude, an innovation is much more than a technical development, but rather a qualitative educational shift towards a new paradigm as a result of an ongoing process (Mioduser, 2005) Rogers (1995) refers to three main types of innovations. Continuous innovation reflects a gradual change or improvement of an already existing product, even if the adopters use it in the same fashion as before; dynamically continuous innovation implies either creation of a new product or a radical change to an existing one, which in turn alters its diffusion patterns; and discontinuous innovation, a new and innovative product which brings total change to consumers’ acquisition and usage practices. The above classing is compatible with the three-level scale we defined in the analysis framework we developed for studying innovative ICT-based pedagogies in Israeli schools participating in SITES M2 (Mioduser et al., 2003). The three levels of innovation we defined were assimilation, transition and transformation. At the assimilation level, specific pedagogical conditions undergo qualitative change, but the school curriculum as a whole (e.g., content and goals), the instructional means (e.g., textbooks), the learning environment (e.g., classrooms, labs), and the learning organization (e.g., timetable) remain unchanged. At the transition level, ICT supports the integration, within the school’s everyday functioning, of Islands of Innovation 205 new contents, didactic solutions, and organizational solutions side-by-side with the traditional ones. At the transformation level, substantive changes take place in the school system as a whole. Traditional processes still exist, but the school identity is mainly defined by the rationale and goals of new approaches and lines of operation; student and teacher roles are enriched with new dimensions; new contents are introduced to the curriculum; new teaching methods are developed and implemented; and, for particular activities, the traditional time and space configuration are transformed. Overall, research findings from different international and national studies show that schools using ICT are mainly at the assimilation or transitional levels. However, many examples can be found of particular agents at the school level who put in time, effort and creative thinking into coping with the complex task of implementing ICT in transformational pedagogical ways (Mioduser, 2005; Mioduser & Nachmias, 2002; Pelgrum & Anderson, 1999). Communication Agents and Adoption Time Frame Diffusion of innovations takes place not only through general or formal communication channels (e.g., mass media), but also—and perhaps mainly—through interpersonal communication. The information flow in this communication mode is marked by processes such as knowledge transactions among individuals, leaders’ influence, or peer pressure. The diffusion process at this level is time consuming. And, according to Rogers (1995), the adopter of the innovation goes through a five-stage process: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. Two factors affect communication or diffusion paths of ICT-based innovations in schools: key function-holders within the school and the school background. In most schools, it seems that people such as the principal, the computer coordinator, and computer experts serve as opinion leaders who mediate between the new technology and the teachers, and promote the diffusion of the innovation (Cuban, 2002). Also, school background factors, such as school size, school level (elementary, high school), location within the country (central, periphery), or settlement type (urban, rural settlement, such as a kibbutz), affect processes such as interpersonal communication, solidarity among teachers, or the effectiveness of peer pressure. This in turn affects the way the innovation is communicated, adopted, and shared by the teachers, and the time frame for the diffusion process. Social System Factors Affecting the Diffusion of the Innovation Social system refers to the group or groups of people among whom an innovation diffuses within their settings (Rogers, 1995). Research on educational change addresses many factors associated with the social systems that are involved in the diffusion of a pedagogical innovation (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000; Fullan, 2001; Kinsler & Gamble, 2002; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). These can be classed into two main categories: internal and external factors. Internal factors are located within the school and include, for example, the principal, teachers, computer coordinator, but also the school’s vision and history, teacher training, and ICT infrastructure and maintenance. External factors reside outside the school boundaries, and include the government, municipality, parents, experts, intervening organizations, as well as national and regional policy and finance (Nachmias et al., 2004). This distinction is vital to the question of whether the school can generate innovations based on its internal resources by Forkosh-Baruch, Nachmias, Mioduser, & Tubin 206 changing their use and purpose (reengineering) or changes in decision-making policies (restructuring), if systemic external action is required (Papagiannis, Easton & Owens, 1998). Emphasis on factors within the school is based on the assumption that the main barriers to change are existing thinking patterns and human behavior; therefore conceptual change among school staff members is the first step required towards organizational learning and innovation adoption (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Sizer, 1992). In contrast, emphasis on factors outside the school stresses the role of decision makers and top-down processes (e.g., placement of students, allocation of resources) as vital to any change taking place at the school level (Papagiannis et al., 1998; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Cuban (2002) claims that both groups of factors are necessary for ICT-based innovation to diffuse into and improve the schools. Research Questions Our research objective was to examine the differences between two patterns of ICT implementation in schools: islands of innovation and school-wide implementation. According to the diffusion of innovation theoretical considerations presented above, our secondary analysis of the data collected in the Israeli schools addresses three main questions: • What levels of innovation were observed in schools in each of the implementationpattern groups? • What communication agents and school variables affect the diffusion of the innovation in schools in each of the implementation-pattern groups? • How do internal and external factors affect the diffusion of the innovation in schools in each of the implementation-pattern groups? METHOD The study this paper reports on was based on qualitative methods for data collection, and included the examination of 10 Israeli cases studies in which successful ICT implementation occurred. Our goal was to reach a comprehensive understanding of the ICT-based-innovations diffusion process (Stake, 2000). The selection of schools was based on indicators such as meaningful use of ICT, changes in teacher and student roles, curricular changes and evidence of sustainability, scalability and transferability (Kozma, 2000; OECD/CERI, 2000). The research population included two elementary schools, one lower secondary school, three high schools and four six-year secondary schools. The schools were chosen by a steering committee based on the SITES M2 international and local indicators of innovative pedagogical practices using technology (see Tubin et al., 2003). Data collection tools for each school included questionnaires and interviews (with the principal, computer coordinator, teachers involved in the innovation, teachers not involved in the innovation, student focus groups, parent focus groups, agents external to the school), class observations, and documentation related to the ICT-based innovation. The study was conducted between February and July 2001. Researchers spent a 5-day period in each of the schools. All raw materials were transcribed and uploaded, in addition to the final Hebrew reports and documentation, to the research website (Tel-Aviv University, n.d.), as were the final school research reports in English (IEA, n.d.). Islands of Innovation 207 After the main data analysis process, done according to the international study criteria and procedures (see Kozma, 2003), a secondary analysis was done on the data from the 10 participating Israeli schools. This analysis is reported in this current paper. Two analysis tools were applied to assess both the levels and domains of innovation in each school (Mioduser et al., 2003) and the factors—internal and external—involved in the innovation implementation (Nachmias et al., 2004). The dimensions of the levels-and-domains-of-innovation schema are defined by two axes. The horizontal axis represents levels of innovation, ranging from preliminary alterations of the school routine due to the initial assimilation of ICT to far-reaching transformations of pedagogical practices and learning processes. Three main levels were defined, as briefly mentioned in the Background section: assimilation, transition and transformation. The vertical axis details domains of innovation, focusing on four main constituents of the school milieu: time/space configurations, students, teachers, and the curriculum. The levels of internal and external factors affecting the innovation were rated according to the analysis framework detailed in Nachmias et al. (2004). The framework is composed of two axes: the vertical axis presents 21 factors gathered within 7 categories (roles within the school, roles outside the school, organization of learning, organizational climate, staff training and development, infrastructure and resources, and ICT policy); the horizontal axis indicates the intensity of the factors’ influence in a five-level scale, (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest). All data were evaluated by two independent judges using the above tools and reaching an agreement rate of 83%. Finally, all schools were classified according to one of two diffusion-of-innovation patterns: island-of-innovation schools (IoI), in which the innovation engaged only a specific group of students and/or teachers, or school-wide implementation schools (SW), in which most of the school’s student and/or teacher populations were involved. The description of the content and scope of the innovations implemented in the participating schools is presented in Table 1. In schools comprising the IoI group, 4% to 14% of the students and 2% to 28% of the teachers were involved in the activities. In SW schools, 64% to 100% of the students and 27% to 100% of the teachers were involved. A note should be made about the research limitation. The 10 schools were not intended to be a representative sample of schools in Israel. Rather, they were chosen as remarkable examples of successful ICT implementation in innovative pedagogies. This sample is obviously insufficient if the objective is to yield significant statistical conclusions. However, as the selected schools are similar in nature to most schools in Israel, the results can shed light on similar patterns and processes in the other schools by way of “naturalistic generalizations” (Stake, 1997). RESULTS This section presents the results with reference to the three research questions. The first question was: What levels of innovation were observed (in schools) in each of the implementation-pattern groups? Data presented in Table 2 describe the levels of innovation in each domain for schools in both groups of diffusion patterns. Given our specific theoretical framework, higher levels of Forkosh-Baruch, Nachmias, Mioduser, & Tubin 208 Table 1. Nature and scope of innovations implementing ICT in 2 diffusion patterns: “islands of innovation” and “school wide implementation.” Innovation Title Description of Innovation % students involved % teachers involved Islands of innovation Computer trustees IL002 A group of 40 students out of 630 serves as computer trustees, supporting teachers during lessons, running the school ICT support center, and coaching senior citizens as well as special education students. 6% 28% Computerized radio station IL006 40 students out of 660 in the radio and communications division study towards their matriculations theoretical as well as practical issues relating to mass communications, print and broadcast media, operate a computerized studio and prepare reports and broadcasts. 6% 4% Excellence center IL009 175 students out of 1,250 study in the excellence center, simulating surroundings within a hi-tech factory, aiming to create a connection between education and industry: students get acquainted with the hi-tech world, while industrialists connect to educational practice. 14% 8% Peace network IL010 60 students out of 1,400 use the Internet as a lever for facilitating tolerance, the changing of prejudice, bonding with peers from the Arab culture and improving of English as a foreign language. 4% 6% Computerized greenhouse IL015 70 students out of 800 use the computerized greenhouse as a site for planning and carrying out projects in biology, technology, ecology and engineering, some of which are matriculation subjects. The greenhouse is connected to research institutions, and experts coach the students. 9% 2% School wide implementation Computerized projects: “Beehive” IL001 All 623 students participate in ICT projects accompanied by Web sites, as a lever for developing learning communities in subject matters such as literacy, geography, science, mathematics, history and technology. 100% 50% ICT-rich future school IL003 All 1,000 students implement ICT as a means of developing independent learning skills, adjusting to different learning styles, applying a variety of fields of interests, raising motivation and strengthening bonds with parents. 100% 100% Website story IL007 800 students out of 1,250 implement Web-based learning in educational websites developed by teachers and students in over 20 subject matters, according to curricular needs. 64% 50% “Aviv” virtual school IL008 All 1,260 students are exposed, during their studies, to innovative ICT use, develop computer literacy, and interact with experts in project-based distant learning in a virtual school. 100% 35% Virtual learning space: man & environment IL013 All 380 students develop independent learning skills by inquiry projects related to school geographical surroundings, accompanied by a virtual learning space developed mainly by the students. 100% 27% Islands of Innovation 209 Table 2. Levels of innovation in 10 Israeli initiatives implementing ICT by domains and diffusion patterns. Time & space configuration Students Teachers Curriculum School Physical space Digital space Time Student role Teacher student* Teacherteacher** Content Didactic solutions Assess. methods Innovation average Islands of innovation IL002 1 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 2.0 IL006 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 4 3.4 IL009 3 4 3 4 4 3 5 3 4 3.7 IL010 1 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 1 2.9 IL015 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 4.7 Domains average 2.4 3.6 3.8 3.8 4.0 2.2 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.3 School-wide implementation IL001 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 2.7 IL003 5 3 4 4 3 5 5 4 4 4.1 IL007 2 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3.0 IL008 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 2.2 IL013 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 4.4 Domain average 2.8 3.6 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.3 Difference -0.4 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.8 -1.4 0.4 -0.2 -0.4 0.0 * Teacher-student means the teachers’ role, decisions and performance in their interaction with students, ranging from main source of leadership to the level of expert colleague and partner. ** Teacher-teacher means the teachers’ role, decisions and performance in their interaction with fellow teachers. innovation could be expected in IoI schools. In these schools, the activity is generated and implemented by a specific group of highly motivated students and teachers, a factor that has the potential to facilitate and accelerate the innovation adoption process. The findings, however, show that the average level of innovation for all domains in both groups of schools was identical, putting all schools at the transition level on our scale. However, a closer look at the different domains reveals interesting differences. In IoI schools, learning time and scheduling were defined more flexibly and teacher-student relationships were more open and equal than in the SW schools. The relatively small number of participants and the exterritorial nature of some of the projects enabled flexibility of time in IoI projects, as opposed to SW implementations, which were normally embedded within the school timetable. In regard to changes in teachers’ roles and functioning, the findings indicate different processes for teacher-peers and teacher-students interactions. In SW schools, the nature of teachers’ interactions with their peers changed to a large extent, stressing collaborative work and creativity aimed at advancing the implementation of the innovation. Often, changes in teachers’ roles were supported (and demanded) by the very school policies that promoted the implementation of the innovation. In IoI projects, however, in which teacher-student partnerships were a driving force in the innovation implementation, a sense of confidence and mutual commitment to the task enabled the emergence of strong and non-mediated tutor-tutee relationships (often including the switching of roles between them). In this domain, most IoI schools reached the transformation level of innovation. A clear trend showing changes in students’ roles in these schools logically complements the image that stresses the IoI’s nature as student-centered, process-oriented, and learning-by-doing pedagogical solutions. Forkosh-Baruch, Nachmias, Mioduser, & Tubin 210 Table 3. Means, standard deviations and variances of levels of innovation by domains and diffusion patterns of 10 Israeli initiatives using ICT. School Physical space Digital space Time Student role Teacher/ student Teacher/ teacher Content Didactic solutions Assess. methods Islands of innovation Mean 2.4 3. 6 3.8 3.8 4.0 2.2 4.0 3.2 3.0 Std. dev. 1.67 1.14 .83 .83 .70 .83 1.22 1.09 1.87 Variance 2.80 1.30 .70 .70 .50 .70 1.50 1.20 3.50 School-wide implementation Mean 2.8 3.6 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 Std. dev. 1.48 .89 1.78 1.09 1.09 .89 1.34 1.14 .54 Variance 2.20 .80 3.20 1.20 1.20 .80 1.80 1.30 .30 The variance in the level of innovation within the domains for both diffusion patterns of innovation is presented in Table 3. A domain in which low variance was observed in both patterns of implementation was that of teacher relationship patterns with fellow teachers. In contrast, the domain of assessment methods varies from 1 to 5 in IoI projects (SD=3.5), but only from 3 to 4 in SW implementation (SD=.3), whereas the difference between the means is small. Another domain that displayed a difference between variances was the flexibility of time: in IoI projects the mean score was high (M=3.8) and the variance was low (SD=.70), while in SW implementations the mean score was lower altogether, but the variance was much higher (SD=3.2). The second research question posed was: What communication agents and school variables affect the diffusion of innovation (in schools) in each implementation-pattern group? The analysis of the innovations in the participating schools focused on the initiating agent, on the duration of the innovation, and on several school variables (such as, size, location, grade levels) that may affect diffusion patterns. The results are shown in Table 4. Preliminary assumptions could be that certain configurations of the above variables might lead to the emergence of either IoI or SW diffusion patterns. For example, it can be hypothesized that in schools where the principal is the initiator of the innovation, where the small size of the school facilitates peer cohesion and mutual influence, and the innovation has been sustainable for a long period of time, school-wide innovation implementation is more likely to occur. Overall, data in Table 4 indicate no noticeable differences between diffusion patterns for most variables. However, two issues deserve to be mentioned. In SW schools the principal takes a more predominant role in initiating the innovation and the diffusion process than in IoI schools, where leaders (teacher, computer coordinator) normally took the initiative. Also, the duration of the innovation is slightly longer in IoI schools (including the exceptional Greenhouse Project running since 1985; see Table 1). These findings indicate the pioneering nature of IoIs: highly motivated soloists succeeded in initiating innovative processes several years ago, within a context (school culture, peer and principal perceptions), not yet certain of the emerging technologies’ potential for teaching and learning. Several of these initiatives still persist as IoIs and have not grown into larger school-wide initiatives due to scalability or sustainability objective constraints (e.g., the Greenhouse or the Excellence Center).