Embedding Innovation - we're not alone!
First of a series of articles highlighting the findings of the recently released research report by Marie Jasinski, Innovate and Integrate: Embedding innovative practices (2006). For full research report (243 pages) go to the Innovate and integrate home page
Innovation is a perplexing issue for many of us. – though certainly not for all. What is innovation, how does it happen and how can an innovative practice become embedded into mainstream practice within vocational education and training (VET)? This is what Marie Jasinski undertook to find out.
For those of you who know Marie, she is recognised internationally for her creativity and leadership in the field of flexible learning and new learning technologies. She has inspired many people with her wit, insight and dedication to uncovering new ways of doing things. Her research focuses on innovation in e-learning and was funded by the Australian Flexible Learning Framework.
For me it’s been a privilege to have worked with Marie on a previous research project Designing Professional Development for the Knowledge Era, which resulted in the development of a contemporary model for capability development called Life Based Learning. So I’m really pleased to be writing a series of articles on her most recent research Embedding Innovation.
This article focuses on the research aims and what she found out from the literature search. Future articles will focus on ‘chasm’s’ as barriers, the case studies, key findings of the research and the new Jasinski and Miller model for embedding innovation in VET.
Background
The research aims for the project were to:
- Identify factors that have contributed to embedding innovative practices
- Inform future decision makers in regard to the considerations and potential impacts of embedding innovative practices
- Develop models for ongoing embedding of innovative practices to be utilised by future VET organisations
Data was collected through many processes including a survey, visits to case study sites, interviews, email, forums and workshops, feedback at conferences, a wiki, conversations with critical readers, literature review and an innovation styles assessment. When Marie does something, she does it thoroughly! As you have no doubt gathered by now, I am a great admirer of Marie’s work – for its thoroughness and integrity.
Of particular interest is Marie’s long-term collaboration with international researchers, two of whom became her research advisors:
- Dr Daniel Surrey, Associate Professor of Instructional Design and Development, University of Alabama, USA. He is past chair of the American Educational Research Association’s Special Interest Group – Instructional Technology. Dr Surrey’s research and consulting interests relate to how organisations can facilitate the implementation of process and technology innovations. He offered his RIPPLES model for implementing e-learning innovation for use in the research. He designed, administered and analysed the survey.
- William C Miller is a researcher, author and facilitator specialising in adoption and diffusion of innovations within the corporate sector. He was named one of the top 30 leadership consultants worldwide by ‘Leadership Excellence’. William has a particular interest in values-driven team innovation. He is based in India.
Marie worked with these researchers to advance the research, rather than replicate what had already been done. This approach also gave useful insight and perspectives from outside the VET context.
A definition of terms is provided, to help clarify the terminology used:
- Creativity - production of novel and useful ideas
- Innovation – perceived as new by user and successfully implemented to improve the business
- Adoption – user attraction and decision to engage
- Diffusion - the social process which spreads influence
- Adaptation – shaping, altering, or modifying, to suit a particular context
- Implementation - enabling utilisation within the workplace
- Embedded - sustained and routine use by a critical mass
As Marie says, we are not alone – education and training sectors all over the world are trying to transition from ‘innovative practice’ to ‘everyday practice’.
What the literature says
The following is a very brief scan of the literature that is highlighted in the research report.
Diffusion of innovation – Rogers (first published 1960)
Rogers provides a key model that has been used by many, for the understanding and planning of innovation diffusion and implementation. It assumes a pro-innovation bias and linear progression from one stage to the next.
There are four key components to Roger’s model:
- Innovation design process – an individual’s process goes through 5 stages over time when adopting an innovation (knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation)
- Individual innovativeness – there is a sequential uptake of innovation by different adopter categories (innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards)
- Rate of adoption – innovation goes through different periods of growth (initially a slow growth period, then rapid growth, followed by gradual stabilization, then decline when saturation point is reached)
- Perceived attributes of an innovation – an innovation has a range of attributes, with 5 key attributes impacting on whether or not an individual decides to adopt the innovation (compatibility, trialability, complexity, relative advantage, observability).
You may well be familiar with some aspect(s) of this model (such as the different adopter categories), if not with all.
Factors affecting adoption and sustained use - Grunwald (2002)
Grunwald examined the issues of sustained use of instructional technology in colleges and universities. He identified a range of variables that affect the adoption of instructional technology and collated them into 6 categories:
- Potential adopter traits – such as gender, motivation, risk aversion, experience, etc
- Potential adopters’ beliefs and attitudes – such as goals, attitudes to technology, perceived use, etc
- Innovation characteristics – such as relative advantage over current practice, compatability with other resources, ease of use, etc
- Organisational and cultural context – such as faculty support, equipement, training and development, technical support, culture of risk taking, leadership support, etc
- Performance impact of instructional technology - such as improved student learning, student results, etc
- Communication with other adopters – this category overlays all other categories.
In examining these categories, I’m reminded of the complexity of innovation and adoption. Sometimes I find myself grappling with one aspect or another of these variables and forget that attention needs to be given to a much wider range of variables. Perhaps you have experienced this too.
Grunwald found that the most significant factors influencing an individual’s decision as to whether or not to adopt an innovation were: compatibility, relative advantage and complexity. The first two factors were the most positive influences on adoption, whereas complexity was the most negative factor. He also identified a wide range of barriers and enablers to adoption of instructional technology. You’ll find these on page 23 of the report.
Barriers and enablers - BECTA (2003)
The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) commissioned a literature review to identify key barriers and enablers to ICT use by teachers. These are listed on page 24 of the report and include as barriers, the major factors of confidence, time and access to quality resources; recurring technical fault and resistance to change. The enablers include leadership and planning, sharing of resources and reliable technical support.
Barriers - Surry and Ensminger (2005)
Surry and Ensminger examined the barriers to implementation of web-based learning in a university context in the USA. They reduced their list of barrier to three factors: personal variables, attitudinal barriers and organisational barriers.
New practices in Flexible Learning Projects – a VET context
This research report is Phase 2 of the project. Previously, Phase 1 focused on New Practices in Flexible Learning projects in vocational education and training (VET) and the project managers provided input about embedding the outcomes of their projects. According to them, the factors that made it more likely that outcomes would be embedded included:
- the innovation responds to the market and to proven unmet need
- the innovation had clear, demonstrable benefits
- the innovation fits with organisational priorities and has management support
- the innovation has a leader or champion
- the potential users are engaged in the development of the process as a means of fostering greater eventual uptake of innovative practices
- the innovator has strong professional networks.
Focusing on implementation rather than adoption – Ely (1999)
Ely identifies eight conditions that foster the implementation of an innovation within organisations. These are:
- dissatisfaction with status quo
- the required resources are available
- people know how to use the innovation
- workers have sufficient time to become familiar with the innovation
- workers using the innovation receive some benefit from its use
- everyone affected by the innovation participates in the change process
- visible, strong support and commitment from upper management
- active support and leadership on day-to-day basis from middle and lower management.
Five dimensions for e-learning sustainability – Seufert and Euler (2003)
Seufert and Euler relate sustainability to ‘stability’ and ‘permanence’ (p 27). They identified five inter-related dimensions that support e-learning sustainability – economic, pedagogic, organisational, technical and socio-cultural.
Seufert and Euler’s research also identified three significant principles that are crucial for the sustainable implementation of e-learning innovations:
- Taking a long-term perspective – it takes time to fix something permanently in human minds and implies a rethinking from short-term project orientation to long-lasting implementation
- Applying a systemic approach – sustainability needs to be achieved at an institutional as well as a project level and both need to be evaluated in respect to their efficiency and sustainability. However, the former is more important for sustainability
- A multidimensional vision – all five dimensions have to be evaluated in respect to their efficiency and have to be considered in the right balance (p. 10).
(page 27, Embedding Innovation research report)
18 lessons – Collis and Moonen (2001)
Collis and Moonen idenfified ’18 lessons’, based on over 20 years experience with ICT and learning in higher education.
Of particular interest is ‘Lesson 5: Watch for the 4-Es’. The ‘4-Es’ predicts an
individual’s likelihood of voluntarily using a technology tool or resource for supporting
learning. They are:
1. Environment – the context in which an individual is a part
2. Educational effectiveness – perceived or expected benefit to a user’s own
problem
3. Ease of use – the easier the better
4. Engagement with technology – a personal response to technology and to
change.
(page 28, Embedding Innovation research report)
Concern’s-Based Adoption Model – Hall and Hord (1987)
Hall and Hord examine adoption through the views of the individual teacher. The two key focus areas are ‘stages of concern’ which varies according to which stage they are at, and ‘levels of use’ which range from ‘non-use’ to ‘renewal’.
Integrated model for professional growth – Sherry and Gibson (2002)
Sherry and Gibson refer to adoption of educational technology as a ‘slow revolution’. Their integrated model of professional growth shows how teachers progress through five stages, as they develop their skills in using educational technology. These stages are:
- Teacher as learner
- Teacher as adopter
- Teacher as co-learner/co-explorer
- Teacher as decision maker
- Teacher as leader.
In summary, there is a common and consist message
Marie found that there was a common and consistent message from the literature about embedding innovation. The message is that embedding innovation must be based on:
- a clear vision for e-learning
- be driven by champions
- explored from multiple perspectives
- involve a range of stakeholders over a period of time
- have committed support
- there is no one way to do it.
Three key themes that emerged from the literature
Marie found that three themes appear to one degree of another in most models for implementing innovation:
- The innovation – the types, attributes, market need, benefits and pedagogical impact
- The innovators and adopters – the human factor including beliefs and attitudes, readiness, collaboration, personal impact and relationships
- The organisation – the culture and systems including infrastructure, leadership, commitment and provision of professional development.
See Also
Embedding Innovative Practices: network of champions