“The day after”. The organizational consequences of innovation implementation in experimental schools
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2014-0084 |
| Pages | 19-40 |
| Published date | 01 February 2016 |
| Date | 01 February 2016 |
| Author | Smadar Gilad-Hai,Anit Somech |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy |
“The day after”
The organizational consequences
of innovation implementation
in experimental schools
Smadar Gilad-Hai
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, University of Haifa,
Haifa, Israel and
Department of Management, Leadership and Policy in Education,
Oranim Academic College of Education, Kiryat Tivon, Israel, and
Anit Somech
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy,
University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine the implications of implementing innovation in
experimental schools (focussing on R&D) for school effectiveness post-intervention (five years). Based
on theoretical models of social exchange and “conservation of resources”(Hobfoll, 1989), the authors
focussed on assessing the effects of implementing innovation on individual outcomes (strain) and
school level outcomes (social cohesion, emotional conflict, organizational innovation). The authors
compared three types of schools: schools that have completed the implementation process (after),
schools still in the implementation process (during) and schools not participating in the implementation
process (control group).
Design/methodology/approach –A sample of 75 schools (23 non-experimental, 25 during the
experiment, 27 post-experiment) was used. Data were collected from teachers and principals to avoid a
single source bias.
Findings –MANOVA analyses suggest that the process of implementation of innovation contributes
to organizational effectiveness: differences were found between the control group and the two groups
of experimental schools. The two groups of experimental schools showed higher levels of
organizational innovation and social cohesion and lower levels of emotional conflict and strain as
compared to the control group.
Research limitations/implications –This study concentrated on the question of the direct links
between the study variables –the effects of the implementation of innovation on school functioning.
It would be interesting to examine the limit conditions (encourage –discourage factors) for these relations.
Practical implications –Findings suggest that a structured process of implementing innovation
contributesnot only to the outcome of innovationin school, but also enhances overallschool functioning.
Originality/value –Permits the authors to deepen the knowledge of the potential of organizational
processes of innovation in schools over time (pre-during-post process).
Keywords Educational innovation, School effectiveness
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Educational innovation is perceived as having great potential for improving the
educationalsystem (Bulkley and Fisler, 2003; Chen,2010). This approach is supported by
many studies showing that implementation of innovation benefits a school and its
environment (Giles and Hargreaves, 2006). Schools which implement innovation tend to
manifest quick adaptability to environmental and cultural changes, cope better with the
demands of contemporary reality, and are more in tune with the characteristics of
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 54 No. 1, 2016
pp. 19-40
©Emerald Group Publis hing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-07-2014-0084
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
19
Organizational
consequences
of innovation
“tomorrow’s world”(Tubin, 2009). It follows that in proportion to the proliferation
of voices calling for schools to adapt to the modern age, where change has become a
constant, and to focus on the development of new ideas in all aspects of education
(administration, pedagogy, technologies, etc.), there is also a growing sympathy for
attempts to implement innovation at schools (Fullan, 2001; Gaziel, 1994). This is no
passing trend; a glance at the history of public education in Israel and the world shows
that educational innovation has often attracted extensive attention, including impressive
stories about attempts to found new innovative schools. For example, already at the end
of the nineteenth centuryJohn Dewey developed the “lab school”model (1896); A.S. Neill
founded “Summerhill”in 1921, and later on CharterSchools were established in the USA
(Preston et al., 2012). Similarly, in Israel two decades ago a number of experimental
schools were founded, which are defined as institutions oriented around educational
innovation (Chen,2010). Specifically, they focus on promoting “bundles of innovations”–
i.e. the development and implementation of transformational changes with diverse
meanings in the educational context, and which take place in each of the schools[1].
In this manner, these schools offer an alternative approach to learning, teaching, the
child’s welfare and cultivation and focus on developing and implementing concepts,
methods and pedagogic-educational outcomes which present a challengingalternative to
the principles of traditional public education (Glatter et al., 2005; Tubin et al.,2004).
At the same time, despite the great importance which educational authorities,
educators and academics attribute to implementing reforms of change and renewal at
public schools (Fullan, 2007; Giles and Hargreaves, 2006), an examination of the
literature shows that most of the research has concentrated on case studies , focussing
on what happens (procedures and implications) during the implementation process
itself (Tubin and Regev-Ofeck, 2010). Most of the existing literature dwells on (mainly
pedagogical) aspects of innovation and the question of the success or failure of the
process, rather than the implications for school functioning after the process of
innovation implementation has come to an end (Chen, 2006; Tubin and Regev-Ofeck,
2010). As a matter of fact, very few studies have considered the question of school
effectiveness after the completion of the process of implementation (Bulkley and Fisler,
2003; Fink, 2000; Giles and Hargreaves, 2006; Hargreaves and Goodson, 2006). The lack
of research about the effects of implementation of innovation on school and teacher
functioning, from a temporal perspective, that is, after the formal end of the
implementation of innovation, limits our ability to evaluate the contribution of
innovation to inter-school effectiveness.
In light of this deficiency, the purpose of the present study is to examine the effects
of implementing innovation at experimental schools after the end of the five years of
implementation. In other words, we focussed not on the subject of innovation in itself,
but on the question of how a concentrated and structured process of implementing
innovation affects the functioning of the school community from the psycho-social and
organizational perspectives. To achieve this end, we conducted a comparison of three
types of schools: schools which have completed the process of implementation of
innovation (after five years of the experiment), schools which are still in midst of the
process of implementation of innovation (during the five years of the experiment) and
schools not participating in the experiment (the control group). School effectiveness
was measured in relation to a variety of types of outcomes: psychological (strain), social
(social cohesion, emotional conflicts) and organizational (organizational innovation).
These types of outcomes were identified in previous studies as central in evaluating
organizational effectiveness (Bledow et al., 2009; West, 2002).
20
JEA
54,1
To continue reading
Request your trial