Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 61–77 | Cite as

Contextual factors that sustain innovative pedagogical practice using technology: an international study

Article

Abstract

Pedagogical innovation—whether involving technology or not—is shaped by a complex interaction of the innovation with contextual factors such as school and school district policy, leadership, cultural norms and values, teacher attitudes and skills, and student characteristics. This study examined school and classroom contexts in which pedagogical innovations employing technology were successfully sustained. Data were obtained from 59 cases drawn from the Second Information Technology in Education Study—Module 2, a project that examined 174 cases of innovative pedagogical practice in schools in 28 countries. An explanatory model of sustainability was derived from a qualitative analysis of the cases using grounded theory techniques. Essential conditions for the sustainability of classroom innovation were teacher and student support of the innovation, teacher perceived value of the innovation, teacher professional development, and principal approval. Contributing factors for sustainability were supportive plans and policies, funding, innovation champions, and internal and external recognition and support.

Keywords

Sustainability Contextual factors International studies Technology Pedagogical innovation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to Dr. Robert B. Kozma, Emeritus Director and Principal Scientist of the Center for Technology in Learning at SRI International, for his significant contributions to the framework section of this paper; and to the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful suggestions for improvements.

References

  1. Arnove, R., & Torres, C. (1999). Introduction: Reframing comparative education—The dialectic of the global and the local. In R. Arnove, & C. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local (pp. 1–23). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  2. Apple Computer (1990). Teaching in high-tech environments: Classroom management revisited first–fourth year findings. Author: Cupertino, CA. Accessed May 24, 2006 from http:// images.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot/pdf/rpt10.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and the mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Berman, E. (1999). The political economy of educational reform in Australia, England and Wales, and the United States. In R. Arnove, & C. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: The dialectic of␣the global and the local (pp. 257–282). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  5. Berman, P. (1981). Towards an implementation paradigm. In R. Lehming, & M. Kane (Eds.), Improving schools using what we know. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bucur, M., & Eklof, B. (1999). Russia and Eastern Europe. In R. Arnove, & C. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and local (pp. 371–392). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, D., & Hill, H. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cuban, L. (1992). What happens to reforms that last? American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dalin, P. (1994). How schools improve: An international report. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  14. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1996). Polices that support professional development in an era of reform. In M. W. McLaughlin, & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 202–218). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  15. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, B. (2002). Extending educational reform from one school to many. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  16. De Corte, E. (1993). Psychological aspects of changes in learning supported by informatics. Austria: Gmunden. Paper presented at the meeting on Informatics and Changes in Learning.Google Scholar
  17. Dede, C. (Ed.). (1998). Learning with technology. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  18. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  19. Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fuller, B., & Clarke, P. (1994). Raising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and the influence of classroom tools, rules, and pedagogy. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 119–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  24. Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainability of educational change: The role of social geographies. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2000). Three dimensions of reform. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 30–34.Google Scholar
  26. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Henderson A., & Berla N. (Eds.). (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED375968.Google Scholar
  28. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huberman M. (1992). Critical introduction. In M. Fullan (Ed.), Successful school improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kirst, M., & Meister, G. (1985). Turbulence in American secondary schools: What reforms last? Curriculum Inquiry, 15(2), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kozma R. B. (Ed.). (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  33. Louis, K., & Miles, M. (1991). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  34. McLaughlin, M. (1993). What matters most in teachers’ workplace context? In J. Little, & M.␣McLaughlin (Eds.), Teacher’s work: Individual, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 97–123). New␣York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  35. Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology’s role in education reform: Findings from a national study of innovative schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  36. Means, B., Penuel, W., & Padilla, C. (2001). The connected school: Technology and learning in high school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Metz, M. H. (1993). Teachers’ ultimate dependence on their students. In J. W. Little, & M. W.␣McLaughlin (Eds.), Teacher’s work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 104–136). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. Miles, M. (1983). Unraveling the mystery of institutionalization. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 14–19.Google Scholar
  39. Pergrum, W., & Anderson, R. (1999). ICT and the emerging paradigm for lifelong learning. Amsterdam: International Association for the Advancement of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  40. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Samoff, J. (1999). No teacher guide, no textbooks, no chairs: Contending with crisis in African education. In R. Arnove, & C. Torres (Eds.), Copmparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local (pp. 393–432). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  42. Sandholtz, H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student- centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  43. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schofield, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (2002). Bringing the Internet to school: Lessons from an urban district. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Google Scholar
  46. Solomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10–18.Google Scholar
  47. Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Su, Z. (1999). Asian education. In R. Arnove, & C. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: The didalectic of the global and the local (pp. 329–344). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  50. Van Den Akker, J. J. H., Keursten, P., & Plomp, T. (1992). The integration of computer use in education. International Journal of Curriculum Research, 17, 65–76.Google Scholar
  51. Van Velzen, W., Miles, M., Eckholm, M., Hameyer, U., & Robin, D. (1985). Making school improvement work. Leuven, Belgium: ACCO.Google Scholar
  52. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Research on Learning TechnologiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations