Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 223–249 | Cite as

A new model of educational innovation: Exploring the nexus of organizational learning, distributed leadership, and digital technologies

  • Marleen Rikkerink
  • Henk Verbeeten
  • Robert-Jan Simons
  • Henk Ritzen
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study presents the development process of a new model of educational innovation, that involves the use of digital technologies. The model is based on a broad theoretical framework together with research involving this long-term case study. The backbone of the model consists of a fundamental revision of a multi-level Organizational Learning Framework incorporating the influence of the external school context (outside of the school context) and various aspects of leadership. The conceptual model not only clarifies the learning capacity of the teachers and administration, in accordance with the organizational learning approach, but can also be used as a tool for the investigation of planned interventions in line with the ‘learning school’ conception. The incorporation of the concept of leadership practice strengthens the original Organizational Learning Framework on all levels in the school organization. The conceptual model integrates and improves theoretical frameworks for context-conscious leadership, organizational learning and distributed leadership. An important outcome of this study is an increased understanding of the relation between distributed leadership and collective sense-making as an important prerequisite for the incorporation of digital learning materials in teaching practice.

Keywords

Educational innovation Sustainability Distributed leadership Leadership practice Organizational learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bapuij, H., & Crossan, M. (2004). From questions to answers: Reviewing organizational learning resesearch. Management Learning, 35(4), 397–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brouwer, P., Brekelmans, M., Nieuwenhuis, L., & Simons, R.-J. (2012). Community development in the school workplace. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(4), 403–418.Google Scholar
  3. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. Frontiers in Sociology of Education, 1, 127–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpay, T. (2010). Anders kijken naar het studiehuis. Een analysemodel voor onderwijsvernieuwing [To look differently at the ‘Study House’. A model for analyzing educational innovation]. Academic Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  5. Chval, K. B., Reys, R., Reys, B. J., Tarr, J. E., & Chávez, O. (2006). Pressures to improve student performance: A context that both urges and impedes school-based research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(3), 158–166.Google Scholar
  6. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(32), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crossan, M. M., & Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1087–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.Google Scholar
  10. Crossan, M. M., Maurer, C. C., & White, R. E. (2011). Reflections on the 2009 AMR Decade Award: Do we have a theory of organizational learning? Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 446–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Datnow, A. (2002). Can we transplant educational transform, and does it last? Journal of Educational Change, 3, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Groot, E., van den Berg, B. A. M., Endedijk, M. D., Van Beukelen, P., & Simons, P. R. J. (2011). Critically reflective work behaviour within autonomous professionals’ learning communities. Vocations and Learning, 4, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Laat, M. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2003). Collective learning: Theoretical perspectives and ways to support networked learning. European Journal for Vocational Training, 27, 13–24.Google Scholar
  14. Diseth, A., Danielsen, A. G., & Samdal, O. (2012). A path analysis of basic need support, self-efficacy, achievement goals, life satisfaction and academic achievement level among secondary school students. Educational Psychology, 32(3), 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geijsel, F., & Meijers, F. (2005). Identity learning: The core process of educational change. Educational Studies, 31(4), 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghesquière, P., Maes, B., & Vandenberghe, R. (2004). The usefulness of qualitative case studies in research on special needs education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(2), 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  18. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Conceptual and methodological issues in studying school leadership effects as a reciprocal process. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Ho, J. M., & Ng, D. (2012). Factors which impact the distribution of leadership for an ICT reform: Expertise vis-à-vis formal role? School Leadership and Management, 32(4), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 565–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2011). The relation between school leadership from a distributed perspective and teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the source of the leadership function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 728–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Imants, J. (2002). Relationships in the study of learning communities. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13, 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleysen, R. F., & Dyck, B. (2001, June). Cumulating knowledge: An elaboration and extension of Crossan, Lane, & White’s framework for organizational learning. Paper presented at the fourth international conference on organizational learning and knowledge management, Ivey School of Management, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  25. Kolo, C., & Breiter, A. (2009). An integrative model for the dynamics of ICT-based innovations in education. Digital Culture & Education, 1(2), 89–103.Google Scholar
  26. Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 94–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lovett, S., & Gilmore, A. (2003). Teachers’ learning journeys: The quality learning cycle as a model of professional development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(2), 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. März, V., Kelchtermans, G., Vanhoof, S., & Onghena, P. (2013). Sense-making and structure in teachers’ reception of educational reform. A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miedema, W., & Stam, M. (2009). Leren van Innoveren: wat en hoe leren docenten van het innoveren van het eigen onderwijs? [Learning from Innovation: What and how teachers learn from the innovation of their own teaching?]. Academic Dissertation. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  34. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mulford, B., & Sillins, H. (2011). Revised models and conceptualisation of successful school principalship for improved student outcomes. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 61–82.Google Scholar
  37. Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rikkerink, M. (2011). Invoering van een gedigitaliseerde onderwijspraktijk - Deel A. Patronen van interventies in een model van organisatieleren en leiderschapspraktijken [Implementation of a digital teaching practice—Part A. Patterns of interventions in a framework of organizational learning and leadership practices]. Dissertation, Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  39. Riskua, M., Kanervioa, P., & Lars, G. B. (2014). Finnish Superintendents: Leading in a changing education policy context. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13, 383–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Runhaar, P. R. (2008). Promoting teachers’ professional development. Academic Dissertation, University Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  41. Runhaar, P. R., Sanders, K., & Sleegers, P. (2007). De school als ontwikkelplek voor leraren. Een literatuuronderzoek naar organisatiefactoren die implementatie van nieuwe onderwijsconcepten bevorderen [The school as a development site for teachers. A literature study of organizational factors that facilitate implementation of new educational concepts]. Enschede: Twente Centre for Career Research.Google Scholar
  42. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004a). Bevlogenheid: een begrip gemeten [Work engagement: A concept measured]. Gedrag & Organisatie, 17(2), 89–112.Google Scholar
  43. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004b). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scheerens, J. (2010). Teachers’ professional development. Europe in international comparison. An analysis of teachers professional development based on the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union.Google Scholar
  45. Scheerens, J. (2013). The use of theory in school effectiveness research revisited. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schumpeter, I. A. (1959). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Simons, P. R. J. (2006). Digitale didactiek als onderdeel van onderwijsvernieuwingen [Digital pedagogy as part of educational reforms]. Studiehuisreeks, 70, 25–42 [Online]. Available: http://www.mesoconsult.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/SH-70-digi.pdf.
  49. Simons, P. R. J. (2013). Mindshifting: (Hoe) kunnen we mindsets veranderen? [Mindshifting: (How) can we change mindsets?], Afscheidsrede in verkorte vorm uitgesproken op 19 December 2013. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  50. Spillane, J. P. (2009). Managing to lead: Reframing school leadership and management. The Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., Pustejovsky, J., Pareja, A. S., & Lewis, G. (2008). Taking a distributed perspective. Epistemological and methodological tradeoffs in operationalizing the leader-plus aspect. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Srivastava, P., & Frankwick, G. L. (2011). Environment, management attitude, and organizational learning in alliances. Management Decision, 49(1), 156–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. ten Bruggencate, G., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Modeling the influence of school leaders on student achievement: How can school leaders make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 699–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, Th T D, & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Veen, K. (2003). Teachers’ emotions in a context of reforms. Academic Dissertation, ILS, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  57. van Veen, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). How does it feel? Teachers’ emotions in a context of change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., & van de Ven, P. (2005). On teacher’s identity, emotions, and commitment to change: A case study into the cognitive-affective processes of a secondary school teacher in the context of reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 917–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Verbeeten, H. M. J. M. (2011). Invoering van een gedigitaliseerde onderwijspraktijk - Deel B. Patronen van interventies in een model van organisatieleren en leiderschapspraktijken [Implementation of a digital teaching practice—Part B. Patterns of interventions in a framework of organizational learning and leadership practices]. Dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  60. Waslander, S. (2007). Leren over innoveren. Overzichtsstudie van wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar duurzaam vernieuwen in het voortgezet onderwijs [Learning about innovation. Review of scientific research into sustainable innovation in secondary education]. Utrecht: VO-raad.Google Scholar
  61. Waslander, S. (2010). Government, school autonomy, and legitimacy: Why the Dutch government is adopting an unprecedented level of interference with independent schools. Journal of School Choice, 4, 398–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Waslander, S. (2011). Vijf jaar innoveren. Opbrengsten van het Innovatieproces. Durven, delen, doen [Five years innovating. Proceeds of the innovation process. Dare, share, do]. Utrecht: VO-raad.Google Scholar
  63. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense-making in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Werkman, R., Boonstra, J., & Elving, W. (2005). Complexiteit en weerbarstigheid in veranderprocessen. Patronen in het verandervermogen van Nederlandse organisaties [Complexity and unruliness in change processes. Patterns in the capacity of Dutch organizations to accommodate change]. M&O, 5, 5–30.Google Scholar
  65. Wiseman, E. (2007). The institutionalization of organizational learning: A neoinstitutional perspective. In Proceedings of OLKC 2007—“Learning Fusion” [Online]. Available: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/olkc2/papers/wiseman.pdf.
  66. Wiseman, A. W., & Anderson, E. (2012). ICT-integrated education and national innovation systems in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Computers & Education, 59, 607–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Zuylen, J. G. G., & Zuylen, R. J. H. (2005). De onderwijsvernieuwingscoöperatie.nl [The Educational Improvement Cooperation (EIC)]. VMBO-reeks 36. Tilburg: MesoConsult B.V.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marleen Rikkerink
    • 1
    • 2
  • Henk Verbeeten
    • 3
  • Robert-Jan Simons
    • 4
  • Henk Ritzen
    • 2
  1. 1.Erasmus School for Pre-vocational and Secondary EducationAlmeloThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Lectureship Educational Arrangements in Social ContextSaxion University of Applied SciencesEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Verbeeten ConsultancyGoudaThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options