Learning within sustainable educational innovation: An analysis of teachers’ perceptions and leadership practice
Tóm tắt
Innovative initiatives in education often have problems with their sustainability. The present study focuses on three educational innovations that have proved to be sustainable over time. We used a qualitative research approach to study and identify essential features of sustainable educational innovation. Two theoretical frameworks were used to guide the study: the integrated model for sustainable innovation (IMSI) and self-determination theory (SDT). Both frameworks take a different perspective upon learning; IMSI presents learning at the individual level, the team level and the organizational level to be the heart of sustainable innovation, and SDT presents how learning can be improved. The research question focused upon how the SDT concepts of autonomy, competence and relatedness were perceived within sustainable innovation, expressed by the IMSI framework, by teachers and school leaders. Based on our findings we demonstrate that the framework of IMSI and SDT can effectively be applied as a frame of analysis to identify essential features of sustainability in educational innovations and we discuss how concepts of SDT deepen the knowledge of sustainable educational innovation.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2014). Embedding school health into school improvement policy. International Journal of School Health, 1(3), e24546.
Boom-Muilenburg, van den, E., Tappel, A., Schildkamp, K., & Poortman, C. (2020). Duurzame onderwijsontwikkeling door professionele leergemeenschappen: Leiderschap als smaakmaker [sustainable educational change by professional learning communities: leadership as flavor]. School Management Totaal. https://www.utwente.nl/nl/bms/elan/duurzame-onderwijs-ontwikkeling/presentaties-publicaties/Presentaties-Opslag/ltr-p032-ltr-schoza-02-2020-002.pdf.
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.
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Fix, G. M. (2018). The football stadium as classroom: Exploring a program for at-risk students in secondary vocational education. Doctoral dissertation. University of Twente, Enschede.
Fix, G. M., Ritzen, H. T. M., Pieters, J. M., & Kuiper, W. A. J. M. (2019). Effective curricula for at-risk students in vocational education: A study of teachers’ practice. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 11(1), 1.
Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 26–36.
Hubers, M. D. (2020a). In pursuit of sustainable educational change—introduction to the special section. Teaching and Teacher Education, 93, 103084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103084.
Hubers, M. D. (2020b). Paving the way for sustainable educational change: Reconceptualizing what it means to make educational changes that last. Teaching and Teacher Education, 93, 103083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103083.
Hubers, M. D., Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. L., & Pieters, J. M. (2017). The quest for sustained data use: Developing organizational routines. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 509–521.
Kirschner, P. A., Hendriks, M., Paas, F., Wopereis, I., & Cordewener, B. (2004). Determinants for failure and success of innovation projects: The road to sustainable educational innovation. In: Paper presented at the meeting of the association for educational communications and technology, Chicaco, IL.
Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M., & Martens, R. (2018). Teachers’ innovative behaviour: The importance of basic psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and occupational self-efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(5), 769–782.
Meki Kombe, C. L., & Herman, C. (2017). Can education innovations be sustained after the end of donor funding? The case of a reading intervention program in Zambia. Educational Review, 69(5), 533–553.
Mudambi, R., Mudambi, S. M., & Navarra, P. (2007). Global innovation in MNCs: The effects of subsidiary self-determination and teamwork. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(5), 442–455.
O’Hara, M. T., Watson, R. T., & Kavan, C. B. (1999). Managing the three levels of change. Information Systems Management, 16, 63–70.
Pieters, J. M., Voogt, J. M., & Pareja Roblin, N. (Eds.). (2019). Collaborative curriculum design for sustainable innovation and teacher learning. Berlin: Springer.
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. Pattern of interventions in a framework of organizational learning and leadership practices]. Doctoral dissertation. Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Rikkerink, M., Verbeeten, H., Simons, R. J., & Ritzen, H. (2016). A new model of educational innovation: Exploring the nexus of organizational learning, distributed leadership, and digital technologies. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 223–249.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). The diffusion of innovation (5th ed.). New York: Simon & Chuster.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.
Schellenbach-Zell, J., & Gräsel, C. (2010). Teacher motivation for participating in school innovations-supporting factors. Journal for Educational Research Online, 2(2), 34–54.
Sheldon, K. M., Turban, D. B., Brown, K. G., Barrick, M. R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Applying self-determination theory to organizational research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 357–394.
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.
Stroet, K. F. A., Opdenakker, M., & Minnaert, A. (2015). Need-supportive teaching in practice: A narrative analysis in schools with contrasting educational approaches. Social Psychology of Education, 18(3), 585–613.
Thijs, A., & Van den Akker, J. (2009). Curriculum in development. Enschede: Stichting Leerplan Onderwijs.
Van den Berghe, L., Cardon, G., Tallir, I., Kirk, D., & Haerens, L. (2016). Dynamics of need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching behavior: The bidirectional relationship with student engagement and disengagement in the beginning of a lesson. Physical Education and Sports Pedagogy, 21(6), 653–670.
Van den Broeck, A., Carpini, J., & Diefendorff, J. (2019). Work motivation: Where do the different perspectives lead us. In R. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed.). New York: The Oxford University Press.
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229.