Although innovation in E LT has grown apace in recent years, much of it has
been unsuccessful (see, for example Karavas-Doukas 1998; Carless 1999; Nunan 2003), arguably because of a failure to take into account lessons from innovation theory (Wedell 2009), such as the following: 1 In-depth appraisal of the innovation context is vital. Kennedy (1988: 332)
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on July 22, 2013
shows how the potential for innovation at the classroom level is circumscribed by several additional overarching ‘subsystems’, especially the superordinate, sociocultural one. The ‘hybrid model’ (Henrichsen 1989) provides a thorough system for identifying contextual factors likely to facilitate or hinder the change process. Holliday (1994) demonstrates the importance of a detailed, ethnomethodological understanding of the innovation situation. The value of the ‘baseline study’ as a means of attempting to ensure that proper appreciation of contextual variables is built into the innovation process is illustrated in Weir and Roberts (1994). Wedell (2003: 453) provides a comprehensive algorithm for linking an analysis of the innovation context to the development of an appropriate innovation implementation strategy. 2 Certain innovation characteristics are likely to make adoption more successful. Kennedy (op. cit.) discusses the main criteria identified in Kelly (1980) as preconditions for teacher adoption of innovations, i.e. ‘feasibility’ (will it work?), ‘relevance’ (is it needed?), and ‘acceptability’ (compatibility with existing educational philosophy). Others (for example Henrichsen op. cit.; Markee 1997: Chap. 2) draw attention to and extend the characteristics in Rogers (1983) associated with successful and less successful innovations (briefly, the greater the degree of ‘relative advantage’, ‘compatibility’, ‘trialability’, and ‘visibility’ and the lower the ‘complexity’, the greater the chance of the innovation being adopted). 3 How an innovation is implemented will affect its potential for success. Significant (second order) change involves alteration in terms of materials, teaching methods, and underlying beliefs (Fullan and Stiegelbauer 1991: 29). The innovation implementation approach therefore needs to be based as much as possible on a ‘normative-re- educative’ strategy, i.e. ‘a collaborative, problem-solving approach, with all those affected by the change involved in some way and making their own decisions about the degree and manner of change they wish to accept’ (Kennedy 1987: 164). Such an approach implies that ‘teacher development must take place in the workshop context and in the workplace’ (Karavas-Doukas 1998: 36, original emphasis), and the E LT Journal Volume 63/4 October 2009; doi:10.1093/elt/ccp053 397 ª The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. Advance Access publication July 15, 2009 provision of adequate ‘secondary innovations’ (Markee op. cit.: 172–4), i.e. resources, such as teacher development programmes, which enable ‘primary’ innovations to be successfully implemented. 4 Innovation should be sufficiently systemic. The ‘spider’s web’ diagram in Bowers (1983: 101) indicates the importance of taking into account how changing one part of an educational system may affect other parts. Bray and Luxon (1999) discuss their experiences of involving ‘insiders’ in innovation project baseline studies, so that expertise and ownership is established as widely as possible from the outset; Waters and Vilches (2001) describe a framework for taking innovation implementation needs into account at two main levels (‘foundation building’ and ‘potential realizing’) and in terms of four main areas, viz. curriculum development and teacher, trainer, and ‘E LT manager’ learning; Wedell (2009: 48–53) provides a detailed and comprehensive sequence of steps for attempting to combine both centralized and localized forms of change management in the context of large-scale educational reform.
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on July 22, 2013
Space precludes mention of several other parts of this literature (but see Waters in press for a longer overview). However, given the investment that innovation usually represents, it seems important to pay greater attention to what innovation theory suggests about ways of making the practice of E LT innovation more successful than hitherto.
References Kelly, P. 1980. ‘From innovation to adaptability: the
Bowers, R. 1983. ‘Project planning and performance’ changing perspective of curriculum development’ in in C. J. Brumfit (ed.). ELT Documents 116: Language M. Galton (ed.). Curriculum Change: The Lessons of Teaching Projects for the Third World. Oxford: a Decade. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Pergamon Press/The British Council. Kennedy, C. 1987. ‘Innovating for a change: teacher Bray, T. and T. Luxon. 1999. ‘The role of baseline development and innovation’. E LT Journal 41/3: studies in E LT projects’ in C. Kennedy (ed.). 163–70. Innovation and Best Practice. Harlow: Longman. Kennedy, C. 1988. ‘Evaluation of the management of Carless, D. 1999. ‘Large-scale curriculum change in change in E LT projects’. Applied Linguistics 9/4: Hong Kong’ in C. Kennedy, P. Doyle, and C. Goh 329–42. (eds.). Exploring Change in English Language Teaching. Markee, N. 1997. Managing Curricular Innovation. Oxford: Macmillan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fullan, M. and S. Stiegelbauer. 1991. The New Nunan, D. 2003. ‘The impact of English as a global Meaning of Educational Change (Second edition). language on educational policies and practices in the London: Cassell. Asia-Pacific region’. T E S O L Quarterly 37/4: Henrichsen, L. E. 1989. Diffusion of Innovations in 589–613. English Language Teaching: The E L E C Effort in Japan, Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations (Third 1956–1968. New York: Greenwood Press. edition). New York: Free Press. Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Social Waters, A. In press. ‘Managing innovation in English Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. language education’. Language Teaching. Karavas-Doukas, K. 1998. ‘Evaluating the Waters, A. and M. L. C. Vilches. 2001. ‘Implementing implementation of educational innovations: lessons E LT innovations: a needs analysis framework’. ELT from the past’ in P. Rea-Dickins and K. P. Germaine Journal 55/2: 133–41. (eds.). Managing Evaluation and Innovation in Wedell, M. 2003. ‘Giving T E S O L change a chance: Language Teaching: Building Bridges. supporting key players in the curriculum change Harlow: Longman. process’. System 31/4: 439–56.
398 Martin Wedell
Wedell, M. 2009. Planning for Educational educational change, especially how to plan the Change—Putting People and Their Contexts First. innovation implementation process so as to provide London: Continuum. appropriate support for those whom changes affect. Weir, C. J. and J. T. Roberts. 1994. Evaluation in ELT. He worked in Kenya, Saudi Arabia, China, and Oxford: Blackwell. Hungary for 20 years, often as an E LT ‘change agent’, and has also contributed to ongoing ELT The author innovations in Chile, China, Oman, and Saudi Martin Wedell is a senior lecturer in TE S OL and Arabia. Director of Development, School of Education, Email: M.Wedell@education.leeds.ac.uk University of Leeds. His main interests include teacher education, testing, and the management of
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on July 22, 2013