21
A Grounded Theory of Instructional Innovation in Higher Education Author(s): Robert B. Kozma Source: The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 56, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1985), pp. 300-319 Published by: Ohio State University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981736 . Accessed: 19/05/2014 10:47 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Ohio State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Higher Education. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A Grounded Theory of Instructional Innovation in Higher Education

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

A Grounded Theory of Instructional Innovation in Higher EducationAuthor(s): Robert B. KozmaSource: The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 56, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1985), pp. 300-319Published by: Ohio State University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981736 .

Accessed: 19/05/2014 10:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Ohio State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journalof Higher Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

t-E Robert B. Kozma

A Grounded Theory of Instructional Innovation in Higher Education

Institutions of higher education have come under increasing pressure to change their instructional practices. The social background of college students has become more heterogeneous [13], as has their academic preparation [10], and these changes challenge traditional teaching methods in postsecondary education [11]. Various new instructional technologies, ranging from computer-based simula- tions to behaviorally based systems, have been developed and refined, thus bringing their own press for change. And there has been less money, as shown by a steady, real-dollar annual decrease in expen- ditures per student [7], making change both more important and more difficult. Nevertheless, private foundations and federal agencies have made millions of dollars available to colleges and universities for in- structional change. National centers and associations were formed to disseminate information and promote the use of particular instruc- tional innovations such as the personalized system of instruction [25] and audio-tutorial instruction [37]. Many institutions established their own offices or centers for instructional improvement [8, 18].

This article extends a previous study on the impact of these pro- grams [29] to an examination of the process of instructional innova- tion in higher education. My purpose is to propose a grounded theory

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Exxon Education Founda- tion, the cooperation of participating faculty members, and the comments of Robert Blackburn, Wilbert McKeachie, Joan Stark, Rudolph Schmerl, and an anonymous reviewer.

Robert B. Kozma is an associate professor of education at the School of Educa- tion and an associate research scientist at the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching at the University of Michigan.

Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 56, No. 3 (May/June 1985) Copyright ? 1985 by the Ohio State University Press

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Instructional Innovation 301

of instructional innovation in higher education, to describe the pro- cess through which faculty become aware of new ideas in teaching, adopt them, reject them, or modify them, and then institutionalize them, discontinue them, or disseminate them to colleagues. Condi- tions that facilitate, alter, or inhibit the course of innovation will be identified, and some principles for improved practice and prescrip- tions for instructional change may result from these considerations.

In earlier work [29], faculty were surveyed in order to compare the impact of four instructional improvement programs. Of particular interest were differences in outcomes between two programs, the IMPACT (Implementation of Materials and Programs that Affect Col- lege Teaching) program of the Exxon Education Foundation and the LOCI (Local Course Improvement) program of the National Science Foundation. Both had been designed to promote instructional inno- vation, and both supported individualized, computer-based, and inquiry-based approaches to instruction, while LOCI supported audio- visual innovations as well. Both programs funded faculty from major research universities, comprehensive state colleges, and private liberal arts colleges and supported faculty in a variety of disciplines, although LOCI did not solicit projects in the humanities. The programs dif- fered in that the IMPACT programs provided participants with tech- nical information and workshops and made grants promoting the adop- tion of four previously specified target innovations, while LOCI was primarily reactive, providing only money for those innovations sub- mitted from the field that were judged to be sound and workable. The intent of the IMPACT program was to disseminate innovations pre- viously identified as successful, while the intent of the LOCI program was to encourage the development of local improvements.

The programs also differed in some of their outcomes. Three years after beginning the project, IMPACT directors were more innovative than LOCI project directors in using a greater variety of instructional technologies and techniques. LOCI directors, on the other hand, were more likely to judge their projects a success, to report that the project was considered a success by their colleagues, and to have disseminated their project to others. They were also more likely to have continued their projects when interviewed five years after the award of their grant.

These differences could not be accounted for by any of the syste- matic differences between the faculty, institutions, or innovations that the programs supported. Nor does there seem to be any direct connec- tion between the differences in services provided by the programs and the outcomes of the projects they supported. Rather, there are indi-

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

302 Journal of Higher Education

cations of differences in the process of innovation and in the syste- matic variation of some of these differences between the two programs. For example, the involvement of others in the original decision to adopt an innovation correlates with project success, as reported by project directors, and with the dissemination of the innovation. More such group decisions seem to have been made in LOCI programs. These patterns indicated a need to examine the innovation process in more depth than was possible from survey data, so a second study was initiated to collect more detailed field data from a sample of the project directors and to apply the constant comparative method to build a grounded theory of the process of instructional innovation in higher education.

Review of the Literature on Innovation

Although grounded theory emerges from an analysis of the data and is not based on a preconceived hypothesis, there is a role for pre- viously established research results and logically derived theory [19, 20]. Extant propositions or categories are considered along with those that are empirically derived and are modified and refined to fit the data as analysis proceeds. "Other theories are neither proved or dis- proved, they are placed, extended and broadened" [19, p. 38]. Much theory and research has been published on the theme of innovation. The literature comprises various orientations from a number of disci- plines and methodological perspectives. Dill and Friedman [14] cite Gamson's description of four frameworks that can be used to examine change in higher education and to organize the literature on this topic.

The complex organization framework [22, 45, 46] views innovation as a decision made by groups or individuals in positions of authority in response to pressures external to the system. The process is influ- enced by characteristics of the organization such as complexity, formalization, and centralization. Initiation of the innovation process is facilitated by organizational complexity, but implementation is facili- tated by formalization and centrality.

The conflict framework [1] describes change as a confrontational process between groups or individuals resulting from different effects of the social structure and environment. The articulation of contrary interests by groups within the system leads to pressure for change. The resolution of a conflict affects people differently and serves, in turn, as the basis for subsequent conflict and change.

The diffusion model [40] assumes that an innovation is a given; that

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Instructional Innovation 303

is, the introduction of something new into a system creates its own press for change. The rate at which the innovation diffuses through the system is associated with characteristics of the adopters (such as cosmopolitanism, level of education, innovativeness) and characteris- tics of the innovation (such as relative advantage, complexity, com- patibility). Also central to the framework are "opinion leaders," who because of their access to information channels exercise influence over other members of the system to promote the innovation.

The planned change framework [4, 30] ascribes an internal origin to an interpersonal process resulting from a need for "self-actualiza- tion." This need is frequently inhibited by the rigidity of the organi- zation but is facilitated through communication, trust, participation in decision-making, and through the reduction of tension and conflict within and between groups. This facilitation is accomplished through a "change agent" who follows a prescribed, deliberate plan for change: he or she develops a need for change, establishes a relationship with the client system, clarifies the problem, examines alternatives, effects change, stabilizes it, and terminates the relationship.

The diffusion framework and the complex organization framework are both variance models, identifying characteristics (of the individual, in one case, and of the organization, in the other) that predict suc- cessful change. As such, they are not detailed in describing the process of change and the conditions affecting it [33]. They differ, of course, in their focus on the correlates of innovation. The diffusion, the planned change, and the conflict frameworks are all interpersonal descriptions of change that results from the interaction of members of the system. Although the conflict framework is confrontational and motivated by differences between subgroups' articulated needs, the planned change model is cooperative, deliberate, driven by a common need for personal growth and development, and facilitated by a change agent. The diffusion framework fails to address motivation adequately but describes change as resulting from interpersonal communication influenced primarily by an opinion leader.

Criticism of the state of theory in this area abounds [2, 15, 17, 26, 38, 39, 44], and several prominent researchers [17] advocate "going back to start" in the development of a theory of innovation. They recommend additional effort in "the identification and testing of new variables that are involved in the innovation process in organiza- tion. .. , and the formulation of a model for such innovation behavior that specifies some of the relationships that are expected between vari- ables" [17, pp. 11-13]. The frameworks identified here overlap but

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

304 Journal of Higher Education

remain unintegrated and provide conflicting propositions that must be reconciled within specific substantive contexts.

The contrasts between frameworks were useful for initial compari- sons during theory development. Extant theory and early survey find- ings [29] resulted in the following categories that were used for the collection, coding, and analysis of the second set of data: continua- tion versus discontinuation, group adoption versus individual adop- tion, cooperation versus confrontation, modification versus no modi- fication, personal motivation versus group or interpersonal motiva- tion, and the role of principal actors such as change agents or opinion leaders. Using comparative analysis of cases, these categories were refined, connected, and integrated to form a grounded theory of inno- vation that is limited to a particular type of innovation within a par- ticular organizational context: instructional innovation in higher edu- cation. Innovation in other organizations or other kinds of innova- tions in higher education, such as curricular and organizational changes [9], may and probably do proceed differently and may be subject to different influences. It is also likely that instructional innovation within elementary and secondary levels support a theory that differs from the one presented here [3]. Thus, the present theory is substantive, that is, restricted to a certain area of sociological inquiry-instruc- tion in higher education. This and other substantive theories can be combined and brought to bear on the development of a formal theory of innovation.

Methodology The development of grounded theory, as described by Glaser and

Strauss [19, 20], relies on the constant comparative method, in which data collection, coding, analysis, and theorizing are simultaneous, itera- tive, and progressive. Initially, data collection is the primary activity, during which the researcher collects data widely, operating only from a general sociological perspective of the substantive area not from pre- conceived hypotheses. However, even as data are collected, they are coded into as many categories (or variables) as possible. As coding continues, these categories are disconfirmed or are refined, extended, and modified to fit the new data. At the same time, new categories and their properties emerge. The initial coding and analysis determine the subsequent data to be collected, a process known as theoretical sampling.

Theoretical sampling serves a different function from the random

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Instructional Innovation 305

sampling normally used to verify theory. Random sampling is used to test hypotheses because it provides assurance that concepts, prop- erties, and relationships are representative of some larger group. Theo- retical sampling is intended to facilitate the generation of theory, so cases are selected for the theoretical relevance of their similarities and differences. Theoretical sampling provides comparisons that identify categories and their properties and that subsequently establish the uni- formities, variations, and relationships that are integrated into theory. This flexible process allows the researcher, unconstrained by a pre- scribed or preplanned sample, to pursue the development of theory as new concepts and propositions emerge.

Data collection and coding subside as research progresses, and analysis and theory building gradually predominate. Analysis involves three simultaneous activities. First, comparison of cases establishes concepts and their uniformities and varying conditions. Second, iden- tified concepts are refitted to subsequent cases, either disconfirming the concepts or modifying and sharpening them. The cases, initially selected to maximize similarities, confirm the usefulness of the codes and develop their properties. Concepts that emerge from the data as well as those provided by extant theory are subjected to this process of fitting. Third, concepts are compared to other concepts to estab- lish hypotheses that relate them and develop theory. A gradual maximi- zation of differences between cases serves to qualify or strengthen the propositions and elaborate the theory. In turn, as analysis continues, data collection and coding become more selective and delimited by the emerging theory. The analysis becomes more abstract as data are sorted and condensed and as hypotheses are tested, refined, and inte- grated into theory. The entire process continues until saturation is reached, that is, until no additional data, coding, or sorting contribute to the extension or qualification of the theory.

The process culminates with the writing of the theory, an integrated body of concepts and hypotheses that can be presented either as a dis- cussion or as a set of propositions. Even as the theory is being written, clarification or further integration may require returning to the data analysis. The massive effort enlisted to develop the theory cannot be shown in the writing, they can only be suggested by the structure, shape, and conceptual style of the presentation. Concepts and propositions are illustrated by references to the data, but these references are used to establish imagery and understanding of the theory. They are neither inclusive nor proofs. The theory is convincing if it is robust, consis- tent, parsimonious, understandable, and integrated.

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

306 Journal of Higher Education

Sample

Of the various concepts and questions identified by the analysis of previously collected data, "continuation of the innovation" served as the core category for drawing the initial theoretical sample. The initial questions were about what similarities and differences existed in the process of innovation for those projects that continued and those that did not, and about how the involvement of others, the modification of the project, and increased innovativeness related to this process.

Two project directors, both from small, private colleges, were the first to be visited. One was supported by the IMPACT program, the other by LOCI. Both had, at the time of the visit, continued their projects for five years after receiving their grants. In-depth, open-ended interviews with the directors focused on the history of the innova- tion - its adoption, who was involved in the decision and in what way, whether the innovation was modified, and whether it was subsequently used by others. In addition, administrators, colleagues, and staff mem- bers involved in instructional improvement were interviewed. The coding and analysis of these data refined primitive concepts and propositions so as to guide the collection and coding of data from subsequent cases. For example, one of the directors adopted her inno- vation because of its similarity to an interdisciplinary approach she was using in a course. Even though the two approaches were very dif- ferent, this observation implied a concern for what was similar in the innovations and served as an antecedent to the final conclusion that the innovation process is evolutionary. The other director, the chair of her department, spent a good deal of time involving her faculty in the adoption process and, as a result, the innovation was widely used. This finding changed our question about the involvement of others into an initial proposition about the involvement of chairper- sons in successful dissemination.

Subsequent cases drawn from both programs included those projects that were discontinued, reduced, continued in their original form, or expanded. Four cases were also included in which faculty members applied for but did not receive program funding. Included for critical comparisons were faculty colleagues who did and did not adopt the innovation. In all, 26 cases (15 IMPACT, 11 LOCI) involving 28 insti- tutions were included. Intensive interviews were conducted with 145 people: 26 project directors, 59 colleagues (24 who adopted the direc- tor's innovation, 21 potential adopters who did not, and 14 who adopted other innovations), 47 administrators and staff members, and

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Instructional Innovation 307

13 instructional improvement specialists. Information was collected from a variety of sources: field interviews, telephone interviews, insti- tutional catalogs, project proposals, reports, and other documents. Because of time limitations and logistical constraints, subsequent data collection occurred within a relatively short time, a situation that reduced the desired interaction between coding and data collection that allows for progressive selectivity in these activities. But as a result, more data were collected than would have been assembled had time permitted greater interaction between coding, analysis, and data col- lection. The data had to be rich enough to permit after-the-fact sort- ing and comparison and to allow for the emergence of other concepts and propositions. Concepts and propositions were sufficiently formed at this point to assure that crucial comparisons were embedded in the theoretical sampling.

The Theory One of the goals of grounded theory is to build understanding of

basic social processes, the pervasive, patterned phenomena in the organization of social behaviors that occur over time and go on regard- less of place [19, p. 100]. Innovation is certainly pervasive and, like all other basic social processes, has both variations and uniformities. An understanding of the process requires that these uniformities and variations and the conditions accounting for them be determined. Pre- sented below is a description of the process of instructional innova- tion in higher education, its variations, and the conditions that influence it.

The Process The concept of stages or phases is inherent to basic social process;

the literature on innovation is filled with descriptions of these [46]. Such stages were not easily demarcated in the present study. A clear point of adoption or implementation was rarely discernible, and there was considerable overlap and ambiguity between phases. This fact is indicative of the most characteristic aspect of instructional innova- tion in higher education-it is evolutionary; new instructional prac- tices are built on past practices. A clear line of ancestry can frequently be traced to instructors' early experiences with the same or similar inno- vations that are broadened, extended, or mutated with subsequent gen- erations. For example, instructors who developed self-instructional modules had had previous experience with modules developed else-

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

308 Journal of Higher Education

where. To some project directors, their innovations meant merely using a technique in one course that had been used previously in another. But even then an evolution was discernible, as detailed later in this section. The new approaches are alternative expressions of attitudes, values, preferences, and philosophies embedded in previously used techniques; a characteristic that also illustrates the evolutionary quality of innovation. For example, at one institution a concern for student development, cited as the reason for the new use of small-group prob- lem solving, was consonant with the values implicit in the previous use of small-group discussions. At another institution, the behavioral philosophy at the base of Keller's personalized system of instruction [25] was also the foundation for the systematic use of computerized test items referenced to instructional objectives.

The evolutionary nature of this process can be usefully contrasted to the prescribed intervention of the planned change framework of innovation [30], in which a problem is identified, solutions are developed and considered, and a "best one" selected, implemented, and evaluated. The projects examined rarely evinced the openness to alternatives that is inherent in this framework or the overt, deliberate progression from problem to solution. When an innovation was trans- ferred from an external source, as with the IMPACT projects, other possibilities were not considered. If a need was identified (a rare occur- rence) the solution was a modification of previous practice rather than the development of the best technique to meet the need. Evaluation was infrequent and primarily descriptive. Although the deliberateness of the planned change framework may make the innovation process more effective, it is not an apparent characteristic of the way faculty members normally change their teaching practices.

If innovation is at times barely distinguishable from previous prac- tice, it becomes pronounced when resources are needed. This obser- vation illustrates another uniformity of the process: innovations, even those not funded externally, require time and/or other resources, such as technical assistants and equipment. It has been established elsewhere [5, 6] that the professor's job is complex and demanding; thus it was not surprising that the innovations studied were rarely implemented in addition to faculty members' regular activities. Released time, whether in the form of a reduced course load or as summer salary, is critical to the planning, development, and implementation of the innovation. Sometimes procurement of resources enables innovation; sometimes innovation is prompted by the availability of resources. In the present analysis, the lack of resources was the reason given most

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Instructional Innovation 309

frequently by the project directors' colleagues for not adopting the innovation.

Although the lack of resources was the most frequently given reason for not adopting an innovation, various others ranged from lack of awareness of the innovation to its inconsistency with a philosophy or with preferred techniques. In fact, colleagues' failure to adopt inno- vations was the norm. It was not that the innovation was considered and rejected, but rather that it did not evolve from the previous experi- ences of a colleague.

When subsequent adoption did occur, colleagues went through a process very similar to that of their predecessors and were confronted by the same issues and problems. These adoptions most often incurred the same costs and required the same investment of time and money as did the original project. Thus, it seems that the "ripple effect," that panacea of the funding world, is not a viable concept for instructional innovation in higher education. The funding of projects should be jus- tified in their own right rather than in terms of expected spin-offs, and if continuation and dissemination are desired beyond the fund- ing period, proposals should be evaluated for their ecological fit with the system.

Variations in the Process The most common characteristic of instructional innovation in higher

education is that it evolves from past practices; the major variation has to do with whether more than one person is involved in decisions to adopt them. In most of the instances studied, such adoptions rep- resent personal decisions, referred to as "individual adoptions." But in a distinct set of projects, the decision came as a result of an inter- personal or group process, termed "collaborative adoptions." These alternative modes of adoption each had a characteristic pattern of moti- vations, conditions, and outcomes.

In an overwhelming number of the cases studied (seventeen cases out of twenty-six), the decision to adopt was made by the project director alone. In twelve of the seventeen individual adoptions, col- leagues and administrators are included in neither the decision nor its implementation. Socially, the individual adopters are relatively iso- lated; they tend not to have positions of organizational responsibility or extended interpersonal networks within the system. Furthermore, the decision to adopt is a personal one, that is, the innovation does not derive from a contextual or organizational need although it evolves from previous instructional practices. Rather, the evolution is an

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

310 Journal of Higher Education

internal process of personal or professional development. The spe- cific motivations for the change vary for individual adopters, but all were egocentric. Some saw the innovation (or the grant or a journal article that might result from it) as justification for a desired promo- tion. Others were driven by a highly personal commitment to a par- ticular (although not necessarily articulated) educational philosophy or mission that had implications for instructional methods. Some focused on subject matter, others on student development, but all focused on their personal preferences rather than on an identified or expressed need of the organization or the students. The effect of the adoption was to maintain or elevate the importance of the teacher in the classroom. Individual adopters tend to transfer their innovations, intact, from elsewhere. When project directors compared their prac- tice to a template, or list of elements essential to the innovation, they reported few modifications and then only minor ones. These changes served to personalize the innovation or facilitate its installation.

At first, it may seem that the nature of innovation in this group refutes the evolutionary character of the process; it proved, however, to be a variation of it. The outside innovations were grafted onto a stock of similar previous experience. Faculty members who used EX- PERSIM (a computer-based experiment simulator), for example, had used computers in their research or had previous experience with non- computerized simulations. Those who used the Dartmouth Intensive Language Model (a small-group, tutor-led approach to drill and prac- tice) had previously used small groups or tutors in their language instruction. The IMPACT innovations and some of the LOCI inno- vations [e.g., Keller's personalized system of instruction (25) and Postle- thwait's audio-tutorial instruction (37)] are publicly identified and defined methods and can be viewed as packages, or bundles, of ele- ments, or components. For those who transferred their innovations, adoption took place as a result of matching one or more of these essen- tial components with similar, previous practices. This match was not the result of a search for alternatives, as suggested by the planned change framework. Rather, the innovation was absorbed by the faculty member because of its similarity or consonance with previous practice and, in this sense, the process was evolutionary.

The introduction of the new, unmatched elements or components of the innovation accounted for much of the increase in innovative- ness that was also characteristic of individual adopters. As one IMPACT director put it, his involvement in the program "opened his eyes" to other innovations. Parlett likens this to an ecological pertur-

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Instructional Innovation 311

bation: ". .. like adding a chemical or a new organism to an estab- lished eco-system - a variety of implications and consequences (not all intended and not all predictable) are likely to follow" [34, p. 66].

Because of the personal nature of the innovation process for indi- vidual adopters, the projects do not fare well after external funding lapses and are likely to be reduced or discontinued. Those who adopted an innovation in order to improve their chances for promotion regu- larly discontinued their project after promotion was attained. For others, discontinuation occurs as a result of recurring costs (such as course assistants or time needed to revise the project when a textbook is changed) that are not met after the funding period. In all cases, individual adopters did not have their projects adopted by colleagues. All of these factors indicate the lack of a committed social network that can sustain an innovation when individual interest wanes and that can procure needed resources when outside funding terminates.

It is in this last regard that the individual mode of innovation con- trasts the most with the second, much less common form of innova- tion: the collaborative mode. There was a small but distinct group of project directors who involved others in the decision to adopt an innovation. These projects continued, even expanded. They were fre- quently adopted by colleagues and institutionalized, that is, they were formalized into programs, offices, or centers, or they were adopted by the directors' departments or by several colleagues who coordinated their use of the innovations. The project directors in this mode are integrated into the social system; they have positions of responsibility, are frequently department chairs, and belong to extended interper- sonal networks. The social unit (i.e., the department or college) is also integrated and close-knit. The adoption process is cooperative, and ownership of the project is shared: several projects in the present study were codirected. Dissemination is the result of informal, one-to-one, personal interactions rather than formal modes of communication such as workshops.

The motivation for change for collaborative adopters is some iden- tified need in the organization or group. For example, a mathematics department, which experienced increased enrollment of unprepared students in many of its lower-level courses, institutionalized a math laboratory. Several professors in a biology department, which experi- enced a decline in upper-level course enrollment, used self-paced modules to consolidate enrollments into larger, independent study courses. The users of the innovation in this mode have had common experience with some element of the innovation or with techniques

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

312 Journal of Higher Education

like it. The innovation is home-grown; it is not likely to be transferred from elsewhere and modifications abound. The group ownership is less of the innovation itself and more of the process- that is, the basic problem and the roots of the innovation's evolution are shared among colleagues.

In summary, instructional innovation in higher education is an evo- lutionary process. New practices are very similar in critical ways to previous practices, even for those innovations that are transported from elsewhere. Innovation tends not to be an interpersonal or organiza- tional process as predicted by the diffusion and complex organiza- tion models. In its dominant form, instructional innovation is an internal process of personal or professional development. But when the process is interpersonal, it is closer to the planned change model than to the conflict model. The collaborative mode of the instructional innovation process is cooperative rather than confrontational-indeed, opposing subgroups were never identified and there were no cases of active resistance to innovations. It contrasted with the planned change model in that it lacked deliberateness in selecting the innovation. Inno- vation in this mode evolves from shared previous experience and values; it is motivated by an identified, common need and is adopted and dis- seminated collaboratively. These conditions were more prevalent with the LOCI projects, a fact apparently fostered by the local orientation of the program.

Conditions Influencing the Process Several conditions account for the uniformity and the variation in

the process of instructional innovation. The most pervasive is the unique organizational structure of higher education. There is some disagreement in the literature about the degree of faculty autonomy in this structure [32, 35], but Ikenberry sufficiently resolves these posi- tions when he characterizes academic organizations by their ". .. per- petual inability to strike a wholly satisfactory balance between the re- quirements for individual autonomy and academic freedom, on the one hand, and the necessity for organizational efficiency, account- ability, and control on the other" [24, pp. 23-24]. This condition of ambiguity or looseness was evident here where there was little or no organizational involvement in the directors' projects. Participation of instructional improvement centers or offices was optional. Approval of project proposals by department chairs was automatic, and if chairs participated directly in the projects, they did so in a colleagial manner.

This characteristic looseness in organizational control of instruc-

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Instructional Innovation 313

tion permits and encourages the highly personal nature of the inno- vation process in its dominant mode. It elevates the role played by the personal motivations and attitudes of faculty members and de- emphasizes contextual considerations, such as organizational needs or innovation "effectiveness." This situation may be contrasted with curriculum change [9], which is frequently determined by standing or ad hoc committees and for which there is more organizational input. Consequently, curricular change is more political. Instructional change is personal, and to a large extent faculty members do whatever they want to do in the classroom, provided that what they want does not cost anything. When costs are incurred, as frequently happens with innovations, faculty members may be forced into an interpersonal arena (i.e., they may have to deal with their colleagues to obtain re- sources). In the present study, project directors obtained support from external sources; others who adopted innovations without outside support frequently received funds from internal instructional develop- ment offices. These agencies, internal or external, may be inadvertently undercutting the success of some of the projects that they support by allowing faculty members to avoid involving others in the adoption of their innovations, thus reducing the likelihood of continuation after project funding terminates.

Further, teaching and accountability are not often linked in insti- tutions of higher education. The lack of project evaluations in the present study, despite sponsors' requirements, reinforces the common observation that instruction is rarely systematically assessed. That lack precludes a rational, deliberate change process. Instructional ap- proaches evolve in response to personal needs rather than in response to organizational objectives or discrepancies between identified goals and outcomes, and success is subjectively defined.

Organizational looseness, the existence of extra-organizational re- sources, and the lack of instructional accountability or evaluation account for the personal character of the dominant mode of innova- tion. The factor that accounts for the occurrence of the less common, collegial mode of adoption is the participation of the department chair in the adoption process. In all nine of the collaborative adoptions, the department chair participated in or directed the project. All the projects that were expanded and institutionalized were directed by the departmental chair. In this position, the project director was able to include others in the adoption and dissemination of the project. This influence, however, was informal and interpersonal rather than organi- zational. Department chairs frequently mentioned the limitations of

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

314 Journal of Higher Education

their influence due to the power of the deans, the unions, deference to faculty autonomy, and lack of resources. Although chairs had few resources at their disposal, those who were most effective in dissemi- nating their projects used what resources they had, primarily released time, to promote the innovation.

That chairs are involved so infrequently is due to the complexity of the role and responsibilities of this position and to the same organi- zational looseness that accounts for the personal nature of the inno- vation process. The diverse tasks of department chairs include a wide variety of activities that place demands on their time [43]. Of the chairs' various tasks, McLaughlin et al. [31] found that the leadership role (the area within which instructional improvement activities fall) is ap- parently optional-that is, chairs who enjoy these activities spent more time performing them than those who did not. The involvement of the chair as a principal actor in the innovation process is crucial to dissemination and institutionalization. This role is closer to that of the opinion leader in the diffusion model than to that of the change agent in the planned change model or to the managerial function implicit in the conflict and complex organization frameworks. The chair's involvement is motivated by personal preference, and his or her influence is based on informal and interpersonal relationships rather than on power or organizational authority.

A second organizational factor that can play a role in the innova- tion process is the instructional improvement center. These agencies have become an established part of higher education [8, 18] and have the potential for contributing to the improvement of instruction and the dissemination of innovations [16, 23, 27, 28]. As valuable as these centers appear in studies focusing on their effectiveness, they seem more peripheral when the focus of the study is the innovation process. They have the potential to systematize the process as prescribed by the planned change model, but in reality their involvement is much less methodical. Most of the institutions in the present study had per- sonnel or centers charged with instructional improvement. Of these, fewer than half were involved in the projects studied, and their con- tributions to the projects varied considerably. Examples include pro- viding technical information in one case, preparing proposals for out- side funders in another, and assisting with the installation and main- tenance of the innovation in a third. In only two cases did the center follow the process systematically from beginning to end.

It is difficult to assess the importance of these centers in the present study. All the projects in which they participated were continued suc-

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Instructional Innovation 315

cessfully. Many of these projects, however, had also benefitted from the participation of colleagues and department administrators. One proposition from the literature [36] (which fits some of the data but is insufficiently saturated and needs more research) is that innovations that are homegrown (or lie more toward the origination end of the continuum, to use Pelz's term) benefit most from the involvement of managers, while those that are transferred (or borrowed) need the involvement of change agents such as, in this context, instructional improvement specialists. Here, the innovations that involved managers were successful. Some innovations that were transferred also involved instructional improvement centers. All cases in which such centers were involved were continued, but the two factors were confounded and future research is needed.

In recent years, the number of and the support for instructional improvement centers have declined markedly [21]. Toombs [42] con- tends that these centers have failed to become central to the formal organization of colleges and universities because they cater to the per- sonal orientations of faculty development while ignoring the organi- zational needs created by changes occurring in higher education. Evi- dence obtained here fits with this view of the personal nature of the process of faculty change. Also evident is the importance of colleagues and the department chairperson as the base for the institutionaliza- tion of instructional innovations. Perhaps the most crucial contribu- tion that instructional improvement agencies can make is to resist the temptation to cater to the personal preferences of the faculty and make the adoption process more deliberate and interpersonal. This task can be done by pulling innovation into the organizational context, build- ing a departmental base for it, and making it less egocentric and more collective.

Implications The present study originated as an evaluation of instructional

improvement programs. All but four of the project directors benefitted from the support of external programs, and a number of their col- leagues who were not supported by external funds were supported by internal instructional improvement centers. The theory of instructional innovation described here has practical implications for the activities of these agencies. First, funding is critical for innovation and is needed for time released from other duties to plan, develop, and install the innovation. Money may also be needed for technical assistants and

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

316 Journal of Higher Education

equipment, depending on the nature of the innovation. This funding is needed not only for the first use of an innovation by the original adopter in a system, but also for continued use and use by subsequent adopters. Change takes time and money.

Second, proposals should be carefully reviewed for their likelihood of success. Projects should be judged not only for their workability, the traditional criterion used, but for their foundation on "need," their ecological fit, and the social integration of their project directors.

Third, agencies should endeavor to affect the innovation process. It is clear that the way an innovation progresses affects its outcome. By requiring innovations to be collaborative projects, or by working to make them that way, agencies can increase the likelihood that an innovation will continue, be disseminated, and become institu- tionalized. Critical to this success is the involvement of the depart- ment chair.

Fourth, agencies should train department chairs to be effective instructional leaders. The role of the chair in the instructional inno- vation process is critical, yet providing this leadership is optional [31] and is something for which the chair is rarely trained [43]. Instruc- tional improvement agencies can introduce department chairs to the dynamics of the innovation process and the subtle skills needed to work with faculty on improving their teaching.

Fifth, agencies should promote a systematic evaluation of instruc- tion that addresses local needs. Too frequently, evaluations are required by agencies for their own purposes, to assure their boards of direc- tors that funds are being expended appropriately. Evaluations of this type are intrusive for project directors and rarely serve the needs of departments and universities and thus are not institutionalized. Studies show that student ratings of instructors, the dominant mode of evalua- tion in higher education, have a limited effect on instructional improve- ment [41]. If innovation is to be less personally oriented, there must be more useful indicators of need and of success. More research and development are needed on various evaluation systems and ways they can be incorporated into higher education. It may yet be that this kind of systematic feedback to the classroom is useful to faculty members and chairs in monitoring instructional effectiveness on a continuing basis and thus facilitating its improvement.

Conclusion The tradition of faculty autonomy is strong, distinguishing higher

education from other types of organizations. The personal nature of

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Instructional Innovation 317

the dominant mode of instructional innovation is consonant with this tradition. Yet it is apparent that individual adoption of innovation results in instructional improvement efforts that do not correspond to students' or organizations' needs, that are not propagated, and that ultimately fail. The success of innovations more organizationally and collaboratively based supports the need for a balance between faculty autonomy and organizational considerations when promoting instruc- tional improvement.

References

1. Baldridge, J. Power and Conflict in the University. New York: Wiley, 1971. 2. . "Organizational Change: The Human Systems Perspective vs. the Political

Systems Perspective." Educational Researcher, 1 (1972), 4-10. 3. . "Organizational Innovation: Individual, Structural, and Environmental

Impacts." In Managing Change in Educational Organizations, edited by J. Bald- ridge and T. Deal. Berkeley: McCutchen, 1975.

4. Bennis, W. "Theory and Method in Applying Behavioral Science to Planned Organizational Change." In The Planning of Change, edited by W. Bennis, K. Benne, and R. Chin. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969.

5. Bess, J. University Organization. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1982. 6. Blackburn, R. "The Meaning of Work in Academia." New Directions for Insti-

tutional Research, 2 (Summer 1974), 75-99. 7. Bowen, H. The Costs of Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. 8. Centra, J. Faculty Development Practices in U.S. Colleges and Universities. Report

PR-76-30. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1976. 9. Conrad, C. "A Grounded Theory of Academic Change." Sociology of Education,

51 (April 1978), 101-12. 10. Cross, K. Beyond the Open Door. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971. 11. . Accent on Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976. 12. Davis, R., R. Strand, L. Alexander, and M. Hussain. "The Impact of Organiza-

tional and Innovator Variables on Instructional Innovation in Higher Education." Journal of Higher Education, 53 (September/October 1982), 568-86.

13. Dearman, N., and V. Plisko. The Conditions of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics, 1980.

14. Dill, D., and C. Friedman. "An Analysis of Frameworks for Research on Inno- vation and Change in Higher Education." Review of Educational Research, 49 (Summer 1979), 411-35.

15. Downs, G., and L. Mohr. "Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation." Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 21 (December 1976), 700-714.

16. Erickson, G., and B. Erickson. "Improving College Teaching: An Evaluation of a Teaching Consultation Procedure." Journal of Higher Education, 50 (September/ October 1979), 670-83.

17. Evland, J., E. Rogers, and C. Klepper. The Innovation Process in Public Organi-

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

318 Journal of Higher Education

zations. Ann Arbor: The Communication Department, University of Michigan, 1977.

18. Gaff, J. Toward Faculty Renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975. 19. Glaser, B. Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley: Sociology Press, 1978. 20. Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York:

Aldine, 1967. 21. Gustafson, K., and B. Bratton. Instructional Improvement Centers in Higher

Education: A Status Survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, 1983.

22. Hage, J., and M. Aiken. Social Change in Complex Organizations. New York: Random House, 1970.

23. Hoyt, D., and S. Howard. "The Evaluation of Faculty Development Programs." Research in Higher Education, 8 (1978), 25-28.

24. Ikenberry, S. "The Organizational Dilemma." Journal of Higher Education, 43 (January 1972), 23-34.

25. Keller, F. "Goodbye Teacher ..." Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1 (1968), 79-89.

26. Kelly, P., and M. Kranzberg. Technological Innovation: A Critical Review of Current Knowledge. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology Press, 1975.

27. Kozma, R. "Faculty Development and the Adoption and Diffusion of Classroom Innovations." Journal of Higher Education, 49 (September/October 1978), 438-49.

28. . "Communication, Reward, and the Use of Classroom Innovations." Journal of Higher Education, 50 (November/December 1979), 761-71.

29. . An Evaluation of Four Instructional Improvement Programs. Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan, 1980.

30. Lippitt, R., J. Watson, and B. Westley. The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1958.

31. McLaughlin, G., J. Montgomery, and L. Malpass. "Selected Characteristics, Roles, Goals, and Satisfactions of Department Chairmen in State and Land-Grant Institutions." Research in Higher Education, 3 (1975), 243-59.

32. Mayhew, L. "Comment by Lewis B. Mayhew." Journal of Higher Education, 42 (June 1971), 495-98.

33. Mohr, L. Process Theory and Variance Theory in Innovation Research. Ann Arbor: Institute of Public Policy Studies, 1978.

34. Parlett, M. IMPACT: A Study in the Ecology of Change. Newton: Education Development Center, 1981.

35. Parsons, T. "The Strange Case of Academic Organization." Journal of Higher Education, 42 (June 1971), 486-95.

36. Pelz, D., and F. Munson. "Originality Level and the Innovating Process in Organizations." Human Systems Management, 3 (1982), 173-87.

37. Postlethwait, S., J. Novak, and H. Murray. The Audio-tutorial Approach to Learning. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing, 1972.

38. Radnor, M., I. Feller, and E. Rogers. "Research on the Diffusion of Innova- tions by Organizations: A Reappraisal." In The Diffusion of Innovations: An

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Instructional Innovation 319

Assessment, edited by M. Radnor, I. Feller, and E. Rogers. Evanston: North- western University Press, 1978.

39. Rogers, E. "Re-Invention During the Innovation Process." In The Diffusion of Innovations: An Assessment, edited by M. Radnor, I. Feller, and E. Rogers. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1978.

40. . Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press, 1983. 41. Rotem, A., and N. Glasman. "On the Effectiveness of Students' Evaluative Feed-

back to University Instructors." Review of Educational Research, 49 (Summer 1979), 497-511.

42. Toombs, W. "Faculty Development: The Institutional Side." New Directions in Institutional Research, 40 (December 1983).

43. Tucker, A. Chairing the Academic Department. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1981.

44. Warner, K. "The Need for Some Innovative Concepts of Innovation: An Examina- tion of Research on the Diffusion of Innovations." Policy Sciences, 5 (1974), 433-51.

45. Wilson, J. "Innovation in Organization: Notes Toward a Theory." In Approaches to Organizational Design, edited by J. Thompson. Pittsburgh: University of Pitts- burgh Press, 1966.

46. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., and Holbek, J. Innovations and Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1973.

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 19 May 2014 10:47:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions