A Grounded Theory of Instructional Innovation in Higher Education

  • Published on
    25-Dec-2016

  • View
    214

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • 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 support@jstor.org.

    .

    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

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ohiosuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1981736?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 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

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 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

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 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

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 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

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 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

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • In...

Recommended

View more >