Implementing change

Educational change is difficult because it involves changing professional behaviours alongside underlying beliefs and attitudes (reculturing) (Fullan, 2007). Educational change also takes a long time and is multi-layered; the people in a position to bring about the change (teachers) are not the policy-makers or the people with control over the available resources (Wedell 2009). Wedell acknowledges that educational change can be painful for those concerned and encourages those with responsibility for implementing change to consider all the variables involved – he lists 12 (p41) as a starting point. They are all sensible suggestions, but this approach is not particularly useful for people involved in implementing change; some sort of theory or meta-level thinking is required. In my attempts to better understand the issues surrounding ‘implementation’, I came across ideas from the field of healthcare, which have provided insights that are informing my work as TESSA AD, and an analytical framework for this study. It is a sociological theory of

implementation (May & Finch, 2009; May, 2013) which attempts to explain how this aspect of the social world operates (Turner, 2013). It is based on the assumption that the social universe reveals certain basic fundamental properties and processes that can explain the flow of events in specific contexts, and I have found the concepts outlined in this theory to be helpful in identifying some of the fundamental principles that underpin implementing educational change. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) (May & Finch , 2009) conceptualises implementation as taking place

56 through four generative mechanisms: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. These are explained in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: The four generative mechanisms of implementation (May and Finch, 2009)

This theory draws on empirical evidence from the field of healthcare (May and Finch, 2009), although the ideas have been tested in the field of information technology (Sooklal et al., 2011). Implementation in the context of healthcare involves people changing their behaviour in order to incorporate new approaches and new technology. It is deemed to have been successful when the new process or procedure becomes ‘normalised’ (May & Finch, 2009). Educational change involves teachers and TEs changing their behaviour, so there is some overlap. The sort of changes described by May and Finch require some sort of cognitive engagement, but they don’t

necessarily involve fundamental changes in the attitudes and beliefs that underpin practice (Sooklal et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the concepts can be applied in the field of education.

Wedell (2009) uses the terms ‘initiating’ (or planning), ‘implementing’ and ‘evaluation’ when referring to educational change. ‘Coherence’ (table 4.2) is a richer notion than planning, as it recognises the fact that any new practices need to be integrated into current situations and contexts, and that this requires an investment on the part of key actors. ‘Collective action’ recognises the power of the community and collaboration when establishing new ways of

working, and ‘reflexive monitoring’ acknowledges that things are not static and that the real value in ‘evaluation’ is in re-defining and modifying the new practices. The notion of ‘cognitive

participation’ (‘getting inside people’s heads’) is missing from Wedell’s analysis and is perhaps the step that has been missing from the studies described by Schweisfurth (2011). The change that

Coherence – introduces and defines the practice in terms of its meaning, use and utility.

It highlights the ways in which it is different from other practices. Coherence requires that actors collectively invest meaning in the new practice, in their context.

Cognitive participation – involves actors engaging with new practices and identifying

courses of action, within their organisation, that will led to the new practices becoming operationalised. Cognitive participation requires actors to interpret and ‘buy in’ to the new practice.

Collective action – involves the actors in taking collective, purposive action towards the

agreed goal. Collective action requires actors to operationalise the new practice and mediate it within the appropriate networks.

Reflexive monitoring – involves the continuous evaluation of patterns of collective

action, including making judgements about the utility and effectiveness of the new practice. These judgements feed back into ensuring the coherence and meaningfulness of the practice.

57 these studies focus on is a move towards learner-centred education. The suggestions that

‘learning-centred education’ (O’Sullivan, 2004) or ‘contingent constructivism’ (Vavrus, 2009; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2012) would be contextually more relevant and appropriate terms, perhaps demonstrate the challenge of achieving ‘cognitive participation’ for LCE in developing contexts and the importance of ‘coherence’.

Schweisfurth (2011) identifies the ‘barriers’ to change as

• an over-ambitious and under-resourced reform process;

• local conditions (large classes and a lack of resources) which make it very demanding for teachers;

• inadequate teacher education and a lack of motivation from teachers;

• contradictions in the form of attitudes and values which see teachers as ‘experts’ and learners as ‘empty vessels’;

• an inappropriate curriculum and examination system.

As suggested in Chapter 1, I find the concept of ‘barriers’ to be unhelpful, as they can provide excuses and often mask underlying social realities (Checkland et al., 2007). In terms of the concepts described in Table 4.2, these ‘barriers’ are a combination of a lack of ‘coherence’ and a lack of ‘cognitive participation’. How to achieve ‘coherence’ and ‘cognitive participation’, for example, in the context of educational development projects could be a useful question to ask (more useful perhaps than trying to identify all the possible variables to consider) and deserves investigation.

Critical realism offers a perspective on change which is consistent with the notion of cognitive participation and collective action. In Chapter 3 (p33) I highlighted the fact that it is the actions of individual stakeholders and how they interact with social structures, that will bring about change. Causal mechanisms generate patterns of behaviour - some of which might be problematic in the context of the change required. Sustained changes in the behaviour of individuals will only come about in ‘conducive circumstances’ (Pawson and Tilley, 1997, p216). What are considered to be ‘conducive circumstances’ will be different for different individuals and may not lead to collective action. In the context of pedagogic change that supports more active approaches to learning and teaching, therefore, ‘conducive circumstances’ will be those which support some sort of

engagement with (and cognitive participation in) the ideas that underpin learner-centred education, and promote collective action.

4.4 Summary

This chapter has set out the key concepts and theories that underpin teacher education, teacher learning and the policy context for student learning (LCE), and has introduced a model for thinking

58 about implementing change in educational settings. Drawing on the literature about teacher learning, I have identified some of the desirable features of teacher preparation courses. I have suggested that Schweisfurth’s ‘minimum criteria’ (Schweisfurth, 2013) provide a definition for LCE. These ideas have informed my research design and data analysis. In particular, ideas about teacher learning and LCE provided a framework for my analysis of the ‘discursive’ structures – the ideas that underpin the work of this group of professionals. A model for change, based on the concepts of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring has been introduced and will be re-visited in Chapter 7 when I discuss the implications of my findings for pedagogic change.

In the next chapter, I explain how I developed my methodology in order to investigate the social structures in a university department which trains secondary science teachers (RQ1), and how TEs perceive their agency in relation to their role as a TE (RQ2), and ultimately identify the causal mechanisms impacting on the capacity of individuals to embrace pedagogic change (RQ3).

59