Significant Theories Explaining Teachers’ Response to Change

Bochman and Kroth’s (2010) excellent paper synthesised Argyris and Schön’s (1978) Theory of Action (Espoused Theory and Theory in Use) and Kegan and Lahey’s (2009) Theory of Immunity to Change. This type of analysis is important if we are to better

understand teachers’ reluctance to embrace the full potential of digital technology to transform the learning process. Espoused Theory (Model I of the Theory of Action) explained that the attempt to maintain control is the central impediment to individual and organisational change. This was seen as anti-learning behaviour involving complex, tacit and disguised defensive routines at both the individual and organisational level. It was claimed that most of the strategies employed to promote learning and change inadvertently strengthened these routines. Productive double-loop learning is a challenge because it questions the very basis on which decisions are made, and consequently self- protection acts to impede the transformation.

Kegan and Lahey’s (2009) research led to their theories about immunity to change. They observed that even people with a sincere desire to change, as may be the case with many teachers, were unable to sustain the transformation. They believed this was because many people unconsciously divert their energy towards hidden competing commitments. Bochman and Kroth elaborate:

Externally it may appear they are resisting learning and change when in reality they are experiencing a type of personal immunity to change. This personal immune system is an intricate balanced scheme carefully designed to protect the individual and manage anxiety. However, when there is a change in the assumptions on which the scheme was built, the immunity misdiagnoses the condition as a threat and enacts the oppositional (counterproductive) response. (Bochman & Kroth, 2010, p. 332)

In effect, the individual is conflicted by two opposing drives: the desire to change and the desire to avoid threats. Bochman and Kroth identify the gap between what we want to achieve and what we are able to achieve under these circumstances as the ‘central learning problem’ of this century. Prospects for transformational change are therefore limited by the individuals’ ability to recognise and embrace the need for change – a process that requires significant personal effort and time, which no doubt includes time to reflect. Organisations are also limited by how their members are positioned on the plateau of mental complexity: the socialised mind (good team players heavily influenced by what they believe others desire); the self-authoring mind (effective in managing their lives but have difficulty adapting it to the critical parameters of their environment shift); or the self-transforming mind (whose ability to evaluate their own assumptions and reframe

their perspective on receipt of new data enables them to handle complex adaptive challenges) (Bochman & Kroth, 2010). They would argue that the success of teacher- focused change will rely on a significant number of teachers having self-transforming minds.

Bovey and Hede (2001) explain the significance of well-developed and habitual defence mechanisms that protect individuals from change and associated feelings of anxiety. This resistance is seen as a natural and expected part of the change process that involves going from the known to the unknown. Their research, using judgemental sampling in a non- contrived setting, took place across nine organisations that had experienced significant change. They note that individuals experienced change in different ways and at different speeds. They also acknowledge the need to address unconscious motivations. However, they claim that the vast majority of organisational change was dealt with as a technical issue and overlooked more complex dimensions of the process. Bovey and Hede (2001) suggest that organisations employ information and counseling-based interventions. Technical interventions would provide awareness, but an understanding of unconscious processes and the impact these often have on motivation and behaviour during change would assist individuals and groups to understand how their own defence mechanisms influence their response. However, within organisations there reside individuals who exert differing levels of resistance, depending on their past experiences, fears and worries. Adopting an approach that is sensitive to an often-large number of individuals (as is often the case in schools, and is definitely the case in school systems), each with a unique profile of concerns, would be difficult – if not impossible – to achieve. Notwithstanding educational leaders’ pastoral responsibilities to teachers, one might argue that once the focus of the service supply chain shifts to the individual student, it is no longer necessary to focus so much attention of convincing teachers of the need to change.

Once again, the issue of social status may provide an insight into why teachers have not been prepared to harness the potential of digital technology to personalise learning. Policy-makers and other commentators who have expected that teachers, and in particular senior school teachers of subjects with more specialised knowledge bases, would embrace transformational technologies that liberate students have been naïve. In many respects, the ‘Field of Dreams: if you build it they will come’ approach has also been applied to teachers in the form of ‘if we provide it, they will embrace it’. This is a flawed assumption,

especially if teachers see that the technology being provided undermines their power, authority and status. Of course, teachers adopted transactional technologies (from PowerPoint to interactive whiteboards) that represent an extension of their traditional instructivist work. The issue of adopting technology that is associated with a redefinition of the role of the teacher is another far more complex matter, and it should be seen through the prism of change at both the organisational and individual levels, with all its associated psychological and sociological implications (Ashfari et al., 2009; Bochman & Kroth, 2010; Bovey & Hede, 2001).

Of course, we could wait for a new generation of teachers to populate our schools, but there is little evidence that Generation Y teachers – the so-called ‘digital natives’ – will be champions of change (Nagel, 2017). Donnison (2009) conducted research involving seven pre-service primary teachers in South-East Queensland. The data she gathered through structured interviews, scenario planning workshops, and focus group and telephone interviews led her to conclude that ‘Generation Y have appropriated the discourse of change in the context of digital technology, but it does not indicate an overall capacity for change agency’ (Donnison, 2009, p. 336).

She was not alone in drawing these conclusions. She cited the work of a number of other researchers to conclude that,

this generation purportedly exhibits technological efficiency, confidence, optimism, enthusiasm, sociability, conservatism, idealism, an orientation towards success, tolerance, and social, environmental and community awareness … [yet] few authors describe this generation as flexible, adaptable and able to manage change outside their engagements with technologies. (Donnison, 2009, p. 338)

Gao and colleagues’ (2009) Singapore-based mixed methods research into the approach of over 300 trainee teachers reached similar conclusions. They found that the majority of beginning teachers were able to use digital technology to improve their teacher-centred instruction, but were unable to transfer their commitment to constructivism into practice. The authors support their claim by referring to a ‘long list of research that indicates most pre-service and beginning teachers are unable to use innovative and creative ways for promoting students’ higher order thinking’ (Gao et al., 2009, p. 714). They attribute the

phenomenon to the sheer complexity of focusing on technology and constructivism among their other duties. Carroll and Foster (2009) also found that young teachers were not necessarily equipped to lead the profession towards the new pedagogy. Even if younger teachers did have greater affinity with technology, their inexperience may require them to focus on other aspects of teaching at the cost of being at the vanguard of change. Evidently the new generation of teachers considered themselves to be future change agents, but they were reluctant to accept responsibility for that change. Waiting for the next generation of teachers to lead a revolution in education might not be a prudent strategy.