EDUCATIONAL PROFESSIONALS’ VIEWS ON TEACHERS’ INNOVATIVITY Siltala Reijo*, Tenhunen Anu*, Keskinen Soili*, Alajääski Jarkko*, Taatila Vesa** & Suomala Jyrki** *University of Turku /Finland **Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Espoo /Finland
[email protected]
Abstract Innovativeness is a keyword that shows up in various situations in the media and in everyday life. Innovativeness is essential for the success of a developing business or industrial company (Hamel & Prahalad [1]; Quinn, Baruch & Zien [2]). The birth of an innovation is often seen as a result of shared expertise (Thagard [3]). Also in the field of education, this is to be taken into account if the development of educational practises is to be achieved. Traditionally, educational innovativeness has been understood as technical “gizmos” or strongly method-oriented, for instance: (1) experiential learning (2) role playing, (3) competitions and games, (4) stimulating materials, (5) brainstorming and (6) many kinds of group methods (Brown [4]; Handfield-Jones & Nashmith [5]. Ellis [6] also describes team learning and multicultural education as educational innovations. In this research, we try to clarify how Finnish educational professionals understand innovativeness in teachers’ work. The participants consisted of teachers at primary and secondary levels, as well as at higher education (polytechnic and university levels) and teacher students.
Keywords Innovation, innovativeness, education, teachers, teaching, professionals
1. INTRODUCTION The definition of innovativeness is in some measure dynamic by nature, and depending on the situation, innovativeness can be seen as the property of an individual, a community or a society. It is generally seen as self-evident that the ever accelerating economic, technological and societal growth presupposes also accelerating and higher quality innovativeness (Piva & Vivarelli [7]). Generally, innovativeness is thought to give a certain intentionality and target-orientation to creativity. On societal level, two dimensions can be attached to innovativeness: (1) an ability to create new knowledge and understanding through research and development, and (2) an ability to create new kinds of enterprises and businesses. Innovativeness is seen as openness towards new ideas (Hurley & Hult [8]). Innovativeness is an entrepreneurship-related property involving a need for making plans and an ability to take and control risks in development work. On the other hand, it is thought that an innovative company’s management is flexible and emphasizes customer contacts (Georgellis, Joyce & Woods [9]). Certain flexibility and social skills are expected from an innovative person. A plain self-made inventor can not be innovative, if he/she can not work socially. It can be thought that innovativeness presupposes the utilization of creative energy. According to Kuratko, Hornsby, Naffzigen & Montagno [10] new ideas often develop in businesses on the basis of customer feedback or employee initiatives. The basic prerequisite of innovativeness is that a person or organization is capable of thinking in a new way in considering his/her/its operations or working environment (Lumpkin & Dess [11]). Hurley & Hult [8] discuss the ability to innovate and conclude that it especially involves the ability to successfully adopt and implement new ideas, processes or products. Because of its business-economic background, innovativeness has been in educational discourse defined in a more limited way and over a shorter period of time. Educational innovativeness seems to have achieved a slightly different meaning or sense as the original business-economic definition. In education, the meaning of innovativeness is not yet solid, but it has been used to emphasize, for instance, the novelty of a way or method to teach (Nali & Lorenzini [12]), a new
practical method to teach (Cherniss & Fishman [13]) or as a more effective development program (Jackson & Kelley [14]). All in all, innovativeness in educational research, as well as more generally in the field of education, has been seen as a rather large phenomenon, and the point of view of an ordinary teacher has been left aside in this. In this study, the aim was to clarify how educational professionals see a teacher’s innovative working.
2. EMPIRICAL SETTING AND RESEACH QUESTIONS In the spring and summer of 2008, a questionnaire with nine background questions, 57 five point Likert -scale items on innovativeness in teaching and two open questions were presented to a group of Finnish professionals (n = 485) in the field of education. The participants were chosen partly in a random fashion, but the sample may still be regarded as a deliberate one. The data was gathered in bigger Finnish cities and also in smaller countryside villages. The items of the questionnaire were based on earlier researches [15,16] and concept analysis in economical innovations and educational researches. In this study, the focus is on a subgroup of the professionals with working experience as a teacher (n = 428). The study group consisted of participants working or having worked as teachers at primary and secondary levels, as well as at higher education (polytechnic and university levels), researchers, personnel in department of teacher education and class teacher students in Finland. In Finland, the class teacher education is given at universities and normally takes 4 -5 years for the students to complete. The training leads to the academic degree of Master of Education. The teachers in basic education include class teachers (teaching all subjects in grades 1 - 6, pupils’ ages 7 - 13 years), subject teachers (1-2 main subjects to teach, grades 7-9/10, 14-16 years) and teachers in vocational education (students with ages 14 - 16 years). Teachers in higher education include teachers at polytechnic level (students of > 17 years of ages) and at university level (lecturers, professors). Subject teachers and vocational teachers have an academic Masters’ degree in their own subject (languages, mathematics, physics, history, biology, etc.) as a major. Polytechnic and university teachers usually have a postgraduate degree of licentiate or doctor in their own subject or education. The research questions are following: (i)
(ii)
What kind of properties are thought to be important, on one hand, and unimportant on the other, for innovativeness in teaching by Finnish educational professionals? Do the views of different professional groups (grouping by position) differ from each other significantly? What kind of gender differences there are in what is held as important and unimportant for innovateness in teaching?
3. THE METHOD Subjects The study group consisted of 141 males and 285 females; two respondents did not answer the gender item. The number of those working or having worked as a teacher was 428 in total. Table 1. Respondents with teacher experience
Gender Male Female Total
Years of experience as a teacher < 2 years 2-15 years > 15 years 30 52 59 50 99 136 80
151
195
Total(*) 141 285 426(*)
(*) Two respondents did not answer the gender item.
Table 2. Positions of the respondents with teaching as a profession or as a purpose of studies
Gender Male Female Total (1)
(1)
Student 25 29 54
Position Teacher 73 153
(2)
226
2)
Class teacher students, Teachers, basic educ., not answer the gender item.
(3)
(3)
Teacher 40 93 133
Total(*) 138 275 413(*)
Teachers, higher educ. (*) Two respondents did
Table 3. Respondents with a) teaching as a profession or as a target of studies and b) experience as a teacher
Position Students (2) Teachers (3) Teachers (1)
Years of experience as a teacher 2-15 < 2 years years >15 years 45 9 0 17 86 125 12 54 67
Total (1)
Class teacher students,
74 2)
149
192
Teachers, basic educ.,
(3)
Total 54 228 133 415
Teachers, higher educ.
Data gathering The data was gathered with a questionnaire with 57 Likert-scale items on innovativeness in teaching during the spring and summer of 2008 in western and southern Finland. In addition to the 57 innovativeness items some background data was also gathered. The main part (76%) of the respondents completed the printed version of the questionnaire while a smaller part of them (24%) did it on a web-form. A precise bookkeeping on how long it took to complete the printed version of the questionnaire was not held, but in general 15 minutes seemed to be enough. The time used to complete the web-form version was generally 10-15 minutes.
Data analysis The data was analysed with SPSS Statistical software package. As descriptive measures the means and standard deviations were calculated. Group diffrences were analyzed by t-test (grouping by gender) and one way Anova (grouping by position). The homogenuity of group variances were tested by Levene measures. When appropriate, non-parametric methods were used instead of the parametric ones.
4. THE RESULTS Important and unimportant properties of teachers’ innovativeness According to the results, the respondents emphasize innovative teachers’ expertise both in the subject matter and in pedagogy, versatility of teaching methods used, and ability for renewal. A non-innovative teacher is described as a classical-style authoritarian figure, utilizing just one or a few teaching methods. In Table 4, the descriptive statistics of the five most strongly agreed with properties (the highest average of responses) and the five most strongly disagreed with properties (the lowest average of responses) are presented.
Table 4. Important and unimportant properties of innovativeness in teaching (1)
Students
Item Mean
N
I14
4,57
54 0,74
I15 I18
4,48 4,61
I49
4,57
54 0,57
I56
4,46
54 0,75
I23
2,81
54 1,05
I30
3,04
I35 I38 I44
(2)
Teachers N
Teachers
Total
S. D.
Mean
N
S. D.
Mean
N
S. D.
4,59 228
0,61
4,62
133
0,65
4,60
415
0,64
n.s.
54 0,72
4,47 228
0,64
4,71
133
0,52
4,55
415
0,62
6,850; 0,001
54 0,53
4,48 228
0,70
4,44
133
0,73
4,48
415
0,69
n.s.
4,44 228 4,50 228
0,68
4,44
133
0,76
4,46
415
0,70
n.s.
0,72
4,38
133
0,94
4,46
415
0,80
n.s.
2,51 228 2,64 228
1,04
2,46
133
1,12
2,53
415
1,07
n.s.
54 0,89
1,02
133
0,99
2,79
415
1,00
5,939; 0,003
2,04
54 0,80
2,11 228
0,86
2,95 1,86
133
0,85
2,02
415
0,85
3,522; 0,030
2,56 2,30
54 0,90
2,77 227
0,91
2,10
133
0,98
2,52
415
0,98
21,706; 0,000
(1)
S. D. Mean
(3)
F; Sig.
54 0,82 2,51 228 0,88 2,59 133 1,03 2,51 415 0,92 2) (3) Class teacher students, Teachers, basic educ., Teachers, higher educ.
n.s.
I14 (4,60): The innovative teacher renews his/her teaching methods I15 (4,55): The innovative teacher utilizes versatile types of working I18 (4,48): The innovative teacher is inventive I49 (4,46): The innovative teacher utilizes versatile teaching methods I56 (4,46): The innovative teacher is pedagogically skilled I35 (2,02): The innovative teacher utilizes teacher-led processes I44 (2,51): The innovative teacher emphasizes rewarding methods I38 (2,52): The innovative teacher emphasizes discipline and order I23 (2,53): The innovative teacher is commonplace in his/her teaching I30 (2,79): The innovative teacher strives for economically profitable teaching According to the results of the study, in four of the items evaluated as most important, on one hand, and most unimportant, on the other, the differences of the evaluation means are statistically significant. The most important aspect of innovativeness in the teaching profession seems to be the ability to renew the teaching methods used. It is seen important by teacher students on one hand and by teachers in basic education as well as in higher education on the other. Utilizing versatile types of working is seen as an important issue of innovativeness primarily by teachers in higher education, but the other respondent groups also see it as an important factor. Furthermore, an innovative teacher is regarded as an inventive person. All respondent groups consider pedagogical skills to be an important aspect of teacher’s innovativeness. The least preferred features of an innovative teacher seem to be related to working by an authoritarian way. The lowest average measures were given to utilizing teacher-led processes. In this, the teachers of higher education seem to be in the forefront. Consistently, discipline and order are also valued low. Furthermore, economic efficiency as an aspect of innovativeness is not valued especially by the teachers in basic education.
Gender differences One aim of the study was to find out what kind of differences in innovativeness understanding there are between men and women. On the whole, there were 16 questions with significant (at .001 level) differences between male and female answerers (Table 5.).
Table 5. The significant (at .001 level) differences between male and female respondents’ item averages Item The innovative teacher … Gender Mean N emphasizes cooperation in the Male 3,87 141 working society Female 4,26 285
S. D.
t
df
Sig.
0,93 0,78
-4,461
424
0,000
-3,463
424
0,001
-3,414
223,67
0,001
-3,255
424
0,001
-4,886
424
0,000
-3,622
423
0,000
-3,368
423
0,001
-3,207
423
0,001
-4,385
424
0,000
-3,478
225,13
0,001
-4,821
423
0,000
-3,362
424
0,001
-4,377
215,35
0,000
-3,982
270,72
0,000
-4,184
423
0,000
-4,514
211,11
0,000
Male
4,15 141
0,76
Female
4,40 285
0,67
Male
4,21 141
0,87
Female
4,49 285
0,67
Male
4,17 141
0,85
Female
4,43 285
0,74
Male
3,83 141
0,89
Female
4,24 285
0,76
Male
3,85 141
0,79
Female
4,15 284
0,80
emphasizes the significance of Male culture Female
3,39 141
0,93
3,70 284
0,89
Male
3,62 141
0,90
Female
3,92 284
0,87
Male
3,87 141
0,84
Female
4,23 285
0,78
Male
4,26 140
0,79
Female
4,53 285
0,62
Male
3,88 141
0,87
Female
4,27 284
0,74
emphasizes the significance of Male conversations in teaching Female
3,94 141
0,88
4,21 285
0,73
utilizes versatile teaching methods
emphasizes interaction between the students easily adopts new ways of working emphasizes learning more than teaching emphasizes experience fosters students’ socialization
student-centered ways of working student-oriented ways of working proceeds in a personal way in his/her teaching utilizes cooperational learning methods
emphasizes experiential learning utilizes research-related learning and research tasks is pedagogically competent
Male
4,23 141
0,82
Female
4,57 285
0,59
Male
4,04 141
0,73
Female
4,34 285
0,70
Male
4,06 141
0,91
Female
4,40 284
0,75
Male
4,21 141
0,94
Female
4,60 285
0,66
Between the genders, the most important difference seems to be in emphasizing experiential processes, with the female respondents emphasizing it higher than the males do. The female respondents consider research-related learning and research tasks to be important in innovative education. Furthermore, the female respondents seem to appreciate pedagogical competence as a key factor of innovative education more than the males do. The female and male respondents strongly agree, for instance, that teachers’ innovativeness is not a part of emphasizing experiential processes. They also agree that emphasizing supporting individual student’s talent is not a particularly innovative act. Both genders also emphasize that new technology and new “gizmos” are not very significant aspects of educational innovativeness.
5. DISCUSSION The goal of this study was to clarify what kind of views educational professionals have about teachers’ innovativeness. In everyday discussions, innovativeness is connected to creativity and novelties. Innovativeness is a trendy word used quite light-heartedly in different areas and fields of activities. According to the results of this study, teachers’ innovative ways of working are connected to novelties and an innovative teacher is ‘novelty-minded’. An innovative teacher aspires to renew his/her teaching methods continually and he/she tries to combine versatile ways of working and teaching. An innovative teacher is pedagogically skilled and he/she acts in an inventive way in his/her everyday work. He/she is not a classical authoritarian teacher and does not use teacher directed and discipline related methods. Furthermore, he/she does not try to work in a very economical way and he/she never works routinely. According to the results of this study, innovativeness seems to have a place in the field of education. Before the study, there was a fear that people in the field of education value it firstly from a ”good teacher”-angle with innovativeness angle, per se, put aside. On the other hand, it is known that in everyday life people emphasize technical gizmos as innovations. In education, innovativeness seems to not mean the same as good teaching and certainly it does not mean just using strange apparatuses. Innovativeness is not a very gender-charged phenomenon, but women and men consider it in a quite similar way. The main differences were in cooperation and development. Innovativeness seems to have a clearly different nuance in education than in the business and economic fields. In business, innovativeness is in symbiosis with economic efficiency but in education it is not so significant. However, business-related inventiveness, noveltiness and adaptativeness, sense of circumstances, are strongly within educational innovativeness.
References [1] Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
[2] Quinn, J., Baruch, J. & Zien, K. (1997). Innovation Explosion. Using Intellect and Software to Revolutionize Growth Strategies. Free Press, New York.
[3] Thagard, P. (1997). Collaborative knowledge. Nous 31, pp. 242-261.
[4]
Brown, J. S. (2006). New Learning Environments for the 21st Century. Exploring the Edge.
Change. September/October 2006. 18-24.
[5] Handfielsd-Jones, R. & Nasmith, L. (1993). Creativity in Medical Education: The Use of Innovative Techniques in Clinical Teaching.
[6] Ellis, A. K. (2005). Research on Educational Innovations, 4th Edition. Larchmont NY: Eye on Education.
[7] Piva, M. & Vivarelli, M. (2007). Is demand-pulled innovation equally important in different groups of firms? Cambridge Journal of Economics 2007, 31, 691-710.
[8] Hurley, R. & Hult, T. (1998). Innovation, Market Orientation and Organizational Learning. An Integration and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 62 (July). 42-54
[9] Georgellis, Y., Joyce, P. & Woods, A. (2000). Entrepreneurial Action, Innovation and Business Performance. The Small Independent Business. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol. 7. No. 1. 7-17.
[10] Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D. W. & Montagno, R. W. (1993). Implement Enrepreneurial Thinking in Established Organizations. SAM Advanced Management Journal. Vol. 58. No. 1. 28-29.
[11] Lumpkin, G. T. & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 21. No. 1. 135-173.
[12] Nali, C. & Lorenzini, G. (2004) Air quality survey carried out by schoolchildren: An innovative tool for urban planning. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 131 (1-3), 201-210.
[13] Cherniss, C. & Fishman, D.B. (2004) The Mesquite 'MicroSociety' school: identifying organizational factors that facilitate successful adoption of an innovative program. Evaluation and Program Planning 27 (1), 79-88.
[14] Jackson, B. L. & Kelley, C. (2006) Exceptional and Innovative Programs in Educational Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 38 (2), 192-212.
[15] Siltala, R., Suomala, J., Taatila, V. & Keskinen, S. (2007). Cooperative Learning in Finland and in California during the innovation process. In Andriessen D. 2007. Intellectual Capital. ICCongress 2007 Haarlem.
[16] Taatila, V., Suomala, J., Siltala, R. & Keskinen, S. (2006). Framework to study the social innovation networks. European Journal of Innovation Management. Volume 9, Number 3, 2006. pp. 312-326.
