ICT Innovations 1
Sustainability Scalability and Transferability of ICT-based Pedagogical Innovations in Israeli schools
David Mioduser*, Rafi Nachmias*, Alona Forkosh-Baruch* & Dorit Tubin**
*Tel Aviv University, Israel **Ben-Gurion University, Israel
Tel-Aviv University, School of Education Tel-Aviv, 69978, Israel
[email protected]
Running head: ICT Innovations
ICT Innovations 2
Abstract For more than two decades systematic effort has been made by the Israeli Ministry of Education and various educational agents to facilitate the nationwide implementation of information and communication technologies (ICT) in schools. In the last decade, two significant phases of this effort can be identified. The first, between the years 1993-1998, focused mainly on building the technological infrastructure within schools. The second stage (between the years 1998-2003) deal primarily with curricular and staff training aspects. This paper presents data collected between the years 1999-2000 for the OECD/CERI international research of ICT and Organizational Innovation in five Israeli schools that have widely implemented ICT in a way that has provoked substantial organizational change. In this paper we analyze the data collected from two perspectives: (a) using an innovation analysis framework for characterizing ICT-based educational innovations examining the levels of the innovations (in a progression ranging from initial assimilation of the innovation up to a substantial organizational transformation), in four different domains of the schools’ functioning (time and space configurations, students roles, teachers roles, curricular issues); (b) addressing key issues related to the prospects for sustainability, transferability and scalability of the innovations.
Keywords: Sustainability, Scalability, Transferability, Educational innovation, ICT.
ICT Innovations 3 During the last decades ICT (Information & Communication Technology) has become a vital component in schools and schooling (Pelgrum & Anderson, 1999). ICT implementation has affected schools’ functioning at multiple levels: new configurations of learning spaces and timetables have been created; innovative teaching methods have been incorporated; autonomous and active learning processes using technology have been adopted; teachers’ traditional roles have been expanded, including personal and group tutoring and guidance functions; and new ICT-based curricular solutions have been generated (Venezky & Davis, 2002). Still, there are no conclusive answers as to the nature and extent of the impact of ICT in schools. A recent IEA international study established that ICT is regarded as a tool for promoting traditional as well as innovative pedagogy (Pelgrum & Anderson, 1999). Another study examined 436 educational websites and found that in general, the current phase of the educational implementation of the Internet represents mainly the phrase “one step ahead for technology, two steps back for pedagogy” (Mioduser, Nachmias, Lahav & Oren, 2000). However, Venezkky & Davis found that “ICT favors the prepared organization” and serves as a powerful lever for change when new directions are carefully planned, staff and support systems are prepared, and resources for implementation and maintenance are provided (Venezky & Davis, 2002). In this paper we address the relationship between innovative pedagogical practices using ICT and prospects of sustainability, scalability and transferability of these innovative practices, as found in five Israeli schools which have implemented ICT successfully. We begin this paper with a review of the state of ICT in the Israeli schooling system. Following, we describe the levels and domains of innovations using ICT. In the third section we take up the matter of sustainability, scalability and transferability, and its relationship to the diffusion of educational innovation.
ICT Innovations 4
Background The state of ICT in Israel ICT implementation in Israeli schools goes back as far as the 70's. In 1993, the Ministry of Education released an operative proposal for the computerization of the education system known as the “5-Year National Computerization Program. Its main goals were to supply infrastructure according to defined standards (hardware configurations and software requirements), to provide pre- and in-service training to most teachers in the system, and to foster equity of ICT access for students. Between the years 1994-2001 about 75,000 computers were allocated to approximately 2,500 schools. In 1999, the ratio of computers per student in primary schools was 1:18, and a 1:14 ratio for lower and upper secondary schools. Accessibility to the Internet is still limited: only 35% in primary schools, 53% and 72% in lower and upper secondary schools (Nachmias, Mioduser, Forkosh-Baruch, Tubin, 2003). Currently, the second phase of the computerization program (for the years 2000-2005) is being implemented. Built on the conclusions of the previous phase, the goals pursued in the new plan focus on students' acquisition of learning and knowledge handling skills, ICT-related ethical issues, expanding the depth and scope of teacher training programs, incorporating network technologies into teaching and learning, and encouraging experimentation, research and evaluation by schools and research institutions. Nowadays, technology plays a substantial role in many Israeli schools, contributing to changes in the curriculum as well as in teacher-student encounters (Nachmias et al., 2000). Innovative pedagogical practices using technology are, in fact, emerging in many of our schools, resulting in changes in teaching and learning processes and outcomes, as well as providing students with life-long-learning skills, competencies, and ICT-literacy needed in the information society. Some changes are in fact impossible to accomplish without ICT.
ICT Innovations 5 Levels and Domains of innovation using ICT An educational innovation is usually not a one-shot event, but a complex process evolving over time and involving many actors (Fullan, 2001). The rapid and pervasive integration of ICT into schools facilitated the development of educational innovations varying in levels and application domains (Mioduser et al., 2003; Tubin et al., 2003). At the most general level, an innovation can be regarded as a shift in educational paradigm (Pelgrum, Brummelhuis, Collis, Plomp, & Janssen, 1997). ICT plays a central role in this paradigm-shift affecting both contents (new technology-related concepts and skills included in the curriculum) and general skills (e.g., learning how to learn, acquiring generic knowledge-manipulation skills, teamwork skills). Hence, innovations can be defined in operational terms as the wide range of activities and means implementation reflecting the school’s educational-philosophical orientation towards lifelong learning. ICT-related issues triggering innovative practices in schools are related to four general issues with relation to the innovations studied in Israel: organizational (time and space configurations), pedagogical, cognitive and curricular issues. Regarding time-and-spaceconfigurations innovation can be defined in terms of the extent to which observed solutions depart from traditional temporal and spatial school structures. In the outer environment, ICT is clearly affecting the traditional perception of time and space (e.g., globalization, cyberspace, internet time). In the inner environment ICT is seriously challenging traditional definitions of rigid spaces and time slots (e.g., through access any time from anywhere to globally distributed knowledge resources, technology-mediated asynchronous teamwork, alternative communication channels among students and teachers). With relation to pedagogical issues, innovations are defined in terms of novel didactic solutions reflecting the constructivist perception of the learning process, and may take the form, for example, of novel instructional formats, increased shift of responsibility and control over the learning process to the students, or alternative methods for the assessment of learning (Mioduser et al., 2000; Nachmias et al., 2000; Oren, Mioduser, & Nachmias, 2002).
ICT Innovations 6 In the case of learning and cognition processes, innovations may address, for example, processes of inquiry and design, target skills such as information handling and modeling, or meta-cognitions, e.g. reflection (diSessa, 2000; Mioduser, in press; Olson, 1994). Finally, on curricular issues, innovations should be related not only to contents but to the very perception of the curriculum itself. New corpus of knowledge, concepts and skills related to the new technologies became formalized and entered the curriculum. More radical innovations reflect new approaches to the fundamental definition of the curriculum. Innovations can be found in alternative views of the structure of the curriculum, e.g., non-linear and nonhierarchical organization of contents or self-contained content units. Based on the above definitions, we have developed an analysis and classification schema of domains and levels of innovation in schools (Mioduser et. al, 2003), which is presented in the method section of this paper. Sustainability, Scalability and Transferability Following the introduction of ICT in Israeli schools and the attempt to characterize ICTbased innovative pedagogical practices with relation to levels and domains, questions are raised with reference to the conditions needed for sustainability, scalability and transferability of ICTbased innovative pedagogical practices. Some answers concerning the scalability and sustainability of ICT-based innovations can be found in the Diffusion of Innovation theory (Rogers, 1995). Explanations for the transferability process are proposed by the Institutional Theory that deals with the relationship between the organization and its institutional environment (Hanson, 2001; Benavot, 2001). Sustainability is the ability of the innovation to persist over time, the key element being the institutionalization process, e.g. rules, regulations and intensive implementation. Only integration of the innovation into the “grammar of schooling” (Tyack & Cuban, 1995), the very structure of the school organization, will allow the innovation to become a permanent and integral part of the school. This depends on the harmony between the innovation and the principles governing the structure - the “Theory in Use” (Argyris & Schon, 1996), and on the ability of the innovation to serve both organizational goals and its members needs (Ogawa,
ICT Innovations 7 Crowson, Goldring, 1999). New approaches refer to sustainability not only as a matter of time, but also as a matter of space: transplanting the educational innovation into spaces like markets, networks, virtual spaces and social movements (Hargreaves, 2002). Therefore, sustainability depends on the capability to assimilate the innovation into both the organizational structure and the spatial milieu. Transferability is the extent to which the innovation can be duplicated and implemented in new and different settings. The institutional theory argues that the pressure exerted by organizations and agencies on schools (e.g. state regulations, teacher unions, accreditation requirements), even if these are of different kinds or act in different environments, are quite similar. In consequence schools in general tend to act in similar ways (Hanson, 2001). This tendency is termed isomorphism (Rowan & Miskel, 1999). The emergence of ICT is a form of environmental shock that demands changes in the educational systems. Hence we can expect high transferability of traditional pedagogical practices using ICT, while innovative ICT-based practices have much less transferability chances (Hanson, 2001). Scalability is the ability of the innovation to perform well as it grows. According to the Diffusion of Innovation theory, this ability depends, among other factors, on the type of the innovation (e.g., continuous vs. discontinuous), and on ”easiness”, as perceived by the adaptors (Rogers 1995). Innovations that outgrow themselves were perceived by the community as destructing the “real school”, and did not receive the needed legitimacy (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Therefore, we assume that the more the innovation is outstanding and complex, the less scalability potential it has. The three process heavily depends on required/available resources. Sustainability demands these resources (money, specialized personnel, public legitimacy) for its long lasting maintenance; transferability depends on the existence of prerequisite resources and a successful combination of essential conditions for its development (e.g. leaders, professional support, readiness to put in work without knowledge of possible; Scalability depends on the possibility to implement the innovation devaluating marginal cost. This implies that replicating the
ICT Innovations 8 innovation may require less financial resources, still producing similar or better outcomes, with the benefits of accumulation of knowledge, experience and shared resources.
The study The work reported here is the result of our participation in the international study sponsored by the OECD, focusing on innovations using ICT at the school system level (OECD/CERI, 2000). In this paper we present data collected between the years 2000-2001 in five Israeli schools that have widely implemented ICT, hence provoking substantial organizational and pedagogical change. The research questions addressed were: 1. What were the levels and domains of innovation observed in the schools? 2. What are the prospects for sustainability transferability and scalability of the innovative practices within and outside the participant schools?
Method School selection procedure On the basis of information collected regarding about 100 schools, and the application of selection criteria, the study’s steering committee proposed the final list of candidates for the case studies. Selection criteria stated that an appropriate candidate is a school practice: •
that shows evidence of significant changes in teachers’ and students’ roles,
curriculum goals, assessment practices, and/or the educational materials or infrastructure; •
in which technology plays a significant role in perimeter and curricular
implementation; •
that shows evidence of measurable positive student outcomes;
•
that is sustainable (at least 2-3 years since its beginning), and potentially
transferable and scalable;
ICT Innovations 9 •
that is innovative, as defined by the members of the steering committee (e.g.,
taking into consideration additional issues such as dealing with equity or addressing students’ special needs). Population consisted of 5 schools throughout Israel, including two elementary schools, one junior high school, one 3-year high school and one 6-year high school (schools are labeled IL01-IL05, IL standing for Israel): •
IL01 – Website Story: Upper Secondary Education (10-12), 1250 students,
120 teachers, middle-high SES, 120 computers. The school’s innovative project focuses on the construction of a school Internet site, a three-year project, which is currently ending its second year. The aim of the project is to build a representative as well as an active Internet site, which will serve different populations within the school and outside the school boundaries. The site contains relevant information for students and teachers, databases in the various school subjects, and numerous interactive learning activities. It is based on the usage of innovative technology, as well as innovative teaching paradigms. •
IL02 - ICT Saturated Learning Environment: Primary Education (K-6),
1000 students, 55 teachers, high-middle SES, 200 computers. The school was planned and built as a school-of-the-future model, according to an educational concept that views ICT as a means for empowering and redefining the relationship between students and knowledge, for facilitating learning skills acquisition, and improving academic achievement. Computers are implemented in most subjects, enabling a variety of learning activities, such as: animation in Arts classes, a class database, a class questionnaire edited in MS-Word, a Web quest. Students engage in ICT on an average of one hour a day, in groups, pairs and individually. Computer-based alternative assessment methods enhance students’ involvement. [URL: www.cramim.rishon.k12.il]. •
IL03 - Computer Trustees: Lower Secondary Education (7-9),630 students, 53
teachers, high-mid SES, 70 computers.
ICT Innovations 10 In this innovation human resources are viewed as a main factor for supporting the assimilation of ICT in everyday life and in school. Students with the appropriate background were identified in the school and offered adequate training enabling them to participate in the fluent maintenance of the computers within the school and in the construction and maintenance of the school Website. These students also participate in teacher training courses, each student serving as a tutor to a teacher. This tutoring operates also during school hours, with students helping teachers in using the ICT lab. They were also participating in community projects such as training senior citizens how to use ICT. [URL: www.bar-lev.kfar-saba.kishurim.k12.il] •
IL04 – “Beehive” Communication Projects: Primary religious education (1-
6), 620 students, 50 teachers, mixed SES, 60 computers. This school is a saturated Web-based learning environment, participating in no less than 10 different virtual communities involved in learning via the web in different areas. The “Beehive” project is operated by the Center of Educational Technology, a non-profit organization fostering the use of technology in schools and developing, among other products, web-based learning environments. The emphasis in this school is on virtual communities dealing with language skills: “Reading and Writing”, “Reading and Writing Stories” and “About Three Things”. •
IL05 – Man and Surrounding Website: Secondary Education (7-12 grades),
mixed SES, regional school, 380 students, 25 teachers, 25 computers. The school web site was built as part of the educational curriculum. It contains descriptions and research dealing with physical and human aspects of the area, mainly a salt flat. The students built a database comprising materials related to the Earth Sciences, Biology, Computer Sciences and the Arts. The Website is also used as an interactive interface for online assignments. Since last year, there has been a connection between the school and a couple of schools in Jordan. The Website serves as a virtual meeting place for joint activities between the schools, and its development is due to a joint effort of students from both countries and from the U.S. [URL: www.school.ardom.co.il, shahroot.kfar-olami.org.il]
ICT Innovations 11 Data collection tools Eleven data collection tools were designed by the international research group, translated into the Hebrew language and adapted locally: principal questionnaire; principal interview; computer-coordinator questionnaire; computer-coordinator interview; focus-group interview of teachers involved in the innovation, and teachers not involved in the innovation; focus-group interview of students involved in the innovation; focus-group interview of parents familiar with the innovation; observations; teacher ICT survey; learning products analysis.. Data collection process All data were collected at the 5 school sites between December 2000 and June 2001 by a team of nine researchers. Small teams of 2–3 researchers visited the schools 3–5 times, spending altogether about 60 person-hours per school. A typical interview lasted about an hour and a half, and was held by one researcher. Classroom observations typically lasted 45 minutes and were held in pairs. All interviews were recorded and all observations were transcribed. All data were thereafter transcribed into digital files and uploaded to the Israeli research website (http://muse.tau.ac.il/ict). Data analysis Levels and domains of innovation. An innovations analysis schema was developed (for a detailed description see Mioduser et al., 2003; Tubin et al., 2003). The schema’s dimensions are defined by two axes (Table 1). The horizontal axis represents levels of innovation, ranging from preliminary alterations of the school’s routine due to the initial assimilation of ICT, to farreaching transformations of pedagogical practices and learning processes. Three main levels were defined. The first level – assimilation –in which specific pedagogical situations change qualitatively, but the school curriculum as a whole (e.g. content and goals), the instructional means (e.g. textbooks), the learning environment (e.g. classrooms, labs), and the learning organization (e.g. timetable) remain unchanged. The second level – transition in which ICT supports the integration, within the school’s everyday functioning, of new contents, didactic
ICT Innovations 12 solutions, and organizational solutions side-by-side with the traditional ones. In the third level – transformation – substantive changes take place in the school system as a whole. Traditional processes still exist, but the school identity is mainly defined by the rationale and goals of new approaches and lines of operation; student and teacher roles are enriched with new dimensions; new contents are introduced to the curriculum; new teaching methods are developed and implemented; and for particular activities the traditional time and space configuration is transformed. ______________________________________ Insert Table 1 about here ______________________________________ The vertical axis details domains of innovation, focusing on four main constituents of the school’s milieu: time/space configurations, students, teachers, and the curriculum. Table 1 presents a summary of the innovation domains and levels in the innovation analysis schema. Two independent evaluators analyzed each case-study’s data using the above schema. Each evaluator came up with a scaling for each school in each domain on a 5-point scale: 1 – basic assimilation level; 2 – beginning of the transition; 3 – transition level; 4 – beginning of the transformation level and 5 – full transformation level (it should be noted that the analysis unit in this study concentrates on specific innovative pedagogical practices using ICT within schools, and not on the school as a whole). The evaluation resulted in 45 school-level-locations (SLL), for 9 sub-domains in 5 schools. Out of the 45 SLLs, matching judgment was reached for 37 (83%) in the first evaluation round. The remaining 17% were discussed and elucidated by the evaluators and other members of the research team, until full agreement had been reached. Additional clarifications can be found in Tubin et. Al. (2003). Scalability, sustainability & transferability. The operationalization of the three processes was defined on a five point scale as in Table2. ______________________________________ Insert Table 2 about here ______________________________________
ICT Innovations 13 Two independent evaluators analyzed each case-study’s data using the above schema. In 13 out of 15 evaluation units a matching judgment was reached. The other 2 were discussed until full agreement has been achieved.
Results Levels of innovations in schools The 5 schools presented in this study were considered successful examples of using ICT for pedagogical practices in an innovative way. Yet, the question remains whether and how this innovation is reflected in some or all domains of the school’s activity. Table 3 presents the distribution of the Israeli schools by level of innovation for each domain, as graded by the independent evaluators. ______________________________________ Insert Table 3 about here ______________________________________ Data indicate that most schools, in most of the innovation domains, are at the transition levels (3-4) (27 out of the 45 SLLs – 60%), and only in few domains (8 SLLs – 17%) they reached the transformation level. Taking into account that the 5 schools were selected as models for innovation, this distribution shows a different pattern than expected. The following sections examine specific findings. Time and space configurations Physical space. In general, the classroom walls remained intact. 4 out of the 5 schools are in the assimilation and transition levels, with their computers located in public spaces (e.g. computer room, laboratory). In the remaining school (IL02), located at the transformation level, the building was designed from scratch in an innovative and technology-oriented approach, integrating extensive ICT facilities in all learning spaces. Digital space. Most of the schools are located in the transition level and beyond. For example, several schools have developed websites serving as online news-boards (IL03), as
ICT Innovations 14 portals to dynamic learning centers (IL01), or as virtual gateways to websites all over the world (IL05). Time configuration. At the assimilation level ICT is incorporated in activities within the structured schedule and timetable, as in IL03, which operates 10 web-based learning environments embedded in the regular timetable. At the transition level, periods are organised in time-blocks within which the students are free to use the computer for their needs (e.g. students acting as computer trustees are allowed to skip regular lessons for completing their computer assignments). Two schools located at the highest levels of innovation showed a fairly flexible organisation of time. For example, high school IL05 allows its students to use ICT all school day, as part of their work duty. Student role Most of the innovative practices (4 out of 5) caused a significant change in the role of the students who became website constructors, teachers’ assistants in ICT-related matters, or ICT projects managers. Teacher role Teacher/student interaction. All schools were located in the transition level and beyond, showing interesting changes in teachers’ role. For example, in high school IL01, teams of teachers and students (grades 10-12) work together in developing websites in about 20 subjects, which serve the ongoing teaching and learning in the school. This interaction eventually makes the teacher more familiar with the technology, and the students more knowledgeable with the disciplines. Teacher/teacher interaction. In 3 out of 5 innovative practices the relationship among teachers are at the transition level and below, showing only limited team work and collaboration. In the transformational level, essential teamwork takes place, as in the case of IL02, where teachers actually becomes dependent on each other for curriculum development and instruction.
ICT Innovations 15 Curriculum change Content. ICT use affects curricular contents in diverse forms. In 3 schools in which the innovative practices pertain to the transition level or below, ICT supported only an expansion of the traditional subjects. At the transformation level, schools used ICT for dealing with new subjects. For example, students in high school IL05 (grades 10-12) developed a comprehensive website about the “Salt Flat” located near the school, and collaborated with Jordanian students working on contents and issues related to the shared natural phenomenon. Didactic solutions. 3 of the innovations observed pertain to the transition level, e.g. the use of digital worksheets stored in websites to practice earlier studied topics, or searching the Internet for information to be used in class. At the transformation level the learning activities are qualitatively upgraded by the use of ICT. Assessment methods. In school innovations at the assimilation level, ICT is implemented in a traditional fashion. Innovations located at the transition (2 schools) and transformation (2 schools) levels, included the use of novel assessment procedures such as polls, websites design contest, or digital portfolios. Characteristics of innovations in school Although all schools in this study are innovative in a particular way, they differed from each other in many aspects. This section examines how the levels of innovation in the different domains are distributed within schools. Table 4 presents the level of innovation for all five schools in all nine domains. For each school, two coefficients were calculated: the first is school overall level of innovation (calculated as an average of levels for all domains). The second coefficient is a measure of deviation of the five domains from this average (SD). The schools’ level of innovation by domains was graded by 3 independent evaluators, as detailed in the Method section. ______________________________________ Insert Table 4 about here ______________________________________
ICT Innovations 16 The variation in innovation level among all innovative practices suggests that ICT implementation is a process, in which different schools can perform in different stages of it. In some schools the innovation level is homogenous, while in others the innovation can have a differential impact on diverse domains . Sustainability, Transferability and Scalability This section present an examination of the prospects of each innovation regarding the issues of sustainability, transferability and scalability (STS). Since the study’s design was conceived as a group of case studies, this prospective estimation is based on the application of analytic criteria rather than on actual longitudinal data. Table 5 presents our estimation of the prospects for sustainability, transferability and scalability for each innovation. ______________________________________ Insert Table 5 about here ______________________________________ Results indicate that some innovations have more chances to be replicated and sustained (e.g., IL01, IL04), than others (e.g., IL02). Notwithstanding, it seems that these cases are highly valuable as models to learn from (rather than as models to be reproduced). A case of interest is IL02 -“The School of the Future. Very special conditions were needed to plan, develop and implement the whole set of innovative ideas behind the school’s project. These conditions included special investments by the Ministry of Education, the district, and the municipality, and the continuous support (for seven years now) of an academic advisor from Tel-Aviv university. The school’s daily functioning is based on the existence of a solid infrastructure (e.g., servers, hundreds of computers, access to the Internet, ongoing maintenance) and well formatted human resources (e.g., a knowledge engineer who is part of the school’s staff). The uniqueness of the school, its outstanding outcomes and long term accumulated experience resulted so far in the consolidation of sustainability mechanisms, but at the same time it is clear that the required conditions are a serious obstacle for the transfer or scalability of the model. Notwithstanding, there are already several attempts to apply the model
ICT Innovations 17 at the individual school level (for example a High School in the same area built upon IL02’s rationale), and even at the municipal educational system level in several locations. A central factor affecting a model’s STS is the active involvement of various controlling and decision making forces (e.g., school staff, parents, community). For example, IL03 is a primary religious school that in three years participated in 10 different virtual communities in most subject areas. As a religious school, the participation in open virtual communities led to the involvement of the parents in choosing learning materials and the purchase of a system for filtering the access to unwanted Websites. According to the principal, without the approval, participation and financial support of the parents, the innovation would not last. At times the innovation’s resources came from Hi-Tech companies, like in the case of IL004. Students with background of ICT usage were identified in the school and were offered adequate training enabling them to participate in the fluent maintenance of the computers within the school and in the construction and maintenance of the school Website. These students in turn served as a tutors and aids of the teachers, and even participated in community projects such as the training of senior citizens or special education students in ICT use. The training was given by an Hi-Tech company during the summer vacation (with minimal payment on the part of the student). Such innovation demands only minimum effort from the school (i.e., to free the computer trustees occasionally from their regular lessons), thus having good prospects of STS.
Discussion ICT implementation in schools is a complex process, involving many factors (Mioduser et al., in press; Pelgrum & Anderson, 1999; Venezky, & Davis, 2002). The extent to which ICT implementation has modified schools’ structure and functioning has been controversial over the years (e.g., Cuban, 1986; Schank & Yona, 1991). Israeli schools present varied examples of innovative practices using ICT that have created change in the school organization. Five such schools were examined in our study, within the framework of the OECD/CERI’s international Case Study. Our goal was to map the scope and character of these innovations, the domains and
ICT Innovations 18 aspects of the schools' life that had undergone changes, and the prospects of these novel practices to be sustainable, transferable and scalable. In this section we elaborate on several overall issues based on the study’s results. Technological infrastructure. We have observed that “Innovativeness” in terms of the mere presence of advanced technology is not so much the issue. The innovative practices studied were based on the use of sophisticated technologies (e.g., IL05 - virtual learning environments development) and commonly used tools as well (e.g., IL04 - training senior citizens in word processing). Over the years, in Israel as in many countries public discussion on educational computing as well as policy decisions have overemphasized infrastructural aspects (hence directing the allocation of resources mainly towards equipment and services acquisition). Appropriate technological infrastructure is an obvious prerequisite, but other factors affect significantly the appearance and sustenance of technology-based innovations: the vision and work of a devoted principal, a clear set of values and innovative culture inside the school, the involvement of external forces (e.g. competition with other schools, location), and legitimacy and support of the parents and the community. Islandness vs. school wide innovations. We speculate that “hard core” innovations like IL02 –“School of the Future”- with all its unique features (the innovation is embedded in the building itself, in the staff formation process and everyday behavior, in its organizational functioning) will evolve as more sustainable in the long term than innovations operating as differentiated islands within more traditional settings. Islands appear to be more dependent on the ad-hoc resources (human, material) involved in its inception and implementation. But this speculation requires additional research in the form of a longitudinal study, and it would be pretentious to draw conclusions on this issue on the basis of the cases studied. Policy issues. We have observed an interesting connection between scalability and policy issues at the national and municipal level. Potentially scalable innovations were found to be encouraged and supported by local and national decision making agencies, such as municipalities and organizations linked to the Ministry of Education. An example is school IL03 which implements Beehive, an educational project encouraging communication and
ICT Innovations 19 collaboration among students. Being consistent with explicit national policies related to ICT implementation, it has been activated in many schools with the extensive support of a non-profit organization and the endorsement of the Ministry. Prospects for STS. The factors that appear to affect the lasting of innovative practices (e.g. principal’s vision, values, external support) are different from those needed to create it to begin with (environmental shock, isomorphism forces). Therefore, it is difficult to predict the scalability, sustainability and transferability of the innovation at its start-up phase. For example, if observed at their planning o preliminary implementation stages it appears that IL04 --the computer trustees project that is credited by the community’s legitimacy and appreciation and demands limited resources from the school itself—will be easier to sustain than IL05 --the virtual learning environments development project demanding the allocation of important time resources and relying on the principal’s time, devotion and vision. In fact both innovations have entered by far the stage in which they are part of the schools culture and functioning. It should be noted here that all five Israeli innovative cases chosen were operative for at least 2-3 years, therefore an appropriate estimation of their sustainability could be made. Overall, given similar conditions (infrastructure, teacher development, budget), factors affecting the prospects for a high level of transferability and scalability were related to the ease of implementation and use of the technology (favoring activities such as Internet navigation or use of e-mail), the replication practicability (e.g., the use of standard commercial tools for developing virtual learning spaces), and external support (e.g., academic, pedagogical, funding). Inverse relationships were found between the level of innovation in given domains and the prospect for STS. For example, practices highly innovative at the pedagogical or curricular level (e.g., IL02, IL05) were considered as problematic candidates for transfer and scale “as they are”. As logical complement, practices which demanded little change in spatial organizational and functional configuration (e.g., IL03, IL04) were evaluated as highly transferable and scalable. As final methodological remark, there seems to be a contradiction between statements about sustainability, transferability and scalability and the fact that this study was carried out at a
ICT Innovations 20 fixed point in time, as opposed to a longitudinal study. However, participants’ responses in interviews and questionnaires (some not as involved in the innovation as others, or even opposed to it) along with the fact that the cases have been in action for at least 2-3 years (a precondition in this study), have lead us to substantial observations that we believe can serve as solid background for the design of future systematic longitudinal studies.
ICT Innovations 21
References Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainability of educational change: The role of social geographies. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3-4), 189-214. Argyris, C., & Schon, A. D. (1996). Organizational learning II. U.S.A.: Addison Wesley. Benavot, A. (2001). Institutional approach to the study of education. In: Allantine, H. J. & Spade, Z.J. (Eds.), School & Society (pp. 409-416). USA: Wadsworth. Becker, H. (1994). Analysis and trends of school use of new information technologies. Published by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In P.J. DiMaggio & W.W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63-82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DiSessa, A. (2000). Changing minds – computers, learning and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed., chap. 7, pp. 115-136). New-York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional theory and educational change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 637- 661. Mioduser, D., & Nachmias, R. (2002). The WWW in education: An overview. In H. Adelsberger, B. Collis & J. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training (pp. 23-43). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Lahav, O., & Oren, A. (2000), Web-based Learning Environments (WBLE): Current Pedagogical and Technological State. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1), 55-76.
ICT Innovations 22 Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Tubin, D., Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2003). Analysis Schema for the Study of Domains and Levels of Pedagogical Innovation in Schools Using ICT. Education and information technologies, 8(1), 23-36. Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Tubin, D. (2003). ICT Policies and Practices in Education – ISRAEL. In T. Plomp, R. Anderson, N. Law & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-National ICT Policies and Practices in Education. Information Age Publishers Inc. Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Oren, A., & Ram, J. (2000). Web-supported emergent collaboration in higher education courses. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 94104. Ogawa, T. R., Crowson, L. R., Goldring, B. E. (1999). The dilemmas of school organization. In J. Murphy, & K. A. Louis, (Eds.), Handbook of research on Educational Administration (2nd ed., pp. 277-295). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Olson, D. (1994). The world on paper: the conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oren, A., Mioduser, D., & Nachmias, R. (2002). The development of social climate in virtual learning discussion groups. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1-19. Pelgrum, W. J., & Anderson, R. E., (Eds.) (1999). ICT and emerging paradigm for life long learning: A worldwide educational assessment of infrastructure, goals and practices. The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Pelgrum, W., Brummelhuis, A., Collis, B., Plomp, Tj., & Janssen, I. (1997). Technology assessment of multimedia systems for pre-primary and primary schools. Luxembourg: European Parliament, Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Panel. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. NY: Free Press.
ICT Innovations 23 Rowan, B., & Miskel, C. (1999). Institution theory and the study of educational organizations. In J. Murphy & K. A. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on Educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 359-383). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sarason, B. S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Tubin, D., Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2003). Domains and levels of pedagogical innovation in schools using ICT: an analysis of ten Israeli schools. Education and Information Technologies, 8(2), 127-145. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Venezky, R., & Davis, C. (2002). Quo vademus? The transformation of schooling in a networked world. Preliminary research report. Paris: OECD/CERI.
ICT Innovations 24 Table 1: Levels and domains of pedagogical innovation using ICT
Levels
Assimilation
Domains
Time and space configuration
Student role
Teacher role
Curriculum
Physical space Digital space Time
Main
roles
Transition
Public spaces
Public and personal spaces
Desktop and Internet applications usage
Flexible Internet use and content creation Flexible access for individuals within constraints of school’s schedule Development of ICT generic expertise – for usage, maintenance, and creation
Mainly embedded in the school schedule and timetable Using ICT for accomplishing curricular assignments
Transformation Personal and community spaces in school and beyond Virtual learning spaces and organizations Any time for all in school hours and beyond
Personal assimilation of ICT as learning, creation and working tool
With students
Main source of leadership, information, and knowledge.
Pedagogic authority, mentor, supporter, coordinator
Expert colleague, partner to the process of discovery
With teachers
Acting individually, functional peer interaction
Team work, collaboration, mutual help
Professional exchange, organic solidarity
Content
ICT basic skills, standard applications use
ICT concepts, processes and advanced skills
Design and development using ICT
Didactic solutions
Tutorial packages, constrained use of generic tools and Internet
Open assignments and projects using generic tools and Internet
Digital versions of standard assessment means
Criteria development for assessing digital products
Virtual environments, development of personal digital spaces Digital alternative assessment: projects, portfolio, etc.
Assessment methods
ICT Innovations 25 Table 2: Analysis criteria for Sustainability, Transferability, Scalability
Process
1
low
3
intermediate
5
high
Sustainability
Rare, special, and/or complicated resources
Feasible resources
Common and simple resources
Transferability
Rare, special, and /or complicated prerequisites
Feasible prerequisites
Common and simple prerequisites
Scalability
Increased marginal cost
Feasible cost
Reduced marginal cost
ICT Innovations 26
Table 3. Frequencies of innovative practices by innovation level and domains (n = 5)
Levels >>
Assimilation
Transition
Transformation
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
Domains Time and
Physical space
space
Digital space
configuration
Time
Student role
Main roles
Teacher
With students
role
With teachers
Curriculum
1 1
4 1
2
1 1
Content
2
1
Didactic solutions
1
2
1
2
2
Assessment methods
1
1 2 1
ICT Innovations 27
Table 4. Schools’ level of innovation by domains, average level of innovation and SD
Domains Time and space configuration Student role Teacher role
Schools >> Physical space Digital space Time Main roles With students With teachers Content Curriculum Didactic solutions Assessment methods School average level of innovation School deviation of domains
IL01
IL02
IL03
IL04
IL05
2 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3.0 0.7
5 3 4 4 3 5 5 4 4 4.1 0.8
3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 2.7 0.7
1 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 2.0 0.9
3 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 4.4 0.7
ICT Innovations 28
Table 5. Schools’ levels of transferability, sustainability, and scalability
School
Sustainability Transferability
Scalability
Mean
IL01 - Website story
5
5
5
5
IL02 – School of the Future
3
2
2
2.33
IL03 – “Beehive”
5
4
5
4.66
IL04 - Computer Trustees
5
5
5
5
IL05 – Humans and surroundings
4
3
3
3.33
