Networks as Agents of Innovation: Teacher Networking in the Context of Vocational and Professional...

ORIGINAL PAPER

Networks as Agents of Innovation: Teacher Networkingin the Context of Vocational and Professional HigherEducation Reforms

Külliki Tafel-Viia & Krista Loogma & Silja Lassur &

Anne Roosipõld

Received: 28 June 2011 /Accepted: 19 April 2012 /Published online: 10 May 2012# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract The effective implementation of educational reform is an issue that con-fronts both those that plan and sponsor those reforms and those that are affected bythem. This article discusses networking processes in the context of reform in voca-tional and professional higher education. When exploring failures in educationalchange processes, issues associated with facilitating the adoption, adaptation andimplementation of educational change have not been sufficiently addressed. Here, weuse the concept of social innovation, which is relatively new in innovation research,to explain the mechanisms that facilitate educational reform, and emphasise therelationship between interaction and the perception of change. In this paper, weexamine how networking among teachers is related to their perception of educationalchange and how the effective implementation of educational reforms can be influ-enced by such networking. By differentiating the various types of networks weexplore the relationship between networking and educational change. The article isbased on the findings of a quantitative survey of 228 Estonian teachers in vocationaland professional higher educational schools administered in 2010.

Keywords Teacher networks . Educational change . Vocational and professionalhigher education reforms . Social innovation . Estonian survey

Vocations and Learning (2012) 5:175–193DOI 10.1007/s12186-012-9077-x

K. Tafel-Viia (*) : K. LoogmaCentre of Educational Research, Tallinn University, Uus-Sadama 5, 10120 Tallinn, Estoniae-mail: [email protected]

S. LassurEstonian Institute for Futures Studies, Tallinn University, Lai 34, 10133 Tallinn, Estonia

A. RoosipõldEstonian Entrepreneurship University for Applied Sciences, Suur-Sõjamäe 10, 11415 Tallinn, Estonia

Networks as Agents of Innovation

The majority of research on educational change has serially recognised theproblem of the ineffective implementation of educational reform (Zembylasand Bulmahn Barker 2007; Hofman and Dijkstra 2010; Hargreaves 2004).Overwhelmingly, problems are seen in the adoption and implementation of thosechanges (Struyven and De Meyst 2010; Fullan 2001). It has also been emphasisedthat the process of educational reform has become increasingly complex, involving arange of actors (Anderson 2010), and this is often complicated and linked withinitiatives at the grassroots level. Here, it is proposed that educational reformshave tended to fail to fully account for social and mediating mechanisms, suchas interaction, learning and the attribution of meaning, which are emphasised incontemporary approaches to innovation (e.g. Lundvall 1992; Edquist 1997;Cooke et al. 2004; Asheim and Gertler 2005). Furthermore, educational studiesexploring failures in educational change have not sufficiently addressed the issuesof how to facilitate the adoption, adaptation and implementation of the complexprocess of educational change.

In this article, we focus on teacher networks that are related to reforms invocational and professional higher education. Compared with other educationaldomains (e.g. general education), vocational and professional higher educationhas rarely been the focus of studies on educational change. Furthermore,although there is growing evidence that educational networks (such as teacheror school networks) are powerful instruments in bringing together the aims ofeducational reform and the ‘everyday’ challenges faced by schools (Pennell andFirestone 1996; Sliwka 2003), empirical evidence, about teacher networking inrelation to educational change (and teacher networking in general) is vague (deLima 2010; Hofman and Dijkstra 2010; Coburn and Lin Russel 2008). We approachnetworking here as an important mechanism of social innovation, in which interac-tion, learning and attribution of meaning co-occur. Up until now, the concept of socialinnovation has remained rather underused to explain the process of implementing andadopting change, and, in particular, it is rarely used in the context of educationalresearch and educational reforms. In all, this article aims to conceptualise teachernetworking in the context of Estonian vocational and professional higher education(VET and professional HE) reform that has been accompanied by radical nationalsocio-economic and political change. We examine how teacher networking is relatedto teachers’ perception of educational change and how the adaptation, adoption andimplementation of educational reform can be facilitated through networking.The discussion is premised on the findings of a quantitative survey carried outamong Estonian teachers in VET and professional HE schools (a total of 228respondents) from April to September 2010. Three kinds of social interactionsthat might be predictive of particular kinds of engagements in innovativeactivities were identified: i) teacher networking in relation to educationalchange takes place on different levels and engages various partners’ ii) net-working has become part of professional practice of teachers, and iii) network-ing supports the positive attitude towards educational change.

176 K. Tafel-Viia et al.

Conceptualising Networking as a Mechanism of Social Innovation

Networking is conceptualised in this article as the central mechanism of socialinnovation (SI). The conception of SI as discussed here is particularly concernedwith processes and mechanisms that facilitate the process of adopting change. Thiskind of approach to SI is inherent to economic and technological as well as organisa-tional and management theories. These see SI as an important ‘enabler’, facilitatingthe implementation and adoption of the ‘main’ innovation (Gopalakrishnan andDamanpour 1997; Moulaert et al. 2005), where the trigger for a social innovationmay be the need for structural adjustment due to reforms and/or radical (e.g. techno-logical or economic) changes in the external environment. Therefore, it may well alsobe suited to explaining educational reform processes. In addition, social innovation isexplained as change in multilevel social institutions (Heiskala 2007) that encom-passes regulative, normative and cultural elements of institutional change:

Regulative innovations transform explicit regulations and/or the ways they aresanctioned. Normative innovations challenge established value commitmentsand/or the way the values are specified into legitimate social norms. Finally,cultural innovations challenge the established ways to interpret reality bytransforming mental paradigms, cognitive frames and habits of interpretation.Taken together these three classes form the sphere of social innovations.(Heiskala 2007, 59)

Accordingly, the concept of SI emphasises that the innovation (educational reformin our context) to be implemented and adopted should be accompanied by changes inmeanings, everyday practices and social structures (Tuomi 2006). This conceptionsuggests that changes should occur not only at the regulatory level (e.g. state reform)but also at the normative and cultural-cognitive levels of social institutions (Scott2001) (e.g. in teaching practice). On the other hand, the concept of SI also makes itpossible to highlight certain social mechanisms that facilitate the process of innova-tion and bring about change at the level of subjective meaning. Social innovationtheorists (Marcey and Mumford 2007; Heiskala and Hämäläinen 2007; Tuomi 2005;Mulgan 2006) emphasise that the processes of interaction, learning and the attribution ofsubjective meanings to changes are closely related and fundamental to the innovationprocess, as shared understandings can arise from these processes. These mechanismscan be seen as the ‘carriers’ of SI, thus helping to explain the implementation, adoption,and adaptation (modification and customisation) of the innovation, making it part ofsocial practice. Applying the concept of SI in the context of educational reform canilluminate the importance of the interaction mechanisms – networks in our context – thatbring together the educational policy makers and the target groups (e.g. teachers,entrepreneurs and students to facilitate the reform process of top-down innovation)and support the diffusion of the innovation (educational reform).

To explore the teacher networks in the process of educational change we make useof their main characteristics: (a) the types of actors in the network; (b) the character-istics determining the nature of the relationship; (c) the genesis of the network (Scott2000; Hatala 2006; de Lima 2010; Wilhelmsson 2007; Cornelissen et al. 2011).

Teacher networks as agents of educational innovation 177

There are several types of actors involved in the process of innovation, asinnovation occurs within a complex web of formal and informal relationships(Tödtling et al. 2009); not surprisingly, the advantages of a heterogeneous group ofcontacts are emphasised in the literature on innovation (Powell and Grodal 2006).Educational networks tend to bring together teachers, universities, research institutes,government agencies, business sector representatives, policy makers and so on(Sliwka 2003). Drawing parallels with business and management studies, we mayalso argue that students (as customers) are important “innovation providers” ineducational networks.

With reference to the main characteristics that determine the nature of the rela-tionship, previous studies have indicated the existence of certain types of features thatsupport interaction and cooperation and stimulate the sharing of information innetworks. Previous studies have shown that networks with centralised structuressupport the diffusion of ‘non-complex’ knowledge (Cummings and Cross 2003).However, this type of structure has been found to impede the effectiveness of groupsengaged in non-routine, complex tasks (Daly and Finnigan, 2010). Researchers intocreativity have claimed that intense relationships may benefit team creativity, but veryfrequent interaction may decrease rather than increase it (Kratzer et al. 2010). In termsof the emotional and/or social closeness of interaction (Kratzer et al. 2010; Coburnand Lin Russel 2008), strong links allow expertise to be shared within a community,but they do not always provide new information (Ryymin et al. 2008). However,organisational studies show that strong ties facilitate the transfer of tacit, sensitive andcomplex knowledge (Hansen 1999; Reagans and McEvily 2003; Uzzi 1997). Incontrast, weak links support the exchange of knowledge by transmitting informationto and from the organisation and they play an important role in diffusing ideas(Granovetter 1973; Rogers 1995; Coburn and Lin Russel 2008). In respect to theoverall unity of a network, the general idea is that a fragile connection (or noconnection) among actors hampers system performance in terms of innovation, sinceinsufficient interaction and learning occurs. However, too strong a connection mayconstrain learning and innovation, especially if outsiders are excluded, indicating lowexternal connectivity (Gilsing 2003). Three relational aspects stand out from theliterature. Theorists of social capital emphasise trust because it motivates the sharingof information in social interactions (Adler and Kwon 2002). The second aspect ispower, which refers to the way networkers influence the behaviour and cognition ofother networkers (Cornelissen et al. 2011). The third important factor is sharedvalues, interests or common goals, which theorists of learning networks (Earl andKatz 2005), innovative milieu approaches (Aydalot and Keeble 1988; Camagni 1991)and communities of practice (Wenger 1998) see as necessary prerequisites forcollaboration.

The genesis of a network refers to the reasons for the creation of a network. Itlooks at how the network emerged: as a grassroots movement or stimulated byexternal factors (de Lima 2010). It is claimed that teacher networks are oftenexternally sponsored; that is, they are encouraged by central government initiativesand are key elements in the state’s efforts to support the implementation of legislativereform or change (de Lima 2010). A number of educational networks have arisenbecause individuals adopted initiatives geared towards a specific idea or reformmodel (Sliwka 2003). The concept of social innovation enables us to argue that


externally stimulated networks embody social mechanisms that facilitate the imple-mentation of educational reform by being mediators, by supporting the attribution ofmeaning and by making sense of reform-driven innovations.

The next section presents a short overview of the context of Estonian VET and HEreforms necessary to advance the bases by the findings of an empirical study mightcome to be understood.

Reform in Estonian Vocational and Professional Higher EducationAfter the Transition Period

The Soviet vocational and training (VET) system in Estonia, an extremely centralisedsystem and closely related to the planned economy, was interrupted when thetransition to a market economy commenced. From the beginning of the 1990s until1996/7, the primary determinant of change was the liberal adjustment of VET schoolsto suit the dramatic changes in the environment, especially in the labour market.During this short period, the system was decentralised and the VET system developedfrom a highly centralised ‘distorted dual’ Soviet system into a school-based system.During this period of dramatic change, the previous system of practical training wasweakened considerably by extensive restructuring of enterprises, including closures,privatisation and a reorientation from Eastern to Western markets. While this decen-tralisation was taking place, state intervention was minimal and social partners (i.e.employers and unions) were too weak to initiate and support reforms in VET.However, the EU programmes supporting reform (PHARE) and negotiations betweenVET schools and social partners began from the mid-1990s. In 1998, the governmentapproved the new concept for Estonian VET. This can be regarded as the beginningof extensive state-managed VET reform (Loogma 2004). In general, the differentstages of VET reform can be identified according to the steps taken to regulate andstandardise the system and according to the roles played by various actors (the state,VET schools and other interested parties) and how they cooperated. The followingstrategic activities can be considered the most important in terms of structural reform.

Firstly, there was a restructuring the network of VET schools in response to changesin economic and employment structures, thereby increasing its effectiveness. While thiswas taking place, the decline in the number of students (caused by a sharp decline in thepopulation in 1990) led to the closure of some schools, while others merged to becomemultifunctional regional VET centres. The number of VET schools fell from 91 in 1996to 51 in 2009 (Statistics Estonia). Secondly, developing and implementing a nationalqualification system and vocational/professional standards via agreement between thestate, employers and unions/professional organisations was achieved. Vocationalstandards regulate the development of the school curriculum, learning outcomes,the professional requirements of VET teachers and attributing qualifications. Thequalification system is considered to represent a considerable contribution to therecognition and legitimatisation of an individual’s prior and/or life-long learningneeds because it is competence-based and is therefore capable of accounting fordifferent types of learning and work experience when attributing qualifications.Thirdly, the goal of creating and establishing outcome-based national VET curriculain partnership with schools, teachers, employers and sector-based organisations was


fulfilled. The process was initiated in 2004/5. The 44 national curricula in differentdomains of study had been established and entered into legislation by 2009. Althoughthe regulation of VET curricula started earlier, the only curricula in existence until thispoint were those generated by the VET schools (Loogma 2009).

In the case of professional higher education (HE), the changes began at the beginningof the 1990s, when some VET institutions started to provide professional HE pro-grammes. The HE reform in 2002 upgraded former polytechnics, transforming theminto professional HE institutions, and introduced new types of institutions where profes-sional HE programmes could be provided. These included regional vocational centres,where secondary and tertiary vocational/professional programmes co-exist, and privateprofessional HE institutions. There are about eight public and thirteen private profes-sional HE institutions, some of which have the legal capacity to teach to Master’s level.The professional HE institutions did not follow the reform path that vocational educationinstitutions did. However, the standardisation processes based on the national qualifica-tion system, increased competition and restructuring, transition to outcome-based andcompetence-based curricula and partnership with enterprises and VETschools have beenamong the principal changes in professional HE institutions in the past 15 years. Eventhough professional HE institutions have not undergone exactly the same reforms asVETschools, developments have been influenced by the same driving forces.

Several amplifiers and support mechanisms were incorporated into the VET andprofessional HE reform process. The principles of participation and collaboration hadbeen incorporated into the planned reform process for all interested parties. Therepresentatives of the main parties – VET schools and teachers, employers andrepresentatives of sector and professional associations – were involved in the prepa-ratory stages and the development of the reform (Rekkor et al. 2005). The reformshave been accompanied by extensive investments in content and infrastructure, andbuilding the capacity of key actors. This applies especially to the development ofVET teachers, supported by EU Structural Fund programmes. In the course ofchanges, schools and teachers have been encouraged to initiate research and devel-opment (R&D) projects with local or international partners and interested parties on acompetitive basis. However, unlike the initial liberal period of adjustment, laterchanges in VET in Estonia led to stricter and stronger regulations, and the stand-ardisation of the system and the behaviour of VET professionals (Loogma 2009).

In the following section, the survey administered to Estonian teachers in VET andHE schools is described and justified.

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

This section presents the findings of the quantitative survey administered to teachersin VET schools and professional higher educational establishments in 2010. The datawas collected using internet-based questionnaires that were emailed to the respond-ents. The total sample approach was used. The sample consisted of over 500 teachersin 41 schools with curricula in the three fields of creative industries, services andtraditional industry (e.g. mechanics, electronics); these fields were selected as exam-ples of new, recently emerged sectors and traditional sectors. A total of 228 teachersresponded, providing a return rate of 45 %.


The questionnaire consisted of 30 questions divided between four sections: 1) generalinformation about the teacher; 2) educational changes in the school (specifically voca-tional and professional HE education reforms emerging from regulatory changes); 3)partners and cooperation; and 4) networks related to changes in educational practices.The majority of the questions had a finite set of predetermined answers. To rank theanswers, a four-point Likert scale was used. To identify the networks, an open-endedquestion was used; here the respondent had to point out his/her three most importantnetworks in relation to educational change. The process of carrying out the studyincluded two pilot periods. In the first, the questionnaire was tested for comprehensionand uniformity of the questions; to do this, 10 randomly selected teachers completed thequestionnaire. The teachers were expected to answer the questions and to providegeneral feedback on the questionnaire. The questionnaire was then modified accordingto the comments. In the second piloting period, the webpage tool was tested for user-friendliness and subsequently modified according to the feedback.

Analyses of the data was carried out in three phases. First, general statistics for allthe questions were calculated and selected questions underwent a factor analysis.Second, the networks were classified according to the answers to the open-endedquestion about the three most important networks related to educational change. Theanswers were analysed using text analysis methodology. The typology, which isbased on the types of actors involved and on the scope of their interaction, wasreached through the following process. An initial categorisation of the open-endedanswers was carried out independently by four researchers. In the next phase, we heldjoint discussions and reduced the number of categories by raising the level ofabstraction. This was done step-by-step until we reached five categories of networks.Third, we associated the factor variables with the categories of networks and used thefactors to describe the networks. SPSS Statistics was used for the data analysis.

In the following chapter, we introduce the findings of the survey by describing thepattern of networking among teachers and by exploring the relationship betweennetworking and how teachers perceive educational change.

Findings

This section describes the findings of the survey. Firstly, the typology of teachernetworks is presented to describe the pattern of networking of teachers. Then, therelationships between different types of networks and teachers’ perception of changeare explored. Thirdly, the findings about the relationship between different types ofnetworks and teachers’ attitudes towards the effects of change are explicated.

Five Types of Teacher Networks

We start by describing the main types of networks the study was able to identify. Inthe survey, the teachers were asked to single out the three most important networksthat support (or have supported) the implementation of change in their schools.

Q: Please briefly describe the three most important networks that you use andthat are related to changes in education.


The teachers were then asked to answer 12 questions to describe the networksaccording to certain characteristics (see Table 1).

The responses to these items permitted the identification of five types of networks: 1)intra-school networks, 2) sector networks, 3) reform-related networks, 4) inter-sectoralnetworks, and 5) international networks. The survey showed that 48.6 % of respondentsbelong to sector networks, 16.0 % to reform-related networks, 16.3 % to inter-sectoralnetworks, 11.8 % to international networks and 7.3 % to intra-school networks. Thetypology of networks reveals that the pattern of networking is rather diverse: teachers areinvolved in different kinds of networks and networking takes place on many differentlevels, including the international level. The following describes the principal character-istics of each of the five types of network. Intra-school networks are constituted withinthe organisation. These comprise networking with the school board and management,with colleagues at the school and with students. Teachers belonging to these networksreported primarily using them to gain new information from colleagues and students.Although this group of networks is generally created according to a top-downprinciple, they present the closest ties between members compared with other net-works. Their structure is also quite loose compared with the other four types:coordination is decentralised and there is no central leader. Sector networks encom-pass different forms of field-specific networking; these include collaboration withprofessional associations, enterprises and their unions, and with field-specific educa-tional organisations. This includes representatives from the business, third andeducation sectors. The unifying element is that they all belong to the same field ofactivity. Teachers in these networks reported obtaining new information from sourcesoutside the school, such as conferences, seminars, other education and R&D institu-tions and the public sector. This group has the highest proportion of networks createdaccording to bottom-up initiatives, and this refers to the existence of a social need or

Table 1 Questions relating to the three most important networks selected by teachers

Questions

1. Who are the main actors in the networks and who holds the lead position?

2. Who is represented in these three networks?

3. What is your aim in participating in these three networks?

4. In your opinion, what are the main bonding factors of these three networks?

5. What is the regional extent of these three networks?

6. What is the genesis of these three networks?

7. What is the structure of coordination in these three networks?

8. What is your position in these three networks?

9. How frequent is the communication in these three networks?

10. Which types of communication channels are used in these three networks?

11. How long have these three networks been functioning?

12. Describe any changes that have taken place in these three networks?

Survey entitled “Innovation and cooperation in vocational and professional HE schools and colleges”;compiled by the authors


common goal that requires cooperation with other parties. These networks usuallyhave a leader, but coordination is dispersed and the roles of the parties are not clear-cut. Reform-related networks are established and developed within the framework ofstate-initiated educational reform. They include working groups of social partners inthe development of, for example, vocational standards and curricula, and they bringtogether representatives from the public, private and education sectors. In thesenetworks, the range of actors is quite diverse; it is the only network where publicsector representatives are among the key players. These networks are predominantlycreated on the basis of the top-down principle; they tend to have a central leader, butcoordination is dispersed. Inter-sectoral networks, of course, involve cooperationbetween organisations. This group includes unions and associations related to thedevelopment of vocational and/or professional higher education in general, otherVET or professional higher educational schools, universities and R&D institutionsand the public sector. In terms of the learning pattern, the public sector and colleaguesand students from the respondents’ own schools are considered to be the mostimportant sources of new information. Bottom-up initiatives dominate as the genesisof the network, and the network structure is the most centralised compared with theother types of networks. International networks incorporate international educationalor teaching associations and unions, and networks that emerge from internationalprojects and programmes. Compared with the other four types of networks, the rangeof key actors in international networks is the most diverse; they include internationalorganisations, universities and other R&D institutions. Teachers that participate ininternational networks also use the most diverse range of sources of new information.International networks tend to be centralised and have a hierarchical structure with aclear division of roles. Bottom-up creation tends to dominate, but other forms – top-down networks or networks within the framework of a project – are equallyrepresented.

To summarise, the five main types of teacher networks related to educationalchange in schools differentiate on the bases of diversity of actors involved in thenetwork and the scope of interactions have been identified here. Also, it is advancedthat the preferences teachers’ networking is closely related to their preferences forlearning. Moreover, the findings reveal that there is no clear relationship between thestructural characteristics of networks (e.g. centralization, closeness of interaction,genesis of network) and the types of actors involved in the network. In the nextsection, we will explore the relationship between the different types of networks, howteachers perceive change and their attitudes towards the effects of change.

Relationship Between Reform-Related Educational Change and the Different Typesof Teacher Networks

Here we examine how the different types of networks are linked to the changes taking placein schools as perceived by the teachers. In the survey, we asked teachers which reform-related changes (described in the previous chapter) they consider the most important.

Q: Of the reform-related changes that have taken place in your school, which doyou consider the most important? Please select up to 7 from the list of 20different types provided.


Conducting a factor analysis allowed us to identify seven types of change (cumu-lative value: 56 %) (see Table 2).

Factor 1 contains three significant loadings (changes in management, organisa-tional culture and the quality of education) referred to as intra-organisational changes.Factor 2 contains changes in cooperation and partners, owing to two significantloadings: the emergence of new partners and networks and changes in cooperationpartners. Factor 3 – changes related to the education process – contains two signif-icant loadings: changes in teaching methods and the application of professionalstandards. Factor 4 – changes in the involvement and development of teachers –contains two high loadings: changes in the involvement of teachers and in supportingthe development of teachers through training, mentoring etc. Factor 5 – changes ineducational content – comprises two significant loadings: the application of newnational curricula and the implementation of e-learning. Factor 6 – changes in theschool’s infrastructure – contains two important loadings: changes in rooms and newfacilities for teaching and the reorganisation of units within the educational institu-tion. Factor 7 – structural changes in the school – includes two significant loadings:the merging of educational institutions and the emergence of new organisations.

To explore the relationship between the educational changes considered importantby the teachers and the types of networks, the mean value of the factor score for eachtype of network has been calculated using SPSS. A comparison of the relationshipbetween reform-related changes and the five types of networks highlights ratherimportant differences between the different types of networks (See Fig. 1).

Figure 1 indicates that particular types of networks are related to particular changesin the education system. These networks particularly support the involvement anddevelopment of teachers and changes in educational content. As intra-school networksare related to changes in the involvement and development of teachers, we can assumethat these networks have empowered teachers, and therefore, increased democracywithin the school. The link between reform-related networks and structural change inschools indicates that the merging of educational institutions has been one of the mosttopical issues for teachers in the process of change. International networks are moreinvolved and more aware of the extent of change: participants in these networks haverecognised important changes in six out of the seven types of change. However, teachersinvolved in sector networks and intra-school networks prove to be just the opposite. Thisfinding allows us to argue that the international dimension accompanied by the mostdiverse set of actors (which is typical of international networks) supports varied opinionsand wide-ranging discussions; this enhances understandings of the processes of educa-tional change, and thereby supports overall open-mindedness towards change.

The Relationship Between Networking Among Teachers and Attitudes Towardsthe Outcomes of Reforms

To analyse the relationship between the types of networks and the attitude teachershave towards the outcomes of change, we initially measured attitudes towardspossible outcomes. We asked the following question.

Q: What are the effects of changes in education? Please assess how these changeshave influenced the various factors in the given list.


Tab

le2

Edu

catio

nalchangesconsidered

importantby

teachers

(N021

3)

Educatio

nalchanges

Mean

Std.

Deviatio

nF-1:Intra-

organisatio

nal

changes

F-2:Changes

related

tocooperationand

partners

F-3:Chang

esrelatedto

education

process

F-4:Chang

esin

the

invo

lvem

entand

developm

entof

teachers

F-5:Chang

esin

educational

content

F-6:Changes

inschool

infra-structure

F-7:Structural

changesin

school

Chang

esin

scho

ol’s

managem

ent

0.36

0.480

0.760

Chang

esin

scho

ol’s

organisatio

nalcultu

re0.31

0.464

0.693

Chang

esin

quality

ofeducation

0.41

0.493

0.684

Emergenceof

new

networks,partnerships

0.37

0.484

0.838

Changes

incooperation

partners

0.29

0.455

0.756

Chang

esin

teaching

metho

ds0.41

0.493

0.703

Applicationof

professional

standards

0.30

0.460

0.639

Chang

esin

supp

ortin

gthedevelopm

entof

teachers

viamentoring

andtraining

0.39

0.490

0.753

Chang

esin

the

invo

lvem

ent

ofteachers

0.40

0.492

0.617

Applicationof

natio

nal

curricula

0.54

0.500

0.649


Tab

le2

(con

tinued)

Educatio

nalchanges

Mean

Std.

Deviatio

nF-1:Intra-

organisatio

nal

changes

F-2:Changes

related

tocooperationand

partners

F-3:Chang

esrelatedto

education

process

F-4:Chang

esin

the

invo

lvem

entand

developm

entof

teachers

F-5:Chang

esin

educational

content

F-6:Changes

inschool

infra-structure

F-7:Structural

changesin

school

Implem

entatio

nof

e-learning

0.55

0.498

0.504

Chang

esin

scho

ol’s

infrastructure

(new

room

s,facilities

forteaching)

0.50

0.501

0.768

Reorganisationof

units

with

intheeducational

institu

tion

0.20

0.402

0.448

0.507

Merging

ofeducational

institu

tions

0.15

0.353

0.829

Emergenceof

new

organisatio

nsin

coop

erationwith

scho

ol

0.07

0.256

0.569

Percent

ofvariance

explained

17.2

%7.9%

7.3%

6.7%

6.0%

5.6%

5.4%

ExtractionMetho

d:Principal

Com

ponent

Analysis,Correlatio

nMatrix

Surveyentitled“Innovationandcooperationin

vocatio

nalandprofessional

HEschoolsandcolleges”;compiledby

theauthors


Teachers were given a list of 18 factors that may have influenced the changes.They were asked to evaluate these using a four-point Likert scale, where 10substan-tially worsened or decreased (negative effect) and 40substantially improved orincreased (positive effect).

The findings indicate that the overall opinion of those surveyed about the out-comes of reforms in vocational and professional HE education was positive, and thereforms have led to positive changes in many spheres. A factor analysis was used toinvestigate the answers further. The analysis revealed five factors (cumulative value:62 %) (see Table 3).

Factor 1 refers to satisfaction with the school (organisation) and the school’sreputation, as it contains four significant loadings: satisfaction of school personnel,quality of working environment, involvement of school personnel and the attractive-ness of the school. Factor 2 – school’s position in the region – includes fivesignificant loadings: cooperation with local government and enterprises and withprofessional unions, the school’s role in the region and the involvement of students.Factor 3 – teaching quality – contains three significant loadings: accessibility toeducation, choice of subjects and quality of educational services. Factor 4 – studentsand their perspectives – comprises two significant loadings: students’ perspective ofthe labour market and opportunities for continuing with their studies. Factor 5 –number of students – contains just one significant loading: the number of students.Figure 2 presents the relationship between the five types of networks (using the meanvalue of the factor score, which has been calculated for each type of network) andteachers’ attitudes towards the outcomes of educational reforms.

Figure 2 depicts how belonging to particular types of networks plays an importantrole in helping teachers recognise the outcomes of educational changes. This indi-cates that these networks can shape their perception of the possible effects of changeand influence their behaviour and practice (e.g. resistance to change or compliancewith change). Participants of intra-school networks in particular recognised that theeducational reforms had a positive influence on the number of students. Those who

Fig. 1 Relationship between educational change and the five types of networks. The Y-axis refers to thestandardised factor scores for the five types of networks, where 0 represents the mean value of factor scores.Survey entitled “Innovation and cooperation in vocational and professional HE schools and colleges”;compiled by the authors


Tab

le3

Effectsof

educationalchanges,as

perceivedby

theteachers

(N021

3)

Effectof

theeducational

changeson

thefollo

wing

Mean

Std.Deviatio

nF-1:Satisfactionwith

school

organisatio

nandscho

ol’sreputatio

n

F-2:Schoo

lpo

sitio

nin

theregion

F-3:Edu

catio

nal

quality

F-4:Studentsand

theirperspectives

F-5:Num

ber

ofstud

ents

Satisfactionof

school

person

nel

2.85

0.68

10.856

Qualityof

working

environm

ent

3.27

0.725

0.694

Invo

lvem

entof

scho

olperson

nel

3.02

0.67

00.658

Attractiv

enessof

theschool

3.35

0.599

0.588

Coo

peratio

nwith

localgo

vernment

3.13

0.58

50.741

Schoo

lrole

intheregion

3.38

0.54

50.703

Cooperatio

nwith

entrepreneurs

intheregion

3.25

0.60

10.591

0.403

Invo

lvem

entof

stud

ents

3.10

0.53

60.522

Cooperatio

nwith

professional

unions

andassociations

3.33

0.56

00.494

Accessibilityto

education

3.31

0.569

0.777

Cho

iceof

subjects

3.22

0.61

70.708

Qualityof

educationalservices

3.24

0.601

0.423

0.668

Students’

perspectives

ofcontinuing

with

stud

ies

3.17

0.55

20.806

Students’

perspectives

ofthe

labour

market

2.91

0.68

90.777

Num

berof

stud

ents

3.08

0.711

0.827

Percent

ofvariance

explained

33.9

%8.3%

7.6%

6.0%

5.8%

ExtractionMethod:

Principal

Com

ponent

Analysis,Correlatio

nMatrix

Surveyentitled“Innovationandcooperationin

vocatio

nalandprofessional

HEschoolsandcolleges”;compiledby

theauthors


belong to reform-related networks believe that the educational reforms have increasedthe quality of teaching. Networking internationally and within the sector influencedteachers to especially recognise the positive outcomes of educational reforms in termsof student outlook. Participation in inter-sectoral networks helped teachers to recog-nise how educational reforms can have a positive effect on a school’s position in theregion. We hold, with certain reservations, that the more diverse the networks (interms of different actors involved) – international networks, reform-related networks– the more varied the (positive) effects recognised by the teachers. This finding alsorelates to the conclusion drawn about the relationship between the changes and thedifferent types of networks. Teachers belonging to networks that include more diverseparties also recognise a greater variety of types of change.

Networks and Education Change

This article explored teacher networking in relation to educational change in thecontext of Estonian VET and professional HE reforms. We used the concept of SI inthe context of educational reform to illuminate the role of networks in the educationalreform process. We examined how teacher networking is related to their perception ofchange, brought about by reform.

Because of the relatively modest response rate and the particular context producedby widespread structural changes, we have to be careful about generalising inresponse to the conclusions. The teachers who responded to the questionnaire werethose who were working full-time and were thus presumably more informed aboutthe educational changes taking place in the school. This may have introduced a

Fig. 2 Relationship between attitudes towards the outcomes of educational changes and the five types ofnetworks. The Y-axis refers to the standardised factor scores of the five types of networks, where 0represents the mean value of the factor scores. Survey entitled “Innovation and cooperation in vocationaland professional HE schools and colleges”; compiled by the authors


positive bias – the responses were from teachers who were more aware of the reformprocesses and the changes it brought to the school.

The first important conclusion from the study is that the perception of educationalchange is related to the type of network in which teachers engaged. To be specific, theresults indicate that belonging to a certain network influences which aspects of reformare considered important; it also influences attitudes towards the outcomes of educa-tional reforms. The findings from the study are in accordance with much of thecontemporary literature on innovation, which emphasises the importance of themultiplicity of actors and the diversity of learning arenas in the process of innovation.Teachers belonging to reform-related, international networks and inter-sectoral net-works where the range of actors was the most diverse attached value to a greaternumber of educational reforms than did teachers in networks where the range ofactors was less diverse. In terms of attitudes towards the outcomes of educationalchange, teachers belonging to international networks showed the most positiveattitudes. We may argue that the multiplicity of actors favours the emergence ofvaried opinions and wide-ranging discussions; this enhances our understanding of theprocesses of educational change, and thereby supports an overall positive attitudetowards change. The study indicates that networks shape teacher perception ofeducational change and influence their behaviour and practice (e.g. resistance tochange or compliance with change). This also supports the theoretical view aboutthe close relationship between the processes of interaction, learning and attributingmeaning. It allows us to claim that the more diversified the pattern of interaction, themore positive the attitude towards reform.

The second important conclusion relates to how the teachers’ perception ofeducational reform can be positively stimulated by networks – a fact underlined inthe concept of SI. We claim that these types of SI mechanisms can also be found inthe Estonian VET and professional HE reform process. One factor that confirms thisis the emergence of reform-related networks in the pattern of networking among theteachers. These networks were generated within the framework of a reform strategy tofacilitate the adoption and acceptance of educational reforms. The fact that teachershighlighted these networks among their three most important networks reveals thatthese top-down networks are part of their everyday networking practice and are,therefore, meaningful for them. This conclusion indicates that these networks behaveas ‘bridge-builders’ between regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive institutionalchanges. We may then suggest that reform-related networks help networking becomea ‘normal’ social practice by intensifying teacher networking in general, and support-ing their bottom-up networking initiatives.

Thirdly, the findings of the survey also allow us to evaluate the success of the VETand professional HE reform process in general. The seven change factors the teachersrecognised as important encompass most of the key issues addressed in the EstonianVET and professional HE reform process. We may therefore presume that the top-downreforms have not remained at a regulative level; they have also touched (at least) anormative level – actual practices among teachers. This conclusion suggests that theineffective implementation of educational reforms observed in general education has notappeared (at least not to the same extent) in the Estonian VET and HE reforms.

To summarise, the findings presented in this article provide three importantcontributions to explain teacher networking practices. Firstly, the typology of teacher


networks extends our understanding of teachers’ cooperation practices by identifyingthe variety of partners from different levels – from the school to international actors.The great importance of actors outside the school (such as sector organisations andenterprises) indicates that VET and professional HE teachers have a rather opencooperation pattern. This fact itself supports the effective implementation of educa-tional reforms. Secondly, the results of the study allow us to claim that networkinghas become part of the professional practice of teachers, although it does not directlyindicate which changes in actual classroom practice (if any) have taken place. Andthirdly, exploring networking in the reform process enables us to enhance ourunderstanding of social innovation as well. Networking among teachers has co-developed alongside the reform process: teachers’ work groups built into the reformsimultaneously initiated other types of networks to emerge.

References

Anderson, S. E. (2010). Moving change: evolutionary perspectives on educational change. In: A.Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second International Handbook ofEducational Change (pp. 65–84). Netherlands: Springer.

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Academy of ManagementReview, 27(1), 17–40.

Asheim, B., & Gertler, M. (2005). The geography of innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 291–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aydalot, P., & Keeble, D. (Eds.). (1988). High technology industry and innovative environments: TheEuropean experience. London: Routledge.

Camagni, R. (1991). Local ‘milieu’, uncertainty and innovation networks: towards a new dynamic theory ofeconomic space. In R. Camagni (Ed.), Innovation networks (pp. 121–144). London: Belhaven Press.

Coburn, C. E., & Lin Russel, J. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.

Cooke, P., Heidenreich, M., & Braczyk, H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Regional Innovation Systems (2nd ed.).London: UCL Press.

Cornelissen, F., van Swet, J., Beijaard, D., & Bergen, T. (2011). Aspects of school – university researchnetworks that play a role in developing, sharing and using knowledge based on teacher research.Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 1049–1058.

Cummings, J. N., & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences forperformance. Social Networks, 25, 197–210.

Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2010). A bridge between worlds: understanding network structure tounderstand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 111–138.

de Lima, J. A. (2010). Thinking more deeply about networks in education. Journal of Educational Change,11, 1–21.

Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2005). What makes a network a learning network? National College for SchoolLeadership, UK. http://networkedlearning.ncsl.org.uk/collections/network-research-series/summaries/nlg-what-makes-a-network-a-learning-network.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2011.

Edquist, C. (Ed.). (1997). Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. London:Pinter.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Gilsing, V. (2003). Exploration, exploitation and co-evolution in innovation networks, ERIM Ph.D. Series

Research in Management 32, Rotterdam School of Management / Rotterdam School of Economics.Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and

technology management, omega. International Journal of Management Science, 25(1), 15–28.Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–

1380.Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across

organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.


http://networkedlearning.ncsl.org.uk/collections/network-research-series/summaries/nlg-what-makes-a-network-a-learning-network.pdf

http://networkedlearning.ncsl.org.uk/collections/network-research-series/summaries/nlg-what-makes-a-network-a-learning-network.pdf

Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: emotional responses of teachers andimplications for leadership. School Leadership & Management, 24, 287–309.

Hatala, J.-P. (2006). Social network analysis in human resource development: a new methodology. HumanResource Development Review, 5(1), 45–71.

Heiskala, R., & Hämäläinen, T. J. (2007). Introduction: Historical transformation challenges establishedstructures. In T. J. Hämäläinen & R. Heiskala (Eds.), Social innovations, institutional change andeconomic performance (pp. 1–7). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Heiskala, R. (2007). Social innovations: structural and power perspectives. In T. J. Hämäläinen & R.Heiskala (Eds.), Social innovations, institutional change and economic performance (pp. 52–79).Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Hofman, R. H., & Dijkstra, B. J. (2010). Effective teacher professionalization in networks? Teaching andTeacher Education, 26(2010), 1031–1040.

Kratzer, J., Leenders, R. Th. A. J., & Van Engelen, J. M. L. (2010). The social network among engineeringdesign teams and their creativity: A case study among teams in two product development programs.International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 428–436.

Loogma, K. (2004). Töökeskkonnas õppimise tähendus töötajate kohanemisel töömuutustega. Doktoritöö,Tallinna Pedagoogikaülikool. Tallinn: TPÜ Kirjastus.

Loogma, K. (2009). Changing work of VET teachers in Estonia. Presentation at the ECER Conference"Theory and Evidence in European Educational Research", 28–30 September 2009, Vienna.

Lundvall, B.-A. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation andinteractive learning. London: Pinter.

Marcey, R. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Social Innovation: enhancing creative performance throughcausal analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2–3), 123–140.

Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Gonzales, S. (2005). Towards alternative model(s) of localinnovation. Urban Studies, 42(11), 969–1990.

Mulgan, G. (2006). The Process of Social Innovation, www.policyinnovations.org. Accessed 20 May2010.

Pennell, J. R., & Firestone, W. A. (1996). Changing classroom practices through teacher networks:matching program features with teacher characteristics and circumstances. Teachers College Record,98(1), 46–76.

Powell, W. W., & Grodal, S. (2006). Networks of innovators. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R.Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 56–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion andrange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.

Rekkor, S., Piiskop, K., Ruus, V.-R., & Tooman, H. (2005). Õppekavaarendus kutsehariduses. In Eestikutseõppe I teaduskonverents "Teaduspõhine kutseõpe – osa teaduspõhisest majandusest": 25. august2005 Eesti kutseõppe I teaduskonverents (pp. 37–50). Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikool.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Ryymin, E., Palonen, T., & Hakkarainen, K. (2008). Networking relations of using ICT within a teacher

community. Computers in Education, 51, 1264–1282.Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage Publications.Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Sliwka, A. (2003). Networking for Educational Innovation: A Comparative Analysis, In Networks of

Innovation. Towards New Models for Managing Schools and Systems (pp. 49–63), Schooling forTomorrow, OECD.

Statistics Estonia, database, available at: www.stat.ee.Struyven, K., & De Meyst, M. (2010). Competence-based teacher education: illusion or reality? An

assessment of the implementation status in Flanders from teachers’ and students’ points of view.Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1495–1510.

Tuomi, I. (2005). The Future of Learning in the Knowledge Society: Disruptive Changes for Europe by2020, background paper prepared for DG JRC/IPTS and DG EAC. http://www.meaningprocessing.com/personalPages/tuomi/articles/TheFutureOfLearningInTheKnowledgeSociety.pdf. Accessed 22November 2010.

Tuomi, I. (2006). The new meaning processing paradigm. In R. Compañó, C. Pascu, A. Bianchi, J.-C.Burgelman, S. Barrios, M. Ulbrich & I. Maghiros (Eds.), The Future of the Information Society inEurope: Contributions to the debate (pp. 197–227), Luxembourg: European Commission, EUR No:22353 EN.

Tödtling, F., Lehner, P., & Kaufmann, A. (2009). Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds ofknowledge interactions? Techno innovation, 29, 59–71.


http://www.policyinnovations.org

http://www.stat.ee

http://www.meaningprocessing.com/personalPages/tuomi/articles/TheFutureOfLearningInTheKnowledgeSociety.pdf

http://www.meaningprocessing.com/personalPages/tuomi/articles/TheFutureOfLearningInTheKnowledgeSociety.pdf

Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness.Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: CambridgeUniversity.

Wilhelmsson, M. (2007). How can research networks improve the innovation process? CESIS ElectronicWorking Paper Series, Paper No. 108.

Zembylas, M., & Bulmahn Barker, H. (2007). Teachers’ spaces for coping with change in the context ofreform effort. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 235–256.

Note

This article has been produced as part of the research project – “Education Change as Social Innovation”(SF0130018s09) – funded by the Estonian Research Council. The project was led by senior researcherKrista Loogma, Head of the Centre of Educational Research, Tallinn University.

Külliki Tafel-Viia (MSc) is a researcher at Tallinn University, in the Centre of Educational Research and inEstonian Institute for Futures Studies. She has defended her master thesis in Tallinn University ofTechnology in the field of public administration. Her research interests include creative industries, net-works, social innovation and service design. Currently she is working on her PhD thesis on the topic ofcreative industries.

Krista Loogma (PhD) is a head of the Centre of Educational Research at Tallinn University and anassistant professor. She is a member of the board of several (international) educational associations andcurrently belongs to the management team which develops Estonian educational strategy for the year of2020. Her research interests include: sociology of education, vocational education, and learning at work.

Silja Lassur (BA) is a researcher at Tallinn University, in Estonian Institute for Futures Studies. She hasgraduated from University of Tartu in the field of sociology. Her research interests include innovation,creative industries and service design. Currently she is working on her PhD thesis on the topic of creativeindustries and innovation.

Anne Roosipõld (MA) is a lecturer at Estonian Entrepreneurship University for Applied Sciences. She hasgratuated from Tallinn University of Technology in the field of engineering and got the master degree fromTallinn University in the field of adult education. Currently she is working on her PhD thesis on the topic ofvocational education.


Networks as Agents of Innovation: Teacher Networking in the Context of Vocational and Professional...

Documents

Transcript of Networks as Agents of Innovation: Teacher Networking in the Context of Vocational and Professional...