Context, Changes and the Strategic Teaching/Reading Project

The following descriptions of the life cycle of an innovation, the staff roles and responsibilities during that life cycle, and the various contexts within which staff carry out these roles and responsibilities are derived from approximately 15 years of research. The particular research upon which these discussions are based was conducted over the course of four years in rural, urban, and suburban schools. For those who wish to investigate this research in more detail, we have included a list of references.

Phases of Change
A Brief Look at the Life Cycle of an Innovation

Researchers and practitioners strongly agree that the process of innovation has a definite time dimension. In this discussion, the time element is called a "life cycle" because we have found this process to be more organic than linear. That is, it grows and develops with some irregularity. More importantly, we have found that like growth, the process can be influenced and, in most situations, should be influenced to ensure survival. We need to caution that because of the way this information is presented, it suggests that there is a set sequence to the life cycle described. This is not the case. Like any life cycle, this one is evolutionary; it proceeds in fits and starts rather than marching straight forward. In fact, it often circles back on itself. The life cycle of an innovation has three major phases: initiation, implementation, and continuation.

Initiation refers to the start-up activities that get an innovation or change going. The Initiation Phase has three stages:

1. Introduction - Someone (perhaps a consultant, colleague, or friend) or something (perhaps a journal article or research review) brings the innovation to the attention of potential implementers. This event can take place at any level of the system, but must eventually be carried out at the system's highest levels.

2. Negotiation of Adaptations - Not all good ideas work everywhere, nor should they. Innovations often need to be tailored to local conditions and situations. This stage legitimatizes this phenomenon. Negotiation of adaptations is also important because it allows and sanctions local implementers to put their own stamp on the innovation.

3. Adoption - The culmination of the initiation phase - adoption - must occur at the highest level possible or the innovation will not really take hold. Although the decision to adopt an innovation can be informal, it is far better if the decision is made formally. Three very important points about adoption must be kept in mind always:
   • Adoption at the highest level need only be permission to continue; involvement or even a depth of knowledge about the innovation is not a requirement.

   • Adoption decisions can be more or less continuous during the first two phases of an innovation's life cycle and may reappear at any time during Initiation and Implementation.

   • Whenever a change occurs at the highest level, the innovation must be reintroduced and the adoption decision remade to some degree. This rule is applicable mainly during the innovation's first two life-cycle phases.

Implementation refers to the efforts to put an innovation into action. It begins with the very first attempts to understand and try out the innovation and culminates when the innovation begins making its way beyond the early adopters. The five stages of implementation are:

1. Orientation - This crucial stage is the first in-depth treatment of the innovation for those who have chosen (or been chosen) to participate. A thorough orientation should not only help the early adopters gain an understanding of the innovation, it should enable them to see how the innovation fits what they are already doing. Thus, orientation cannot be thought of as a "one-shot" presentation. Instead, during this stage early adopters should be allowed to manipulate information about the innovation.

2. Experimentation - This stage is very similar to the last one. Part of the manipulation process described above is experimentation. Early adopters have to experiment with the innovation both to make sense of it and to see what has to be done to it to make it a better contextual fit. The experimentation stage is also important because it encourages buy-in.

3. Customization - As they become more comfortable with the innovation, early adopters will begin to make alterations. This process of adjustment is positive but can have negative aspects. On the plus side, customization signals that adopters are internalizing the innovation and, thus, have made another - perhaps tacit - adoption decision. Yet the customization process must be monitored carefully to guard against too much alteration. During this stage, fidelity to the innovation may be compromised.

4. Pilot - At this stage, the innovation becomes part of the adopters' repertoire in a limited way. In the case of an instructional innovation, for example, a pilot might include a small number of students or take place only in one classroom. In another example, the pilot of a professional development innovation might involve just a few teachers.

5. Spread - Once the innovation has been pilot tested to the adopters' satisfaction, it is time to spread it to others. This "spread" can take place in a variety of different ways: to others in the same school building or to others with similar jobs or roles in a school district, for example. Although the early adopters often participate actively in this stage, their participation is not necessary - except to endorse the innovation. In fact, their endorsement is key to spreading the innovation. Spread may require revisiting earlier stages of the Initiation and Implementation phases.

1. Routinization - At this stage, the innovation has spread sufficiently and is being used with enough regularity to be considered a standard operating procedure in the school or district. Although it may still be considered new or unique by those outside the system, the innovation is not seen as particularly unusual or exceptional inside the system.

2. Institutionalization - In this final stage of the final phase of the life cycle, the innovation stops being an innovation. It is so much a part of daily practice that it is virtually invisible to outsiders and insiders.

An innovation can begin at any level of the educational system. It can be top-down or bottom-up or both. But for an innovation to take root and succeed, key leaders, colleagues, and partners must be involved at all levels. However, involvement can mean different things and manifest itself in different ways. I have identified three kinds of involvement: substantive involvement, symbolic involvement, and permission. Each one contributes in its own way to the success of an innovation.

Substantive involvement is the nuts-and-bolts part of innovation. Individuals who are substantively involved with the initiation, implementation, or continuation of an innovation are the ones who roll up their sleeves and carrying out the activities associated with these stages. They are the ones who make the introductory presentations, teach the lessons, or recruit additional adopters. Not everyone needs to be substantively involved with an innovation until the late stages of implementation.

Symbolic involvement is most typical at the administrative or supervisory level. Those with symbolic involvement in an innovation are more often managers than doers. They orchestrate resources and situations to support and promote the doers. In addition, they set a positive tone and an encouraging climate. They usually know enough about the innovation to ask relevant questions at key times during the various stages of the life cycle and to evaluate progress. Among their most important roles are cheerleader and booster, providing encouragement and pats on the back. In short, symbolic involvement is a lot more active than it sounds.

Permission is the most fundamental kind of involvement and it is absolutely necessary for the life cycle of an innovation to begin. It is either the explicit or implicit acknowledgement that it is okay to undertake an innovation. Adopters need formal permission from administrators and supervisors, including the board of education. They need informal permission from their colleagues, especially if the adopters' substantive involvement might have an impact on others' workloads - for example, to cover classes during planning meetings.

It is important to emphasize that while permission is necessary for the early stages of the life cycle, an innovation will not endure beyond the pilot stage of implementation unless a significant number of staff members become substantively involved and the rest become at least symbolically involved.

Contexts for Change
A Brief Look at Different Environments for Innovation

Change and innovation do not occur in a vacuum. They are initiated somewhere, are implemented somewhere, and continue somewhere. An educational innovation can be launched or conducted at six levels:

1. The national level
2. The state level
3. The regional or intermediate service agency level
4. The school district level
5. The school level
6. The classroom level

These levels can be looked at as different environments for planting, nurturing, and harvesting the results of an innovation. Each environment also has key partners and leaders who can assist. Agents of change - individuals who work to help others understand and use a beneficial innovation - must know who the leaders and partners are in each of these environments. But more importantly, the agents of change must involve these leaders and partners to ensure that the innovation takes root and grows. These key leaders and partners include:

• Classroom Level
  • Teachers
  • Teacher's aides, other non-instructional paraprofessionals, or teaching interns

• School Building Level
  • Principal
  • Assistant principals
  • Department chairs
  • Grade level or content area leaders
  • Chapter coordinators
  • Curriculum specialists
  • Other specialists (e.g., ESL, media, special education, bilingual, etc.)
  • Resource room director or librarian
  • Informal teacher leaders

• School District Level
  • Superintendent
  • Assistant or associate superintendents
  • Business manager
  • Curriculum specialists
  • Professional development or inservice specialists
  • Chapter coordinators
  • Other specialist coordinators (e.g., ESL, bilingual, special education, media, etc.)
  • Board of education
  • Parents

• Regional (Intermediate Service Agency) Level
  • Director of educational services
  • Content specialists or local district liaisons

Note: Although quite a few state and national leaders and partners have the potential to assist in the initiation, implementation, or continuation of an innovation, they will not be listed here.

Berman, P. (1981). Educational change: An implementation paradigm. In R. Lehming and M. Kane (Eds.), Improving schools: Using what we know. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Corbett, H.D., Dawson, J.A., & Firestone, W.R. (1984). School context and school change: Implications for effective planning. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc.

Corbett, H.D., & D'Amico, J.J. (1987). Context and change: A training program for school improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc.

D'Amico, J.J., & Corbett, H.D. (1987). How to develop your school's readiness for improvement: An analysis process and recommendations. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.

Hord, S.M., Rutherford, W.L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G.E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.