Implementatie van onderwijsinnovatie: artefacten, ondersteuners, agenda’s en onderhandeling

Educational innovations aim at improving educational practices in schools: changing them 'for the better'. The actual implementation of those innovations (the enactment of the innovative goals and content) however is a very complex process. In line with recent developments in the international research literature, our doctoral research project took the stance that the implementation of educational innovations needs to be conceptualized as determined by two dualities: change and stability on the one hand and agency and structure on the other. Dualities differ from dualisms in that they don't treat the two components as contradictory and mutually exclusive, but rather as complementary and related. Changing educational practices is only possible when enough elements in the school remain stable. And the agency of the actors involved in innovations is inevitably determined by structural elements in the school as an organization or in the institutional context of the educational system at large. In this doctoral research we focus in particular on two structural elements: the role of artifacts and the external support structures for schools during implementation. Our research encompassed three empirical, qualitative-interpretative case studies aimed at deepening our understanding of the implementation processes and as such contributing to the theory-building in the field. In the first study (Chapter 1) we studied the implementation of the so-called TraPS-file, an administrative artifact aimed at transferring relevant information on students' learning needs when they make the transition from primary to secondary school. Our study identified three different configurations in the implementation: faithful, selective and extended use of the artifact. Building on insights from both the sense-making theory and frame analysis, we found that the configurations could be explained as resulting from a central process of interpretative negotiation, in this case between the artifact (as the material carrier of clear normative and strategic goals) and the members of the school teams. The second study (Chapter 2) took the interpretative negotiation process as its central focus in a case study on a more open, educational artifact: the kamishibai (a wooden theatre to show pictures as a support during storytelling in Kindergarten). Using a conceptual framework drawing on insights from sense-making theory as well as neo-institutional theory, we studied the implementation process in one primary school over time. The study demonstrated how the meaning of the innovation developed over time, partly in reaction to changes in the context and conditions in the school (a.o. new local policies as well as changes in the school population). As a result of these changes the actual agenda (goals and interests) of the innovation for the members of the school team changed as well. The analytical concepts of interpretative negotiation and agendas in implementation processes were more systematically deepened in the third study which focused on a more pervasive, complex and large-scale innovation, in particular the so-called M-Decree, aimed at promoting inclusive education in Flemish schools. Data were collected in secondary schools who participated in an external support arrangement, aimed at helping them in their implementation of inclusive education. This third study consisted of two parts, with different but complementary research interests. In the first part (Chapter 3) we focused on understanding the interpretative negotiation processes in the implementation of a large-scale and complex innovation, as well as on how this determined the (development of the) agendas of the different groups of actors involved and the perception and outcomes of the support arrangement. In the second part (Chapter 4) we zoomed in on the role of external educational advisors in implementation processes of innovations. Our findings show that the support practices of the educational advisors, their meaning and impact are characterized by four key factors: congruency, legitimacy, loyalty and urgency. In the final chapter we summarize the main findings of the different studies, reflect on a number of limitations and provide recommendations for future research.

Publication year:2019

Accessibility:Open