Factors that impact on teacher innovation

Even in 2015 educational leaders are still often frustrated as to why digital devices have not changed practice in many classrooms, and haven't led to a culture of innovation with many teachers. Yong Zhao, Kevin Pugh and Stephen Sheldon conducted a study (Conditions for Classroom Technology Innovation) to explore this issue by examining the practice of more than 100 teachers.

From this came 11 salient factors, that need to be considered to support technology innovation in the classroom. These eleven can be grouped under three main headings: 

1. The teacher or innovator; 
2. The innovation or the project and
3. The context. 

The teacher/innovator factors were the one that seemed to have the most impact on the adoption of technology innovations. With regard to the teacher/innovator factors there are three sub-factors:

1. Technological proficiency - this has to do with the confidence and capability of the teacher - it is understandable that the greater this is, the more likely technology will be used in innovative ways;
2. Pedagogical compatibility - this refers to the level at which the pedagogical beliefs of the teachers fit (or don't fit ) with the technology. Again it is understandable if the technology doesn't support how a teacher teaches it is not likely to be used and
3. Social awareness - the more aware a teacher is of the school culture the more likely they are to adopt technological innovations. As teacher have greater social awareness they are more able to access such things as support and positive feedback.

With regard to the innovation/project there are two overarching factors - distance and dependance.

1. Distance refers to the distance of the innovation from the school culture - the more the innovation deviates from existing school practice and culture the less likely it is to be adopted. There are three sub-factors to consider: distance from the school culture, distance from the existing practice present in the school and distance away from other technological resources.
2. Dependence refers to how much the use of the innovation relies on other people or other resources, especially ones that are out of the control of the teacher/innovator. It is understandable that the greater the dependence, the more likely use of an innovation will fall over as there are a greater number of variables that have to be achieved for use of the innovation to be successful. 

The third domain to have a strong effect is the context in which the innovation takes place - the actual school itself. Three factors were identified that are relevant: 

1. Human infrastructure, which includes the human support systems both technological support and other teachers who can help develop the innovation and help to provide timely professional development and ensure there are supportive policies;
2. Technological infrastructure which includes technological support, hardware and software as well as connectivity and 
3. Social support which refers to the degree to which other people in the school provide support (or otherwise) to the innovator. 

While the domain of the innovator/teacher is the strongest domain in predicting technology innovations the other factors should not be ignored - especially when looking at the scalability and sustainability of the innovation. 

So how can this information be used by leadership in schools to ensure there are people who are teacher/innovators and there is the necessary support required for these people to flourish. The first two factors with regard to the innovator/teacher domain can be impacted by well-considered professional learning and development. This professional learning and development should be less about using the technology (unless this is an area that is severely lacking) but should focus more on building capabilities across a range of technologies in ways that support future-focused pedagogy. 

Barriers in schools with regard to technology innovation need to be identified and minimised as much as possible. Technological support (including technicians) need to have the role of enabling teachers to act on innovations rather than putting more barriers in place. Give the power to the teachers not the technicians. Networks must function and access to technology must be seamless. Teachers have enough to contend with to ensure technological innovations are used in pedagogically effective ways. The hardware/software and network issues need to be so much in the background that teachers don't even have to be aware of them. 

Teacher/innovators need to be celebrated and supported both with regard to the social structures of the school and the technological structure. Celebrate a culture of (considered) risk taking. Students need teachers who are early adopters and at the leading edge of technological developments. Lastly, even though I personally am often frustrated with the slow rate of change, and my gut instinct is for more of a revolutionary approach where drastic changes are made, the evolutionally approach, taking small steps, in the constantly desired direction will be more effective in the long run - or as said by John West-Burnham,  "keep the herd moving west."