Image Change by Angel Miller from Flikr.com
Changes in Change Theories
Just as there is rapid progress in technologies, so is there progress in change theories and models. According to Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) change theories have become more flexible in response to more varied contexts, by extending the focus from an individual to the organization as a whole and even the pressures beyond the organization. In the educational technology field there exists the contradiction of fast paced technology with slow educational procedures which is exacerbated by the conflicting notions of entrenched tools and the need for readiness to implement successful change.
Urgent Change
The current context of BC’s public schools is especially unique due to the urgency to adapt to the global pandemic last year. Urgency, the first stage of Koffer’s 8-stage theory of change, as as a motivator towards change. While 2020 was definitely a year for urgent change, this change is not the kind leaders should strive for as it was in response to an emergency with the goal to continue education, not develop any long-lasting educational progress. During this transition, Distributed Learning (DL) schools had a smoother transition, but also teachers and learners were held to pre-covid standards. This resulted in an increase to the unbalance between face-to-face and online schools.
Beyond the emergency response to a pandemic, the context of BC public Distributed Learning high school provides additional challenges such as a heavy reliance on Learning Managment Systems (LMS) and external content such as Western Canada’s Learning Network. I selected key elements of change theories that are most pertinent to this context:
-
-
- Technology: As technology rapidly changes the whole system needs to change in response (Biech, 2007). Technology is also significant to change as it can cause resistance to change by users who are entrenched in current tools or fear learning new tools or who rely on tools outside of their organization.
-
-
-
- Community: A DL school consists of administrators, educators, learners, course developers, IT staff, parents, and students. Paul questions “ the readiness and ability of students to assume the responsibility for their own learning inherent in most of these models” (2003, p. 69). The role of various community members is also recognized by Epstein’s “overlapping spheres of influence” (as cited in Sanders & Epstein, 2005).
-
-
-
- Economics: In public schools, Theory E, or theory of economics (as defined by Al-Haddad & Kotnour) is relevant as ministry funding regulates the ability for change. The school budget is truly the bottom line. However, the role of economics is limited to higher level leaders and is rarely involved in discussions at the educator level where there is a more perceived focus on Theory O and softer theories. If the funding models were altered, public schools could move more effectively to participatory action research (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 245).
-
-
-
- Time: With a lack of contract language for BC’s DL schools, teachers are often overwhelmed with a large number of classes and students. Weiner (2009) recongized time’s influence on change efficacy. The availability of time to effect change is also important when considering the outcomes. In order to provide measures of the change, time is further reduced.
-
Future Change
As we continue to value the significance of context and the individuals in that context, I hope that individual experiences and strengths are continued to be included through change. I also wish to see that rather than rushing towards change we allow some time for rest and mastery. I predict that educators will feel exhausted by our recent rapid changes which lack the time to required to improve new skills. Amidst our global pandemic there is also an underlying crisis of increasing mental illness. I hope to see more integration of community services in schools to ensure the well-being of the whole child (Sanders & Epstein, 2005) and would welcome psychological well-being being intentionally considered in any change theory.
References
Al-Haddad, S. & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2). 234 – 262. https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
Biech, E. (2007). Models for change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. Alexandria, VA: ASTD [Retrieved from Skillsoft e-book database]
Feldstein, M. (2017, May 28). A flexible, interoperable digital learning platform: Are we there yet? [Blog post]. ELiterate. https://eliterate.us/flexible-interoperable-digital-learning-platform-yet/
Paul, R. (2003). Institutional leadership and the management of change. In Planning and Management in Distance Education. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/lib/royalroads-ebooks/reader.action?docID=198435&ppg=85
Sanders, M. & Epstein, J. (2005). School-family-community partnerships and educational change: International perspectives. In Hargreaves, A. Extending Educational Change. https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/book/10.1007%2F1-4020-4453-4
Weiner, B. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67), doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
Read More
Recent Comments