Teacher self-determination in innovation design and implementation = high level of teacher buy-i

Background: 

Research suggests a number of benefits from teacher participation in school improvement—chief among them that it can increase teacher receptivity to innovation and  reform adoption. Improvement science has been put forward as a new paradigm for involving  local school stakeholders in the improvement process. 

Purpose: 

This study describes the beliefs held by teachers and teacher leaders during the development  and implementation of a locally developed innovation. To explain why the beliefs of these two school stakeholder groups would differ, and the implications these differences have on receptivity to the innovation, we merge the sense-making framework and status risk theory. 

Setting: 

Three high schools in a large urban school district in the southwestern United States. Research Design: The data for this study come from a seven-year study of the process of scaling up effective practices in a large urban district. This qualitative case study is based on  transcripts from 260 semi-structured interviews and 24 focus groups with development team  members and teachers. The researchers analyzed transcripts to understand participants’ attitudes toward  and understanding of the innovation design. 

Findings: 

Allowing for teacher self-determination in the innovation design and implementation helped to garner a high level of teacher buy-in to the innovation. Compared with externally developed reforms, the innovation was less challenging to teacher autonomy and  was customized to fit the needs of their students. These conditions led to high levels of teache  ownership over the innovation. Yet, in the process, teacher leaders grounded the innovation  in preexisting and easy-to-implement practices that did not require significant investment  from teachers to adopt. 

Conclusions: 

Teacher self-determination in the innovation development process contributed  to greater teacher ownership of, and receptivity to, organizational change, but at the cost of  adopting more ambitious practices that likely had a greater chance of improving instruction  and positive student outcomes