Change is never easy. It is often said that while everyone might want change, few people are prepared to change. It should not be too surprising that most significant changes within large organisations fail. So why is it that so many great ideas fail to survive? Is it that the idea itself didn’t have what it takes to survive, or is it something else? Is it something to do with the culture of the organisation and if so, how might a richer understanding of the cultural factors at play support or change efforts?
Their culture heavily shapes educational organisations with their focus on the provision of human services provided by teachers who closely identify with their imagining of what it means to be a teacher. Emotion and culture are linked, and change of culture frequently invokes an emotional response. “A person’s sense of identity is partly determined by his or her values, which can mesh or clash with organisational values” (Smollan & Sayers 2009 p439) Smollan & Sayers found that when cultural change is sought in a school, and it is not viewed as fitting with one’s values, or it calls those values into question emotional responses such as fear, anger or sadness are common. This is seen in changes that result in teacher professionalism and autonomy being questioned and would include changes to curriculum and pedagogy. This connection between identity and culture and the subsequent emotional dependencies demands the most considered management and awareness of the human factors involved in the change.
In practical terms, any change effort that does not consider the culture into which it is introduced is unlikely to succeed. The worst-case scenario is that the change effort is resisted to such a degree that it is never truly implemented. In many cases, however, the change effort fails to produce the sort of results initially imagined despite the efforts of all involved to adopt the change. Although the new behaviours are adopted, something goes wrong, and it isn’t always that the new idea itself is to be blamed.
Consider a school that is adopting a focus on student thinking. A series of key teaching moves and routines to be implemented by the teachers are identified and agreed to. These can be easily taught, learned and monitored. When introduced to staff through a mix of empathetic and ongoing professional learning opportunities, it is reasonable to expect that the new methods will be acquired and yet things can still go wrong. Somehow the students are still described as reluctant thinkers who focus instead upon reciting answers. What went wrong? Why are the students not embracing these new thinking moves?
The problem probably lies at the level of culture.
Students know what school is about. They learn this from an early age, and the messaging they receive on a daily basis reinforces their beliefs. The teacher might talk about thinking in one moment, but the students will play this rhetoric alongside all of the other messages they receive. Correct answers on the test result in good grades on the report. Fast responses to quizzes in the classroom are rewarded. Good students answer more questions than they ask. Learning is all about memorising the facts. Neat work rules. The most valued subjects occur in the mornings. Smart means knowing more of the answers in subjects like mathematics and English. The students know that while thinking is nice, other things matter more.
It was not that a focus on thinking was not a good idea or even that the particular methods deployed were flawed. The change effort failed because it was only ever at best superficial. It did not sufficiently address the question of culture. If we are to truly focus on thinking then when we need to look closely at how thinking is addressed in every message we send. If there are actions which run counter to our focus on thinking, then we must consider how this can be changed. As we do this, we build thinking into the culture of the school.
Building a culture of thinking is soundly developed through the work of Ron Ritchhart and Project Zero though their work on Creating Cultures of Thinking. The eight cultural forces offer both a Lens and a Lever for those looking to evaluate and change their culture towards one that values thinking. But thinking is not the only change within schools that demands more than superficial treatment. Consider how inquiry-based learning might be implemented in ways that fail to address the cultural aspects of inquiry. Unless there exists within the school a culture that values inquiry as a mode of learning, then it is at best going to be a nice process for responding to a research question. Student agency is another clear example of a concept that can produce insignificant change in schools because it never moves beyond base treatment. When student agency is genuinely embraced, its fingerprints should be evident in the culture of the school. It should be considered unnatural not to include a student voice on any decision that impact students rather than an occasional nicety.
Assessment practices are another case where culture significantly impacts the effect that a change initiative might or might not have. Read the work of highly respected assessment expert Dylan Wiliam, and you will see that the most significant impact occurs when schools embrace assessment for learning or formative assessment approaches. Two quotes from Wiliam shine a light on the key concepts underlying a formative assessment approach:
It is formative only if the information is used by the learner in making improvements that actually take their own learning forward. That is why to be formative, assessment must include a recipe for future action. - Dylan Wiliam
If what you are doing under the heading of assessment for learning or formative assessment involves putting anything into a spreadsheet, if it involves using a pen other than for using comments in a student exercise book, then you are not doing the assessment for learning that makes a difference.’ - Dylan Wiliam
Unpacking the definition of formative assessment further, Wiliam shares “Practice in a classroom is formative to the extent that evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers, learners, or their peers, to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or better founded, than the decisions they would have taken in the absence of the evidence that was elicited.” This clearly points us towards practices that allow all involved in the learning to understand where the learner is in their learning, what they might do next and what others (teachers, parents etc.) might do to help. This process is not supported by a mark or a grade. Both fail to shine a light on the specifics of what has been achieved or what might result in growth.
Indeed the problem with the use of grades or marks is larger than we might imagine. Ruth Butler investigated the impact of grades on intrinsic motivation, and her findings are significant. Students given feedback only has comments gained the most from the feedback provided. When students received only grades, or even grades and a comment, the effect was an undermining of their interest and performance. The effort made by the teacher to supplement the grade with a meaningful comment that might guide the student forward in their learning was undone by the provision of a grade.
The challenge that many schools confront when implementing formative assessment stems most significantly from culture and the beliefs which cultivate this. Teachers believe that a part of their job is to provide students with a grade even in situations where this might not be mandated by a system. Teachers also believe that they need to be maintaining a mark book. Parents contribute to this by insisting on grades, and the belief that good grades are a satisfactory proxy for learning is widespread. Students learn from their immersion in this culture that success in school is indicated by good grades. Emily Mitchum, a student reflecting on her learning and the culture she experienced published an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette where she wrote,
This system…has caused my generation to develop an unhealthy obsession over grades instead of learning, in my opinion. The harsh reality is that we really aren’t learning as much as we could be. We study because we have tests, and the day after the test we forget all of the information we studied.
Our persistent focus on grades is shaping our student’s perception of what learning is and that imagining is not positive. When we assess the efficacy of our effort to implement formative assessment we must consider the impact that this cultural focus on grades has. Changing our assessment practices without addressing the cultural bias is unlikely to succeed.
The pattern holds for many aspects of change. Adopting new practices is relatively easy. Changing the culture so that the change becomes a routine part of how the organisation functions is challenging. When it comes time to evaluate a change, the cultural element must also be considered. Too many good ideas have been reviewed negatively not because the idea was flawed but because it did not fit the culture of the organisation to which it was introduced. This point might prove to be crucial as rapidly changing times, and new imperatives are thrust upon education. While we might acknowledge the need for changes in how young people are prepared for the world they will inherit, will the culture of educational systems be able to adjust in time?
By Nigel Coutts
Read this article in Portuguese Here thanks to Rede De Bibliotecas Escolares
Smollan, R & Sayers, J. (2009) Organizational Culture, Change and Emotions: A Qualitative Study, Journal of Change Management, 9:4, 435-457