Diffusion and the Social Dynamics of Organizations: The Case of Educational Innovations and Schools

Diffusion and the Social Dynamics of Organizations:

The Case of Educational Innovations and Schools

Kenneth A. FrankCollege of Education and

Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State University

With William Penuel, Yong ZhaoMin Sun, Chong Min Kim, Ann Krause,

Kathryn Borman, Nicole Ellefson. Susan Porter, Corinne Singleton

Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations (1995)

Current

Diffusion: Beneath the Surface

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100333707

NPR Science Friday

Diffusion: Beneath the Surface: Entering the

System

Penetrating the Boundary

Absorbed by the System

System Adaptation

Internal System Reaction

Counteraction

How Does the Social Organization of the School Create a Complex System?

Social organization of the school (beneath the surface) complex response

Starting Point: Most Variation in Achievement Outcomes and

Teacher Behaviors is Within Schools

10%-30% of the variance in achievement is at the student levelKonstantopoulos, S. (2006). Trends of School Effects on Student Achievement: Evidence from NLS:72, HSB: 82, and NELS:92. Teachers College Record, 108, 2550-2581.

http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/docs/publications/2131199576456b88344ffba.pdf

Only 10%-20% of the variation in teacher outcomes is within schools Lee & Smith, 1991; Rowan et al., 1992

Baseline Assumption: Instruction is the Proximal Cause of Learning

http://ies.ed.gov/funding/pdf/2011_84305A.pdf page 28

See also: Cohen Raudenbush & Ball, 2003

Baseline Assumption: Teaching is Fundamentally Complex

– Teaching requires integration of:• curriculum, • variable student needs• assessments• conflicting organizational demands• teachers’ previous educational experiences• non-linear cognitive processes

– Must be coordinated with others• Shared students• Shared contexts

– Bidwell, 1965; Woodward, 1965;

Baseline Assumption: Teachers Need Local Knowledge to be

Effective• Must adapt external, general

knowledge to context of the school• Local knowledge allows teachers to

comply with local norms• Local knowledge (if made explicit)

can be shared with others to improve school– Frank et al., 2011

Where Does Local Knowledge Come From?

• Professional Development– Externally generated, needs to be adapted

• Experimentation– Intensive– Limited to previous experiences – what to

do for new type of student or curricular unit?

• Interaction with others within school– Shared contexts: curriculum, students,

organizational demands

Complex Process:Knowledge Changes as it is Locally Adapted

General, abstract knowledge conveyed during Focusedprofessionaldevelopment

Knowledge becomes tacit as it is adapted to local context through exploration and experimentation(Fiddle)

Knowledge articulated and integrated through interactions with colleagues(Friends)

Figure 1: the Transformation of Knowledge As an Innovation Permeates the School’s Organizational Boundary

Data: supported by Michigan Department of Education

Example of Interaction as Source of Local Knowledge(Coburn and Russell, 2007, page 23):

We talked about, like, the math message and the mental math and how to coordinate the two and that we should be linking the message to the initial onset of the mini lesson and how those two are connected and that that would get the children eventually into their individual work and that we should connect them and that the math messages is separated from the mental math after it’s done until we go back to it and use that as a lead in for the lesson. So that’s something I’d like to get straight. Because the teachers’ guide was a bit fuzzy about that, I thought. It was a bit misleading when it came to the math message and the mental math. So he was able to tell me that I should teach it in that sequence. So that helped.

Complex: new approach, math message, must be coordinated with the old, mental math

teachers talk about how to implement the new approach, motivate the children, differentiate the approaches, and structure the lesson.

within local context: math curriculum, coach.

Theoretical Implications• Network effect stronger for those who have

– Focused professional development, experimented– Language is key

• School as organization transforms knowledge– Adapted from external to internal– Through experimentation and interaction– Knowledge made explicit through interactions

Broader Findings• Network effects matter

– As much as classic predictors of implementation such as resources and perceptions of innovation

– Technology: Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., and Borman, K 2004; Frank et al, 2011

– Reforms: Penuel et al, 2010– Reading Instruction: Frank, Penuel et al (under re-review)– Math Instruction: Jim Spillane & Paul Cobb– Achievement: Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009

• Caveats– Small to moderate effects to change in practices: Beware of large

effects– But can accumulate– Spillover to other areas: talk allows other flows– Most studies for elementary and middle schools

Penetrating the Boundary

Absorbed by the System

System Adaptation

How Can Teachers Access Local Knowledge?

• Consider Motivations of Teachers:– Efficacy (STEM supplemental PD)– Fit into social context

• Frank et al (2010); Youngs et al (forthcoming)

• Where is $? (Shirley)– Once they have base pay, marginal return for $ not motivating?

• “To summarize, we find no overall effect, pooling across years and grades, of teacher incentive pay on mathematics achievement. Likewise, we find no overall effect by year, pooling across grades.” (page 30)– See also Scholastic, 2010:

http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Scholastic_Gates_0310.pdf

Perceptions of Efficacy

Utility

Teacher behaviors Student outcomes

Other’s expectations

Phonics

Whole language

Curriculum

assessment

Teacher Utilityf(personal efficacy, fitting into social organization of school)

Comment on Utility• Teachers seek individual efficacy and to fit into

their school• Teachers with different utility will make

different trade-offs– Novice teacher needs extensive local

knowledge, more willing to conform– Senior teacher who will retire soon may

have no incentive to conform• Different conformity pressures for formal

versus informal leaders (Min Sun, Ken Frank et al)

Utility and the Social Capital Exchange

Knowledge through the Network for Compliance to Norms

• Teacher seeks knowledge to improve efficacy• Teacher with knowledge seeks conformity of

other to gain:– Reputation (Blau: Social exchange)– Legitimacy– Own personal efficacy: the organizational

effect• If 3rd grade teacher can get a 2nd to teach

more phonics, the 3rd grade teacher can be more effective

• Social capital exchange

Social Capital Exchange: Knowledge for Conformity

Knowledge articulated and integrated through interactions with colleagues(Friends)

conformity

knowledge

Policy Implications of Social Capital Exchange

1) Schools may improve implementation as much by focusing on social structure as on changing attitudes or improving resources.

Leveraging social capital is cheap and quick relative to changing attitudes or purchasing resources

2) Attempts to implement multiple innovations may compete for fixed social capital

Failure to fulfill multiple obligations may be detrimental to overall social capital

3) Success of implementation depends on distribution of social capitalAre there sources of expertise available to each actor?

Caveats• Teachers must identify with school and others

for social capital exchange– Otherwise no penalty for failure to conform

• Does not apply for high teacher turnover

System Reaction

Normative Compliance Structured by Cohesive Subgroups

• Teachers organized in subgroups– Partly aligned with departments– But emergent

• Excellent source of local knowledge– Others know context– Similar orientation less conformity

pressure (Nonaka; Yasumoto; Hansen)• Subgroups create own norms• Subgroups filter response to external

institutions and forces

Clusters in Foodwebs

Krause, A., Frank, K.A., Mason, D.M., Ulanowicz, R.E. and Taylor, W.M. (2003). "Compartments exposed in food-web structure." Nature 426:282-285 33

A

B

C

D

E

Within Subgrop Scale Expanded by a Factor of 9 ID/Grade Level; - within subgroups, ... between subgroups.

-45

-35

-25

-15

-5

5

15

25

35

-25 -15 -5 5 15 25

• Each number is a teacher• G_ indicates grade in which teacher teaches• Lines connecting two numbers indicate teachers who are close colleaguesSolid lines within subgroups, dashed between• Circles indicate cohesive subgroups

Ripple Plot• Overlay talk about technology on

social geography of crystallized sociogram

• Lines indicate talk about technology

• Size of dot indicates teacher’s use of technology at time 1

• Ripples indicate increase in use from time 1 to time 2

Theoretical Implications:Subgroups as Meso-Level Entities

• Individuals’ experience within organizations is mediated by subgroups within which interactions are more concentrated – In schools, subgroup boundaries align to

varying degrees with formal organizational structures (e.g., grade level) and aspects of the informal social structure (e.g., cohorts of teachers)

– Many school actors are not assigned to a single grade

• Interactions within and across subgroup boundaries can have different effects on practice– Across subgroups, effects tend to be the

result of acquiring new information (see, e.g., Granovetter, 1973)

– Within subgroup boundaries, effects tend to be normative in nature (see, e.g., Coleman, 1988)

Subgroups and the Organizational Response to

NCLB• The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 changed the

institutional environment of schooling– Sanctions for schools failing to meet achievement

targets for all subgroups of students (“tightening” coupling)

– Requirement that schools and districts adopt evidence-based programs and practices

– In reading, a focusing of resources on phonics-based instruction that built decoding skills of early readers (reducing heterogeneity of environment)

• A core assumption of NCLB is that school actors will adapt to the changed environment because they are motivated by the threat of sanctions and promise of resources and rewards

NCLB PressuresSanctions

Resources (Programs, PD)Institutional Environment

School

Penetrating the Boundary

NCLB Pressures: Varying Initial Practices Sanctions

Resources (Programs, PD)Institutional Environment

School

SanctionsResources (Programs, PD)Institutional

Environment

School

(microfoundations)

NCLB Pressures: Varying Initial Practices and Subgroups

Normative Pressure• Pressure result from having a collegial

tie (direct effect) with someone or from being part of the same subgroup (indirect effect)

• Individual teachers may be particularly responsive to pressure from subgroup members to the extent that:– They share a common context for teaching

(Smylie, 1989; Kennedy, 2005)– High levels of trust exist among subgroup

members(see Ingersoll, 2003)

NCLB PressuresSanctions

Resources (Programs, PD)Institutional Environment

School

TIME 1

NCLB PressuresSanctions

Resources (Programs, PD)Institutional Environment

School

TIME 2

Implications: CHANGING SCHOOLS NOT TEACHERS• Subgroups, conformity to subgroup norm (for

knowledge exchange) increased variation between subgroups

in organizational response• Uncoordinated effort (Shirley’s reform du jour)• Stratification: which kids/families can

compensate?• Schism affecting next implementation of next

innovation (Nora)– John and Gary: maybe OK that schools spit

CISCO back out. % buy in during adoption• How Does this help create the engineers Rick

Stephens needs?

Agent Decisions• Choose production technology based on which one gives

them the highest utility given their level of knowledge

• Decide on social investments based on perceived resources and probability of reciprocity from potential alters

U i (C,t) (t) w( p,ki (t))i e(t)i

12

e(t)i2

(1 (t))

12

(e(t)i e(C,t))2

attractivenessii ' 0 1(gi ' i ) 2 gzi 'gzi

z1

n

3(resourcesi ' resourcesi )ii ' 4(gi ' i ) gzi 'gziz1

n

Production vs. Leisurew: return / effortw=f(price,knowledge)

Conformity

gii`: tie strength between actor i and actor i’ = f(trade balance)

Agent-Based Model:Diffusion of Extraction

Practices

How Does the Social Organization of the School Create a Complex System?

Social organization of the school (beneath the surface) complex response

System Adaptation

System Reaction

Counteraction: Unintended Consequence?

Higher Pressure, Higher Jet: Perhaps True for Schools?

Strategies for Improving School Capacity

• Increase access to expertise and resources relevant to reforms across all subgroups

• Create opportunities for interactions that connect isolated subgroups to expertise that exists within the schools– Some seek new information – bridgers– Create venues for interaction (committees,

vertical teams, etc) – Some schools in our sample were quite

successful in facilitating interactions through grade-level teams and lesson study

– Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Joshi, A., & Frank, K. A. 2010. The alignment of the informal and formal supports for school reform: Implications for improving teaching in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 57-95

Simulated Chaotic System Produced as Bridger Oscillates between Seeking new Information and Interaction with Similar

Others

Bridger

Pursuit of information for efficacy integrates subgroups

Inst

ruct

iona

l pra

ctic

e (p

honi

cs)

Bridger

Frank, K.A., Muller, C., Schiller, K., Riegle-Crumb, C., Strassman-Muller, A., Crosnoe, R., Pearson J. 2008. “The Social Dynamics of Mathematics CourseTaking in high school.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol 113 (6): 1645-1696.

Venues could be professional development, committees, hallways

Comment on Current Policies• Value Added

– OK at school level, encourages positive internal dynamics– At teacher level: inhibits knowledge sharing, coordination

• Charter schools– Pay attention to social dynamics: many burnout in short period.

It’s more than the mission and curriculum• Teachers by far have been the biggest struggle,” said Ms.

Rodríguez-Dávila, 39, who previously was a middle school principal. (NYT, Sept 6: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/education/06houston.html?ref=education)

• School Choice/Voucher:– No attention to internal dynamics

• Special education: inclusion– Focus on how special education & regular education teachers

coordinate• Technology:

– depends on how teachers interact over technology.– Still isolated problem (

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html?ref=education

• Scripted curricula:– not taking advantage of local knowledge, but gets everyone on

same page

Broader Implications• Implementation is local!

– Any innovation encounters an existing social structure, must work with that

• Implementing an innovation will have implications for current and future innovations– There were other innovations before yours, and there

will be others afterwards• Before reforms are adopted, schools could develop a

“social environmental impact statement”– Requires an understanding of the school’s social

network– Fosters reflection about the fit of reforms within that

structure as well as how to cultivate particular interactions to promote diffusion

END HERE: Presentation based on: https://www.msu.edu/user/k/e/kenfrank/web/research.htm#social

• Frank, K.A., Zhao, Y., Penuel, W.R., Ellefson, N.C., and Porter, S. 2011. Focus, Fiddle and Friends: Sources of Knowledge to Perform the Complex Task of Teaching. Sociology of Education, Vol 84(2): 137-156

• Frank, K.A. *; Penuel, W.R.*; Sun, M.; Kim , C.M.; Singleton, C. 2011. The Organization as a Filter of Institutional Diffusion. Under re-review at TCR.

• Penuel, W. R., Frank, K.A., Sun, M., and Kim, C. Teachers’ Social capital and the Implementation of Schoolwide Reforms. Forthcoming. Chapter 9 in Sean Kelly, Editor. Understanding Teacher Effects. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

• Frank, K.A., Kim, C., and Belman, D. 2010. “Utility Theory, Social Networks, and Teacher Decision Making.” Pages 223-242 in Alan J. Daly editor. Social Network Theory and Educational Change.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

• Penuel, W.R., Frank, K.A., and Krause, A. 2010. Between Leaders and Teachers: Using Social Network Analysis to Examine the Effects of Distributed Leadership. Pages 159-178 in Alan J. Daly editor. Social Network Theory and Educational Change.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

• Youngs, Peter, Frank, K.A., Thum, Y.M. and Mark Low. Forthcoming. “The Motivation of Teachers to Produce Human Capital and Conform to their Social Contexts” to be published in an edited volume, Laura Desimone and Andrew Porter editors.

• Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Joshi, A., & Frank, K. A. 2010. The alignment of the informal and formal supports for school reform: Implications for improving teaching in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 57-95.

• Frank, K.A. 2009 Quasi-Ties: Directing Resources to Members of a Collective American Behavioral Scientist. 52: 1613-1645

• Frank, K. A. and Zhao, Y. (2005). "Subgroups as a Meso-Level Entity in the Social Organization of Schools." Chapter 10, pages 279-318. Book honoring Charles Bidwell's retirement, edited by Larry Hedges and Barbara Schneider. New York: Sage publications.

• Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., and Borman (2004). Social Capital and the Diffusion of Innovations within Organizations: Application to the Implementation of Computer Technology in Schools." Sociology of Education, 77: 148-171.

• Zhao, Y. and Frank, K. A., (2003). "An Ecological Analysis of Factors Affecting Technology Use in Schools." American Educational Research Journal, 40(4): 807-840.

• Frank, K.A., and Fahrbach, K. 1999. “Organizational Culture as a Complex System: Balance and Information in Models of Influence and Selection.” Special issue of Organization Science on Chaos and Complexity in Organization. Organization Science, 10(3): 253-277.

END HERE

What would I do?

Constitution for Effective Schools

• Preamble: Many of the problems of schools are that they are asked to simultaneously respond to too many external pressures. The result is at best uncoordinated effort, at worst competing effort that undermines the commitment of the teachers. What is needed is a set of rules for guiding schools in determining when and how to implement changes in personnel, policies and practices. That is what a constitution should do.

• Scope. The articles of this constitution do not concern themselves with specific matters of leadership, pedagogy, practice or curriculum. This will be left to the individual school and faculty to decide. These articles pertain to the method of adopting and implementing changes in policies, practices, and personnel.

• Theory based. There are theoretical foundations for the articles of this constitution, although the value of adopting these articles is not yet known. The articles establish procedures for developing sustainable professional communities over periods of many years or even a decade. As the articles have only been defined in this document, they have not yet been implemented nor their effectiveness evaluated. Schools are asked to consider the articles based on their principles, much in the same way the United States constitution was adopted without scientific evidence of its effectiveness.

Components• Stakeholders

– Community– Principals (as agents of community)– Teachers

• Checks and balances• Action Controlled

– Adoption of new reforms– Informing community expectations– Community to school link– For removal of principals– For removal of teachers– Optional

• For creating teacher collaboration?• For facilitating coordination between teachers and

administrators

Article 1: Adoption of Reforms, New Policies &

PracticesNo school-wide reform, or change

in policy or practice may be implemented unless two thirds or more of the teachers in the school approve the change.

• Allows teachers to assess how the innovation meshes with their existing practices, commitments, student body, etc. •Limits factionalization•Practice used for “Success For All” as well as many comprehensive school reforms (Borman & Hewes 2002).• Applies to new articles of the constitution

Article 2Community ExpectationsThe effects of any change in practices or policies on student achievement should not be expected for three years.

It will take teachers time to learn an innovation, adapt the innovation, and then reestablish coordination with each other (Frank, Penuel et al., 2011; Zhao and Frank, 2003).

Consistent with the implementation of Comer schools (Cook et al., 2000).

Article 3 Community to School Link:

Governing Board.The school shall be governed by a board composed of at least 50% of community members. The board can replace a principal by a vote of two thirds or more*

• Examples• School governing boards in Chicago as

example – Bryk et al., 2010• Massachusetts

• Optional: but only after the principal has served at least a 3 year term (see articles 2 and 4).

• The process for selecting members of the board should be determined by the district.

Articles 4 & 5 Removal of Principal

4.A principal can be evaluated for replacement if more than 20% of the teachers in the school request transfer or leave in a given year (excluding planned retirements).*Teachers know others who are least effective from

shared students, interactions

5. A principal can use a streamlined procedure to remove not more than 5% of the teachers in a given year. *

Principals can identify low performers (Jacob & Lefgren, 2008).

* %’s are guidelines

Checks and Balances

Community

Teachers

Principal

3

5

1,2

1,4

1. No school-wide reform, or change in policy or practice may be implemented unless two thirds or more of the teachers in the school approve the change.

2. The effects of any change in practices or policies on student achievement should not be expected for three years.

3. The school shall be governed by a board composed of at least 50% of community members. The board can replace a principal by a vote of two thirds or more*

4. A principal can be evaluated for replacement if more than 20% of the teachers in the school request transfer or leave in a given year (excluding planned retirements).

5. A principal can use a streamlined procedure to remove not more than 5% of the teachers in a given year.

Article 6 Policies Not Directly

AddressedAll other policies not directly addressed by this constitution should be determined by district personnel and school faculty in accordance with existing labor agreements, and district, state, and federal policies.

• Grievance procedures?• Teacher hiring process (Currently at the

district level)

Adoption of this Constitution

• A constitution should be adopted based on articles 1 & 2: – Two thirds of the faculty must

approve;– It will not be expected to improve

student achievement until 3 years after its adoption.

Baseline Assumptions: Teaching must be Coordinated with Others

• Uncoordinated teaching cognitive, emotional demands on students– Challenge to learning– Stratification (only those with extra resources can

respond)– Teacher misfits with others in her school, limits

personal efficacy– Rowan, 1990; McLaughlin and Talbert 2001;

Rivken Hanushek and Kain, 2005

• Features school as formal organization– Bidwell (1965); Williamson (1980)

Exchange Knowledge for Compliance to Norms