importance of promoting stakeholder acceptance of educational innovations, The

While educators devote much time and effort to developing innovative approaches to improve the quality of education, less effort is devoted to marketing these innovations to interested stakeholders such as teachers, parents, school board members, and students. Regardless of how promising an educational innovation might be, it has little value if stakeholders refuse to allow the innovation in their schools. This paper uses an innovation diffusion framework as proposed by Lovelock and Weinberg (1989) in order to investigate difficulties in implementing educational innovations, and suggests possible strategies for educators to follow in gaining the acceptance of educational innovations by stakeholders.

Educators are continually responding to new information on how children learn by restricting both educational environments (e.g., Kearns, 1993; Merina, 1993) and approaches to the instruction of various subject matter (e.g., Baista, 1994; Burns, 1994; Renyi, 1994; Tate, 1994) in order to enhance student learning experiences. However, while much thought is given to the development of educational innovations, less effort is devoted to promoting acceptance of innovations by stakeholders.

Educational innovations typically require dissemination of new information about teaching techniques, and also require acceptance of new educational practices. Thus, the application of marketing techniques by those supporting and using innovative educational practices is appropriate (Fox and Kotler, 1980). While marketing techniques have been widely used in other non-profit and public sector settings since the late 1960s (e.g., Ferber, 1970; Kotler and Levy, 1969; Lavidge, 1970; Lazer, 1969), relatively little use has been made of these techniques in educational settings. Educators are typically concerned with the development of innovative educational practice, but may not explicitly address the critical issue of how these innovations will be marketed to target groups such as students, parents, politicians, and school board members. However, the marketing of educational innovations may be central to gaining stakeholder acceptance of such innovations. Such acceptance is crucial in enabling educators to successfully pursue innovative educational practices in their schools.

Problems With Marketing Educational Innovations

There are numerous problems associated with educators attempting to implement innovations. For example, some parents are likely to be very concerned about the effects that educational innovations may have on their children, whereas others are likely to take little interest in proposed changes. Thus, it may be difficult to identify which individuals marketing efforts should be targeted toward. Additionally, the benefits of educational innovations may not be readily apparent, and non-monetary costs, including administrative opportunity costs and costs associated with increased parental involvement, may be significant. These factors may increase the difficulty of marketing innovations (Rothchild, 1979).

Educators may also have difficulties in attempting to anticipate how stakeholders with a particular interest in the results of innovation will react (Lovelock and Weinberg, 1989). While relevant publics often endorse the idea of change, actual introduction of educational reforms may produce resistance to change (e.g., Detweiler, 1993; Farkas and Johnson, 1991; McQuaide and Pliska, 1993; Wood, 1993).

Given the challenges that educators may face when attempting to market innovations, the proper use of marketing techniques may serve to facilitate the acceptance of educational innovations by important stakeholders such as parents, school board members, and other interested parties. In this paper, an innovation diffusion framework (Lovelock and Weinberg, 1989) is presented and based on this work, an effort is made to provide educational professionals with a set of recommendations that may lead to more successful marketing of educational innovations.

Factors Influencing Innovation Diffusion

Lovelock and Weinberg (1989) identify six factors that may influence levels of stakeholder acceptance of innovations. These factors are 1)relative advantage, 2) compatibility, 3) complexity, 4) trialability, 5) observability, and 6) perceived risk. Each factor is discussed below.

Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation improves upon a previous product or service. In the area of for profit products, it may be easy to show a relative advantage. A computer has obvious advantages over a typewriter in producing and correcting long written documents. Innovations in education are expected to produce a better "quality" of education for the student. However, it may be difficult for individuals to measure educational quality. Many of the effects of education are long-term in nature. Any particular innovation in education may require many years to produce significant results. Thus, to the extent that it is difficult for parents, board members, and community members to see immediate improvements, it may be hard to convince these groups of the relative advantage of the innovation,

Lack of compatibility is another possible impediment to acceptance of educational innovations. Compatibility is the consistency an innovation has with existing values and past experiences of stakeholders. Any new system is quite likely to be at odds with past educational experiences of many of these individuals. For example, when parents and other stakeholders attended school, they may have been required to use extensive drilling of words in order to memorize spellings. Innovative techniques that seek to teach meanings, while gradually incorporating correct spelling, may be completely foreign to some observers. Stakeholders whose classrooms had desks neatly arranged in rows may be disconcerted to see desks arranged in circles, or a total absence of desks. Parents and other individuals accustomed to viewing learning as a formalized process, where teachers lecture and students listen, may be upset to note the informality of learning groups and learning centers, where groups of students learn together, and teachers facilitate learning by working with groups. Innovative learning environments and experiences such as these may be at odds with educational experiences of parents and other stakeholders. Thus, some innovations may be viewed by stakeholders as incompatible with their personal experiences and beliefs.

Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is difficult to understand and use. The personal computer is an innovation that initially took some time to gain acceptance due to its complexity. Consumers had difficulty understanding how the personal computer works and how to properly operate the product. Similarly, educational innovations may be extremely difficult for parents and other stakeholders to understand. For example, many educational innovations are based on recently developed models of effective learning. Many of these models describe complex interactions among a number of variables. A clear understanding of these models may require an extensive knowledge base in the field of education and learning theory. As a result it may be quite difficult for stakeholders to understand what teachers are attempting to accomplish with new educational approaches that are based on these complex models.

Trialability denotes the degree to which an innovation can be tried on a limited basis. Frequently, it may be very difficult for stakeholders to "try" educational innovations on a limited basis and gain a complete understanding of how these innovations are supposed to operate. A limited or short term trial may also leave stakeholders unable to determine what benefits are being achieved from implementation of such reforms.

Observability refers to the extent to which an innovation and its results are visible to others. Thus, while differences in classroom arrangements and classroom management styles may be easily observable, the results of an innovation are frequently difficult to observe, especially in the short-run. Thus, a lack of direct observability may impede acceptance of innovations.

Risk is a final factor. Increased risk decreases the likelihood of adoption of innovations. In the area of educational innovation, perceived risks may frequently be high for stakeholders. Failure of innovations to produce expected results may result in serious setbacks for students. Thus, parents may view many innovations as too risky to adopt. Additionally, school boards may also be hesitant to endorse educational innovations for fear of being blamed if such innovations fail to accomplish stated objectives.

Overall, educational innovations may be difficult to market for a variety of reasons. The relative advantage of innovations may be difficult for stakeholders to understand especially in the short-term. Innovations may also be incompatible with previous experiences of many people, they may be complex, and may frequently be difficult to adopt on a official basis. Additionally, the overall success of innovations may be difficult to observe, and risks associated with their adoption may frequently be perceived by stakeholders as high.

Implications for Educational Professionals

As illustrated in the preceding discussion, a central task for educators is to ensure that the relative advantages of innovations are clearly communicated to stakeholders. Educators must convince constituents (i.e., parents, students, school board members, teachers, taxpayers, state boards of education, etc.) that a relative advantage exists for each new approach to teaching and learning.

Because of their jobs and backgrounds, educators realize that advantages of innovations are frequently long-term in nature. However, constituents may be looking for shorter-term advantages. Thus, educators may need to attempt to provide some evidence of short-term success of innovations. These successes may be in the form of demonstrating improved reading skills, improved writing skills, or other student skills that innovations might influence in a relatively short period of time following their adoption. Such successes may then be viewed by a stakeholder as relative advantages associated with adopting particular innovations.

In the area of compatibility, educators may take steps to lessen the perceived incompatibility between educational innovations and educational experiences of parents, school board members, and other stakeholders. These efforts may take the farm of clearly demonstrating to stakeholders that new learning experiences have basic similarities with older methods of instruction. Moreover, educators could demonstrate that the is a set of specific learning objectives for each particular student for each year. Educators can point out that instead of having learning objectives ordered in one specific sequence, as with a traditional textbook, individual student interests and abilities can be used to help guide the instructional order to develop an atmosphere more conducive to learning. Stakeholders could be informed that any new methodology is merely a different approach toward achieving the same goal as other approaches, which is the education the child.

Another potential problem associated with innovation compatibility is that many parents, school board members, and other stakeholders may remember their own educational experiences as being stressful. Thus, new types of learning experiences that children view as enjoyable may be incompatible with their beliefs of how education is "supposed to be". Educators can ensure that parents are aware of how student re challenged by new learning experiences and how the curriculum maintains rigor, despite the fact that students may appear to be having fun.

In terms of reducing innovation complexity, educators may strive to simplify explanations of new methods of instruction. Rather than explain the rationale for innovations with descriptions based on complex learning theories, it might be preferable to use simple examples to clarify objectives in using particular methodologies. For example, in explaining an integrative approach to learning, educators might compare the process of education to building an automobile. An automobile can be built in one step, it can be separated into component parts, which are introduced separately and are then joined together. Though each process will result in a finished automobile, the workers who build the automobile in one step may better understand how all the parts work together to produce a final product, and may find more satisfaction in their efforts. Those who simply work on specific parts may become bored with their task, and underestimate the importance of a particular part to the finished product. This arrangement may result in a dissatisfied worker, and a lower level of effort. Similarly, approaching the learning process as an integrated whole, rather than a collection of separate subjects and distinct drills, may result in more interested students, who better understand connections among the different subjects and skills.

In terms of the trialability of innovations, educators may want to adopt new teaching methodologies in an incremental fashion whenever possible. Incremental adoption is likely to be particularly important for those innovations that are perceived to be extremely risky and for those innovations that are still in an early stage of introduction. Due to the fact that students are separated into relatively small classes in most institutions, it may be possible to test innovations in one of two classes before full-scale adoption occurs.

Insomuch as possible, successful outcomes associated with the adoption of innovations should be made observable to constituents. In many older, traditional systems, education was frequently viewed as a steady progression through textbooks with easy to observe results (e.g., the student had completed work in three chapters, then four chapters, etc.). Students typically sat at their desks, and steadily covered different books for different subjects, led by a teacher in the front of the room. Successful results were readily apparent by examining how much of the book had been covered. In a non-traditional educational system, results can also be made observable. Parents can be informed as to where their child is headed in terms of learning objectives. Then, parents can be kept informed as particular skills are acquired or as particular goals are met. Children can also be kept informed of their progress, so such information can be passed on to parents through word of mouth.

Reduction of risk associated with an innovation can be accomplished by introducing the innovation an a limited basis, in selected schools, and/or on a strictly voluntary basis (Lovelock and Weinberg, 1989). This strategy might appeal to those parents insisted in having their children be a part of an innovation from the start, thus increasing the likelihood of more rapid acceptance of innovations through "budgeting" groups most likely to look favorably upon them (Kotler & Roberto, 1989). Students and parents involved in innovative classes could then communicate their satisfaction with innovations to others, and build demand for expansion of the innovations to other class and other schools. Thus, rather than parents feeling that an innovation was forced on them, they, in fact, may demand the change themselves.

Conclusion

Educational professionals are continually involved in developing innovative educational programs and techniques in order to improve the quality of the student educational experience. However, innovators frequently a reluctant target market. In terms of marketing educational innovations, opposition by stakeholders may be particularly intense since students, administrators, and teachers are becoming involved in something new and different. New and different ideas or methods tend to frighten individuals, especially when they involve something as important as educating our children.

Failure to effectively market innovative approaches to may seriously impede acceptance of exciting and beneficial new approaches to education. Understanding the key factors influencing innovation acceptance and using this knowledge to more effectively market educational innovations to target populations may serve to greatly facilitate implementation of such innovations.

Reference

Battista, Michael (1994 Teacher believes in the reform movement in mathematics education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75 No. 6(February),462-470.

Burns, Marilyn (1994). Arithmetic: the last holdout. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, No. 6 (February), 471-476.

Detweiler, Fritz (1993). A the of two districts. Educational Leadership, 51, No. 4, 24-28.

Farkas, Steven and Jean Johnson (1993). From goodwill US to gridlock: The politics of educational reform. Education Digest, 59, No. 2, 4-7.

Ferber, Rohen (1970). The expanding role of marketing in the 1970's. Journal of Marketing, 34 (January), 29-30.

Kearns, David T. (1993). Toward a new generation of American schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, No. 10, 773-776.

Kotler, Phillip and Eduerdo Roberto (1989). Social marketing: Strategies for changing public behavior. Free Press: New York.

Kotler, Phillip and Sidney J. Levy (1969). Broadening the concepts of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 33 (January), 10-15.

Lavidge, Robert J. (970). The growing responsibilities of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 34 (January) 25-28.

Lazer, William (1969). Marketing's changing social relationship. Journal of Marketing, 33 (January), 3-9.

Lovelock, Christopher and Weinberg, Charles (1989). Public and nonprofit marketing, 2nd ed. Redwood city, CA: Scientific Press.

McQuaide, Judith and Ann-Maureen Pliska (1993). The change to Pennsylvania's education reform. Educational Leadership 51, No. 4, 16-21.

Merina, Anita (1991). Innovation: How NEA members are changing the way schools work. NEA Today II, No. 2, 15.

Renyi, Judith (1994). The arts and humanities in America education. Phi Delta Kappan, 7, No. 6 (February), 438-444,

Rothchild, Michael L. (1979), Marketing communications in nonbusiness situations. Journal of Marketing, 43 (Spring), 11-20.

Tate, William (1994), Race, retrenchment, and the reform of school mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, No. 6, (February) 477-484.

Wood, Chris (1993), A classroom retreat: British Columbia shelves some school reform, Maclean's 106, No. 49, 20.

An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Educational Studies and research Group at the Association of Management's 12th Annual International Conference.

Copyright Project Innovation Summer 1995
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved