[RELC 36.

2 (2005) 117-136]
DOI: 10.1177/0033688205055566

MANAGING INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION:

A COURSE FOR ELT CHANGE AGENTS

Alan Waters
Lancaster University (UK)
A.Waters@lancaster.ac.uk

Ma. Luz C. Vilches

Ateneo de. Manila, Philippines
mvilches@ateneo.edu

ABSTRACT
As a steady stream of recent papers indicates, ELT curriculum reform
projects are not always as successful as they might be. One overall rea-
son for this situation appears to be a failure to adequately take into
account concepts and practices from the world of innovation manage-
ment. This paper describes an attempt to contribute towards ameliorat-
ing this problem by detailing the content, activities, learning processes
and outcomes of a short in-service training course on managing innova-
tion in language education, delivered on-site to a cross-section of
change agents involved in a major educational reform initiative cur-
rently being undertaken in the Philippines. Data from the course are used
to throw light on its value as an innovation management awareness-
raising vehicle. Although illustrated in terms of a particular innovation
context, the course is felt to be also of potential relevance to similar
situations elsewhere.

In recent years, innovation in English language teaching, either on its own

or as part of a programme of wider curriculum reform, has become in-
creasingly widespread. However, as a growing part of the literature on
the subject indicates (e.g. Li 1998; Karavas-Doukas 1998; Carless 1998,
2002; Bruton 2002a and b; Nunan 2003; Weddell 2003), innovation pro-
jects of this kind have not always succeeded as hoped. Taken as a whole,

2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks CA and New Delhi)

118 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005)

it appears that a chief underlying cause of this problem has been a failure
to employ appropriate innovation implementation strategies. Innovations
of the kind reported in these studies appear too often to have been con-
ceived of in idealized rather than localized terms, and the primary focus
has tended to be on the design of the innovation product rather than the
management of the implementation process. In other words, there seems
to have been something of a failure in such projects to learn and success-
fully apply the lessons of innovation theory and practice, both from out-
side the ELT eld (see, e.g., Fullan 2001) and from within it (see, e.g.,
Markee 1997).
This paper is concerned with trying to contribute, in a small way, to
reducing this problem. It describes the design and implementation of
a short, introductory in-service training course for ELT change agents,
intended to raise their awareness of both theoretical and applied aspects
of language education innovation management, in the hope of stimulating
better practice in this area of ELT. The focus in what follows is on illus-
trating the kind of content and training processes which can be included
in such a course, based on the authors experiences in delivering a version
of it to a cross-section of senior language teaching change agents involved
in the implementation of a major curriculum renewal project in the Philip-
pines. The innovation situation is rst of all outlined. Then, in the main
part of the paper, the training course as it unfolded is described, through
an intertwined account of its content and processes. Finally, evidence for
its potential value is discussed, and overall conclusions are drawn.

The Innovation Situation

The training course in question was developed and piloted in 2002 in
connection with the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) project, a
large-scale educational reform initiative currently being undertaken by the
Department of Education (DepEd) of the Philippines.
In the English language teaching component of the new curriculum, one
of the main instructional strategies being introduced is Content-Based
Instruction, characterized in the curriculum documentation as follows:
Content-Based Instruction (CBI) is the integration of content learning
with language teaching aims. It refers to the concurrent study of lan-
guage and subject matter, with the form and sequence of language
presentation dictated by content material. The language curriculum is
centered on the academic needs and interests of the learner, and crosses
 WATERS AND VILCHES Innovation in Language Education 119

the barrier between the language and subject matter courses. The
approach aims at developing the learners academic language skills
(DepEd undated: 31).

In certain ways, the introduction of CBI can be seen as a further de-

velopment of a long-standing tradition in Philippines ELT. From the
introduction of the 1974 Bilingual Education Policy onwards, English,
in addition to being a subject area in its own right, has acted as the
medium of instruction for certain school subjects, such as mathematics
and science, from Grade I upwards. The main current secondary-level
ELT textbook,1 stemming from the late 1980s/early 1990s, reects these
traditions, being composed partly of subject-matter specic to the study
of English and partly relating to other subject areas. English teaching
materials have therefore shown relevance for some time to the language
requirements of study in other curriculum subject areas. However, analy-
sis of the materials reveals they have nevertheless had a largely internal,
ELT-centric reference point in the framing of teaching content, with texts
from other subject areas being used as a vehicle for the contextualization
of language points. Under CBI, however, as explained above, the inten-
tion is to reverse this procedure, with the form and sequence of lan-
guage presentation dictated by content material (DepEd undated: 31).
In addition, classroom observations carried out by the authors as part
of their involvement in the 19951999 Philippines English Language
Teaching (PELT) Project indicated that the teaching approach of Phil-
ippine secondary school teachers of English tended to be predominantly
whole-class and textbook-based, and to favour teaching-learning activities
which were expository in nature and aimed at establishing and evaluating
understanding of a set body of knowledge; pupil behaviour was character-
istically passive and teacher-dependent (Waters 1995, 1996). However,
the new curriculum envisages a more participatory, interactive and col-
laborative approach:
This curriculum promotes more mutual interaction between students
and teachers, between students themselves (collaborative learning),
between students and instructional materials, between students and
multi-media sources, and between teachers of different disciplines
(collaborative teaching). (DepEd undated: 9)

Thus, the BEC can be seen as involving teachers and learners in a signi-
cant shift in orientation at the level of teaching-learning methods as
well.
120 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005)

It was in order to raise awareness of innovation management issues re-

lated to the introduction of CBI in this situation that the authors were
invited by the National Educators Academy of the Philippines (NEAP)
and British Council Philippines to provide a two-day training course
(workshop), entitled Managing Innovation in Language Education, for
senior ELT personnel involved in implementing the new curriculum. In
order to provide national coverage, the workshop was repeated in three
different locations throughout the country. It was attended on each occa-
sion by c. 45 participants, comprising regional basic education adminis-
trators, regional language education advisors, teacher trainers, school
principals, heads of department, master teachers, and so on.

Course Content and Process

Because the nature of an innovation and the task of managing its imple-
mentation are closely connected (Fullan 2001: 8), and because of the
consequent importance of gaining an understanding of concepts and pro-
cedures related to both aspects, it was decided that the course should
focus on attempting to explore answers to two main innovation manage-
ment questions, viz: what is there to be managed? and how might it
be managed?. It therefore covered the following four overlapping and
interlocking areas of content:
x Understanding the innovation (i.e. attempting to answer the ques-
tion: What is the true nature of the innovation in question?)
x Identifying potential changes (i.e. What kinds of changes is the
innovation likely to involve, and for whom?)
x Appraising the management task (i.e. How big/difcult/complex
are the changes likely to be?)
x Formulating an implementation management approach (i.e. What
kind of change management strategies are needed?).
The course training approach was to provide a small amount of input for
each of these topics, and then relate it to a series of problem-solving
tasks, in order to stimulate discussion among the workshop participants
and between them and ourselves, with the main learning outcomes being
elicited from these interactions. What occurred in each of these parts of
the course is described and discussed in the sections which follow, based
on the regular and detailed eld-notes the authors made on the workshop
processes and learning outcomes as they emerged, and the frequent dis-
cussions they held with each other and members of NEAP about them.
 WATERS AND VILCHES Innovation in Language Education 121

Understanding the Innovation

The understanding the innovation phase of the workshops began with
a brief input concerning CBI, covering its denition, theoretical princi-
ples and typical classroom procedures, with related follow-up discussion.
It was felt important to start in this way, that is, by attempting, rst of
all, to establish a consensus of understanding about the nature of the
innovation in question, since the literature on innovation management
abounds with examples of what Fullan (2001: 37) refers to as false
clarity or painful unclarity, that is, attempts to introduce innovations
whose true characteristics have not been properly apprehended. It was
clear from the interactions at this stage in each of the workshops that,
while some participants appeared to have a sound grasp of CBI, others
seemed a good deal less familiar with it. These differences continued to
surface throughout the remaining parts of the workshops, providing
several opportunities to reinforce the main innovation management point
in question, namely the need, as a rst principle, for sufcient depth of
understanding of an innovation to be developed among those responsi-
ble for managing its implementation.

Identifying Potential Changes

Next, both in order to encourage deeper-level processing of the input
about CBI as well as to initiate the second part of the workshopon
Identifying potential changesthe participants were asked to work
together in order to consider in what ways they perceived CBI to (1)
resemble and (2) differ from current ELT traditions and practices in the
Philippines basic education system. As was explained to the participants,
this activity was based on the view that most innovations are in reality a
blend of both the old and the new. As Mensch (1975) puts it, in the devel-
opment of succeeding technologies, it tends to be the case that tradition
guides the transition. Identifying what is already familiar in an innovation
can create a greater sense of security among implementers, while being
clear and realistic about which elements are genuinely new can help man-
agers to focus their efforts where they are likely to be needed most.
Regarding perceived similarities, the workshop participants were in
general agreement about the potential congruence between CBI and exist-
ing approaches of features such as the following:
x overall educational goals
x primacy of communicative competence over language knowledge
x four skills focus
x cross-curriculum reach.
122 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005)

These perceptions were the product of a good deal of small-group and

plenary discussion, that is, establishing conceptual clarity in this area did
not seem to be immediate or always straightforward.
Participants also made a point of qualifying their responses regarding
some other features perceived as similar, by distinguishing between simi-
larities at the level of hoped-for, theoretical ideals on the one hand, and in
terms of real-life practice on the other. Aspects which fell into the former
category were:
x integration (of skills, subject areas, etc.)
x student-centred teaching techniques.
It was noteworthy that these two aspects provoked this reaction, since
they are two of the features that can be regarded as also central to CBI.
The irony of attempting to introduce a new approach which contains ele-
ments that have apparently not been successfully translated into practice
as part of previous approaches was not lost on a number of the workshop
participants, and provoked some insightful discussions.
In terms of perceived differences, there was once more a good deal of
discussion among participants before any kind of consensus emerged,
again underlining the difculty of establishing clarity in this area and the
importance of giving it due consideration. Thus, despite the prior CBI-
specic input and reminders to focus in discussions on only this element
of the new curriculum rather than its more general aspects, several of the
responses fell into the latter category, for example:
x scheduling less exible
x more time for English
x more open-ended questions in testing
x less classroom level testing
x greater use of ICT (when possible)
x integration of values education.
It was possible to see these items as having an indirect connection with
the CBI element of the new curriculum, but they did not seem the most
obvious or important aspects of it to have been chosen to focus on, and it
seemed reasonable, once again, to assume that some participants therefore
lacked sufcient knowledge of CBI to be able to analyse its more central
features. This was another occasion, thus, when an opportunity was pro-
vided to underscore the danger of change agents assuming they have a
well-developed level of understanding of the innovation they are respon-
sible for managing (cf. Rogers 1995: 164).
 WATERS AND VILCHES Innovation in Language Education 123

In due course, however, general agreement also emerged about a num-

ber of more CBI-specic differences, such as the following:
x greater integration with other subjects (especially science), of
four skills, etc.
x more co-operative/collaborative approach to learning, between
teachers, teachers and students, and among students
x more thematic organization of work
x greater focus on thinking skills
x other materials used, not just textbooks
x more interactive teaching techniques/teacher as facilitator
x greater emphasis on functional use of language, less on grammar.
It is interesting to note rst of all the number, extent and complexity of
the proposed changes which were identied. As Fullan points out, the
reality for teachers (and, therefore, mutatis mutandis, for change agents as
well) is often not so much having to deal with only a single but, rather,
with multiple, simultaneous innovations (Fullan 2001: 52). While the wis-
dom of an innovation policy of this kind can be questioned, in practice it
nevertheless appears to occur only too frequently. This point was there-
fore emphasized, along with the related innovation management implica-
tions (e.g. the importance of being aware of the full range of potential
changes that need to be managed).
It is also worth noting that most of the items in this list were perceived
by the participants to constitute relative rather than absolute differences
(as indicated by the use of terms such as greater, more, not just, and
so on), perhaps as a result of the initial focus on attempting to identify
similarities. As already noted, such a state of affairs probably exists
more frequently than tends to be acknowledged, that is, in reality, inno-
vations often actually represent a furthering of existing trends or ideals,
rather than a paradigm shift (cf. Mensch 1975), although this insight
does not always seem to be perceived and communicated as it might. This
juncture in the workshops thus provided an opportunity for this point to
once again be reinforced. In particular, discussion centred around the way
that identifying continuity in the midst of change was an important step in
attempting to manage the implementation of an innovation, since con-
nectivity of this kind can reduce the amount of uncertainty and therefore
fear and anxiety among implementers about what is to happen to more
manageable proportions, creating the potential for a more positive attitude
towards the proposed changes (Hutchinson 1992; Markee 1997: 50).
124 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005)

The workshops moved next to the task of attempting to indicate who

would be affected by the changes that had been identied, and in what
main ways, since it was pointed out that it is in terms of the meanings that
individuals in particular settings give to innovations that they are put into
practice (Fullan 2001). Participants were asked to work together in order
to consider what demands the introduction of CBI was likely to impose
on (1) learners, (2) teachers, and (3) change agents themselves. Their
reections produced the following main outcomes.

1. Demands on learners:
x To become more involved in the learning process by interacting
and collaborating closely with other learners, the teacher, the
teaching materials, etc.
x To become more willing and able to accept responsibility for the
management of their learning
x To develop a positive attitude towards and ability to cope with
the transition to the new teaching and learning methods.
These points were seen as indicating a need for potential development
by the learners in terms of, respectively, the social, individual and attitu-
dinal dimensions of their learning. There was also recognition that major
changes of these kinds would not take place automatically or overnight.

2. Demands on teachers:
x Learning appropriate teaching techniques
x Production of teaching materials and other teacher/learning
resources
x Integration issues: designing integrated lessons, understanding,
for example, scientic subject-matter, and collaboration with
teachers of other subjects
x Identifying with and committing oneself to the new approach
x Time for, for example, liaising with other teachers, developing
resources, research, etc.
As this list makes clear, the extent of the potential changes in this case
were perceived by the workshop participants to go well beyond simply
acquiring a new set of teaching methods. Rather, they were also seen to
encompass new roles (becoming a producer of teaching materials) and
new organizational procedures (team-working with subject-teachers).
 WATERS AND VILCHES Innovation in Language Education 125

Also, participants once again identied the need for change in terms of
attitude, as well as with respect to behaviours and skills. Finally, the time
factor was perceived as particularly important by the groups.

3. Demands on change agents:

A number of the demands on change agents that were identied resem-
bled those for learners and teachers, for example, knowledge of CBI
teaching procedures, enthusiasm for and ownership of the new approach,
among others. In addition, mention was made of the need to use and/or
develop and rene a wide range of innovation management skills, such as
helping to make the innovation friendlyand relevant to teachers and
learners, being able to trouble-shoot implementation difculties, being
a good listener to teachers problems, provision of positive learning
atmosphere for growth by teachers in dealing with innovation, making
sure the correct form of the curriculum is implemented, and so on.
By the end of this stage in the workshops, the participants appeared to
have begun to develop an appreciation of, in particular, which aspects of
the innovation were likely to be perceived as most novel, and what kind
of demands these features would probably make on learners, teachers and
change agents themselves. In this way, the beginnings of an agenda for
managing the innovation implementation process had begun to emerge.

Appraising the Management Task

The next stage in the workshops attempted to build on the previous phase
by helping the participants to develop a set of innovation implementation
management priorities. Up to this point, the main concern had been with
identifying areas of novelty. But, as some of the participants had noted in
the rst part of the workshop, novelty in innovations is often not absolute
but relative. It was therefore explained that a further sifting of the ndings
from the initial innovation analysis needed to be undertaken, in order to
identify which aspects were likely to be perceived as most novel, so that
they could become the main focus of management attention and support.
In this way it was pointed out that, in other words, an ordered agenda for
change could be developed, with high priority items distinguished from
those likely to require relatively less of change agents immediate time
and energy.
The method of undertaking this further form of analysis was to ask the
participants to consider the introduction of CBI into the innovation sit-
uation in question in terms of Rogers Characteristics of Innovations
126 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005)

(1995: 15-17), namely, Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Complexity

Trialability, and Observability.2 As Rogers points out, research indicates
that Innovations that are perceived by individuals as having greater
relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability and less com-
plexity will be adopted more rapidly than other innovations. (Rogers
1995: 17). The participants were asked to do this analysis from the likely
points of view of the main end users of the new approach, that is, teach-
ers and learners, in order to reinforce the point that innovation is a matter
of individual perception rather than objective fact, and so the perspective
of the change agent and the end-user may well differ. It was also stressed
that the most productive mental picture to have of such end-users was
probably of those who were typical or average, in order to attempt to
account for perceptions that were likely to be shared by the majority
rather than by only the few.
With respect to the rst criterion (relative dis/advantage), in addition to
a number of the expected perceptions, one of the main results which
emerged from the participants analyses was an increased awareness of
the difculty of being sure about how some aspects of the innovation
would be perceived, and thus of the complexity of the innovation man-
agement task. Thus, with respect to relative advantage, some participants
made the point that learners perceptions would be dependent on teach-
ers attitude and perception. Similarly, some participants felt it was pos-
sible that some teachers might adopt the view that anything to improve
the current situation is worthwhile, whereas others, on the other hand,
were seen to be likely to adopt an not experimentation again! attitude.
The analysis in terms of the compatibility characteristic acted as
something of a cross-check on the perceptions that had arisen as a result
of the similarities versus differences activity in the second stage of the
workshop. Both types of analysis are concerned with trying to establish
the degree of novelty of the innovation. A number of responses did
indeed serve to reinforce the picture established earlier, both in terms of
perceptions of close compatibility (e.g. concerns 4 macro skills), rela-
tive compatibility (e.g. emphasis on integration) and incompatibility
(e.g. new roles for teachers and learners in the classroom ). However, in
some other cases, a strong degree of disagreement and/or confusion sur-
faced. Thus, one group put forward the proposition that role of teacher as
facilitator = highly compatible, whereas another argued that what was
involved was a paradigm shift in teaching and learning stylespriority
is shift in teaching style from chalk-talk (90%) to teacher as facilitator of
 WATERS AND VILCHES Innovation in Language Education 127

learning. Such contradictions once again provided an opportunity to high-

light for participants the difculty of establishing a consensus in these
matters, and thus of the need to problematize the innovation management
task. A further interesting observation was contributed by a group which
said collaboration between content-subject teacher and the English
teachera question of time. Discussion revealed that the perception here
was that (in)compatibility may be a function of chronology: greater ini-
tially, perhaps, but possibly less so later on, that is, an insightful variation
on the concept of relative compatibility discussed earlier.
The third characteristiccomplexityproduced a consensus which
tended in the direction of recognizing the inherent complexity involved
in introducing CBI into the innovation situation, at a number of levels,
for example, students, teachers, materials, logistics, and so on. One group
summed up the matter thus: What to teach of how much by when to
whom?! On the other hand, a subtle, partially-dissenting view was ex-
pressed in the comment: May be relatively simple, but not always per-
ceived that way, once again giving rise to an opportunity for workshop
participants to reect on the complex psychology of perceptions that tend
to surround innovations, and therefore the need to take this perspective
into account.
The responses concerning the trialability characteristic also provided
participants with insight into the complexities of real-world innovation
management, since in two of the three workshops, there seemed to be
only limited awareness of any activity having already been undertaken in
the innovation situation to provide opportunities for staged experimenta-
tion with and netuning of the innovation. In the third workshop, on the
other hand, several such initiatives were cited as already having occurred,
for example, on-going clarication, etc., via write-shops on integrated
lesson plan exemplars, and feedback on subsequent trial, discussions
of CBI demonstration lessons in trainings (sic), pilot yearopportunity
for continuous modication, similar approach for long time in science
high schools already, and so on. This discrepancy in perceptions may
have occurred because the third group of participants were mainly from
the educational regions closer to the national capital, that is, nearer the
action. However, since the new curriculum was being implemented
simultaneously in all parts of the country, these responses made it possi-
ble to emphasize the importance in innovation management of ensuring
that activities aimed at supporting implementation are uniformly distrib-
uted (and also of not simply assuming that this has occurred as intended).
128 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005)

Finally, with regard to the observability characteristic, there was

general agreement that there was not much in the form of teaching mate-
rials, no clear evidence of mastery of language so far, though it was
also stated that there were Handbooks in English, some sample teacher-
produced lesson plans and supervision/lesson observation makes it
visible to supervisor, teacher, etc. A further observation made by some
groups was that potential exemplars already existed in the form of other
projects and curricula, that is, it was possible to nd pockets of existing
practice that could be used for this purpose, rather than thinking only in
terms of having to create completely new examples, an interesting fur-
ther variation on the notion that innovation typically co-exists side by
side with more familiar territory, as already discussed.
At this point, before proceeding to the nal part of the workshops, the
participants were asked to discuss and then present any important insights
they felt had arisen so far. This activity produced statements which re-
ected matters that had been part of the direct focus of the work, such as
the following:
x CBI is a paradigm shift
x Innovation needs to match Rogers characteristics positively
x Innovation success or failure dependent on recipients perception
x What presently new may be re-appearance in fresh form of
older ideas, etc.
However, a number of other responses showed signs of thinking which
had extended beyond the main focus of the input, for example:
x Innovation has to come from within the individual
x Innovation involves new concepts as well as practices
x During an innovation, teachers need scaffolding more than ever,
e.g., teacher learning materials, pleasant learning context
x Learner is dependent on skill of teacher (e.g. CBI) and latter
is dependent on support of manager [change agent]inter-
dependent
x Important for paradigm exibility so innovation would come in
as advantageous and as simply as possible
x Innovation is education in itself.
These insights indicate that, by this stage, a number of the participants
had already begun to re-process the input in terms of general implica-
tions for innovation management approaches (e.g. by seeing it as involv-
 WATERS AND VILCHES Innovation in Language Education 129

ing development of individual perceptions, in a supportive, team-based

learning environment), happily foreshadowing the nal stage of the work-
shop, which is described in the next section.

Formulating an Implementation Management Approach

Up until this point, as already explained, the main focus of the workshops
was on examining the what aspect of CBI as an innovationits nature
as a teaching approach, and the related implications for implementation
management. The remaining part of the workshops was devoted to the
how. In other words, here participants were encouraged to consider,
given the picture of the innovation management task uncovered so far,
what kind of CBI implementation strategy might be most appropriate.
This part of the course focused on three fundamental aspects of the
area, namely: change strategies, the change process and the change agent,
since these elements were seen as providing the participants with a basic
change management tool-kit. After a brief overview of this phase of the
workshops, a short input regarding power coercive, rational empirical
and normative re-educative change strategies (Chin and Benne 1969)
was provided.3 Then, in order to try to further their understanding of their
operation and to begin to appraise their potential from an innovation
management point of view, the participants were asked to think of (1)
examples of how each of the strategies can manifest itself in practice, and
(2) what the main advantages and disadvantages of each of them might
be.
Participants appeared to have relatively little difculty in identifying
a wide range of practices associated with each of the strategies. They
were also able to formulate varied sets of perceived potential benets
and drawbacks associated with them, in approximately equal proportions.
Of particular interest were their perceptions about (1) advantages of the
power coercive strategy and (2) disadvantages of the normative re-edu-
cative one. Thus, examples of the former put forward were:
x Provides mandate
x Makes people jump
x Submission
x Task-oriented
x Strict implementation
x Immediate results
x Manifestation of true personalityreactions will become clear.
130 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005)

Underlying such a list appeared to be an awareness of what Buchanan

and Boddy (1992) refer to as the political perspective on change manage-
ment, that is, the need for the change agent to establish legitimacy, to man-
age resistance, and so on.
Some of the potential drawbacks in the normative re-educative strategy
perceived by the participants were as follows:
x Slow, time-consumingdelays development
x Motivation and commitment may wane because of the long proc-
ess of time in consultation
x Resource-hungry
x Domination by aggressive minority
x Pandering to whims of some pupils
x May cause conict, as suggestions may not be accommodated
x Creates opportunities for subversion and sabotage
x Risk of too much deviation from original plan
x Requires hierarchical acceptance.
These examples indicate that there was also a good deal of awareness
among the participants of some of the limitations of what Pettigrew
(1985) refers to as the truth, trust, love and collaboration approach to
change. Both the disadvantages of the power coercive strategy and the
potential benets of the normative re-educative one were also much in
evidence in participants responses, of course, but the perhaps unusually
balanced sets of pros and cons of this kind which were produced for each
of the strategies led felicitously in each of the workshops to the emer-
gence of the overall points that (1) there is no single best change strategy,
and (2) that the change agent will usually need to adopt an eclectic ap-
proach, picking and choosing dynamically from among the three (and
others), in the light of an appreciation of their respective strengths and
weaknesses, in order to devise the mix that seems to best suit the aspect
of the innovation situation to handa contingency-based macro-strategy
(cf. Blanchard et al. 1987; Markee 1997: 68).
The second area dealt with in this part of the workshops was to do with
trying to increase understanding of the nature of the change process itself,
and the associated change management implications. Thus, participants
were rst of all introduced to the concept of the Transition Curve (TC)
(see, e.g., Bridges and Mitchell 2000) and then asked to consider its impli-
cations for the innovation management process. Briey, the TC shows
how, when people are subjected to rapid and/or major change (e.g. cul-
 WATERS AND VILCHES Innovation in Language Education 131

ture shock), they tend, after some initial uctuation, to experience a

marked decline in their ability to cope with the new situation. This either
remains the case in the long-term or gradually reverses via a series of
well-dened stages, generally referred to as acceptance (of the inevita-
bility of the change), testing (trying out new ways of perceiving/behav-
ing in a closely-structured way), search for meaning (deeper-level
probing for understanding of the new reality) and integration (establish-
ing personal ownership of the change at a variety of levels). Some of the
innovation management implications of the TC perceived by the partici-
pants were as follows:
x Share awareness of the change process with the teachers
x Identify which stage the different teachers are at
x Accept the reality of the stage where the teacher is at
x At an early stage, provision of maximum tolerance and under-
standing until turning point occurs
x Enlist support of early adopters to help other Ts have the convic-
tion to be the same
x Focus on process rather than product
x Manager to emphasize supporting role; not just dwell on super-
vising role.
In discussing these ideas, one of the main points to be established was
that the TC perspective has the potential to help the change agent have a
much better (and more sympathetic) understanding of the causes of the
resistance, incompetence, anxiety and so on which teachers (and, for that
matter, learners) typically exhibit when involved in attempting to put a
new teaching approach into practice (cf. Fullan 2001: 30-38).
This part of the workshop concluded with a brief introduction to the
kinds of skills and knowledge needed by the change agent. This consisted
of an explanation of Buchanan and Boddys change agent model (Bu-
chanan and Boddy 1992; Kennedy 1999), in terms of its three main
agenda (content, i.e., technical knowledge of an innovation; control,
i.e., facility in administrative procedures; and process, i.e., people man-
agement skills) and its two main activities, that is, public performance
(being rational, open, consultative, etc.) and backstaging (politically-
oriented processes aimed at, e.g., countering resistance). It was pointed out
that Buchanan and Boddys research into the role of the change agent
indicated that, of the three agenda, it is the third, people skills-oriented one
that tends to be most crucial in high-risk innovation settings such as
132 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005)

major educational reform initiatives, and that, similarly, as in a play, it is

backstaging which is often crucial for achieving a satisfactory public per-
formance. In short, it was stressed that skill in handling interpersonal rela-
tions was therefore a vital part of the expertise needed by the change
agent.
After this input, participants were given a list of the competencies
(skills) associated with the process agenda and asked to think of situa-
tions where they had or might use them in innovation management, and
to describe how this had or could occur. A number of participants contrib-
uted interesting scenarios which, in related discussion, provided useful
illustrations of the importance for innovation management of developing
appropriate interpersonal skills. The workshops then concluded with a
brief summary of overall points.

Conclusion
Views about the overall value of each of the workshops were solicited
from the participants by anonymous questionnaire.4 There were very few
criticisms or suggestions for improvement, and no main trend amongst
them. Rather, nearly all of the responses were very favourable, especially
regarding the perceived importance and relevance of the training. Even if
the inevitable halo and other distorting effects associated with evalua-
tions of this kind are discounted, it seems clear the main overall view of
the majority of the participants regarding the subject-matter of the work-
shops was very positive.
Also, as has been shown in previous sections, the workshops appeared
to give rise to a number of major learning outcomes. Thus, for example,
in the rst part (and, in passim, elsewhere), the importance of clarity on
the part of the change agent about the nature of the innovation in question
was established; in the second, understanding was achieved of the way
that, alongside their more novel features, it is also possible to detect ele-
ments of continuity in most innovations, and identifying such features can
help the change agent to bolster the feelings of security needed for suc-
cessful implementation. This section also led to a focus on the need to
account for the way that an innovation is experienced by the end-user as
a matter of individual perception, rather than objective fact. In the third
section, a number of insights emerged about the way that an innovation
can be analysed in order to determine which of its features are most likely
to require the change agents attention, because of their correlation with
 WATERS AND VILCHES Innovation in Language Education 133

the likelihood of success or failure; and in the fourth, issues were raised
to do with the selection of appropriate change management strategies,
the management implications of the change process, and the importance
of interpersonal skills in innovation management.
Thus, both the overall evaluations and the course training processes
suggest that exposure to major insights from the recent literature on man-
aging educational innovations via a course of the kind which has been
described can be of considerable potential relevance and value to ELT
change agents working in curriculum renewal situations of the kind in
question. It would seem feasible for courses of this kind to be run in simi-
lar situations elsewhere. It was relatively short but included a reasonably
comprehensive coverage of the eld. Its problem-solving approach yielded
a series of rich discussions and important learning outcomes. It is there-
fore hoped that, via such a vehicle, understanding of the principles and
practice of innovation management can become more widespread in ELT
change situations, and, as a result, greater success achieved in the design
and implementation of ELT innovations.5

REFERENCES

Blanchard, K.H., P. Zigarmi and D. Zigarmi

1987 Leadership and the One Minute Manager (London: Fontana).
Bridges, W., and S. Mitchell
2000 Leading Transitions: A New Model for Change, http://www.pfdf.org/
leaderbooks/L2L/spring2000/bridges.html (accessed May, 2005).
Bruton, A.
2002a From Tasking Purposes to Purposing Tasks, ELT Journal 56.3: 280-88.
2002b When and How the Language Development in TBI?, ELT Journal 56.3:
296-97.
Buchanan, D., and D. Boddy
1992 The Expertise of the Change Agent (Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall).
Carless, D.
1998 Managing Systemic Curriculum Change: A Critical Analysis of Hong
Kongs Target-Oriented Curriculum Initiative, in S.P. Timpson and P. Morris
(eds.), Curriculum and Assessment for Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Open Uni-
versity of Hong Kong): 223-44.
2002 Implementing Task-based Learning with Young Learners, ELT Journal
56.2: 389-96.
Chin, R., and K.D. Benne
1976 General Strategies for Effecting Changes in Human Systems, in W.G.
Bennis, K.D. Benne, R. Chin and K.E. Corey (eds.), The Planning of Change
(New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 3rd edn): 22-45.
134 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005)

DepEd
undated The 2002 Basic Education Curriculum (Pasig City, Philippines: Department
of Education, Mimeo): 1-33.
Fullan, M.
2001 The New Meaning of Educational Change (New York: RoutledgeFalmer,
3rd edn).
Hutchinson, T.
1992 The Management of Change, The Teacher Trainer 3.1: 19-21.
Karavas-Doukas, K.
1998 Evaluating the Implementation of Educational Innovations: Lessons from
the Past, in P. Rea-Dickins and K. Germaine (eds.), Managing Evaluation
and Innovation in Language Teaching: Building Bridges (Harlow: Long-
man): 25-50.
Kennedy, C.
1987 Innovating for a Change, ELT Journal 41.3: 163-70.
1999 Introduction: Fit or Split?Innovation and Best Practice, in C. Ken-
nedy (ed.), Innovation and Best Practice (Harlow: Pearson Education): 1-8.
Li, D.
1998 Its Always More Difcult Than You Plan and Imagine: Teachers Per-
ceived Difculties in Introducing the Communicative Approach in South
Korea, TESOL Quarterly 32.4: 677-800.
Markee, N.
1997 Managing Curricular Innovation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Mensch, G.
1975 Stalemate in Technology (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing).
Nunan, D.
2003 The Impact of English as a Global Language on Educational Policies and
Practices in the Asia-Pacic Region, TESOL Quarterly 37.4: 589-613.
Pettigrew, A.
1985 The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in Imperial Chemical Indus-
tries (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Rogers, E.M.
1995 Diffusion of Innovations (New York: The Free Press, 4th edn).
Waters, A.
1995 Report on a Consultancy Visit to the Philippines English Language Teaching
Project, September 1995. Unpublished Consultancy Visit report.
1996 Report on a Consultancy Visit to the Philippines English Language Teaching
Project, September 1996. Unpublished Consultancy Visit report.
Waters, A., and M.L.C. Vilches
2000 Integrating Teacher Learning: The School Based Follow-up Development
Activity, ELT Journal 54.2: 126-34.
White, R.
1988 The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management (Oxford:
Blackwell).
 WATERS AND VILCHES Innovation in Language Education 135

NOTES
1. The Secondary Education Development Project (SEDP) Series for English
(DECS 1989).
2. Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as
better that the idea it supersedes Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation
is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences and needs
of potential adopters Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived
as difcult to understand and use Trialability is the degree to which an innovation
may be experimented with on a limited basis Observability is the degree to which
the results of an innovation are visible to others. (Rogers 1995: 15-16)
3. A power coercive strategy relies on compulsion to force change to occur.
A rational empirical strategy uses information about the potential benets of the
change to persuade people that the change is in their interests. A normative re-
educative strategy attempts to mutually clarify and redene the values and attitudes
of those involved in the change process (Chin and Benne 1976; Kennedy 1987; White
1988: 126-131).
4. See Appendix. The response rate was 97%.
5. An organized system for post-course follow-up, i.e., additional, eld-based
support for course participants in their attempts to apply the course ideas, would have
helped to ensure that the potential impact of the course was extended further (cf.
Waters and Vilches 2000). However, due to logistical constraints, it was not possible
to institute an arrangement of this kind in the BEC/CBI situation.
136 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005)

APPENDIX:

WORKSHOP EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Managing Innovation in Language Education

Workshop, November 2002
END-OF-WORKSHOP EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
We would be very grateful for your frank opinions about the value of this
workshop, as you perceived it. This information will be very useful in
helping us manage further innovation in this area!

1. Strengths that should be retained:

2. Weaknesses that should be remedied:

3. Recommendations for improvement: