Teacher Resistance and 

Resilience
HAYO REINDERS

­Framing the Issue

Teachers are in the popular literature sometimes portrayed as resistant to change,

slow to adopt new practices and reluctant to innovate their teaching. A more criti-
cal view problematizes the concept of “teacher resistance” by viewing teachers as
reflective, critical agents within their own environments whose responses to
change may sometimes be better characterized as demonstrating resilience, and
whose critical engagement and contrarian views can identify problems and oppor-
tunities that would otherwise be missed (Fullan, 2007). Another way of approach-
ing resistance is as “risk aversion.” Teachers have a vested interest in a successful
teaching and learning environment and developments that have the potential to
place this at risk may be approached with caution (Howard, 2013). As Miller &
Rollnick (2002) put it: “To use the term ‘resistance’ as explanatory seems to suggest
that things are not going smoothly because of something that one person […] is
doing… . In a way, it is oxymoronic to say that one person is not cooperating. It
requires at least two people to not cooperate, to yield dissonance” (p. 45).
Whichever view one takes, teachers and their responses to change have a major
impact on how—and if—educational practices evolve.
As key stakeholders in the change process, teachers have a great deal of influ-
ence, and are also strongly affected themselves, with significant changes likely to
challenge teachers’ sense of identity as educational professionals. There are thus
two pressing reasons to consider teacher resilience; the first is to do with ensuring
efficiency (the speed and cost) and effectiveness (the quality) of the change imple-
mentation. The second relates to the cost to teachers themselves, in the form of
stress, (change) fatigue, and demotivation.

The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching.

Edited by John I. Liontas (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini; Volume Editor: Gloria Park).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0270
2 Teacher Resistance and Resilience

­Making the Case

Teacher resistance and resilience are usually discussed in the context of changes in
educational practices. Teachers naturally have opinions and responses to such
changes and there is a significant body of literature that investigates these
responses to change and ways to best accommodate them. The diffusion of
­innovations model, first proposed by Rogers in 1962, shows how new ideas (and
in particular technologies) are developed by innovators or inventors, initially
embraced by early adopters, followed by an early and a late majority, and finally a
group of (in his studies, sizeable) laggards. This model has been shown to apply to
different fields, including in education. One aspect that has been shown to be
robust across disciplines and across settings is the relative distribution of people
across these groups. The difference between successful and less successful imple-
mentation of changes in teaching practice is not so much the number of teachers
who will initially welcome the change, but rather the eventual acceptance of the
change by the vast majority of the teachers and the speed with which this happens.
In other words: It is not possible (and probably not desirable) to avoid resistance
at all costs and it is more successful to look at ways to understand the sources of
resistance, to address them, and through this to come to a better outcome.
Changes in teaching, whether in the selection of materials, teaching methodol-
ogy, or assessment practices, are often presented as “innovations.” The term inno-
vation has taken on different meanings (Darasawang, Reinders, & Waters, 2015)
but in short can refer to something new, something that is new in a particular
context, a change in practice, something that is an improvement over what came
before, or some combination of these. Common understanding in the literature is
nowadays to see innovation as more than just “invention” or “creation” of some-
thing new, but rather as referring to the process of change that organizations need to
undergo to accommodate new ideas. In language teaching, innovation has been
defined as “… an informed change in an underlying philosophy of language
teaching/learning brought about by direct experience, research findings, or other
means, resulting in an adaptation of pedagogic practices such that the instruction
is better able to promote language learning as it has come to be understood”
(Delano, Riley, & Crookes, 1994, p. 489).
This definition is helpful when considering teachers’ responses to changes, as it
assumes an active role for teachers (meaning that an innovation is operationalized
as something that teachers do, rather than something that is done to them), and
because it highlights the benefits of the change. In taking this as a starting point
it  can easily be seen how some changes imposed upon teachers have resulted
in  considerable “resistance.” Where teachers are (or perceive to be) passive
­recipients of change, or where an improvement in the “promotion of language
learning” is not recognized, the change is less likely to be successful, as illustrated
in Figure 1.
In the model in Figure 1, teachers’ agency refers to the extent to which teachers
feel they are part of the change and have a voice in shaping their own practice.
A lack of agency is frequently cited as one of the key barriers to implementation.
 Teacher Resistance and Resilience 3

POSITIVE

Agency
Benefits
Compatibility
Size of change
Support

NEGATIVE

LOW HIGH
Resistance

Figure 1  Variables affecting teachers’ resistance.

Perceived benefits reflects the extent to which teachers see a change as an improve-
ment on existing practice. These benefits could be, for example, improved student
outcomes, reduced workload, or opportunities for professional growth.
Compatibility with existing practice reflects the gap between current and new prac-
tice. For example, the introduction of a new teaching methodology is likely to
directly challenge teachers’ beliefs and as such requires considerable adjustment.
The introduction of a new technology can either disrupt existing practices (for
example by moving classes online) or extend them (allowing students to submit
homework electronically). The smaller the gap between existing and new practice,
the easier the implementation. Related to this is the size of the change, which Stoller
(1994) identifies as a key factor, with a number of well-planned and sequenced
changes being more likely to be successful than one large one. In addition, available
support has been shown to be a significant factor in the success of new develop-
ments. Many projects fail because they do not show teachers how to adjust their
teaching. Although initial training may be offered, ongoing monitoring and coach-
ing are less common.

­Pedagogical Implications

In summarizing the existing literature, there are a number of key insights for
teacher educators and those involved in administering change. The first of these
is to consider teachers’ resistance as a type of resilience. Teachers generally want
what is best for their students and will defend against outside influences that are
seen to jeopardize this. This type of resilience is positive in that it places the inter-
ests of students first. This section sets out some examples of practical strategies.
Through active listening and genuinely open communication, teachers can
share a wealth of information and expertise that can highlight potential flaws in
suggested changes (Farrell, 2014). This often requires a change in mindset on the
part of administrators.
4 Teacher Resistance and Resilience

Related to this is the need to involve teachers as early in the change process as
possible. Teachers’ sense of agency and autonomy (Lamb & Reinders, 2008) play a
key role in the “translation process” that occurs from a top-down directive to what
happens at the chalk face. There are a number of ways to involve teachers, but all
of these require good and open communication. As professionals dealing with the
transfer of knowledge and information, teachers thrive on understanding their
environment and changes therein. Rather than, for example, saying “our students
are changing,” teachers will appreciate a report that summarizes research on stu-
dent attitudes, behaviors, and changing practices. For change agents, it is therefore
crucial to communicate early, communicate often, and communicate openly. By
inviting comments and feedback, teachers are encouraged to engage with the topic
at hand, to reflect and to consider multiple options, even when some of these may
not be ideal for them. Teachers themselves, too, can be proactive in requesting
clear and ample communication. If impositions are made on teachers’ time and if
the rationale of these impositions is not clear, teachers should request more
information.
Educational change is initiated to achieve certain benefits. In practice, however,
the benefits are often unclear to those the change is most likely to affect. It is per-
haps remarkable how often administrators of change are themselves either unclear
of its intended outcomes, or simply poor at expressing what they are. Teachers are
a particularly reflective type of professionals and like to be treated as such. It is
therefore important to provide considerable background information to the change,
and to provide evidence (where possible) that the change will lead to improve-
ments. Is there perhaps research that shows the superiority of one approach over
another? Or is there a case study that teachers can study and perhaps discuss to
draw parallels with their own teaching? In addition, it is important to show how
the change would work in the teachers’ context. In other words, it is important to
make the shift from general statements to specific examples or areas where the
change could be implemented and what benefits this might have. One time-tested
method is to identify an area where a “quick win” can be obtained, for example an
area that most people agree is in need of improvement and that can be relatively
easily and quickly implemented. Teachers themselves should be encouraged to
request clarification where the intended outcomes are not stated or are unclear.
It is of course possible that the intended outcomes of a change are not seen to
be benefits to teachers. For example, where online delivery leads to increased
class sizes, the benefit may be financial rather than pedagogical. This is not to say
that teachers will therefore reject the change, but it increases the necessity of pro-
viding a clear rationale for why costs need to be reduced and what other benefits
this may result in (for example, more budget to purchase better materials, or to
employ staff in other parts of the organization). Many teachers are (perhaps to
some administrators, surprisingly) understanding of the need for change, if
informed well.
Involving teachers can of course go beyond information sharing and inviting
comments. Projects that involve teachers in the development of new practices
 Teacher Resistance and Resilience 5

have been shown to be more successful, and the opposite is also true, as experi-
ences with the introduction of communicative language teaching in China and
more recent experiences with the introduction of a new English language curricu-
lum in Indonesia have shown. Involving teachers can go some way towards help-
ing to allay both analytical and affective risks and challenges (Howard, 2013) that
teachers perceive, or those that are subject to logical reasoning or operate at a
deeper, more personal level.
When change involves a significant “compatibility gap,” it is important to
­identify how this gap can be bridged. In some cases, additional support in the
form of a series of professional development opportunities or ongoing mentoring
will suffice. Where change involves a possible challenge to teachers’ beliefs, a more
longitudinal and staged approach is called for.
A more practical but nonetheless key issue is the amount of planning that goes
into change projects and teacher development. Many projects are not thought
through well beyond their initial introduction. Teacher development is often lim-
ited to one-off training sessions or brief interventions, without consideration of the
amount of time it takes to integrate new ideas into one’s teaching. Successful pro-
jects anticipate development needs and take a long-term view. Related to this is a
careful monitoring process of teaching practice; many projects and teacher devel-
opment sessions result in an initial change in practice but previous habits are eas-
ily reverted to; an initial successful implementation can quickly become “something
that we tried for some time.” As at the development stage, communication is
essential here. By establishing open communication channels in which teachers
feel safe to express their experiences, doubts, and concerns, problems can more
easily be identified, and support offered.
Hargreaves and Fink (2005) have identified lack of continuity as another self-
destructive pattern in schools. When districts swing from one instructional
approach to another, or when school leadership is constantly changing, the lack of
consistency and focus can undermine a teacher’s enthusiasm for new ideas. This
is sometimes difficult to avoid for program directors and managers, especially
when directives come from policy makers such as ministries of education. In such
cases, it is up to leaders to provide a sense of continuity, perhaps by grouping
projects in related clusters (for example, assessment and e-learning) and to discuss
new initiatives as part of longer-term developments.
When considered as a form of professional resilience, teacher resistance is a posi-
tive phenomenon, and one that can help to improve educational practices. Seen in
this light teacher resilience is reflective of educators’ professional practice, and can
be drawn on as a source of knowledge and even inspiration for those involved in
implementing educational change or professional development. By considering
the factors highlighted above, change processes are less likely to be disruptive and
more likely to be successful in the long term.

SEE ALSO: Teacher and Institutional Beliefs, Vision, Belonging, and Identity;
Teacher Autonomy; Teacher Identity; Teacher Stress and Coping
6 Teacher Resistance and Resilience

References

Darasawang, P., Reinders, H., & Waters, A. (2015). Innovation in language teaching: The
Thai context. In P. Darasawang & H. Reinders (Eds.), Innovation in language learning and
teaching: The case of Thailand (pp. 1–14). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
DeLano, L., Riley, L., & Crookes, G. (1994). The meaning of innovation for ESL teachers.
System 22, 487–96.
Farrell, T. (2014). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for
TESOL professionals. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2005). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Howard, S. (2013). Risk-Aversion: Understanding teachers’ resistance to technology
integration. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(3), 357–72.
Lamb, T., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2008). Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities
and responses. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Stoller, F. (1994). The diffusion of innovations in ESL programs. Applied Linguistics, 15(3),
300–27.

Suggested Readings

Barnard, R., & Burns, A. (2012). Researching language teacher cognition and practice: International
case studies. Oxford, England: Multilingual Matters.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.