Innovation in Language Teaching and Learning

MARTIN WEDELL AND LAURA GRASSICK

Introduction
“Educational innovation” refers to any attempt to bring about educational improvement by making
changes that are perceived by implementers as requiring them to do something new or different.
Innovation in language education today has been influenced by two linked developments in English
language teaching. The first is the rapid global expansion of language education provision. English is
now a core curriculum subject, often from primary level (Copland, Garton, & Burns,2014;
Butler,2015), in most state education systems, with millions of English teachers teaching English to
more learners than ever before. The second, occurring in parallel, includes national English curricula
promoting new pedagogic approaches (e.g., task-based language teaching) considered consistent with
changing perspectives on both the goal of language teaching (e.g., learning for
“communication/use”)and of education more generally (e.g., learner-centered, dialogic classrooms).
Curriculum changes have in turn influenced teaching materials, attempts to utilize technological
developments, such as computer-assisted language learning, and the promotion of alternative
assessment methods, such as the use of portfolios. Such innovations have been studied through a
subdiscipline of applied linguistics, management of educational change, which was pioneered by
Kennedy (1988) and Henrichsen(1989).
Over recent decades, interest in educational innovation has grown both in general education, through
the work of scholars such as Fullan (2007) and Goodson (2014), and in language education, for
example in books by Murray (2008), Alderson (2009), and Hyland and Wong (2013).

Reasons for Educational Innovation

Two reasons for changes to national (language) education policies are often stated in policy
documents. The first refers to the technological and economic effects of globalization, and reflects
policy makers’ concern to maintain or improve national competitiveness in a rapidly changing global
marketplace (by, for example, developing citizens’ English proficiency). The second reflects a
growing belief that the outcomes of education need to be more strictly standardized and measured
(e.g., through comparing learners’ performance on standardized tests), both to optimize equality of
opportunity within society, and to make institutions and their teachers more accountable for the way
in which education budgets are spent.

Innovation Implementation
While the wider field of applied linguistics needs to continue to consider insights that studies of
innovation theory and practice can contribute (Rogers,2003;Waters,2009), reports of difficulties
experienced when implementing language education innovations(Hardman & A-
Rahman,2014;Yan,2014; Humphries & Burns,2015) suggest that focusing on technical-managerial
aspects of change planning and management alone is insufficient.
A meta-analysis of the outcomes of 72 educational innovation projects (Schweisfurth,2011) suggested
that their limited success could be largely ascribed to implementation planners’ insufficient
understanding of mismatches between taken-for-granted norms in existing educational cultures and
new views of knowledge, teaching, and learning promoted by their innovation. Such mismatches are
apparent in language education innovations too ,especially where policy borrowing (Tan &
Reyes,2016) leads to “best practices” from “Western” countries being adopted, without consideration
of the challenges they pose to existing educational norms and material realities in a particular national
context. Applied linguistics has thus begun to draw on general education research into the relational
and emotional dimension of educational change (Zembylas,2010; Day & Lee,2011), to explore how
implementers’ (e.g., teachers, school leaders, teacher educators)experiences—their relationships with
others, and the personal and professional feelings that innovation implementation can engender—
affect their capacity to implement desired changes in classrooms (Wedell & Grassick,2018).

Barriers to Innovation Implementation

The primary barriers to implementing innovation in language teaching and learning can be grouped
into three strongly interconnected categories:
•System-related barriers

 policy makers’ insufficient understanding of the challenges an innovation poses for their
existing educational system;
 minimal consultation with implementers prior to implementation;
 poor communication channels across and within education systems, contributing to lack of
trust and understanding between system-level change agents and frontline implementers;
 insufficient societal awareness regarding the rationale for/benefits of the change;
 insufficient resources and professional development support for teachers;
 misalignment of pedagogic innovations and existing high-stakes examinations;
 cynicism among implementers engendered by experiences of previous unsuccessful
innovation initia-tives.
Such system-related issues contribute to constructing barriers at the levels of schools and classrooms.
•School-related barriers may include the following:

 insufficient understanding of and support for innovation on the part of senior management;
 lack of awareness of, and so support for, change among parents;
 student difficulties in adapting to pedagogical changes that assume different learner roles;
 inadequate school-based resources
.•Teacher-related barriers can arise due to the following:

 intended change incongruent with existing professional values, beliefs, and practices;
 little ownership or understanding of the innovation;
 no moral support from leaders and/or colleagues;
 insufficient/inappropriate practical support to develop efficacy in new professional roles;
 teachers perceiving change implementation as risky and threatening.

The Importance of Secondary Innovations

Markee (1997) makes the important distinction between primary innovations (changes to teaching
materials or pedagogy) and secondary innovations (organizational changes needed to provide enabling
support for the primary innovation). The “barriers” listed above suggest that insufficient consideration
of secondary innovations is one reason for implementation difficulties. They are challenging. They
require policy makers to understand both the innovation itself and how implementation will affect
other parts of and participants in the existing educational context. Such understanding becomes harder
still where innovations are “borrowed” from cultural contexts whose pedagogic values (e.g., learner-
centred, process-oriented approaches) clash with existing, equally valid, philosophies (e.g., those
emphasizing more product-oriented, whole-class direct instruction).
A classic work exploring some of these dilemmas, using data from Egyptian classrooms, is Holliday
(1994). More recently, Wedell (2009) argues that we need to put people and contexts at the core of the
innovation planning process, and similarly Carless (2011) and Wedell and Grassick (2018) emphasize
the importance of “contextually grounded approaches” to pedagogic innovation. A key theme
throughout is that, since stated innovation goals often challenge established cultural norms and
existing classroom realities, implementation planning needs to prioritize understanding of the
secondary innovations required to support classroom implementation of desired primary innovations.
Possible enabling conditions for change implementation include:

 understanding the challenges that change implementation will pose for the educational norms
and practices espoused by implementers, learners, and the wider society;
 having implementation time frames and funding streams consistent with the scale of
challenges identified;
 disseminating a clear innovation rationale widely and appropriately for different audiences;
 involving teachers’ representatives in implementation planning at an early stage, and
responding to their ideas and opinions, enabling them to feel ownership and so perhaps be
willing to act as local brokers, “champions,” or opinion leaders;
 identifying others affected by the change implementation process, and planning their support
and developing communication channels for their feedback, opinions, and ideas;
 providing innovation-consistent teacher educator training, to enable context-appropriate,
institution-based, professional development and support for teachers over time;
 establishing context-appropriate change-management strategies, and implementing useable
monitoring and feedback mechanisms to identify implementation difficulties and adjust
expectations accordingly.
Reports of implementation difficulties have begun to help applied linguists to understand the
complexity of language education innovations more fully. Further understanding may be promoted
through wider dissemination of exemplars of good practice, and through studies exploring the
relational dimension of change in language education and the influence that any innovation has on its
implementers. In addition, a fuller understanding of implementers’ experiences, and of the complex
relationships influencing these, may help to identify conditions needed for successful innovation
implementation, and so finally enable desired changes in language education to become visible in
“thousands and thousands of classrooms” (Levin & Fullan,2008, p. 291).

References
 Alderson, J. C. (Ed.). (2009).The politics of language education: Individuals and institutions.
Bristol,England: Multilingual Matters.
 Butler, Y. G. (2015). English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review
ofcurrent research (2004–2014).Language Teaching,48, 303–42.
 Carless, D. (2011).From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative
assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. New York, NY: Routledge.
 Copland, F., Garton, S., & Burns, A. (2014). Challenges in teaching English to young
learners:Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly,48(4), 738–62.
 Day, C., & Lee, J. C.-K. (Eds.). (2011).New understandings of teacher’s work: Emotions and
educational change. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.
 Fullan, M. (2007).The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
 Goodson, I. (2014). Context, curriculum and professional knowledge. History of
Education,43,768–76.
 Hardman, J., & A-Rahman, N. (2014). Teachers and the implementation of a new English
curriculum in Malaysia. Language, Culture and Curriculum,27(3), 260–77.
  Henrichsen, L. E. (1989).Diffusion of innovations in English language teaching: The ELEC
effort in Japan, 1956–1968. New York, NY: Greenwood.
 Holliday, A. (1994).Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
 Humphries, S., & Burns, A. (2015). “In reality it’s almost impossible”: CLT-oriented curriculum
change. ELT Journal,69(3), 239–48.
 Hyland, K., & Wong, C. W. (2013).Innovation and change in English language education.
London, England: Routledge.
 Kennedy, C. (1988). Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied
Linguistics,9(4), 329–42.
 Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning about systems renewal. Educational Management
Admin-istration and Leadership,36(2), 289–303.
 Markee, N. (1997).Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
 Murray, D. E. (Ed.). (2008).Planning change, changing plans: Innovations in second
language teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
 Rogers, E. (2003) The diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
 Schweisfurth, M. (2011). Learner-centred education in developing country contexts: From
solution to problem? International Journal of Educational Development,31, 425–35.
 Tan, C., & Reyes, V. (2016). Curriculum reform and education policy borrowing in China:
Towards a hybrid model of teaching. In C. Chou & J. Spangler (Eds.),Chinese education
models in a global age. Education in the Asia-Pacific region: Issues, concerns and
prospects,31. Singapore: Springer.
 Waters, A. (2009). Managing innovation in English language education. Language
Teaching,42(4),421–58.Wedell, M. (2009).Planning for educational change: Putting people
and their contexts first. London, England: Continuum
 Wedell, M., & Grassick, L. (Eds.). (2018).International perspectives on teachers living with
curriculum change. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Yan, C. M. (2014). “We can’t change much unless the exams change”: Teachers’ dilemmas in the
curriculum reform in China. Improving Schools,18(1), 5–19.
 Zembylas, M. (2010). Teacher emotions in the context of educational reforms. In A.
Hargreaves,A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.),Second international handbook of
educational change. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer International Handbooks of Education.

Suggested Readings

 Lamie, J. M. (2005).Evaluating change in English language teaching. Basingstoke, England:

Palgrave Macmillan.
 Tribble, C. (Ed.). (2013).Managing change in ELT: Lessons from experience. London,
England : British Council. Retrieved August 5, 2018 from
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/B330%20MC%20in%20ELT
%20book_v7.pdf
 Waters, A. (2014). Managing innovation in English language education: A research
agenda.Language Teaching,47(1), 92–110.
 Wedell, M., & Malderez, A. (2013). Understanding language classroom contexts: The
starting point for change. London, England: Bloomsbury.

This is a First Proof, author-produced, version of a chapter accepted for publication. The
definitive publisher-authenticated version can be found at Chapelle, Carol A (2020) Ed.
The Concise Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell