See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240584209

Innovation in ELT

Article  in  ELT Journal · September 2009

DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccp053

CITATIONS READS

5 473

1 author:

Martin Wedell
University of Leeds
43 PUBLICATIONS   249 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ELTRP project View project

Ministry of Education Chile Language Teacher Education seminar series View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Wedell on 10 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

key concepts in e l t

Innovation in E LT
Martin Wedell

Although innovation in E LT has grown apace in recent years, much of it has

been unsuccessful (see, for example Karavas-Doukas 1998; Carless 1999;
Nunan 2003), arguably because of a failure to take into account lessons from

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Leeds on August 8, 2013

innovation theory (Wedell 2009), such as the following:
1 In-depth appraisal of the innovation context is vital. Kennedy (1988: 332)
shows how the potential for innovation at the classroom level is
circumscribed by several additional overarching ‘subsystems’, especially
the superordinate, sociocultural one. The ‘hybrid model’ (Henrichsen
1989) provides a thorough system for identifying contextual factors
likely to facilitate or hinder the change process. Holliday (1994)
demonstrates the importance of a detailed, ethnomethodological
understanding of the innovation situation. The value of the ‘baseline
study’ as a means of attempting to ensure that proper appreciation of
contextual variables is built into the innovation process is illustrated in
Weir and Roberts (1994). Wedell (2003: 453) provides a comprehensive
algorithm for linking an analysis of the innovation context to the
development of an appropriate innovation implementation strategy.
2 Certain innovation characteristics are likely to make adoption more
successful. Kennedy (op. cit.) discusses the main criteria identified in
Kelly (1980) as preconditions for teacher adoption of innovations, i.e.
‘feasibility’ (will it work?), ‘relevance’ (is it needed?), and ‘acceptability’
(compatibility with existing educational philosophy). Others (for
example Henrichsen op. cit.; Markee 1997: Chap. 2) draw attention to
and extend the characteristics in Rogers (1983) associated with
successful and less successful innovations (briefly, the greater the
degree of ‘relative advantage’, ‘compatibility’, ‘trialability’, and ‘visibility’
and the lower the ‘complexity’, the greater the chance of the innovation
being adopted).
3 How an innovation is implemented will affect its potential for success.
Significant (second order) change involves alteration in terms of
materials, teaching methods, and underlying beliefs (Fullan and
Stiegelbauer 1991: 29). The innovation implementation approach
therefore needs to be based as much as possible on a ‘normative-re-
educative’ strategy, i.e. ‘a collaborative, problem-solving approach, with
all those affected by the change involved in some way and making their
own decisions about the degree and manner of change they wish to
accept’ (Kennedy 1987: 164). Such an approach implies that ‘teacher
development must take place in the workshop context and in the
workplace’ (Karavas-Doukas 1998: 36, original emphasis), and the
E LT Journal Volume 63/4 October 2009; doi:10.1093/elt/ccp053 397
ª The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication July 15, 2009
 provision of adequate ‘secondary innovations’ (Markee op. cit.: 172–4),
i.e. resources, such as teacher development programmes, which enable
‘primary’ innovations to be successfully implemented.
4 Innovation should be sufficiently systemic. The ‘spider’s web’ diagram
in Bowers (1983: 101) indicates the importance of taking into account
how changing one part of an educational system may affect other parts.
Bray and Luxon (1999) discuss their experiences of involving ‘insiders’
in innovation project baseline studies, so that expertise and ownership is
established as widely as possible from the outset; Waters and Vilches
(2001) describe a framework for taking innovation implementation
needs into account at two main levels (‘foundation building’ and
‘potential realizing’) and in terms of four main areas, viz. curriculum
development and teacher, trainer, and ‘E LT manager’ learning;
Wedell (2009: 48–53) provides a detailed and comprehensive sequence
of steps for attempting to combine both centralized and localized

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Leeds on August 8, 2013

forms of change management in the context of large-scale educational
reform.

Space precludes mention of several other parts of this literature (but see
Waters in press for a longer overview). However, given the investment that
innovation usually represents, it seems important to pay greater attention to
what innovation theory suggests about ways of making the practice of E LT
innovation more successful than hitherto.

References Kelly, P. 1980. ‘From innovation to adaptability: the

Bowers, R. 1983. ‘Project planning and performance’
in C. J. Brumfit (ed.). ELT Documents 116: Language
Teaching Projects for the Third World. Oxford:
Pergamon Press/The British Council.
Bray, T. and T. Luxon. 1999. ‘The role of baseline
studies in E LT projects’ in C. Kennedy (ed.).
Innovation and Best Practice. Harlow: Longman.
Carless, D. 1999. ‘Large-scale curriculum change in
Hong Kong’ in C. Kennedy, P. Doyle, and C. Goh
(eds.). Exploring Change in English Language Teaching.
Oxford: Macmillan.
Fullan, M. and S. Stiegelbauer. 1991. The New
Meaning of Educational Change (Second edition).
London: Cassell.
Henrichsen, L. E. 1989. Diffusion of Innovations in
English Language Teaching: The E L E C Effort in Japan,
1956–1968. New York: Greenwood Press.
Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Social
Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karavas-Doukas, K. 1998. ‘Evaluating the
implementation of educational innovations: lessons
from the past’ in P. Rea-Dickins and K. P. Germaine
(eds.). Managing Evaluation and Innovation in
Language Teaching: Building Bridges.
Harlow: Longman.
changing perspective of curriculum development’ in
M. Galton (ed.). Curriculum Change: The Lessons of
a Decade. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Kennedy, C. 1987. ‘Innovating for a change: teacher
development and innovation’. E LT Journal 41/3:
163–70.
Kennedy, C. 1988. ‘Evaluation of the management of
change in E LT projects’. Applied Linguistics 9/4:
329–42.
Markee, N. 1997. Managing Curricular Innovation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. 2003. ‘The impact of English as a global
language on educational policies and practices in the
Asia-Pacific region’. T E S O L Quarterly 37/4:
589–613.
Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations (Third
edition). New York: Free Press.
Waters, A. In press. ‘Managing innovation in English
language education’. Language Teaching.
Waters, A. and M. L. C. Vilches. 2001. ‘Implementing
E LT innovations: a needs analysis framework’. ELT
Journal 55/2: 133–41.
Wedell, M. 2003. ‘Giving T E S O L change a chance:
supporting key players in the curriculum change
process’. System 31/4: 439–56.

398 Martin Wedell

Wedell, M. 2009. Planning for Educational
Change—Putting People and Their Contexts First.
London: Continuum.
Weir, C. J. and J. T. Roberts. 1994. Evaluation in ELT.
Oxford: Blackwell.
The author
Martin Wedell is a senior lecturer in TE S OL and
Director of Development, School of Education,
University of Leeds. His main interests include
teacher education, testing, and the management of
Innovation in E LT
View publication stats
educational change, especially how to plan the
innovation implementation process so as to provide
appropriate support for those whom changes affect.
He worked in Kenya, Saudi Arabia, China, and
Hungary for 20 years, often as an E LT ‘change
agent’, and has also contributed to ongoing ELT
innovations in Chile, China, Oman, and Saudi
Arabia.
Email: M.Wedell@education.leeds.ac.uk
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Leeds on August 8, 2013
399