Shock Innovation: Conceptualisation of Digital Transformation in Education during the Covid-19 Pandemic
https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.18.2.08
EDN: XOWGFW
Abstract
The article considers the transition to distance learning in the context of COVID-19 pandemic as innovation. In particular, it shows that the spread of innovation in an extremely fast and compressed way does not fit the classical model of innovation diffusion by Rogers. Based on the results of the analysis, the authors supplement the innovation theory with a model of shock innovation which aims to describe the phenomenon of momentary transformations. For that reason, a comprehensive and extensive description of innovation diffusion was narrowed down to three key characteristics and linked to three levels (micro-, meso- and macro-). The narratives of school principals which have been extracted from the interviews (N=10) were compared with the characteristics of this three-levels model. The analysis revealed that a shock innovation is characterized by the fact that (1) the initial impulse has a source, external to the system, (2) requiring an obligatory response (forced change); (3) manifested by an innovative “breakthrough” due to the extreme mobilization of the resources; and (4) “densification” of traditional innovative processes for the diffusion of innovation at three levels - individual (micro), group (meso-) and systemic (macro-). The discussion highlights the aspects of the identified characteristics that should be taken into account in designing the strategies of schools’ development, as well as bridging the gaps in the educational system caused by the pandemic.
About the Authors
D. Koroleva
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Diana Koroleva
Moscow
A. Andreeva
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anastasia Andreeva
Moscow
T. Khavenson
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tatiana Khavenson
Moscow
References
1. Abankina, I., Vavilova, A., Zinkovsky, K., Semenova, K., & Surkova, N. (2020). Don't count your chickens before they hatch: COVID-19 lessons for schools. NRU HSE Publ.
2. Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: Predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computers & Education, 56(1), 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.017
3. Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006). Metaphor and analogy. In Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 1-10). Springer.
4. Azorín, C. (2020). Beyond COVID-19 supernova. Is another education coming? Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 381-390. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2020-0019
5. Christensen, C., & Eyring, H. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. John Wiley & Sons.
6. Cros, F. (2018). Innovation and society. Wiley-ISTE. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119492221
7. Davis, B. (2019, January 22). How long does digital transformation take? Econsultancy. https://econsultancy.com/how-long-does-digital-transformation-take-timescale/
8. Essmann, H., & Du Preez, N. (2009). An innovation capability maturity model–development and initial application. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 53(1), 435-446.
9. Karlov, I. A., Kiyassov, N. M., Kovalev, V. O., Kozhevnikov, N. A., Patarakin, E. D., Frumin, I. D., Shvindt, A. N., & Shonov, D. O. (2020). Analysis of digital learning resources and services for organizing secondary school educational processes. HSE Press.
10. Fuglsang, L., & Sundbo, J. (Eds.). (2002). Innovation as Strategic Reflexivity. Routledge.
11. Fuller, C. (2020). Education Innovation Clusters: Supporting transformative teaching and learning. Childhood Education, 96(1), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2020.1707534
12. Gabby, S., Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2017). The case of middle and high school chemistry teachers implementing technology: Using the concerns-based adoption model to assess change processes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 214-232. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00193A
13. Hadar, L., Ergas, O., Alpert, B., & Ariav, T. (2020). Rethinking teacher education in a VUCA world: student teachers’ social-emotional competencies during the Covid-19 crisis. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 573-586. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1807513
14. Ilin, V. (2006). Dramaturgy of qualitative field research. Intersocis.
15. Khavenson, T., Kotik, N., & Koroleva, D. (2020). Digital technological readiness of schoolteachers. Monitoring of Education Markets and Organizations, 8, 1-16.
16. Koroleva, D., & Simpson, A. (2018). Coup D’etat in the Panopticon: Social Networking in Education. In L. Benade, & M. Jackson (Eds), Transforming Education (pp. 213-225). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5678-9_14
17. Kosaretsky, S. (Ed). (2020.). The COVID-19 pandemic losses for education: Forecasts and search for ways of compensation. NRU HSE Publ.
18. Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations. Research policy, 29(2), 243-255.
19. Luik, P., & Lepp, M. (2021). Local and External Stakeholders Affecting Educational Change during the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Study of Facebook Messages in Estonia. Education Sciences, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030113
20. Ministry of Education of the Russian Education (2020). On approval of the temporary procedure for supporting the implementation of educational programs of primary general, basic general, secondary general education, educational programs of secondary vocational education and additional general education programs using e-learning and distance learning technologies. Order No. 103, 17th March. https://docs.edu.gov.ru/document/750dd535d2c38b2a15cd47c9ea44086e/
21. Nazarov, V. L., Zherdev, D. V., & Averbukh, N. V. (2021). Shock digitalisation of education: The perception of participants of the educational process. Obrazovanie i nauka – The Education and Science Journal, 23(1), 156-201. https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2021-1-156-201
22. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Kopcha, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2018). Information and communication technology dispositional factors and relationship to information and communication technology practices. In Voogt J., Knezek G., Christensen R., Lai KW. (Eds.), Handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 309-333). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_27-1
23. Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of service research, 2(4), 307-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001
24. Rallis, K., Barton, J., & Round, J. (2020). Tip #13 – Innovate, learn from others, and keep innovating. Practical tips for supporting competency-based medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical Teacher, 42(11), 1316-1317. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1813878
25. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
26. Saprykina, D., & Volohovich, A. (2020). Problems of transition to distance learning in the Russian Federation through the eyes of teachers. Fakty obrazovaniya, 4(29), 1-32.
27. Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007
28. Siegel, A. A., Zarb, M., Alshaigy, B., Blanchard, J., Crick, T., Glassey, R., Hott, J., Latulipe C., Riedesel C., Senapathi M. & Williams, D. (2021). Educational Landscapes During and After COVID-19. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 2 (pp. 597-598). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3456565.3461439
29. Soudien, C. (2020). Systemic shock: How Covid-19 exposes our learning challenges in education. Southern African Review of Education with Education with Production, 26(1), 6-19.
30. Thomas, D., Lazarova, M., & Inkson, K. (2005). Global careers: New phenomenon or new perspectives? Journal of World Business, 40(4), 340-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.08.002
31. Thomke, S. H. (2003). Experimentation matters: unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Harvard Business Press.
32. Uvarov, A. U., & Semenov, A. L. (2015). Thirty years is still not enough. Informatica i obrazovanie - Informatics and Education, 7, 6-8.
33. Varpio, L., Paradis, E., Uijtdehaage, S., & Young, M. (2020). The distinctions between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. Academic Medicine, 95(7), 989-994. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003075
34. Xie, X., Siau, K., & Nah, F. F. H. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic–online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 22(3), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884
35. Xue, E., Li, J., Li, T., & Shang, W. (2020). China’s education response to COVID-19: A perspective of policy analysis. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(9), 881-893. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1793653
36. Zvyagintsev, R., Kersha, Y., & Pinskaya, M. (2020). Transition to distance learning: detailed review of a case from one region. Sovremennaya analitika obrazovaniya – Special Issue, 5, 1-21.
Review
For citations:
Koroleva D., Andreeva A., Khavenson T. Shock Innovation: Conceptualisation of Digital Transformation in Education during the Covid-19 Pandemic. Education and Self-Development. 2023;18(2):100-117. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.18.2.08. EDN: XOWGFW
Views:
9
Email this article 