Diffusion and the Social Dynamics of
Organizations:
The Case of Educational Innovations and
Schools
Kenneth A. Frank
College of Education and
Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University
With William Penuel, Yong Zhao
Min Sun, Chong Min Kim, Ann Krause,
Kathryn Borman, Nicole Ellefson. Susan
Porter, Corinne Singleton
Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations
(1995)
Current
Diffusion: Beneath the Surface
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100333707
NPR Science Friday
Diffusion: Beneath the
Surface: Entering the System
Penetrating the Boundary
Absorbed by the System
System Adaptation
Internal System Reaction
Counteraction
How Does the Social Organization of the School Create
a Complex System?
Social organization
of the school
(beneath the surface)

complex response
Starting Point:
Most Variation in Achievement Outcomes and Teacher
Behaviors is Within Schools
10%-30% of the variance in achievement is at the student level
Konstantopoulos, S. (2006). Trends of School Effects on
Student Achievement: Evidence from NLS:72, HSB: 82, and
NELS:92. Teachers College Record, 108, 2550-2581.
http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/docs/publications/21311995764
56b88344ffba.pdf
Only 10%-20% of the variation in teacher outcomes is within
schools Lee & Smith, 1991; Rowan et al., 1992
Baseline Assumption:
Instruction is the Proximal Cause of Learning
http://ies.ed.gov/funding/pdf/2011_84305A.pdf page 28
See also: Cohen Raudenbush & Ball, 2003
Baseline Assumption: Teaching is
Fundamentally Complex
– Teaching requires integration of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
curriculum,
variable student needs
assessments
conflicting organizational demands
teachers’ previous educational experiences
non-linear cognitive processes
– Must be coordinated with others
• Shared students
• Shared contexts
–
Bidwell, 1965; Woodward, 1965;
Baseline Assumption: Teachers
Need Local Knowledge to be
Effective
• Must adapt external, general knowledge
to context of the school
• Local knowledge allows teachers to
comply with local norms
• Local knowledge (if made explicit) can
be shared with others to improve school
– Frank et al., 2011
Where Does Local Knowledge Come
From?
• Professional Development
– Externally generated, needs to be adapted
• Experimentation
– Intensive
– Limited to previous experiences – what to do for
new type of student or curricular unit?
• Interaction with others within school
– Shared contexts: curriculum, students,
organizational demands
Complex Process:
Knowledge Changes as it is Locally Adapted
Figure 1: the Transformation of Knowledge
As an Innovation Permeates the School’s
Organizational Boundary
General, abstract
knowledge conveyed
during Focused
professional
development
Knowledge becomes tacit as it
is adapted to local context
through exploration and
experimentation
(Fiddle)
Knowledge
articulated and
integrated
through
interactions with
colleagues
(Friends)
Data: supported by Michigan Department of Education
Example of Interaction as Source of Local Knowledge
(Coburn and Russell, 2007, page 23):
We talked about, like, the math message and the mental math and how
to coordinate the two and that we should be linking the message to the
initial onset of the mini lesson and how those two are connected and that
that would get the children eventually into their individual work and that
we should connect them and that the math messages is separated from
the mental math after it’s done until we go back to it and use that as a
lead in for the lesson. So that’s something I’d like to get straight.
Because the teachers’ guide was a bit fuzzy about that, I thought. It was
a bit misleading when it came to the math message and the mental
math. So he was able to tell me that I should teach it in that sequence.
So that helped.
Complex: new approach, math message, must be coordinated with
the old, mental math
 teachers talk about how to implement the new approach, motivate the
children, differentiate the approaches, and structure the lesson.
within local context: math curriculum, coach.
Theoretical Implications
• Network effect stronger for those who have
– Focused professional development, experimented
– Language is key
• School as organization transforms knowledge
– Adapted from external to internal
– Through experimentation and interaction
– Knowledge made explicit through interactions
Broader Findings
• Network effects matter
– As much as classic predictors of implementation such as resources
and perceptions of innovation
– Technology: Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., and Borman, K 2004; Frank et al, 2011
– Reforms: Penuel et al, 2010
– Reading Instruction: Frank, Penuel et al (under re-review)
– Math Instruction: Jim Spillane & Paul Cobb
– Achievement: Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009
• Caveats
– Small to moderate effects to change in practices: Beware of large
effects
– But can accumulate
– Spillover to other areas: talk allows other flows
– Most studies for elementary and middle schools
Penetrating the Boundary
Absorbed by the System
System Adaptation
How Can Teachers Access Local
Knowledge?
• Consider Motivations of Teachers:
– Efficacy (STEM supplemental PD)
– Fit into social context
• Frank et al (2010); Youngs et al (forthcoming)
• Where is $? (Shirley)
– Once they have base pay,
marginal return for $
not motivating?
• “To summarize, we find no overall effect, pooling across
years and grades, of teacher incentive pay on mathematics
achievement. Likewise, we find no overall effect by year,
pooling across grades.” (page 30)
– See also Scholastic, 2010:
http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Scholastic_Gates_0310.pdf
Teacher Utility
f(personal efficacy, fitting into social organization of school)
assessment
Whole language
Utility
Perceptions of Efficacy
Curriculum
Teacher behaviors
Other’s
expectations
Phonics
Student outcomes
Comment on Utility
• Teachers seek individual efficacy and to fit into their
school
• Teachers with different utility will make different
trade-offs
– Novice teacher needs extensive local knowledge,
more willing to conform
– Senior teacher who will retire soon may have no
incentive to conform
• Different conformity pressures for formal versus
informal leaders (Min Sun, Ken Frank et al)
Utility and the Social Capital Exchange
Knowledge through the Network for
Compliance to Norms
• Teacher seeks knowledge to improve efficacy
• Teacher with knowledge seeks conformity of other to
gain:
– Reputation (Blau: Social exchange)
– Legitimacy
– Own personal efficacy: the organizational effect
• If 3rd grade teacher can get a 2nd to teach more
phonics, the 3rd grade teacher can be more
effective
• Social capital exchange
Social Capital Exchange: Knowledge for Conformity
conformity
knowledge
Knowledge
articulated and
integrated
through
interactions with
colleagues
(Friends)
Policy Implications of Social Capital Exchange
1) Schools may improve implementation as much by
focusing on social structure as on changing attitudes or
improving resources.
Leveraging social capital is cheap and quick relative to
changing attitudes or purchasing resources
2) Attempts to implement multiple innovations may compete
for fixed social capital
Failure to fulfill multiple obligations may be detrimental to
overall social capital
3) Success of implementation depends on distribution of
social capital
Are there sources of expertise available to each actor?
Caveats
• Teachers must identify with school and others
for social capital exchange
– Otherwise no penalty for failure to conform
• Does not apply for high teacher turnover
System Reaction
Normative Compliance Structured by
Cohesive Subgroups
• Teachers organized in subgroups
– Partly aligned with departments
– But emergent
• Excellent source of local knowledge
– Others know context
– Similar orientation  less conformity
pressure (Nonaka; Yasumoto; Hansen)
• Subgroups create own norms
• Subgroups filter response to external
institutions and forces
Clusters in Foodwebs
Krause, A., Frank, K.A., Mason, D.M., Ulanowicz, R.E. and Taylor, W.M. (2003). "Compartments exposed
in food-web structure." Nature 426:282-285
33
35
E
25
• Each number is a
teacher
• G_ indicates
grade in which
teacher teaches
• Lines connecting
two numbers
indicate teachers
who are close
colleagues
Solid lines within
subgroups, dashed
between
• Circles indicate
cohesive
subgroups
B
15
5
C
-5
D
-15
-25
-35
A
-45
-25
-15
-5
5
15
25
Ripple Plot
• Overlay talk about technology on social
geography of crystallized sociogram
• Lines indicate talk about technology
• Size of dot indicates teacher’s use of
technology at time 1
• Ripples indicate increase in use from
time 1 to time 2
Theoretical Implications:
Subgroups as Meso-Level Entities
• Individuals’ experience within organizations is
mediated by subgroups within which interactions are
more concentrated
– In schools, subgroup boundaries align to varying
degrees with formal organizational structures
(e.g., grade level) and aspects of the informal
social structure (e.g., cohorts of teachers)
– Many school actors are not assigned to a single
grade
• Interactions within and across subgroup boundaries
can have different effects on practice
– Across subgroups, effects tend to be the result of
acquiring new information (see, e.g., Granovetter,
Subgroups and the Organizational
Response to NCLB
• The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 changed the institutional
environment of schooling
– Sanctions for schools failing to meet achievement targets for
all subgroups of students (“tightening” coupling)
– Requirement that schools and districts adopt evidencebased programs and practices
– In reading, a focusing of resources on phonics-based
instruction that built decoding skills of early readers
(reducing heterogeneity of environment)
• A core assumption of NCLB is that school actors will adapt to
the changed environment because they are motivated by the
threat of sanctions and promise of resources and rewards
NCLB Pressures
Sanctions
Institutional Environment
Resources (Programs, PD)
School
Penetrating the Boundary
NCLB Pressures: Varying Initial Practices
Sanctions
Institutional EnvironmentResources
(Programs, PD)
School
NCLB Pressures: Varying Initial Practices and Subgroups
Sanctions
Institutional EnvironmentResources
(Programs, PD)
(microfoundations)
School
Normative Pressure
• Pressure result from having a collegial tie
(direct effect) with someone or from being
part of the same subgroup (indirect effect)
• Individual teachers may be particularly
responsive to pressure from subgroup
members to the extent that:
– They share a common context for teaching
(Smylie, 1989; Kennedy, 2005)
– High levels of trust exist among subgroup
members(see Ingersoll, 2003)
NCLB Pressures
Sanctions
Institutional EnvironmentResources
(Programs, PD)
TIME 1
School
Institutional
Environment
TIME 2
School
NCLB Pressures
Sanctions
Resources (Programs, PD)
Implications:
CHANGING SCHOOLS NOT TEACHERS
• Subgroups, conformity to subgroup norm (for
knowledge exchange)
 increased variation between subgroups in
organizational response
• Uncoordinated effort (Shirley’s reform du jour)
• Stratification: which kids/families can compensate?
• Schism affecting next implementation of next
innovation (Nora)
– John and Gary: maybe OK that schools spit
CISCO back out. % buy in during adoption
• How Does this help create the engineers Rick
Stephens needs?
Agent Decisions
•
Choose production technology based on which one gives them the
highest utility given their level of knowledge


 1

1
U i (C,t)   (t)  w( p, ki (t))i e(t)i  e(t)2i   (1   (t))   (e(t)i  e(C,t))2 
2


 2

Production vs. Leisure
w: return / effort
w=f(price,knowledge)
•
Conform
ity
Decide on social investments based on perceived resources and
probability of reciprocity from potential alters
n
n
z 1
z 1
attractivenessii '  0  1 (gi ' i )   2  g zi ' g zi  3 (resourcesi '  resourcesi )ii '   4 (gi ' i )   g zi ' g zi
gii`: tie strength between actor i and actor i’ =
f(trade balance)
Agent-Based Model:
Diffusion of Extraction
Practices
How Does the Social Organization of the School Create
a Complex System?
Social organization
of the school
(beneath the surface)

complex response
System Adaptation
System Reaction
Counteraction: Unintended
Consequence?
Higher Pressure, Higher Jet: Perhaps
True for Schools?
Strategies for Improving School
Capacity
• Increase access to expertise and resources relevant
to reforms across all subgroups
• Create opportunities for interactions that connect
isolated subgroups to expertise that exists within the
schools
– Some seek new information – bridgers
– Create venues for interaction (committees, vertical
teams, etc)
– Some schools in our sample were quite successful
in facilitating interactions through grade-level
teams and lesson study
–
Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Joshi, A., & Frank, K. A. 2010. The alignment of the informal
and formal supports for school reform: Implications for improving teaching in schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 57-95
Instructional practice (phonics)
Simulated Chaotic System Produced as Bridger
Oscillates between Seeking new Information
and Interaction with Similar Others
Bridger
Pursuit of information for efficacy integrates subgroups
Bridger
Frank, K.A., Muller, C., Schiller, K.,
Riegle-Crumb, C., Strassman-Muller,
A., Crosnoe, R., Pearson J. 2008.
“The Social Dynamics of
Mathematics CourseTaking in high
school.” American Journal of
Sociology, Vol 113 (6): 1645-1696.
Venues could
be
professional
development,
committees,
hallways
Comment on Current Policies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Value Added
– OK at school level, encourages positive internal dynamics
– At teacher level: inhibits knowledge sharing, coordination
Charter schools
– Pay attention to social dynamics: many burnout in short period. It’s more
than the mission and curriculum
• Teachers by far have been the biggest struggle,” said Ms. RodríguezDávila, 39, who previously was a middle school principal. (NYT, Sept
6:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/education/06houston.html?ref=edu
cation)
School Choice/Voucher:
– No attention to internal dynamics
Special education: inclusion
– Focus on how special education & regular education teachers coordinate
Technology:
– depends on how teachers interact over technology.
– Still isolated  problem
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schoolsfaces-questions-on-value.html?ref=education
Scripted curricula:
– not taking advantage of local knowledge, but gets everyone on same page
Broader Implications
• Implementation is local!
– Any innovation encounters an existing social structure, must
work with that
• Implementing an innovation will have implications for current
and future innovations
– There were other innovations before yours, and there will be
others afterwards
• Before reforms are adopted, schools could develop a “social
environmental impact statement”
– Requires an understanding of the school’s social network
– Fosters reflection about the fit of reforms within that structure
as well as how to cultivate particular interactions to promote
diffusion
END HERE: Presentation based on:
https://www.msu.edu/user/k/e/kenfrank/web/research.htm#social
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Frank, K.A., Zhao, Y., Penuel, W.R., Ellefson, N.C., and Porter, S. 2011. Focus, Fiddle and Friends: Sources of
Knowledge to Perform the Complex Task of Teaching. Sociology of Education, Vol 84(2): 137-156
Frank, K.A. *; Penuel, W.R.*; Sun, M.; Kim , C.M.; Singleton, C. 2011. The Organization as a Filter of Institutional
Diffusion. Under re-review at TCR.
Penuel, W. R., Frank, K.A., Sun, M., and Kim, C. Teachers’ Social capital and the Implementation of Schoolwide
Reforms. Forthcoming. Chapter 9 in Sean Kelly, Editor. Understanding Teacher Effects. New York: Teachers’
College Press.
Frank, K.A., Kim, C., and Belman, D. 2010. “Utility Theory, Social Networks, and Teacher Decision Making.” Pages
223-242 in Alan J. Daly editor. Social Network Theory and Educational Change. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Penuel, W.R., Frank, K.A., and Krause, A. 2010. Between Leaders and Teachers: Using Social Network Analysis to
Examine the Effects of Distributed Leadership. Pages 159-178 in Alan J. Daly editor. Social Network Theory and
Educational Change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Youngs, Peter, Frank, K.A., Thum, Y.M. and Mark Low. Forthcoming. “The Motivation of Teachers to Produce
Human Capital and Conform to their Social Contexts” to be published in an edited volume, Laura Desimone and
Andrew Porter editors.
Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Joshi, A., & Frank, K. A. 2010. The alignment of the informal and formal supports for school
reform: Implications for improving teaching in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 57-95.
Frank, K.A. 2009 Quasi-Ties: Directing Resources to Members of a Collective
American Behavioral Scientist. 52: 1613-1645
Frank, K. A. and Zhao, Y. (2005). "Subgroups as a Meso-Level Entity in the Social Organization of Schools." Chapter
10, pages 279-318. Book honoring Charles Bidwell's retirement, edited by Larry Hedges and Barbara Schneider. New
York: Sage publications.
Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., and Borman (2004). Social Capital and the Diffusion of Innovations within Organizations:
Application to the Implementation of Computer Technology in Schools." Sociology of Education, 77: 148-171.
Zhao, Y. and Frank, K. A., (2003). "An Ecological Analysis of Factors Affecting Technology Use in Schools."
American Educational Research Journal, 40(4): 807-840.
Frank, K.A., and Fahrbach, K. 1999. “Organizational Culture as a Complex System: Balance and Information in
Models of Influence and Selection.” Special issue of Organization Science on Chaos and Complexity in Organization.
Organization Science, 10(3): 253-277.
END HERE
What would I do?
Constitution for Effective Schools
•
Preamble: Many of the problems of schools are that they are
asked to simultaneously respond to too many external pressures.
The result is at best uncoordinated effort, at worst competing effort
that undermines the commitment of the teachers. What is needed
is a set of rules for guiding schools in determining when and how
to implement changes in personnel, policies and practices. That is
what a constitution should do.
•
Scope. The articles of this constitution do not concern themselves
with specific matters of leadership, pedagogy, practice or
curriculum. This will be left to the individual school and faculty to
decide. These articles pertain to the method of adopting and
implementing changes in policies, practices, and personnel.
•
Theory based. There are theoretical foundations for the articles of
this constitution, although the value of adopting these articles is
not yet known. The articles establish procedures for developing
sustainable professional communities over periods of many years
or even a decade. As the articles have only been defined in this
document, they have not yet been implemented nor their
effectiveness evaluated. Schools are asked to consider the
articles based on their principles, much in the same way the
Components
• Stakeholders
– Community
– Principals (as agents of community)
– Teachers
• Checks and balances
• Action Controlled
–
–
–
–
–
–
Adoption of new reforms
Informing community expectations
Community to school link
For removal of principals
For removal of teachers
Optional
• For creating teacher collaboration?
• For facilitating coordination between teachers and
administrators
Article 1: Adoption of Reforms, New
Policies & Practices
No school-wide reform, or change in
policy or practice may be implemented
unless two thirds or more of the teachers in
the school approve the change.
• Allows teachers to assess how the innovation
meshes with their existing practices, commitments,
student body, etc.
•Limits factionalization
•Practice used for “Success For All” as well as
many comprehensive school reforms (Borman &
Hewes 2002).
• Applies to new articles of the constitution
Article 2
Community Expectations
The effects of any change in practices or
policies on student achievement should
not be expected for three years.
It will take teachers time to learn an innovation,
adapt the innovation, and then reestablish
coordination with each other (Frank, Penuel et al.,
2011; Zhao and Frank, 2003).
Consistent with the implementation of Comer
schools (Cook et al., 2000).
Community to School Link: Governing
Board.
The school shall be governed by a board
composed of at least 50% of community
members. The board can replace a principal
by a vote of two thirds or more*
• Examples
• School governing boards in Chicago as example
– Bryk et al., 2010
• Massachusetts
• Optional: but only after the principal has served at
least a 3 year term (see articles 2 and 4).
• The process for selecting members of the board
should be determined by the district.
Articles 4 & 5
Removal of Principal
4. A principal can be evaluated for replacement
if more than 20% of the teachers in the
school request transfer or leave in a given
year (excluding planned retirements).*
Teachers know others who are least effective from shared
students, interactions
5. A principal can use a streamlined procedure
to remove not more than 5% of the teachers
in a given year. *
Principals can identify low performers (Jacob &
Lefgren, 2008).
* %’s are guidelines
Checks and Balances
Community
1,2
3
1.
No school-wide reform, or change in
policy or practice may be implemented
unless two thirds or more of the teachers
in the school approve the change.
2.
The effects of any change in practices or
policies on student achievement should
not be expected for three years.
3.
The school shall be governed by a board
composed of at least 50% of community
members. The board can replace a
principal by a vote of two thirds or more*
4.
A principal can be evaluated for
replacement if more than 20% of the
teachers in the school request transfer or
leave in a given year (excluding planned
retirements).
5.
A principal can use a streamlined
procedure to remove not more than 5% of
the teachers in a given year.
Principal
1,4
5
Teachers
Article 6
Policies Not Directly Addressed
All other policies not directly addressed
by this constitution should be
determined by district personnel and
school faculty in accordance with
existing labor agreements, and district,
state, and federal policies.
• Grievance procedures?
• Teacher hiring process (Currently at the
district level)
Adoption of this Constitution
• A constitution should be adopted based
on articles 1 & 2:
– Two thirds of the faculty must approve;
– It will not be expected to improve student
achievement until 3 years after its
adoption.
Baseline Assumptions: Teaching must be
Coordinated with Others
• Uncoordinated teaching  cognitive, emotional demands on
students
– Challenge to learning
– Stratification (only those with extra resources can
respond)
– Teacher misfits with others in her school, limits personal
efficacy
– Rowan, 1990; McLaughlin and Talbert 2001; Rivken
Hanushek and Kain, 2005
• Features school as formal organization
– Bidwell (1965); Williamson (1980)
Exchange Knowledge for Compliance to
Norms