Organizational culture and instructional innovations in higher education

Abstract

This study examines teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the organizational culture of their universities and their views about and reactions to instructional innovations with regard to student-centred learning, collaborative learning and use of innovative educational technologies. Six Chinese universities were involved and in total 1051 students and teachers participated in a survey study. The results show that features of organizational culture affect students’ and teachers’ perceived need for innovation, their views about innovative approaches to instruction, responsiveness to instructional innovations and the perceived implementation level of educational innovations. In addition, differences among teachers and students and among the institutions were examined and discussed.

Keywords

Instructional innovations organizational culture higher education

Introduction

In the current knowledge and digital society, we are facing rapid social, technological and economic changes. Innovation in higher education is of importance to better equip new generations of students for the changing society. Innovation is typically understood as the introduction of something new and useful, for example new methods, techniques or practices or new or altered products and services (Mckeown, 2008). In the last decade there have been innovations in higher education, such as the strengthening and creation of international cooperation networks, the increase of academic mobility of faculty and students, new management structure, new methods of assessment, accreditation and financing, diversification of courses, programmes and studies, and the application of technology in teaching and learning. Among these changes, some aspects are related to macro-level change, such as governance structure, and some are related to micro-level change, such as instructional strategies and methods. As to the latter, typical innovations that currently dominate the debate in higher education are related to the integrated use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), the adoption of student-centred learning and the use of collaborative learning approaches. For example, online and hybrid courses have been widely adopted in many higher education institutions (Paulson, 2002; Zhu, 2012). In the current society, social and economic needs and technology and market changes will continue to produce pressure for innovation on higher education institutions. However, innovation is not necessarily perceived as useful or beneficial by all parties involved. Some organizations have resources, structures, processes and values that foster adoption of innovations, while others do not. The study of Stevens (2004) points out that the perspectives on educational innovations are affected by the different educational players in specific contexts.

It is generally acknowledged that educational change benefits from a supportive environment (Fullan, 2001). Cultural influences are a key issue when considering innovation and change processes (Aguinis and Roth, 2005). The research of Adamy and Heinecke (2005) argued that organizational culture is a key factor that influences instructional innovations. As Keup et al. (2001) suggest, the success of any transformational effort may well depend on the extent to which organizational culture issues can be addressed. For example, research has paid particular attention to the interactions individuals have with each other in educational institutions (Tierney, 2008). Previous research has examined the influence of organizational culture on organizational innovations (Amabile et al., 1996; Angle, 1989; Kanter, 1983; King and Anderson, 1995; Zhu, 2013; Zhu et al., 2010). Studies indicate that innovation is mostly likely to occur in organizations that have integrative structures, emphasize diversity, and stress collaboration and teamwork (Kanter, 1988; Towndrow et al., 2009). Yet the findings of previous research are mixed with little conclusive evidence regarding the role of specific organizational culture features in adopting instructional innovation in higher education.

In this article, we focus on examining the influence of organizational culture on instructional innovations in higher educational institutions (HEIs). Below, we first introduce the concepts of organizational culture and instructional innovations, and then present the conceptual relationship between organizational culture and instructional innovations.

Organizational culture

Organizational culture is defined as shared philosophies, ideologies, values, assumptions, beliefs, expectations, attitudes and norms in organizations (Lund, 2003; Maslowski, 2001). It is a pattern of shared basic assumptions and is developed over time as people in the organization learn to deal with problems of external adaptation and internal integration (Schein, 1999). According to Schein (2004), organization culture can be described in three levels. The first level is artefacts that comprise the physical components of the organization that relay cultural meaning. The second level deals with the professed culture of an organization's members – the values. And the third level refers to the organization's tacit assumptions. Organizational culture is nurtured and shaped gradually over a period of time, reflected in terms of collaboration, trust and learning, and it can shape the behaviours of people in that organization (O’Reilly, 1989; Rashid et al., 2003). Along with in-depth knowledge of the culture, the interpersonal relationship between the members plays an important role in understanding the dynamics of organizational culture. An appropriate culture can encourage people to create and share knowledge within an organization (Holsapple and Joshi, 2001). Studies also show that organizational culture, especially innovation culture, increases the organizational performance because innovative culture comprises values and features that are receptive to new ideas (De Brentani and Kleinschmidt, 2004).

Just as culture is a multi-level and multi-faceted concept, ‘culture of innovation’ is also a multi-faceted term. A culture of innovation is one in which internal assumptions, values and management practices foster developing new ideas into products, processes, objects and services (Jassawalla and Shashittal, 2002). In the literature, the following main factors are described as important to encourage and support innovation: leadership, commitment, strategy, structure, support mechanisms, compensation strategies, trust, communication, training, evaluation, time, attitude, distributed network, etc. (Ahmed, 1998; Claver et al., 1998; Leavy, 2005; Martins and Terblanche, 2003; Smith, 1998; Vickers, 2006). A culture of innovation is enhanced by leadership that reinforces it. It is agile, nimble, constantly adapting and learning, and open to experimentation and diverse points of view. A culture of innovation indicates that an organization is willing to embrace new ideas, or tools and techniques that innovation requires. Establishing clear, consistent innovation goals, encouraging collaboration internally and externally, and shifting reward and evaluation systems are also important to build a culture of innovation. Trust is paramount for an innovation culture. In an innovation culture, a distributed network can stimulate generation of new ideas, and testing and sharing of these ideas. Collaboration and teamwork are also supporting factors for innovation (Kanter, 1988).

The biggest challenge many organizations face is to create a culture that supports and embraces innovation. Organizational culture is clearly either a significant enabler of or a significant barrier to innovation. Previous research points out that obstacles or restraining factors to innovation may include: lack of a shared vision or strategy, innovation not articulated as an organizational commitment, segmentation, hierarchical structures, management control, workforce workloads, risk aversion, innovation not included as part of the performance review process, and no reward and recognition programmes (Buggie, 2001; Cooper, 1998; Kanter, 1983).

Organizational culture is not only critical for business-oriented organizations, it is also a topic that has become embedded in research pertaining to HEIs (Kezar, 2002). Previous studies have suggested that organizational culture in educational institutions is related to both students’ and teachers’ values and beliefs, which affect the teaching and learning process (Marcoulides et al., 2005), and a supportive institutional environment can facilitate teachers’ innovations and student academic achievement (Hofman et al., 2002).

Organizational culture has been analysed in different ways. The research of Cameron and Quinn (1999) has classified it into: the open system model, the human relations model, the internal process model and the rational goal model. They also named it as the adhocracy, clan, hierarchy and market culture types. Available research distinguishes strong or weak, positive or negative, ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’, constructive or passive, supportive or non-supportive organizational cultures (Fullan and Ballew, 2004; Peters and Waterman, 1982). In the literature, the multi-facet characteristics of organizational culture have been stressed and a number of important dimensions have been identified, such as collaboration among members (Cousins et al., 1994; Fullan, 1992; Hargreaves, 1994; Schmuck and Runkel, 1994; Staessens, 1990), clear and focused goals (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992; Murphy, 1991; Schmuck and Runkel, 1994; Staessens, 1990), staff participation in decision making (Devos et al., 2007), structured and supportive leadership behaviour (Hallinger, 2003; Hoy and Miskel, 2008; Hoy and Tarter, 1997; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000), innovation orientation (Maslowski, 2001) and shared vision among members (Zhu et al., 2009; Zhu et al., 2011).

Drawing on the literature and our previous studies, the present study assesses organizational culture of higher education institutions from the dimensions of goal orientation, innovation orientation, participation in decision making, structured leadership, supportive leadership, shared vision, and collaboration among members. Goal orientation reflects to what extent the development goal of the HEI is clearly formulated. Innovation orientation reflects to what extent the HEI shows an open attitude towards educational innovations. Participation in decision making reflects to what extent members of the HEI can participate in the process of change and innovation. Structured leadership reflects to what extent clear instructions and regulations are created at the HEI. Supportive leadership reflects the extent of support for teaching and learning that members of the HEI receive. Shared vision reflects to what extent members at different levels share their vision with the HEI. Collaboration among members reflects to what extent collaboration takes place among peers within the HEI. These measures can provide a relatively inclusive picture of the organizational culture of an HEI and can provide a means for determining the extent of impact on instructional innovations.

Instructional innovations

Innovation means new ideas, methods or strategies which may be perceived and adopted by individuals or units and become new ideas and practices (Magno and Sembrano, 2007). Innovation includes both the creation and implementation of ideas that are novel and useful. In educational settings, innovation involves new curriculum and new ways of working. Cohen and Ball (2007: 19) define educational innovations as a ‘…departure from current practice—deliberate or not, originating in or outside of practice, which is novel in educational policies, practices, curriculum design and implementation, assessment regimes, pedagogical technologies and resources, teacher capacities, etc.’

As educational institutions are the cradle for science and innovation, being innovative and responsive to innovation are considered critical for an organization undergoing change. More than two decades ago, Kozma (1985) stated that higher education institutions had been under increasing pressure to change their instructional practices, as the social background of students had become more and more heterogeneous and society required trained people with not only more and more knowledge and skills, but also competencies such as ability to adapt to new situations, team playing and problem solving. In addition, various new instructional technologies, ranging from computer games to computer supported collaborative learning systems, have been developed and implemented by advanced institutions. The capabilities and uses of technology have changed business processes both within and outside of higher education. Technological literacy allows greater educational access and better preparation of students for the economic and the labour force (Chun and Evans, 2009). Schneckenberg (2009) also points out that changes on many fronts are forcing higher education institutions to determine how they must position themselves for success in the future. The scope and variety of these changes are enormous. The driving forces for the change include factors such as demographics, technology and knowledge. Higher education institutions must adapt to these forces with strategic and systematic change. However, the process of change is complex, with many different types of change possible and many influencing factors. Within each level of educational endeavour, there often exists the possibility of improvement.

As to instructional innovations, several trends have been influential in the last two decades, such as the use of mastery learning instructional strategies, cooperative learning, learner-centred instruction, online learning and virtual learning environments (e.g. Ghaith and Yaghi, 1997; Pulford, 2011; Walczyk et al., 2007; Yalcinalp and Gulbahar, 2010). Many separate studies have been conducted to examine these innovation trends, while few studies have attempted to examine the relationship between organizational culture and the implementation of major instructional innovations in higher education. In order to operationalize the measurement of instructional innovation, in this research we focus on studying three typical innovation trends in teaching and learning: (1) collaborative learning; (2) student-centred learning and (3) use of educational technologies. As to the use of technologies, we distinguish two types of applications: e-learning and computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). E-learning refers to the use of e-learning environments or course delivery via online platforms, while CSCL stresses the use of interactive and collaborative technologies for learning.

For each of the three trends of education innovations, specific dependent variables are to be examined: perceived need for innovations, views about innovative instructions, responsiveness to instructional innovations, and the implementation level of instructional innovations.

Perceived need for innovations

In order to have changes take place, the need for change is fundamental. Both internal and external forces drive the need for change (Swenson, 2005). Internal drivers include, for example, teachers’ intrinsic motivation to improve their teaching practices. External drivers include, for example, curricular reform, alterations in teacher–student relationships from teacher-centred to student-centred learning, and policies and procedures to improve meaningful and active learning. In addition, societal changes and requirements of the job market also produce a need to develop more innovative instructional practices, such as self-directed learning, collaborative learning and learning with new technologies.

Views about innovative instructions

Change of educational practices depends on teachers’ views about teaching and learning. As a reciprocal process, students’ views about teaching and learning also influence the way teachers teach. Black and Gregersen (2002) put forth that people need to first conceive, then believe and finally achieve in the change process. The views and educational beliefs of teachers play a central role in determining whether instructional innovations are adopted by teachers (Rich, 1990; Zhu et al., 2010).

Responsiveness to instructional innovations

Educational principles and new technologies can be perceived as important; however, people respond to them differently. People tend to have fears and anxieties about the future that take time to overcome. Some people like change and thrive on it, while others do not. Some may respond to innovations in a more quick and timely manner, and some may be slow to adapt and try. Some people resist change for reasonable reasons and others resist change temporarily as they await examples of how others have made a leap they can follow. For example, computer supported learning for educational institutions has been developed for more than 20 years; many institutions and teachers may have already fully embraced it, but some are slower to respond to the new development, especially in the way they actually use it in classrooms.

Implementation of instructional innovations

Implementation is the practical or physical process of delivering an innovation. Previous research (Fullan, 1992; Huberman and Miles, 1984) has demonstrated that the change process consists of three overlapping phases: initiation, implementation, institutionalization. Implementation of proposed innovations, as a stage of the change process, is the most complex and difficult to achieve. Fullan (1993: 46) points out that educational innovations are ‘hard to conceive and even harder to put into practice’. The implementation or adoption of innovations can take place at difference levels, and often progresses through various stages over time (Carlopio 1998: 5).

The influence of organizational culture on instructional innovations

Innovation and planned change efforts depend on organizational culture (Simsek and Seashore, 1994). Organizational culture is important as a vehicle for implementing change (Yeung et al., 1991). Higher education institutions are undergoing fundamental and incremental changes (Hesselbein et al., 2002: 218). Factors that drive change may be internal or external to the environment, and innovations may be initiated at any level in the organizational structure and may be systemic or local in nature (Fullan, 2001; Reigeluth, 1994; Senge et al., 1994). A ‘pro-innovation’ culture contributes to its ability to adopt innovations within an organization (Christensen, 1997; Kanter, 1983). Understanding organizational culture is important to the study of institutional transformation, to preparing an environment for transformation and to achieving the desired results of innovation. Flores (2004) puts forth that the organizational culture of an educational institution is an important factor that contributes to the teachers’ learning and improving process, as apart from teaching in this environment, the teachers keep learning and improving themselves. Learning and adopting instructional innovations is part of that process. The research of Stroll (1999) and Creemers (2002) also points out that failures in educational change and innovations often relate to the organizational cultural environment.

Organizational culture can be a catalyst for innovation or a barrier for effective change. For example, leadership at all levels of an organization faces challenge when the culture needs to change. Leaders must work to develop a shared vision, build consensus and manage the associated tension that comes with change (Austin et al., 1997; Schein, 1992). Management influence is necessary to overcome the barriers to successful change, which innovators often encounter. When top management is pro-active and becomes a catalyst for change, the organization has a better opportunity to adopt an innovative culture. Next to leadership, building a work environment where trust, open communication and teamwork are the norm is conducive to innovation. A higher level of risk tolerance within organizations is also important for adopting innovation. The existence of free and open communication channels is favourable for innovation because it provides the opportunity for ideas, information and knowledge to be relayed and shared throughout the organization. Therefore, it is an important contribution to educational change to identify organizational cultural features and their impact on the adoption of instructional innovations. Previous research has examined the influence of organizational culture on organizational innovations (King, 1990; King and Anderson, 1995). Yet the findings of previous research are mixed with little conclusive evidence regarding the role of specific organizational culture features in adopting instructional innovation in higher education.

The Chinese higher education context

In China, there are more than 1500 higher education institutions. Among them, 642 are universities and 911 are colleges and professional HEIs. Among the first type, 95 are under the national 211 programme and 38 of them under the national 985 programme. These are the best Chinese universities, which can be called key universities (universities included in the national 211 and 985 programme with special funding from the central government). Other universities can be classified into ordinary national universities (under the administration of ministries) and local universities (under the administration of provincial or municipal governmental administration), and non-governmental (min-ban) universities. The key universities receive a majority of the national funding for research and education. Recent research indicates that the current reform policies in Chinese universities have mainly focused on the structuring of universities (such as merging and expanding scale), and changing of the artefacts on the surface level of the organizational culture within a university (for example, infrastructure, hardware and curricular reform), while the implicit assumptions and values prevalent among the Chinese faculty and students (the deeper levels of organizational culture) are left intact (Zhang, 2009). The research of Wu (2009) has pointed out that the organizational culture in some of the Chinese HEIs is worrying, due to its bureaucratic structure, conflicts of interests among members, complex human relationships, lack of autonomy, etc. Some institutions failed to build up spiritual cohesion and shared value among its members. Next to teaching and research responsibilities, university faculty is facing tedious administrative tasks, complex collegial relationships and financial pressure. This has caused many problems regarding the spiritual health of university faculty. Under these circumstances, it is not easy for university teachers to make efforts in instructional innovations. Therefore, studying the relationship between organizational culture and instructional innovations in Chinese universities can provide insights for researchers and policy makers to understand the complexity of the real situation and make recommendations for educational reform and organizational change.

Research questions

The research attempts to examine the impact of organizational cultural variables on instructional innovations in higher education. The main research question of this study is: what is the impact of organizational culture on teachers’ and students’ perceived need and views about instructional innovations, and their responsiveness to and implementation of innovations? Based on the literature review above, we hypothesize that (H1) there is an association between organizational culture and teachers’ and students’ perceived need, views about and responsiveness to instructional innovations in higher education; (H2) there is an association between organizational culture and the implementation of instructional innovations in higher education.

Method

Participants

Quota sampling and judgment sampling was applied when selecting the university samples. The authors intended to select different types of university and universities at different levels. Thus six universities were selected representing (1) a first-class national comprehensive university included in the Chinese 211 and 985 programme, (2) a general national comprehensive university not included in the 211 and 985 programme, (3) a national professional university, (4) a provincial comprehensive university, (5) a municipal professional university and (6) a min-ban university. Within the universities, stratified sampling was used to select students and teachers based on gender, age and subjects/discipline. A total of 186 teachers and 865 students from six Chinese universities participated in this study. The students included both undergraduate (81.8%) and graduate students (18.2%). Among them, 501 were females, 364 were males. Students were from different disciplines in the domain of social sciences, sciences and art studies. Their mean age was 20.73 (SD=2.5). Among the teacher participants, 122 were females and 64 were males. All teachers had either master or doctoral degrees. Their mean age was 35.6 years (SD=6.75), with a range from 26 to 64 years old. The teaching subjects of the teachers also cover different disciplines in the domain of social sciences, sciences and art studies. The sample composition is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Type of institution and number of participants in this study.

	Type of institution	Number of teachers	Number of students
Institution A	First-class national comprehensive university included in the Chinese 211 and 985 programmes	35	155
Institution B	General national comprehensive university not included in the 211 and 985 programmes	32	150
Institution C	National professional university	30	148
Institution D	Provincial comprehensive university	30	147
Institution E	Municipal professional university	30	135
Institution F	Min-ban (non-governmental, private) university	29	130
Total		186	865

Instruments

All participants responded to a questionnaire comprising three groups of questions. The student and teacher versions were adapted to suit the real situation of students and teachers accordingly. The three groups of questions were: (1) demographic characteristics, (2) teacher/student perceptions of organizational cultural environment, (3) teachers’/students’ (a) perceived need for instructional innovations, (b) views about instructional innovations, (c) responsiveness to educational innovations, (d) the implementation level of instructional innovations. As to the implementation of instructional innovations, this research measures the reported implementation level of (1) collaborative learning; (2) student-centred learning; (3) e-learning and CSCL in universities. The Organizational Cultural Environment Survey (Zhu et al. 2011) included 28 items composing seven scales that were based on: goal orientations (Staessens, 1990), innovation (Maslowski, 2001), structured leadership (Hoy and Miskel, 2008), supportive leadership (Hoy and Miskel, 2008), participation in decision making (Devos et al., 2007), shared vision (Zhu et al., 2009) and collaboration relationship among members (Staessens, 1990). The Organizational Cultural Environment Survey was validated in a previous study in the Chinese context (Zhu et.al., 2011). The other parts of the questionnaire were self-developed for the purpose of this study. As to the perceptions and reactions to educational innovations, a total of 20 questions were asked of students and teachers: perceived need for innovations (five items, sample item: ‘I think there is a need for our university to promote new instructional methods, such as student collaborative learning’); views about innovative instructions (five items, sample item: ‘I think using online collaboration is very important for student learning’); responsiveness to educational innovations (five items, sample item: ‘I respond to new educational technologies in a quick way’); the implementation level of instructional innovations (five items, sample item – student version: ‘Our teachers have implemented online collaborative learning in our learning activities’, teacher version: ‘I have implemented online collaborative learning for my students’). Participants were asked to indicate to what extent a certain statement reflects the organizational cultural environment and the real situation of his or her university and the degree he or she agrees with a certain statement. The respondents’ replies were on a five point Likert scale, with 1 = absolutely not true (or fully not agree) to 5 = very true (fully agree).

Data collection

Data were gathered from six universities. Based on collaborative relationships with these universities, questionnaires were administered to students by teachers (who agreed to support this research) during their classroom sessions or by student administrators during group activities, starting with a short explanation of the purpose of this research. Questionnaires to teachers were sent via the involved faculty secretariat or during faculty meetings. All participants were informed of the purpose of this questionnaire and informed consent was obtained from the participants. In total, 1085 questionnaires were collected, and the valid questionnaires totalled 1051. Table 1 includes only the data from the valid questionnaires.

Data analysis

First of all, data normal distribution was checked. Reliability and validity of the scales were tested with reliability analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In order to examine the effects of controlled variables (gender, age, discipline, teacher/student, institution) on organizational culture and instructional innovations, one way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. To explore the relations between organizational cultural features and instructional innovations, partial correlation coefficients were calculated. In addition, stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess which organizational cultural features predict each dimension of instructional innovations. The influence of the organizational cultural characteristics was assessed in the first relational model, after which the other controlled variables were added to the regression models.

The reliability of the scales of the Organizational Culture Scale was satisfactory with Cronbach’s alphas between .61 and .84. The reliability of two scales (structured leadership and goal orientation) was relatively low for the student sample, as these features may be less obvious for students. Therefore, results related to these two scales need to be considered with caution. In addition, the items may need to be adjusted for student populations in future studies. For the dimensions on educational innovations, the scales had Cronbach’s alphas between .68 and .92. EFA (Principal Component with Varimax Rotation) revealed that the scales were confirmed by the data. Sum scores were calculated for each scale. The alpha coefficients of each scale, mean, standard deviation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for organizational culture and the educational innovations scales are reported in Table 2.

Table 2.

Scales of organizational culture and responsiveness to and implementation of instructional innovations.

Scale	Teacher sample (n = 186)	Student sample (n = 865)	Teacher sample (n = 186)	Student sample (n = 865)	Sample by institution
Scale	Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)	Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)	M (SD)	M (SD)	ICC
Organizational culture
Goal orientation	.70	.61	15.04 (3.62)	14.01 (3.36)	0.71
Innovation orientation	.84	.75	15.21 (3.23)	14.79 (3.08)	0.67
Participation in decision making	.84	.67	13.01 (3.90)	14.64 (3.28)	0.63
Structured leadership	.65	.61	11.86 (3.80)	11.05 (3.19)	0.70
Supportive leadership	.82	.69	11.61 (3.51)	13.59 (3.30)	0.73
Shared vision	.85	.76	13.52 (3.43)	13.82 (3.48)	0.75
Formal relations – collaboration	.75	.74	14.95 (3.31)	14.09 (3.40)	0.81
Perceptions of and reaction to educational innovations
Perceived need for innovations	.92	.82	21.51 (4.48)	19.95 (3.97)	.66
Views about innovative instructions	.81	.68	20.95 (2.86)	19.64 (3.50)	.75
Responsiveness to instructional innovations	.86	.81	19.08 (3.84)	18.55 (3.86)	.80
Implementation level of instructional innovations	.83	.83	18.35 (3.17)	18.01 (3.20)	.70

ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient.

Results

Group differences in perceptions of organizational culture and perceptions and reactions to instructional innovations

The results show that the six institutions differed in all the dimensions of organizational culture except the dimension of collaborative relationship. The means and ANOVA results are presented in Table 3. Compared with the other institutions, Institution A (first-class university) represented a relatively higher innovation orientation, participatory decision making and shared vision than all other institutions and a clearer goal orientation than Institutions B, D and F. However, the structured leadership of Institution A was lower than Institutions C, E and F and supportive leadership was lower than Institutions B, C and E. The collaborative relationship among the institutions seemed to be not significantly different. The results indicate that the first-class university was relatively more innovative, while its supportive culture was not more favourable than other institutions. The results also show that the innovation orientation, participatory decision making and supportive leadership of Institution D (provincial comprehensive university) was lower than other institutions. The organizational cultures of the two professional universities (C and E) and the min-ban university (F) were in the middle level compared with the other ones. Institution C (national professional university) showed the highest structured leadership, while Institution B (national comprehensive university) showed the highest supportive leadership.

Table 3.

Organizational culture features by institution.

	A	B	C	D	E	F	ANOVA Significance
Goal orientation	14.62	13.62	14.83	13.69	14.79	13.48	.000
Innovation orientation	15.42	14.93	14.90	14.27	14.42	14.63	.004
Participation in decision making	14.85	14.71	14.82	13.32	14.37	14.12	.000
Structured leadership	11.11	11.10	11.81	11.12	11.33	11.45	.029
Supportive leadership	13.14	13.95	13.66	12.47	13.65	13.13	.001
Shared vision	14.42	13.98	13.80	13.25	12.97	13.12	.000
Collaborative relationship	13.95	14.59	14.78	13.99	14.38	14.07	.120

Controlling for institution, teachers perceived the organizational culture more positively compared with students in almost all dimensions (p < .05), except for two dimensions (participation in decision making and supportive leadership), in which the students perceived more positively than teachers. The differences in shared vision were not significant between teachers and students. MANOVA results showed that the effects of gender, age and discipline of respondents on organizational culture were not significant, indicating that the organizational cultural dimensions were shared within an institution, at least among the students and among the teachers separately. The effects of institution and teacher/student were significant on organizational culture scales.

With regard to perceptions and reactions to instructional innovations, the results show that for all six institutions there was a high need for innovations, while the responsiveness to innovations was relatively low. Among the six institutions, the implementation level of collaborative learning and student-centred learning was higher than the implementation level of CSCL. The detailed results are presented in Table 4. Respondents in Institution A (first-class university) reflected the highest need, view and responsiveness to innovations of all institutions. Institution A also had a higher implementation level of e-learning and CSCL than four other institutions (B, C, D and E). The implementation level of collaborative learning and student-centred learning was not significantly different among the institutions. As to the implementation of CSCL, Institution F (min-ban university) had the highest level, while Institution D (provincial comprehensive university) had the lowest level. Although the organizational cultural features among the institutions were diversified, the findings of this study seem to indicate that the first-class university was more innovative than other institutions, and the min-ban university was more advanced in applying educational technology and computer-supported collaborative learning.

Table 4.

Perceptions and reactions to instructional innovations by institution.

	A	B	C	D	E	F	ANOVA Significance
Perceived need	21.03	20.42	20.70	20.44	19.38	20.57	.002
Views	20.47	19.43	19.67	20.24	19.81	19.53	.213
Responsiveness	20.11	18.92	19.36	18.69	19.21	19.79	.515
Implement CL	3.60	3.76	3.68	3.71	3.56	3.64	.510
Implement SCL	3.67	3.65	3.57	3.61	3.47	3.63	.091
Implement eL	3.94	3.78	3.79	3.62	3.55	3.93	.000
Implement CSCL	3.51	3.17	3.11	2.94	3.42	3.58	.000

CL: collaborative learning; SCL: student-centred learning; eL: e-learning; CSCL: computer supported collaborative learning.

As to perceptions and reactions to instructional innovations of teachers and students, the teachers perceived to a greater degree the need for innovations (p < .05). Teachers also scored higher than students on views about innovative instructions. Students and teachers seemed to have no significant differences regarding their responsiveness to instructional innovations. Regarding the implementation of innovations, both teachers and students reported a lower level of implementation of CSCL at their institution compared with other approaches of innovations. In general, across the six institutions, the implementation scale scored lower than the perceived need, views and responsiveness by students and teachers. One-way MANOVA results showed that the effects of gender, age and discipline on perceptions and reactions to instructional innovations were significant. The results show that female teachers were more responsive to change compared with males (p < .05). Female teachers reported a higher implementation level of collaborative learning and CSCL compared with male teachers (p < .05). Teachers in the age group 37–47 years old reported a higher need and implementation of collaborative learning, e-learning (p < .05) and CSCL (p < .001) compared with other age groups. Teachers in the area of sciences perceived a higher need and implementation of e-learning and CSCL compared with teachers in the area of social sciences and art (p < .01). This means that these variables need to be controlled when analysing perceptions and reactions to instructional innovations. The effects of institution and teacher/student were also significant on instructional innovations, meaning that teachers’ and students’ perceptions of and reactions to instructional innovations varied from institution to institution and also between teachers and students within an institution. Table 5 summarizes the effects of independent variables on organizational culture and dimensions of instructional innovations.

Table 5.

MANOVA results with effects of independent variables on organizational culture and perceptions of and reaction to educational innovations.

	Organizational culture				Perceptions of and reactions to educational innovations
Source	Wilks’ lambda	F	Significance	Partial η2	Wilks’ lambda	F	Significance	Partial η2
Gender	.971	1.33	.234	.029	.976	2.850	.037*	.016
Age	.516	1.16	.071	.090	.610	2.74	.000***	.152
Discipline	.767	1.45	.104	.037	.918	1.51	.039*	.028
Teacher/student	.812	32.61	.000***	.188	.683	135.77	.000***	.317
Institution	.829**	3.96	.000***	.031	.959	3.08	.000***	.014

*p < .05

**p < .01

***p < .001

The relationship between organizational culture and perceptions of and reactions to instructional innovations (results related to H1 and H2)

Controlling for gender, age, discipline, student/teacher and institution, the partial correlation analyses between the scales of organizational culture and the scales of instructional innovations indicate that all dimensions of the organizational culture features (goal orientation, innovation orientation, structured leadership, supportive leadership, participatory decision making, shared vision and collaborative relationship) were significantly associated with teachers’ and students’ perceived need, views about and responsiveness to instructional innovations in higher education (p < .001, with a correlation coefficient r ranging from .21 to .43). The results support H1.

With regard to the implementation of innovations, the results show that five dimensions of the organizational culture features (goal orientation, innovation orientation, structured leadership, supportive leadership and collaborative relationship) were significantly correlated with the implementation of collaborative learning, student-centred learning and CSCL. Among the organizational features, four dimensions (goal orientation, innovation orientation, structured leadership and collaborative relationship) were significantly correlated with the implementation of e-learning. The results indicate that H2 was also supported by the data.

In order to further examine the effect of organizational culture and other independent variables on the perceptions of and reaction to instructional innovation, regression analyses were conducted. Taking the dimensions of organizational culture as independent variables and perceived need for innovations as dependent variable, the model (model 1) showed that five dimensions of organizational culture (except for shared vision) predicted teachers’ and students’ perceived need for innovations. The total contribution of organizational culture to perceived need for innovations was 28.3%. Organizational culture also significantly influenced students’ and teachers’ views about instructional innovations (R ² = 26.6%), responsiveness to instructional innovations (R ² = 29.9%) and the implementation level of instructional innovations with regard to collaborative learning, student-centred learning, e-learning and CSCL, with a contribution (R ²) ranging from 18.7% to 35.2%. In model 2, other independent variables were added. The results show that four dimensions of organizational culture, namely goal-orientation, innovation orientation, structured leadership and supportive leadership, and teacher/student variable, age and discipline together contributed to 46% of the variances of students’ and teachers’ perceived need for innovations. Model 2 also contributed significantly to students’ and teachers’ views about instructional innovations (R ² = 25.3%), responsiveness to instructional innovations (R ² = 29.4%) and the implementation level of instructional innovations with regard to collaborative learning, student-centred learning, e-learning and CSCL (R ² = 25.5%, 24.9%, 21%, and 35.2% respectively). The results show that the perceived need for innovations and the implementation of CSCL can be mostly explained by the examined independent variables in this research. The detailed results are presented in Table 6 and Table 7.

Table 6.

Regression results of organizational culture and other independent variables on perceptions and responsiveness to innovations.

	Perceived need for innovations		Views about innovative instructions		Responsiveness to instructional innovations
Parameter	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2
Goal orientation	.183***	.082*	.110**	NS	.076*	NS
Innovation orientation	.378***	.307***	.182***	.163**	.311***	.307***
Participation in decision making	.093*	NS	.093*	.133**	NS	NS
Structured leadership	.206***	.107**	.153***	.139**	.073*	NS
Supportive leadership	NS	NS	NS	NS	.084*	.167**
Shared vision	.294***	.133**	.132**	.106*	NS	NS
Formal relations – collaboration	.190***	NS	.232***	.206***	.178***	.039**
Institution		NS		.067*		NS
Teacher/Student		.369***		NS		NS
Gender		NS		NS		NS
Age		.132*		.126*		NS
Discipline		.067*		NS		.098*
R ²(%)	28.8***	47.0***	27.1***	26.6***	30.4***	30.6***
Adjusted R ² (%)	28.3***	46.0***	26.6***	25.3***	29.9***	29.4***

Per cell: standardized regression coefficient. R ² refers to explained variance.

NS: not significant.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Table 7.

Regression results of organizational culture and other independent variables on implementation of innovations.

	Implementation level of innovations – CL		Implementation level of innovations – SCL		Implementation level of innovations – eL		Implementation level of innovations – CSCL
Parameter	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2
Goal orientation	.095*	.141**	NS	NS	NS	NS	.103*	NS
Innovation orientation	.239***	.206***	.156***	.176***	.247***	.209	.220***	.173***
Participation in decision making	.154***	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	.091*	NS
Structured leadership	NS	NS	.125***	.112**	NS	NS	NS	.104**
Supportive leadership	.095*	.104*	NS	.150**	NS	NS	.146**	NS
Shared vision	NS	.071*	NS	NS	NS	NS	.132**	NS
Formal relations – collaboration	.269***	.304***	.181***	.161***	.199***	.198***	.160**	.075*
Institution		NS		NS		.098*		.105**
Teacher/student		NS		NS		NS		.468***
Gender		NS		NS		NS		NS
Age		NS		.140*		NS		NS
Discipline		NS		.072*		.071*		.068*
R ²(%)	24.8***	26.9***	21.1***	26.2***	19.3***	22.4***	23.9***	36.3***
Adjusted R ² (%)	24.3***	25.5***	20.5***	24.9***	18.7***	21.0***	23.3***	35.2***

Per cell: standardized regression coefficient. R ² refers to explained variance.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

CL: collaborative learning; SCL: student-centred learning; eL: e-learning; CSCL: computer supported collaborative learning; NS: not significant.

Discussion

The main objective of this study was to examine the influence of organizational culture on perceptions and implementation of instructional innovations in higher education. We discuss the findings of this research from the following four aspects.

First, the reliability and validity analysis results show that the scales in this study, namely the Organizational Cultural Environment Survey and the scales on perceptions and reactions to educational innovations, were valid for the concerned contexts.

Second, the features of organizational culture and the perceptions and adoption of instructional innovations in the studied institutions were revealed. The results show that the organizational culture significantly differed among the six institutions. For example, the first-class university enjoys a more innovative organizational culture with higher participatory decision making and shared vision. However, with regard to supportive leadership, the first-class university did not score the highest. This could be related to the fact that first-class university has the means for innovation affordance while the specific support to its staff and students could be constrained by the hierarchical structure. With regard to perceptions and reactions to instructional innovations, the first-class university was the most responsive to innovations and had a relatively high implementation level of e-learning and CSCL. The implementation of student-centred learning and collaborative learning was not significantly different among the institutions, indicating that there was more convergence among these universities.

However, there were divergences between teachers and students. Teachers were more positive about organizational culture regarding organizational goals, innovation orientation and structured leadership. For both students and teachers, and among institutions, supportive leadership, participation in decision making and supportive leadership scored lower, indicating a less positive culture in these aspects. Perceptions and reactions to instructional innovations could be distinguished by institution, and between teachers and students. Both students and teachers perceived that there was a great need for instructional innovations. Their views about instructional innovations were also positive. The results indicated there was a higher perceived need for instructional innovations than responsiveness and implementation level of instructional innovations. This conforms to the previous arguments that implementation is much harder than the adoption of the idea (Fullan, 1993). Among the implementation of the four instructional innovations, the implementation level of CSCL was lower than the other instructional innovations. This is in line with previous studies’ assertion that the implementation of CSCL is a challenging task for educators and often not as effective as it should be, due to low participation rates and varying degrees of disappointing collaboration (Kreijns et al., 2002). The context of CSCL is a unique combination of the technological, the social and the educational contexts (Kirschner et al., 2004). If one of the aspects is not well designed, CSCL cannot be effectively implemented.

Third, the focus of this study was on the impact of organizational culture on instructional innovations. The two hypotheses were confirmed in this study. This is supportive of previous studies that suggested that organizational culture is an important factor supporting organizational innovation (Martins and Terblanche, 2003). The regression models indicate that all seven dimensions of organizational culture had significant effects on instructional innovations. Among them, goal-orientation, innovation-orientation, collaborative relationship among members, and supportive and structured leadership were strong predictors for the perceptions and the implementation of innovations. This is in line with previous findings’ suggestion that leadership and team encouragement supports innovation (Amabile et al., 1996). Hurley and Hult (1998) pointed out that a collaborative culture where people in a group actively help each other in their work is favourable to innovation. Participatory decision making was also identified as a significant factor influencing the implementation of collaborative learning and CSCL. This dimension is related to the organizational structure and the communication manner within an organization. As Kanter (1983) emphasized, organizational structures and a culture that supports horizontal communication are more likely to promote effective innovations. Flexible, flat and cross-functional operating structures can facilitate innovation. In addition, commitment and support from top management is a cornerstone of successful innovation (Schein, 1992). The results indicate that in order to be innovative, educational institutions need to pay special attention to the innovation orientation and the goal development of the institution, and the collaborative environment among the members and the leadership to structure and support innovations. The results also support the arguments from previous studies that the innovation culture within an organization increases the organizational performance, as innovative culture comprises values such as being receptive to new ideas, willing to take risks and supportive of try-outs (Martins and Terblanche, 2003).

The results also indicate that organizational culture is related to perceived need and views about instructional innovations in HEIs. Teachers’ perceived need and responsiveness to change is influenced by organizational features such as goal orientation and leadership. This supports a previous statement that an innovation climate plays a major role in influencing teachers’ innovation intentions and innovative teaching behaviour (Prosser et al., 2008). If teachers resist or object to changes, it may be related to an unclear goal or non-supportive leadership (Gitlin and Margonis, 1995). People’s perceptions and adoption of innovations are regarded as a reflection of the organizational culture, as in a more supportive and innovative culture people are more encouraged to learn new things and try new methods, new work processes or new technologies. Therefore, the adoption of innovations may be regarded as an output of organizational culture as the components of organizational culture such as norms, values and beliefs shape the innovation adoption of an organization.

Exploration of the relationship between organizational culture and educational innovations can yield useful insights for administrators of higher education institutions (Kotter and Heskett, 1992). The cultures, structures, practices, policies and goals of an educational institution determine the success or failure of the implementation of innovations. Next to organizational culture, available research has also identified other organizational factors leading to the success of innovation adoption such as organizational size, structure and resources. The pace, scope and nature of the current driving forces require institutions to consider more systematic reform in shaping an innovative culture (Norris et al., 2008). Financial resources and time are also important factors leading to innovations (e.g. Amabile, 1998). In the case of Institution A, the driving forces are probably relatively stronger than those in the other types of institution. This could be the reason why Institution A (a first-class university) was more innovation-oriented than other institutions.

Fourth, this study provides valuable insights about the organizational cultural environment in the relevant Chinese universities. In general, there is a great need for innovations in higher education in China. The educational institutions regard innovation as the soul of the nation’s progress and prosperity. Facing the rapid development of world science and technology, and the challenges of competition for talent, the authorities are making great efforts to promote and implement innovation in higher education. These can be regarded as driving forces for change. However, there are several constraints that affect the progress of innovations in China’s higher education. One of the constraints is educational concepts or principles. In this study, teachers’ views about instructional innovations were studied. The results show that teachers’ views were not very innovation-oriented. For example, being a good lecturer (teacher-centred approach in the classroom) has been considered an important criterion for good teaching. Secondly, the traditional culture and organizational culture affects the progress of innovations. Confucian culture is the main body of Chinese traditional culture, which stresses obedience, rules, hierarchy, respect for authority, and the ‘neutral way’ of behaviour. Therefore, independent and critical thinking, the ability to take risks and the nurturing of innovative ideas are neglected. Third, in recent years, general education reform has become the spotlight in Chinese universities in their efforts to catch up with world standards and become recognized in the international arena. However, the new model of educational reform has sometimes encountered conflicts with the traditional educational structures. For example, the traditional education model favours specialized education with very detailed segmentation of disciplines. Teachers and students in one field of discipline may often be limited to their own specialized field, which can make them less open and can restrict the development of their innovative ability. Last but not least, although major reform has been conducted to restructure the universities, such as merging of institutions and consolidation of resources, the administration structures remain hierarchical, with a top-down management system (Gao, 1992). The leaders of universities have political rankings, for example, the president of a university under the 985 programme has a ranking equivalent of vice-minister. This sometimes, on the one hand, can facilitate decision making, but on the other hand, this organizational structure can be bureaucratic and respond slowly to a changing environment within which the organization operates (Robbins and Coulter, 2004). Under this hierarchical pyramid organizational structure, the communication channel is not always easy and transparent, and communication across various sections can be poor. This structure hinders interdepartmental communication and frequent sharing of ideas (Woodman et al., 1993). Therefore, it can be a negative barrier for innovations in higher education. Linked to this, the participatory decision making in some institutions is low and the decisions made are often not democratic and effective (Zhu et al., 2011). Furthermore, the autonomy of institutions, faculties and individual teachers is constrained. For example, the autonomy of teachers is restricted with regard to curriculum design, establishment of courses and choice of text books. In this way, teachers’ autonomy and initiatives in teaching innovation is also restricted or constrained. Additionally, recent research has shown that university staff are under heavy pressure with high workloads and spiritual stress, especially in some key research-based universities (Pan, 2007). In recent years, the universities started to orient themselves as either research-based university, education and research-based university or education-based university. In 2011, 36 universities were identified as research-based university, with 33 of them part of the 985 programme and three of them part of the 211 programme. Building high-level universities has become a key strategy for the development of Chinese higher education. This has, on the one hand, brought more resources for the key universities to invest in research and other innovative activities, and on the other hand, brought more stress for faculty members to achieve a balance between research output and innovative teaching. Some are struggling to seek various kinds of research project at the expense of having little time to invest in teaching. In order to encourage innovations in teaching and learning, many factors have to be considered, including a balanced assessment of teachers, so teachers’ performance in teaching can also be acknowledged or awarded in HEI. In summary, hierarchical structures, lack of encouragement and reward, lack of open communication, competition of resources, and workload are main restraining forces for change in some Chinese universities.

The results of this research are helpful to understand the organizational cultural environment of educational institutions and its relationship to the adoption of educational innovations. Furthermore, the results of the research can give insights about how educational institutions can be linked to the improvement of educational practices and adoption of innovations by analysing the organizational cultural features of an institution. This research demonstrates that organizational culture dimensions such as goal orientation, innovation orientation, leadership and collegial relationship are strong predictors for teachers’ and students’ perceived need, views, responsiveness and implementation of instructional innovations. Therefore, in order to encourage innovations, the factors that compose the organizational culture should be attended to. Within a positive, collaborative and supportive organizational culture, actors from different levels can be encouraged to develop their practices and adapt to innovations accordingly.

Implications, methodological remarks, limitations and future research

This is a first empirical study to examine organizational culture features of higher education institutions in the Chinese context. It is also a pioneer study to examine the specific instructional innovation trends in Chinese universities. The study demonstrates that organizational culture is closely linked to educational innovations. Next to that, the type of institutions and different stakeholders (such as students and teachers) also plays a role in the responsiveness and reactions to educational change. This study contributes to the research field in higher education by operationalizing the measurement of instructional innovation trends and examining the relationship between organizational culture features and the instructional innovations.

In this research, a quantitative method was used, which can have the advantages of gathering standardized components of data and conducting research on a relatively large scale. Scholars interested in organizational culture have been discussing for years the pros and cons of qualitative or quantitative ways of looking at culture (Aiman-Smith, 2004; Martin, 2002). Qualitative research can collect rich qualitative data that is vital to deep understanding (e.g. Schein, 1999), while quantitative methods are capable of using hard data to compare and analyse relationships (e.g. Cameron and Freeman, 1991). We opted for standardized hard data for this study. However, we are aware that qualitative methods can explore in depth the richness of perceptions and experience inside an organization and discover features that are not constrained to a defined list of dimensions. Using mixed methods can better serve the research goals. Therefore, in future studies, interviews, case studies and observations can be used to capture the insider views and emotions of people in the organizations.

A few other limitations of the study need to be noted. First of all, although the student and teacher samples were sufficient, the number of institutions that were involved in this study was limited. Future studies can consider more institutions and conduct multi-level analysis to estimate how much of the variations of educational innovations would be attributed to differences between institutions and those between individuals. Second, we realize that next to organizational culture, there are many other factors that influence students’ and teachers’ perceptions and adoption of innovations, for example, the national education policies, the overall socio-cultural environment, the teaching and learning evaluation system. It would be useful to study these factors in future studies. Third, we examined organizational culture in the seven defined dimensions. However, we note that other theoretical models can be applied to analyse organizational culture, such as using the social-technical theory to examine organizations from a social and technical perspective (Pan and Scarbrough, 1998). Fourth, we studied perceived need, views, responsiveness and implementation of instructional innovations as dependent variables predicting from organizational culture. We are aware that the first three factors can be conditions for the last factor. Future studies could focus more on the process of innovations taking these factors into consideration. Finally, this study examined the views of only teachers and students. Future research could take into consideration the views of other actors and stakeholders in higher education.

In conclusion, this study provides evidence that an innovative, open and supportive organizational culture with clear goals, collaborative spirit and shared vision is important for the implementation of instructional innovations. Among the organizational culture dimensions, goal orientation and collegial relationship seem to be the most influential factors. This indicates that in a nurturing and collaborative environment, learners and educators are more inclined to try new things. Innovation in education is a complex system; only in-depth organizational and cultural changes can make general education reform in Chinese universities sustainable and successful.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References

Adamy

Heinecke

(2005) The influence of organizational culture on technology integration in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 13(2): 233–255.

Aguinis

Roth

(2005) Teaching in China: Culture-based challenges. In: Alon

McIntyre

(eds) Business and Management Education in China: Transition, Pedagogy, and Training. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing, pp.141–164.

Ahmed

(1998) Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 1(1): 30–43.

Aiman-Smith

(2004) What do we know about developing and sustaining a culture of innovation. The Journal of Marketing 57(1): 23–27.

Amabile

Conti

Coon

Lazenby

Herron

(1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal 39(5): 1154–1185.

Amabile

(1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In: Stew

Cummings

(eds) Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI, pp.123–167.

Angle

(1989) Psychology and organisational innovation. In: Van de Ven

Angle

Poole

(eds) Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies. New York: Ballinger/Harper & Row, pp.135–170.

Austin

Ahern

English

(1997) The Professional School Dean: Meeting the Leadership Challenges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Black

Gregersen

(2002) Leading Strategic Change. New York, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

10.

Buggie

(2001) The four phases of innovation. The Journal of Business Strategy 22(5): 36–43.

11.

Cameron

Freeman

(1991) Cultural congruence, strength, and type: Relationships to effectiveness. Research in Organizational Change and Development 5: 23–58.

12.

Cameron

Quinn

(1999) Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

13.

Carlopio

(1998) Implementation: Making Workplace Innovation and Technical Change Happen. Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Christensen

(1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

15.

Chun

Evans

(2009) Bridging the Diversity Divide: Globalization and Reciprocal Empowerment in Higher Education. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

16.

Claver

Llopis

Garcia

(1998) Organizational culture for innovation and new technological behavior. Journal of High Technology Management Research 9(1): 55–68.

17.

Cohen

Ball

(2007) Educational innovation and the problem of scale. In: Schneider

McDonald

S-K

(eds) Scale-up in Education: Ideas in Principle. Plymouth, UK: Rowman and Littlefield, vol. 1, pp.19–36.

18.

Cooper

(1998) A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation. Management Decision 36(8): 493–502.

19.

Cousins

Ross

Maynes

(1994) The reported nature and consequences of teachers’ work in three exemplary schools. The Elementary School Journal 94(4): 441–465.

20.

Creemers

BPM

(2002) From school effectiveness and school improvement to effective school improvement: Background, theoretical analysis, and outline of the empirical study. Educational Research and Evaluation 8(4): 343–362.

21.

De Brentani

Kleinschmidt

(2004) Corporate culture and commitment: Impact on performance of international new product development programs. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 21(5): 309–333.

22.

Devos

Bouckenooghe

Engels

(2007) An assessment of well-being of principals in Flemish primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration 45(1): 33–61.

23.

Flores

(2004) The impact of school culture and leadership on new teachers’ learning in the workplace. International Journal of Leadership in Education 7(4): 297–318.

24.

Fullan

(1992) Successful School Improvement. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

25.

Fullan

(1993) Change Forces: Probing in the Depth of Educational Reform. London: Falmer Press.

26.

Fullan

(2001) Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Wiley.

27.

Fullan

Ballew

(2004) Leading in a culture of change: Personal action guide and workbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Fullan

Hargreaves

(1992) What’s Worth Fighting for in your School? Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

29.

Gao

(1992) History of Chinese Thought of Higher Education. Beijing: People's Educational Press.

30.

Ghaith

Yaghi

(1997) Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education 13(4): 451–458.

31.

Gitlin

Margonis

(1995) The political aspect of Reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education 103(3): 377–405.

32.

Guskey

(1988) Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education 4(1): 63–69.

33.

Hallinger

(2003) Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education 33(3): 329–351.

34.

Hargreaves

(1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers' Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. New York: Teachers College Press.

35.

Hesselbein

Goldsmith

Somerville

(2001) Leading for Innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

36.

Hofman

WHA

Guldemond

(2002) School governance, culture, and student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education 5(3): 249–272.

37.

Holsapple

Joshi

(2001) Organizational knowledge resources. Decision Support Systems 31(4): 39–54.

38.

Hoy

Tarter

(1997) The Road to Open and Healthy Schools: A handbook for change, Elementary Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

39.

Hoy

Miskel

(2008) Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

40.

Huberman

Miles

(1984) Innovation Up Close: How School Improvement Works. New York: Plenum Press.

41.

Hurley

Hult

(1998) Innovation, market orientation and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing 62(1): 42–54.

42.

Jassawalla

Sashittal

(2002) Cultures that support product innovation processes. Academy of Management Executive 16(1): 42–53.

43.

Kanter

(1983) The Change Masters: Innovation for Productivity in the American Corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.

44.

Kanter

(1988) When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In: Straw

Cummings

(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 169–211.

45.

Keup

Astin

Lindholm

Walker

(2001) Organizational culture and institutional transformation. In: Astin

Astin

(eds) Transforming Institutions: Context and Process. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

46.

Kezar

Eckel

(2002) The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education 73(4): 435–460.

47.

King

(1990) Innovation at work: The research literature. In: West

Farr

(eds) Innovation and Creativity at Work. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

48.

King

Anderson

(1995) Innovation and Change in Organizations. London: Routledge.

49.

Kirschner

Strijbos

Kreijns

(2004) Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development 52(3): 47–66.

50.

Kotter

Heskett

(1992) Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: The Free Press.

51.

Kozma

(1985) A grounded theory of instructional innovation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education 56(3): 300–319.

52.

Kreijns

Kirschner

Jochems

(2002) The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Technology and Society 5(1): 8–22.

53.

Leavy

(2005) A leader's guide to creating an innovation culture. Strategy and Leadership 33(4): 38–45.

54.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2000) Transformational school leadership effects: A replication. School Effectiveness & School Improvement 10(4): 451–479.

55.

Lund

(2003) Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 18(3): 219–236.

56.

Magno

Sembrano

(2007) The Role of teacher efficacy and characteristics on teaching effectiveness, performance, and use of learner-centered practices. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 16(1): 73–91.

57.

Mckeown

(2008) The Truth About Innovation. Pearson/Financial Times. ISBN 0273719122.

58.

Marcoulides

Heck

Papanastasiou

(2005) Student perceptions of school culture and achievement: Testing the invariance of a model. International Journal of Educational Management 19(2): 140–152.

59.

Martin

(2002) Organizational Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

60.

Martins

Terblanche

(2003) Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 6(1): 64–74.

61.

Maslowski

(2001) School Culture and School Performance: An Explorative Study into the Organizational Culture of Secondary Schools and their Effects. Endschede, The Netherlands: Twente University Press.

62.

Murphy

(1991) Restructuring schools: Capturing and Assessing the Phenomena. New York: Teachers College Press.

63.

Norris

Baer

Leonard

Pugliese

Lefrere

(2008) Action Analytics: Measuring and Improving Performance That Matters in Higher Education. Educause Review 43(1): 42–67.

64.

O’Reilly

(1989) Corporations, culture, and commitment: Motivation and social control in organizations. California Management Review 31(4): 9–25.

65.

Pan

(2007) A Study on Research-oriented University Teachers' Job Satisfaction. Modern education 10(2): 111–115.

66.

Pan

Scarbrough

(1998) A Socio-Technical View of Knowledge-Sharing at Buckman Laboratories. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(1): 55–66.

67.

Paulson

(2002) Reconfiguring faculty roles for virtual settings. The Journal of Higher Education 73(1): 123–140.

68.

Peters

Waterman

RHJ

(1982) In Search of Excellence. New York: Warner Books.

69.

Prosser

Martin

Trigwell

(2008) University academics’ experience of research and its relationship to their experience of teaching. Instructional Science 36(1): 3–16.

70.

Pulford

(2011) The influence of advice in a virtual learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology 42(1): 31–39.

71.

Rashid

Sambasivan

Johari

(2003) The influence of corporate culture and organisational commitment on performance. Journal of Management Development 22(8): 708–728.

72.

Reigeluth

(1994) The imperative for systemic change. In: Reigeluth

Garfinkle

(eds) Systemic Change in Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

73.

Rich

(1990) Ideological impediments to instructional innovation: The case of cooperative learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 6(1): 81–91.

74.

Robbins

Coulter

and (2004) Management (7th ed.), New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, pp. 354–357.

75.

Schein

(1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

76.

Schein

(1999) The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

77.

Schein

(2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

78.

Schmuck

Runkel

(1994) The Handbook of Organization Development in Schools and Colleges (4th ed.) Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

79.

Schneckenberg

(2009) Understanding the real barriers to technology enhanced innovation in higher education. Educational Research 51(4): 411–424.

80.

Senge

(1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organisation. New York: Doubleday.

81.

Simsek

Seashore

(1994) Organizational change as paradigm shift: Analysis of the change process in a large, public university. The Journal of Higher Education 65(6): 670–695.

82.

Smith

(1998) The development of an innovation culture. Management Accounting 76(2): 22–24.

83.

Staessens

(1990) De professionele cultuur van basisscholen in vernieuwing. Een empirisch onderzoek in V.L.O.-scholen. Proefschrift. Leuven: KU Leuven.

84.

Stevens

(2004) Why do educational innovations come and go? What do we know? What can we do? Teaching and Teacher Education 20(4): 389–396.

85.

Stroll

(1999) Realising our potential: Understanding and developing capacity for lasting improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 10(4): 503–532.

86.

Swenson

(2005) Change drivers. In: Taher

(ed.) Dynamics of Change Management. Hyderabad, India: ICFAI University Press, pp.23–43.

87.

Tierney

(2008) Trust and organizational culture in higher education. In: Välimaa

Ylijoki

(eds) Cultural Perspectives on Higher Education. New York: Springer, pp.27–41.

88.

Towndrow

Silver

Albright

(2009) Setting expectations for educational innovations. Journal of Educational Change 11(4): 425–455.

89.

Vickers

(2006) Building and sustaining a culture that supports innovation. Human Resource Planning 29(3): 9–19.

90.

Walczyk

Ramsey

Zha

(2007) Obstacles to instructional innovation according to college science and mathematics faculty. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44(1): 85–106.

91.

Woodman

Sawyer

Griffin

(1993) Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review 18(2): 293–321.

92.

(2009) The analysis of organizational culture in Chinese higher educational context. The Journal of theoretical research 7(2): 144–147.

93.

Yalcinalp

Gulbahar

(2010) Ontology and taxonomy design and development for personalised web-based learning systems. British Journal of Educational Technology 41(6): 883–896.

94.

Yeung

Brockbank

Ulrich

(1991) Organizational culture and human resources practices: An empirical assessment. In: Woodman

Pasmore

(eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development. London: JAI Press, pp. 59–82.

95.

Zhang

(2009) General education reform in Chinese universities: The perspective of organizational culture. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Conference of the Comparative and International Education Society, Charleston, SC, USA. Available at: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p302092_index.html (accessed 6 March 2011).

96.

Zhu

(2012) Flemish and Chinese students' satisfaction, performance and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society 15(1): 127–136.

97.

Zhu

(2013) The effect of cultural and school factors on the implementation of CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology 44(3): 484–501. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01333.x

98.

Zhu

Valcke

Devos

(2009) A Case Study of School Culture in China. ECER 2009 Annual Conference, Theory and Evidence in European Educational Research, 26–30 September 2009, Vienna.

99.

Zhu

Devos

(2011) Teacher perceptions of school culture and their organizational commitment and well-being in a Chinese school. Asia Pacific Education Review 12(2): 319–328.

100.

Zhu

Valcke

Schellens

(2009) A cross-cultural study of online collaborative learning. Multicultural Education and Technology Journal 3(1): 33–46.

101.

Zhu

Valcke

Schellens

(2010) A cross-cultural study of teacher perspectives on teacher roles and adoption of online collaborative learning in higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education 33(2): 147–165.