Running head: ARTICLE ANALYSIS

Team Wolfpack Project 2: Critical Analysis of The Factors of Encouraging Teacher Innovation

From the Perspective of Teachers and Headmasters

Kelly Bettencourt, Crystala Button, Gia Devlin, and Eric Zachary

California State University, Monterey Bay

April 5, 2018

IST520 Learning Theories

Professor Fischer
ARTICLE ANALYSIS 2

Critical Analysis of The Factors of Encouraging Teacher Innovation From the Perspective of

Teachers and Headmasters

The research compiled by Milena Valenčič Zuljan and Janez Vogrinc in the article The

Factors of Encouraging Teacher Innovation From the Perspective of Teachers and

Headmasters, dives deep into what it takes for teachers and headmasters to successfully

implement innovation through all of the challenges that they face in education. The result of this

descriptive hypothesis led to both quantitative and experimental findings. Zuljan and Vogrinc

begin with a descriptive research explanation of the phenomenon of innovation and the fact that

the “teacher’s role is becoming increasingly demanding and the expectations of the teacher [are]

even higher” (Zuljan & Vogrinc, 2010, p. 456). This was followed by a quantitative discussion

of school atmosphere, teacher relationships, and other cultural stressors that may affect an

educator’s ability to implement innovative learning into their workspace. Through this research,

an experimental cause and effect relationship was found between the support of teachers and the

evaluation of successful innovation.

The study was designed to research the preparedness of teachers and headmasters with

reference to creating innovative lessons, implementing said lessons, and evaluating the successes

of innovation. This research was to be completed to further understand what it takes to be an

innovative educator. Innovation is necessary for real gains to be made in the classroom;

therefore, this research was conducted to see not only how much innovation is happening, but

also what impact this innovation may or may not have on the teacher/headmaster and the student.

To begin this research, the “challenges that today’s schools and teachers are facing” (Zuljan &

Vogrinc, 2010, p. 456) must be in the forefront. Questions are clearly stated in the introduction

with regards to these concerns. The hypothesis can best be summarized as “the teachers’ capacity
ARTICLE ANALYSIS 3

to undertake research that enables systematic gathering of data about the implemented

innovation” and the ability to assess success of said innovation by being “evaluated by

practitioners” while allowing for the “help of other experts” (Zuljan & Vogrinc, 2010, p. 259).

These clear statements appear to have a positive bias. The researchers were intrigued by the

research topic, and that allowed for a positive interaction with the data. The researchers did not

seem surprised that teachers were less likely to evaluate their performance. This could mean

there is possible bias against teachers and their ability. Yet, they seem to encourage innovation in

education and want to find a way for it to be a part of each teacher’s curriculum.

Zuljan and Vogrinc made a compelling case for research on innovation. However, for

those involved in education already, it could be information that is mostly already known. It

would be beneficial for the research to shift focus slightly and look to more of the school

environment as a larger factor. The authors do briefly mention that teachers are less likely to

“pursue innovative work” (Zuljan & Vogrinc, 2010, p. 466) when they are overworked and

undervalued. This sub-topic seems to be the crux of innovation, so one would hope that this topic

would be researched further.

Research Procedure

Questionnaires were completed by teachers and headmasters in Slovenia. The data was

collected in May of 2010. The questionnaires consisted of four evaluation scales, a semantic

differential, and a set of questions designed to gain information regarding personal data about the

teachers and headmasters (Zuljan & Vogrinc, 2010). The 1024 teachers who completed the

survey were 82.6% women and 17.4% men. They had an average of 18.14 years of experience

and an average age of 42.12 years. A majority, 68.3%, were primary school teachers with 16.9%

teaching grammar school and 14.8% teaching vocational secondary school. This sampling is
ARTICLE ANALYSIS 4

representative of the target teaching population in Slovenia where over 96% of primary teachers

are female (“Women teachers largely over-represented”, 2016). The sampling is also

representative of the average years of teaching experience. The target teaching population has an

average of 23.4 years teaching experience for primary school and 19 years of experience for

grammar school ("Slovenia Teacher Qualifications Stats", n.d.). The 59 headmasters who

completed the survey were 33.9% women and 66.1% men. They averaged 27.22 years of work

experience and 9.5 years as headmasters. The average age of the headmasters was 50.29 years.

Among the headmasters, 66.1% worked in primary schools, 22.1% worked in grammar schools,

and 11.9% worked in vocational secondary schools (Zuljan & Vogrinc, 2010). Statistics on

headmaster populations in Slovenia could not be found, so it is unclear if the study was

representative of the target population with regards to headmasters.

The measurements from the study were valid and reliable. The data collected from the

questionnaire was “treated [with] descriptive and inferential statistics” (Zuljan & Vogrinc, 2010,

p. 460). The authors used a variety of statistical analyses, including frequency distribution (f, f%)

of attributive variables, basic descriptive statistics of numerical variables (means & distribution),

the Kullback 2I test for hypothesis independence, the Levene test of the homogeneity of

variances, and the t-test (Zuljan & Vogrinc, 2010).

The research procedures were appropriate for the study. The research questions were

applicable to the objectives as well as the population surveyed. The research questions; however,

were not clearly described so that others could replicate them. The survey questions were not

restated, but were vaguely described in the results (Zuljan & Vogrinc, 2010). The general idea of

what the questions might have been could be extrapolated from the data. The evaluation scales
ARTICLE ANALYSIS 5

for responses varied for the questions and could not be duplicated based on the information

given.

Research Results

Appropriate statistical techniques were used according to the information found in Zuljan

and Vogrinc’s research. As previously stated, the authors used both descriptive and inferential

statistics to analyze their research. By using inferential statistics, the authors have more

accurately accounted for the composition of the Slovenian teaching and headmaster population.

The authors could use their questionnaire to gather more detailed results by using scaled

answers. Instead of simply asking yes or no questions, the authors used four and five-point scale

responses. By using these types of questions, the authors were able to gather more precise data

on their respondents’ positions, which, in turn, led to better recommendations for further

research.

The authors explained that the data was gathered using questionnaires and that 1042

teachers and 52 headmasters responded; however, there was no reference to those that did not

respond. Most of the respondents indicated that they were both satisfied or very satisfied with

their jobs, and that they were of average competence or above in most areas of designing and

implementing innovation (Zuljan & Vogrinc, 2010). By not providing any information on those

that did not respond, it leads readers to believe that the findings may be skewed. One cannot

fully understand what and who might have been left out of the research findings. One might

assume that teachers who were not satisfied with their jobs or felt less competent in their ability

to design and implement innovation might be less likely to participate in the study; therefore,

possibly skewing the data more favorably. Each variable in the study appears to have emerged in

a meaningful way. The questionnaire used a four-point scale to collect data on attitude and a
ARTICLE ANALYSIS 6

five-point scale to measure methods of encouraging innovative teaching. This data from the

questionnaire was analyzed using descriptive statistics where a simple mean of the respondents’

results was used.

The authors focused on three areas of the study in which it is clear that both the teachers

and the headmasters closely agreed. Both groups indicated that well-equipped schools, greater

recognition/acknowledgment, which might include a better salary, and a reduction in workload

are the “key factors which would encourage teachers to implement pedagogical innovations”

(Zuljan & Vogrinc, 2010, p. 465).

The authors also draw attention to the areas of greatest contrast between the teachers and

the headmasters. Headmasters put higher importance on having a resource expert on staff to

work with the teachers to design and implement innovations. In addition, the headmasters also

indicated that “innovating should be part of every teacher’s regular job description” (Zuljan &

Vogrinc, 2010, p. 466). Teacher respondents did not place as great of importance on the two

areas and, instead, indicated that having a well-equipped school was more important.

Discussion of Results

The researchers concluded that, in general, teachers tend to have a positive outlook on

innovation and change. However, that is based off very specific environmental factors, which the

researchers clearly outline in the article. It is possible that different environments might lead to

different results. Teachers must have the support and professional development opportunities to

successfully make this change towards innovative teaching and to support it in the long run.

Their data analysis concluded that by taking care of the key factors, educators can promote the

use of innovation in the classroom comfortably (Zuljan & Vogrinc, 2010, p. 465).

The researchers in this study reasonably explained their findings and their conclusion
ARTICLE ANALYSIS 7

coincided with their data. The surveys administered by the researchers were specific, which

helped them paint a clear picture of their results. These results were distinctly explained in their

summary. As stated above, since the researchers did not provide information for the teachers

who did not partake in this study, one cannot be sure of which types of teachers were surveyed.

The types of teachers who did not respond in this survey may be the exact type of teacher that

they are talking about not being willing to make the change. Having a better understanding of

those left out of the survey may help those interpreting the research have a better insight of the

data instead of seeing what could be a skewed representation of the results.

The researchers drew reasonable implications for practice from their findings. In order

for staff to be inspired to tackle this change, there are many other factors that contribute to

innovation in the classroom. These obstacles, low pay, low level of acknowledgement, etc., can

weaken a teacher’s ability to make change. Educators are not going to do this on their own, but

with the right criteria, it can lead to more successful innovative changes.
ARTICLE ANALYSIS 8

Summary

Zuljan and Vogrinc’s research sheds light on what is most needed for teachers and

headmasters to be successfully innovative. The Wolfpack found this research interesting and

useful as we all train teachers and staff to some level. Having the background knowledge of what

it takes to instill innovative thinking in teachers and administrators can better prepare us to work

with and inspire our staff. This study is valuable to educators and the educational system.

Districts can use these results to frame professional development and to create programs that

give teachers and headmasters a feeling of accomplishment and value. In the future, this research

can be used to further analyze the effects of school culture on teachers and headmasters as well.
ARTICLE ANALYSIS 9

Resources

Pearson Prentice Hall (Ed.). (2009). The Role and Importance of Research [Google

Slide]. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Jh60UxQ9XX0N

wBZZMyqjOCz4sFjpBhLu20wjgnaL6_4/edit#slide=id.p4

“Slovenia Teacher qualifications Stats", NationMaster. Retrieved from

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Slovenia/Education/Teacher-

qualifications

Women teachers largely over-represented in primary education in the EU, Eurostat, 2016.

Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7672738/3-0410201

6-BP-EN.pdf/9f0d2d04-211a-487d-87c3-0a5f7d6b22ce

Zuljan, M. V., & Vogrinc, J. (n.d.). The Factors of Encouraging Teacher Innovation From

the Perspective of Teachers and Headmasters [PDF]. Retrieved from

http://www.pef.uni-lj.si/ceps/knjiznica/doc/zuljan-vogrinc.pdf