How to examine educational organization absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations? [sic]

How to examine educational organization absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations?

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research Post Graduate and New Researcher Pre-Conference, University of Crete, 20-21 September 2004

The world nowadays is distinguished for intensive strive towards knowledge and information society qualities and an abundance of technological, political, social and cultural changes inspired by technological and social progress, intensive competition between individuals, organizations, countries and social systems. The current time is full of danger and risk, new experience and opportunities. Transformational processes in the whole change context accumulate and generate innovations comprising all spheres of life, and their development becomes relevant and significant, as effectiveness of innovations in many cases determine the success of transformations and condition the results of political, social and economical reforms.

Changes in the society affect changes in all levels of education. Change in educational system gains exceptional importance, as it is related not only with education, but with social transformation from the modern to the post-modern period. Educational system has to empower individuals to live and act in the post-modern society. Educational organizations and individuals get more and more affected by the requirements of the rapid and complicated post-modern world and unforeseen events. That is why it becomes inevitable to look for ways and forms that could help meeting these requirements. One of the ways of stimulating educational change is pedagogical innovations which being a part of educational innovations becomes very important.

Fullan (2001) states, that nowadays the main problem is no longer the absence of innovations at school, but the presence of too many disconnected, episodic, fragmented, superficially adorned projects. Schools that take on or are forced to take on every policy and innovation that comes along may look innovative at a distance but actually have a severe case of "projectitis" or meaninglessness. There is a growing abundance of innovative ideas around the world. The goal is to appreciate the necessity and richness of external knowledge, but not become victimized by it.

Innovations and educational innovations as a field of scientific research were analyzed by many authors: Barnett, 1973; Marsh, Willis, 1995; Rogers, 1995; Krainet, 2001; Miles, 1968; Dalin, Rolf, Kleekamp, 1999; Olroyd, Usner, Postner, 1996; Reilly, Tushman, 1997; Eadie, 1997; King 1990; Howell, Higgens, 1990; Kottler, Bliumel, 1995; Wagner, 1994; Beal, Bohlen, 1968; Simons, 1974; Paulston, 1978; Altrichter, Posch, 1996; Van de Ven, 1989; Schley, 1998; Vrakking, Cozijnsen, 1988; Clayton, 1998 etc.

Peculiarities of educational innovation implementation in the aspect of different subjects – pedagogues, leaders of educational institutions, educational innovation implementation partners –were analyzed by Fullan (1998);

The types of educational innovations, the factors determining the success of their implementation were analyzed by Fullan, Hargreaves (1996); Huberman, Miles (1984); Stringfield (1993); Clayton (1997); Hord, Rutherford, Hulling-Austin Hall (1987) worked on educational innovation implementation in the context of pedagogue’s activity and the change agent’s role.

The importance of educational innovation implementation in the context of educational institution modernization were analyzed in the works of Lithuanian researchers: Janiūnaitė, (1999-2003); Tumėnienė (2002); Želvys (1999); Valiuškevičiūtė (2001); Starbuck, (1992); Verteramo,(2002), Stankevičiūtė, (2002) researched knowledge intensive organizations.

Educational institution in the constantly changing environment has to be receptive and open to it. Insularity leads toward self-isolation and, finally, toward backwardness. Teacher or educational organization is receptive when it does not live in isolation, has a wish to communicate and co-operate, take from the external world and give to it in return. A receptive teacher or organization is not only positive toward external and internal co-operation, but able to select the most valuable innovations from the whole flow.

The items mentioned above are of great importance to the countries under transition. Lithuania being on the threshold to the European Union faces an abundance of different changes in all spheres of life. Education is one of the spheres where changes are mostly inevitable. Lithuanian educational institutions have to be especially receptive to external and internal changes in order to adapt in the new environment of the nearest future.

In relation to the above mentioned context, we have tried to answer the following research question: what main factors should be taken into consideration in order to examine educational organization absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations?

The relationship between data, knowledge and innovation plays an important role in innovation implementation. These concepts are sometimes used synonymously. It is important to disclose what is being absorbed by individuals and organizations – knowledge or innovation, and whether these concepts are interchangeable.

J.Stankevičiūtė (2002), referring to Barabba and Zaltman (1991), considers the relationship of the above mentioned concepts as a pyramid (hierarchy) (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. The hierarchy of data – information - knowledge (Barabba and Zaltman, 1991)

As these authors state, the difference between data, information and knowledge might be interpreted in the following way: data are meaningless, objective, not associated facts; information is data that acquired their value while organizing, structuralizing and processing them. Nevertheless, rather high objectiveness is still typical of information, as it acquires its value from the receiver. Information is transformed into knowledge by interpreting and integrating it with the existing knowledge, values, experience, attitudes and intuition of the receiver.

J. M. Firestone, M.W.McElroy (2003) present a different picture of the relationship between data, information and knowledge. They ask a rhetoric question whether data are information. To their thinking, information consists of data, as they are determined by a certain conceptual context. It is also important that this conceptual context expresses data in a structurally determined format. That is why data are a kind of information, the conceptual context of which provides data with a structure and the aim of which is to reflect notices.

According to these authors, information in its more general sense is data plus conceptual transmissions and interpretations, or only transmissions or interpretations. Information is often extracted, filtered or in some other way formatted data.

J. M. Firestone, M.W.McElroy (2003) also analyze a pyramid, but it is more complex: data are in the bottom; information acquired from data stands above them; knowledge created from information by developing and revising it goes above the latter; on the top of the pyramid there is wisdom, as a concentrate of knowledge. Nevertheless, these authors again ask a rhetoric question: if data and knowledge are also information, what happens with the pyramid?

They suggest another expression of the relationship between data, information, knowledge and wisdom. Here information emerges not from data. Data and knowledge appear from the previous information. In other words, "just information", data, knowledge and problems are used in the knowledge life cycle in order to create more information, including new knowledge (see Fig 2). This way the researchers confute the pyramid.

Wisdom is not reflected in this knowledge life cycle, because, according to the same authors, it is knowledge about what a real, right and "just" (from the word "justice") decision is when evaluating activity through which everything that is just is trying to be achieved. Another point of view is that wisdom is the use of knowledge expressed by principles, with the help of which cautious and sensible decisions are made. Both definitions lead to the conclusion that wisdom is ambiguous and indeterminate. It is either a) a form of knowledge (also information) of what is right, or b) a certain decision (in this case it is not information, but a particular action in business process). Depending on how wisdom is determined, it can be a thing of a different context than data, information and knowledge.

The word innovation derives from a Latin word innovare, that means "to renew, to make new, or to change". There are many definitions of innovation. In this article we will stick to West, Farr (1990) conception of innovation: innovation is an idea, a decision to implement it , a process and a result that are subjectively understood as new, meaningful and important to a social unity, as well as a characteristics and means of organization in order to realize change.

Knowledge itself is not an innovation. It may be and often is the main assumption for the birth of innovation. Drucker (1999) calls such innovations knowledge-based.

Knowledge-based innovations differ from all other, as they need more time to appear, and they may bring the biggest achievements and loss. It will take relatively much time until new knowledge turns into useful technology, and later this technology appears in the market in the form of a product or service.

As Drucker (1999) claims, in order to be effective, innovation needs not one but several types of knowledge. According to this author, the most difficult aspect of knowledge application in innovation is singling out which information is the most important and suitable for innovation management, and which is irrelevant. For effective innovation management a systemic attitude towards knowledge is necessary.

According to Despres, Chauvel (2000), knowledge transformation and innovative activity manifest themselves through creativity in the level of an individual, creative synergy in the group level and innovative processes (e.g. new product creation) in the organizational level. An important role here is played by interaction of tacit and explicit knowledge, that was firstly described in detail by Nonaka (1994), analyzed by Hedlund (1994) and other authors.

When answering the question what individuals or organizations are striving to absorb – knowledge or innovations – an innovation process should be taken into consideration. Innovative process summarizes the results of innovative activity. It clearly uncloses in the phases of its organization, and in the context of basic scientific knowledge evolution is realized according to the principle of cycle: research – production (Jotautienė, 2003). This statement is supported by Gečas (2002) model of innovation origin. The author considers the way for an innovation to appear is a logical sequence: idea (expression of new knowledge and technologies) → innovative process in the organization when innovation is born → provision of the created product to the market → its return back to the organization in connection with commercial activity. As Jotautienė (2003) points out, it is necessary to note that a product created in the context of educational innovation implementation (new text books, methods, teaching/learning forms, ways etc) is first of all presented to the client – the learner. It does not necessarily fall into the educational market, i.e. it may not cross the boundary of educational institution. So it is important to emphasize that innovative process is an activity of idea and knowledge realization, when a concrete innovation is born.

All this leads us to the conclusion that educational organizations (like all other types of organizations) may absorb from the environment both knowledge and innovations as ready-made products when seeking their organization development. In the first case knowledge might be the base on which educational organization will create innovations. In the second case, innovation from outside will be adapted and developed in the organization. In both cases it is a long and rather complicated process.

P. Drucker (1999) points out that for an innovation to appear talent, sagacity and knowledge are needed. But apart from that, it will require hard, focused and purposeful work. Without diligence, persistence and devotion, talent, creativity and knowledge will not be fruitful.

In the context of the society development one of the basic concepts is innovation. We hear, read about various innovations and experience them ourselves. Prigožin (1998) suggests grouping them into material – technical and social sphere innovations. As public relations are formed in the context of society development, social innovation manifestations are likely to be noticed in all spheres: political, technical, economical and social. As Jotautienė (2003) points out, the importance of social components in the context of society development and the influence of social factor on the context of science and innovation evolution lead to the statement that there cannot be strict distinction between the groups of technical – material and social innovations, as social innovations might manifest themselves in any group of material – technical innovations, and in the context of technological innovation implementation they should become an assumption of their successful implementation.

The author of this article is of the opinion that social, technological and educational innovations (though differentiated) should be considered having certain links, as any innovation has an educational background. Any technological innovation will always require preparation and learning. That is why it would be sensible to talk about complex innovations: e.g. socio-educational or techno – educational.

If natural sciences have been dealing with innovation since their appearance, the category of educational innovation is relatively young.

In some definitions of educational innovation (Hopkins, 1990; Moisejev et al 1991; Niehof, 1966) the process is emphasized, during which new educational ideas, activities, elements are adopted, introduced, implemented and used in educational environment. Niehof et al (1966) points out that educational innovation is a process beginning with a certain idea that is adopted or rejected by potential users. Barnett (1973), Hopkins et al (1990) state that educational innovation is a new educational idea, program, way of activity, element etc. In all definitions it is possible to single out two aspects: a new educational idea (the object) and the process of innovation usage or even pickup from other subjects are emphasized. So two aspects of educational innovations can be distinguished – the contents (object) and the organizational (process).

In the aspect of contents the essence of innovation, the perception of what innovation is and what its influence object (levels of educational systems, school, pedagogical system) and aims are. The organizational aspect of process comprises the process of innovation implementation, studies, phases, steps, methods, procedures etc.

In this article we will keep to Marsh, Willis (1995) definition of educational innovation. It reflects best its aspects of contents and process: "Educational innovation is a new educational idea, practice and process during which this idea, object and practice is implemented in the levels of an individual, group, educational organization, educational system".

In order to disclose the relationship between educational and pedagogical innovations, it is necessary to clear up the essence of pedagogy and educational science. Jucevičienė (1997) defines pedagogy as the first phase of educational science, called "teaching research" and associated with educational practice. During the second phase the ideas of socialization and liberalization supplemented educational practice. They changed the attitude to educational institution as such – it became significant in the aspect of individual socialization. At the same time the research space became wider – it was no longer enough to analyze only educational process. The functions of school as an institution and its relationship with society had to be revealed, what encouraged philosophical research acquiring application of new analytic techniques. Ideas and processes became research objects. Educational research became more complicated and stimulated integration of the possibilities of all scientific areas. As the boundaries of educational science were broadened, a family of educational sciences emerged. Jucevičienė points out that the boundaries of educational science object broadened until the analysis of educational systems. The concept "educational studies" as "a science about human education and self-education throughout his/her lifetime comprises not only a micro-educational sphere where direct educational interaction takes palace (educational influence – learner’s reaction), but also macro-educational sphere – educational systems, their different educational, social and managerial problems" (Jucevičienė, 1997). It is much wider and reflects interaction with the aspects of society development. So pedagogy is considered to be a constituent part of educational studies

According to Prigožin’s (1989) social innovation classification, pedagogical innovations are considered as teaching and educational methods. However, as Jotautienė (2003) points out, it is a group of a much wider category – educational innovations. Such argumentation is inspired by Zagvezinski, Gilmanov’s (1997) definition of pedagogical innovation directions. These researchers define the following main directions of pedagogical innovations: humanization of education; personality-oriented educational process that manifests itself by differentiation and individualization of education; higher level of personal freedom (democratization); provision of possibilities for independent activity, choice and self-realization; development of teaching technologies that stimulates learners’ thinking, empowers activeness; computer and new technology implementation into educational process that allows optimization of routine elements of educational process by inspiring interaction between teacher and learner; aspiration to implement new technologies to ensure teacher’s freedom in choosing methods, organizational forms, educational environment; search for new ways of organization activity.

These researchers also associate all the directions of pedagogical innovations with educational process. Thus, it is important to identify pedagogy as a constituent part of educational science.

Voronov (2001) considers pedagogical innovations as novelties in pedagogical activity, changes in contents, teaching, education and other pedagogical activity technologies influencing effectiveness of pedagogical activity. It can be noticed that the conception of pedagogical innovations does not exceed the interaction between teacher and learner. Thus, it is associated with only one constituent part of educational science – pedagogy. Though while associating pedagogical innovations with the conceptions of general innovations and evaluating the aspects of educational institution development, the knowledge of pedagogy is not sufficient, as any new change in connection with new quality inevitably has to reflect managerial aspects. Besides, innovations as planned novelties require skills of educational planning, and their implementation is concurrent with educational economy. On the other hand, from the point of view of innovation as permanent activity, they cannot be dissociated from the analysis of educational systems. Having evaluated Prigožin (1989), Sovetova’s (2000) definition of pedagogical innovations as a group of educational innovations, Jotautienė (2003) points out that these authors consider pedagogical innovations as phenomena taking place during educational interaction. That is why, educational innovations should be analyzed in the context of change as phenomena reflecting changes in educational system, whereas pedagogical innovations should be considered as one of their groups.

The author of the article notices that pedagogical innovations are typical not only of pedagogical activity. The process of innovation implementation taking place in any business or production organization will require certain employees’ preparation and learning. In other words, it will be necessary for them to understand that innovation and to learn how to use it. So before starting implementing a technological innovation, pedagogical innovation implementation will be carried out, as in during the teaching/learning process new teaching/learning methods, teaching/learning aids will be introduced. There can be situations when a complex pedagogical innovation will be implemented – teaching/learning contents will be modified, methods changed, new teaching aids introduced. All these considerations prove that nowadays all types of innovations are strongly interrelated.

Educational institution in the constantly changing environment has to be receptive and open to it. Insularity leads toward self-isolation and, finally, toward backwardness.

Receptive, according to Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1961), means able or inclined to receive; open to ideas, impressions or suggestions. That is why receptivity might be defined as ability to conceive, adopt openness to ideas, impressions, suggestions. In this sense receptivity is close to openness and innovativeness.

Openness to innovations is a feature of an individual or organization to adopt or share new knowledge, suggestions, but this concept does not possess the so called "filter". It is openness to any innovation, with no selection, what often can be noticed in educational organizations and causes certain problems for individuals and organizations. According to D. Hopkins, M. Ainscow, M. West (1998), schools that experience too many innovations, become drifting, hyper-active. They have a certain perspective of change, but it is not a real change, as they implement anything what they learn and find out and get tired of that.

Innovative, according to Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1961), is characterized by, tending to, or introducing innovations.

Receptivity means ability or inclination to new ideas. Ability in the individual level means readiness, competence to adopt new ideas, whereas inclination is attitudes, motives. Receptivity is typical of intelligent, learning, innovative educational organizations. By its semantic meaning, receptivity is not so uncovered as openness, but still this concept it does not possess a "filter" or rational selection.

Another term – absorptive capacity - is more and more commonly used in research literature. It most often attributes IT implementation and usage or business topicalities. It is also a kind of receptivity, though different. In all the spheres (educational included) this term is used in the levels of organization and system.

Cohen & Levinthal (1990) define absorptive capacity as the capacity to identify, assimilate and exploit external sources of knowledge". These authors point out that absorptive capacity is increased through the following activities:

Watanable (1998) describes absorptive capacity as distinguishing profitable knowledge from different knowledge; internalizing accepted knowledge; embodying the internalized stock of knowledge to production process.

These authors emphasize a selective function of absorptive capacity, or, in other words, "a filter’": "the capacity to identify, assimilate and exploit external sources of knowledge" Cohen & Levinthal (1990); "distinguishing profitable knowledge from different knowledge" (Watanable, (1998). These aspects of absorptive capacity are interesting to the author of this article.

In Cohen & Levinthal’s (1990) definition three organizational processes conforming the absorptive capacity can be identified: identification, assimilation and exploitation of external knowledge. Zahra and George (2000) point out that there are four processes of absorptive capacity: acquisition, assimilation, transformation and exploitation of external knowledge. These researchers (2000) introduce the phase of acquisition instead of Cohen & Levinthal’s (1990) phase of identification and between the phases of assimilation and exploitation they insert a phase of transformation. Todorova and Durisin (2003) explain these two distributions of organizational processes in the following way: Zahra and George’s (2000) model is more appropriate for large firms with R&D possibilities, whereas a phase of identification, as the first phase of absorptive capacity, is more typical of small organizations these authors These researchers identify contingent factors of absorptive capacity; social integration mechanisms, appropriability regime and power relationships. As Dutrenit, Martinez (2004) emphasize, this allows us to argue that the absorptive capacity has a strong organizational component.

In the center of attention of absorptive capacity there is organizational knowledge and its influence on the abilities of organization to use innovations effectively having found out about them (Cohen, 1990). This author analyses two theories – contingency and absorptive capacity. The theory of contingency identifies many factors that affect adoption of information technologies and their usage in organizations. Whereas the theory of absorptive capacity is based on a great number of research by which the concepts of cognitive psychology are being tried to use in organizational environments. The theory of absorptive capacity deeper analyses organizational processes of technology acquisition, but faintly identifies the conditions stimulating or interfering organizational absorptive capacity.

Differently from openness or receptivity, absorptive capacity reflects a complex of characteristics: basic and special abilities, knowledge, general organizational culture and embodies selection of profitable innovations from the abundance of various novelties, their adoption and application. This allows making an assumption that the absorptive capacity covers the whole innovative process, whereas receptivity is more associated with the phases of initiation and idea generation (see Fig. 3.)

In this article we will keep to the following definition of absorptive capacity, based on Cohen & Levinthal (1990) and Watanable, (1998): it is the ability of an individual, a group or an organization to recognize the value of new and external knowledge, to assimilate it and use for their work task.

Fig. 3. The phases of pedagogical innovation implementation
(modified according to Miles, 1987)

As European dimensions point out (Jucevičienė, 1998), educational organization is an open institution, the whole, associated entity functioning in the society that is no longer only local, but being open to the world, is rather global. Thus it is possible to say that educational institution nowadays is open to the world and can absorb from the world.

Innovations reach us through various channels and in various ways. We may get them without leaving home or office. Modern technologies, mass media enable us to get massive flows of information. But in spite of all challenges of contemporary society, we should not ignore the fact that innovations sometimes are very close, and transformed into knowledge may become innovations. Sometimes you hear about them during a coffee break.

According to relationship with environment absorptive capacity can be internal and external. Internal absorptive capacity means striving to identify the best pedagogical experience inside the organization.

Teachers’ collaboration is one of the main sources of innovation within the internal environment. According to Fullan, 1998; Stoll, Fink, 1998, four cultures of teachers’ collaboration can be distinguished:

In internal environment several types of collaboration can be noticed. The first type is when teachers of the same discipline share their ideas and work together. Such collaboration helps them to develop the contents of their discipline, to introduce new teaching methods, to try teaching aids used by their colleagues.

Nowadays one discipline teachers’ collaboration is not sufficient in order to meet the requirements of contemporary education. Inter-disciplinary collaboration becomes more and more efficient, as it helps teachers to broaden their own knowledge, to associate the contents of their discipline with the others. The range of teaching/learning methods increases. All this enriches teachers with new knowledge and empowers them to implement more complex innovations. Students also benefit from inter-disciplinary knowledge that helps them to get a real picture of the things they learn.

Being receptive to pedagogical innovations requires constant development of qualification. In schools with strong culture of collaboration it is a norm to hold seminars where teachers with new ideas (created by themselves or adopted from outside) share them with their colleagues.

One more important source of innovations is communities of practice. These are certain groups of people that are related by common aims, interests, motives. At school they share their practical experience without any pressure from the administration, and it may become an impulse for the emergence of innovations.

In contemporary research literature we can notice a term „know-who"(Jensen, Johnson, Lorenz, Lundvall, 2004). The essence of it is that it becomes more and more necessary to know "who knows what, and who knows how to do what", as the knowledge base and division of labor is getting more complex. This concept also covers the formation of special relationship with experts what enables access and efficient use of knowledge. Collective „know-who" reflects both internal relationship between the school teachers and external ties with other organizations: partner schools, universities, production enterprises, etc.

External absorptive capacity is the capacity of an individual or organization to identify a useful innovation outside the boundaries of their own organization and its application in the organization seeking its development. Such innovations come from departments of education, schools of partnership, different projects. Though external absorptive capacity is more encouraged and lead by more attractive activity, collaboration with colleagues from other schools, countries, innovations incoming this way should be very well selected – whether they suit a particular culture.

Externally, teachers develop their qualification during various seminars, conferences, projects. At many schools it is common to assess teachers’ activity in attending different events by points or marks. Though, Fullan (1991) notices that often these forms of qualification development do not fully serve the purpose. He identifies the following main reasons:

In order to make these programs more effective, it is important to create infrastructure. A part of school work time should be devoted to teachers’ qualification development. Later this activity ought to be analyzed and assessed.

The author of the article points out the significance of partnership networks, as one of the sources of absorptive capacity. It is collaboration between related organizations (scientific, educational, production enterprises, etc.) in order to achieve common aims. Such collaboration often develops into project activity and exceeds national boundaries. Project activity stimulates teachers’ initiative, creativity, empowers them to recognize novelties, to identify their advantages that might be successfully used in their own or their school’s activity. Project activity stimulates teachers’ absorptive capacity, as they feel free to act and the final aim of the project makes them responsible for the project process and results. The majority of projects bring concrete benefit what also encourages teachers to take on this activity.

The subjects of absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations are teachers, students/pupils, educational institutions, educational management structures, etc. Due to a limited size of the article, we will analyze the main subject of absorptive capacity – teachers. Their absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations manifests itself through innovative activity. In this article we will keep to Janiūnaitė’s (2004) definition of innovative activity: it is a purposeful, structuralized activity within pedagogical system when teachers create or adopt, implement and disseminate educational innovations. On the bases of Potašnik, Lazarev (1995), the researcher points out that innovative activity consists of motives, aim, objectives, contents, forms, methods, results. The author of this article is of the opinion that the first three components of innovative activity structure – motives, aim and objectives – are the main assumptions for absorptive capacity, whereas the contents, forms, methods and results may be innovations that teachers would implement. Thus, they may be considered to be the objects of absorptive capacity. This is also approved by the definition of pedagogical innovations, analyzed in section 2 of this article

As Leonavičius et al (1993), point out that the aim is an imaginary result of a certain activity that a person is trying to achieve, create or acquire. The aims of teacher’s innovative activity are specific. As Janiūnaitė (2004) notices, they may be oriented towards the development of teaching (Fullan, 1998; Reardon, 1999), trying new things in practice (Burnaford, Gail, Fischer et al 1996), improvement of status quo (Hord et al, 1989), stimulation of students’ activeness (Bennett, Rolheiser, 1999), learning new things (Hargreaves, 1999), striving not to stay behind other colleagues and realize the requirements of school managers (Gross, Giacquinta, Bernstein, 1971), etc.

The aims of teacher’s activity are concurrent to the motives that stimulate them. According Almonaitienė (2000), internal motivation affects creativity and innovativeness more positively than external. The same might be said about absorptive capacity. Absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations driven by internal motivation can produce very positive results. Nevertheless, the influence of external motivation is equally important. In some cases it can affect, support and strengthen internal motivation. Almonaitienė (2000) states that during the phases of problem identification, idea generation internal motivation can likely play a positive role, whereas external motivation can be a negative factor, but external motivation can help to get involved into the activity, collect important information in the preparatory phases of idea generation.

One more significant assumption of teacher’s absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations is his/her personal forces: knowledge, abilities, skills, habits, attention, emotions, will, etc. Clayton, 1991, Staessens, 1993, Argyris, Putnam, Mclain, Smith, 1985 et al, analyzing the activity of a contemporary person who often has innovative characteristics, emphasize a wider space of human personal forces – competence and personal attitudes, interests, knowledge and abilities to apply them in practice. According to Janiūnaitė (2004), openness to one’s own or others’ experience, inclination to develop, to learn throughout one’s life, positivism, humanity in point of students might be considered to be the components of pedagogical attitudes towards innovative activity. The author of the article is of the opinion that these attitudes have a positive influence on absorptive capacity.

On the basis of Prigožin(1989), Kirton’s (1988) classification of innovators’ types, Tumėnienė, Janiūnaitė (2000) distinguish the types of teachers – creators and teachers – adopters. These researchers noticed that these two types of innovators differ in the level of creativity, perception of change and innovations that show up through their attitudes.

In the aspect of absorptive capacity, the author of this article considers significant to point out Rogers’ (1995) typology of innovation adopters, as this category of innovators are tend to adapt everything that is useful from the ideas of other people. According to individuals’ attitudes to innovations, Rogers suggests dividing them into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards.

Teachers – innovators are positive towards innovations, associated risk, barriers occurring when trying them in practice. They think that all the barriers are possible to overcome. Teachers of this type are of the opinion that it is very important to be interested in educational change, various innovations. Their point of view is that all innovations are unused possibilities, thus it is necessary to find them. The author of this article thinks that these teachers are very active in the aspect of absorptive capacity, their motivation is extremely strong. If their competence is sufficient or they are eager to learn, their absorptive capacity would be very high and might produce excellent results. They are perfect organizers. Though, if one of the mentioned conditions is missing, bare enthusiasm of such teachers might do much harm, as they are likely to take on any activity without consideration and deliberation

Teachers – early adopters think that innovative ideas should be tried (e.g. with a small group of students, during a few lessons, etc.), in order to prevent certain problems, failures. The teachers of this type are of the opinion that innovations should produce real practical benefit. That is why their selection is important (according to their suitability for development of teaching, improvement of students’ results, etc.). In the aspect of absorptive capacity, it is the most suitable type, as they are positive towards innovation implementation, are inclined to share knowledge with the others, to collaborate. As they would rather first weigh innovation and make sure it suits their context, their absorptive capacity will likely give better results that those of teachers – innovators, as it will be based on particular selection, even research.

The teachers who are considered to belong to the type of early majority, would rather be not the first nor the last implementing a certain innovation. They think enough time should be given to the analysis and decision making whether to implement or not a certain innovation. Absorptive capacity in this case is slower in comparison with the previous types. Teachers of this type are likely to be more stimulated by external motivation, as they lack enthusiasm and wish to get involved into innovative activity themselves. Their wish to test innovation is positive, but if this takes too long time, innovation is likely to be overtaken by others, or it will lose sense.

Teachers of late majority are very skeptical towards innovations and their implementation. They would rather not implement innovations until the majority of teachers do not do that and school leaders do not press tem. They have no wish to implement innovations, or due to various reasons resist them. If they ever implement innovations, they will do that only because of external motivation. They might lack competence. Absorptive capacity of such teachers is low. In such a case, assiduous teachers or those who always obey their leaders, might try to acquire the necessary knowledge and achieve rather high results. But those who do not develop their competence, will not perceive the essence of the innovation. In such a case, implementation of innovation will be more harmful than beneficial.

Teachers, who are relatively considered to be laggards, think that in pedagogical activity their and their colleagues’ experience is the base, and rapid changes in the class or at school while implementing innovations are impossible. A great number of older generation teachers have such opinions. They discourage them to raise qualification, to be interested in novelties. Such teachers’ absorptive capacity is extremely low because of both their negative attitude towards change and disability to catch up with life. This is the main reason why their competence is often limited.

According to the number of subjects, absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations can be individual and group. Individual absorptive capacity is the capacity of an individual to identify the value of new or external information, to assimilate and use it for development of one’s own activity. These are teacher’s efforts to develop, enrich the teaching contents and teaching process by using new teaching methods and aids. Some teachers prefer individual absorptive capacity, if they feel more competent compared with their colleagues and able to carry out the search for innovations and their selection on their own. But for contemporary teachers (especially the young ones) it is not easy to select those pedagogical innovations that are the most suitable for their students or educational institution’s culture. Group absorptive capacity, or common efforts of group members in reaching common aims, is more effective. This is the way methodological clubs, project groups, communities of practice work. It is activity in groups of alter ego, where innovations are discussed, assessed and decisions concerning their implementation are made.

From this point of view, we can distinguish levels of absorptive capacity: individual, group and organization (see Fig. 4.). Individual level of absorptive capacity means that the search of innovations and their selection are carried out individually, on one person’s initiative or fulfilling a personal task. Group absorptive capacity comprises the efforts of certain groups. Whereas organizational absorptive capacity is the activity of the whole educational organization with its managerial group, teachers, students/pupils, parents and maintenance personnel.

Summing up, the author of the article points out that absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations depends on which type of innovators they belong to: teachers- innovators and early adopters will demonstrate the highest degree of absorptive capacity, whereas late majority and laggards will have relatively low level of this quality. Group absorptive capacity, or common efforts of group members in reaching common aims, is more effective compared to individual absorptive capacity, as this way innovations are discussed, assessed and decisions concerning their implementation are made.

Fig. 4. Subjects and levels of absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations

Absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations manifests itself according particular order or regime. The regime of absorptive capacity can be determined according to the manner of innovation implementation and subjects’ independent orientation and initiative.

According to the manner of innovation implementation absorptive capacity can be planned and unplanned. Planned absorptive capacity is such a regime when an individual or organization makes a beforehand decision to search for a particular innovation: searches for it, finds it, identifies its advantages and shortcomings and applies it in the organization. It is usually an organized process which is managed and takes a relatively long time.

Unplanned absorptive capacity is accidental. Innovation or its possibilities appear unexpectedly. A member of the organization usually has little time to assess innovation and think how it could be applied in his/her own organization. Unplanned absorptive capacity may manifest itself during various seminars, good experience dissemination meetings, when a person talking about a new useful idea is here and now. That is why you have to decide immediately whether to make some efforts in getting into contact for further co-operation. It often happens that innovations catch us: e.g. a group of Dutch gardeners were visiting Land Management Faculty of Kaunas College. Having seen an empty plot of land close to the faculty building, one guest suggested an idea of planting an orchard of dwarf apple trees where students could later have their practice. A common project was discussed the same evening.

According to subjects’ independent orientation absorptive capacity can be independent and dependent. According to subjects’ initiative it can be initiative and non-initiative. Different combinations of these categories are possible (see Fig 5.) this classification was inspired by Nystrom’s (1979) classification of organizations according to innovative orientation and innovative potential.

Independent orientation	Initiative
Independent orientation	High	Low
Clear	Independent - initiative	Independent – non-initiative
Unclear	Dependent - initiative	Dependent – non-initiative

Fig. 5. The regimes of absorptive capacity in the aspect of pedagogical innovations

If individual, group or organization has a clear independent orientation and high initiative, its regime of absorptive capacity will be independent – initiative. Such teacher or group of teachers search for pedagogical innovations on their own and are able to select them independently, considering the benefit of that innovation to their context. It is the most positive regime of absorptive capacity.

On the other pole are individuals, groups or organizations with unclear orientation of independence and a low initiative, Such individuals, groups or organizations do not demonstrate any initiative for the search of innovations and lack competence for selection of innovation. Presumably, the reason of lack of independent orientation is limited competence, what causes low initiative.

If independent orientation is clear, but initiative is low, it is an independent – non-initiative regime. Teachers with this regime might be competent in their discipline, but they lack internal and external motivation for innovation implementation. Another reason might be the managerial group of the school who are indifferent towards change. Having eliminated these barriers, these teachers might start working in independent - initiative regime.

A dependent – initiative regime of absorptive capacity manifests itself when teachers, groups or organizations would eagerly implement innovations, but they lack experience for their search, and competence – for independent selection. Without elimination of any of these barriers, initiative will flag in the long run and this regime will turn into dependent – non-initiative.

Almonaitienė, J. (2000). Kūrybingumo ir inovacijų psichologija. Vilnius: ŠMM.

Argyris, Ch., Putnam, R., Mclain Smith, D. (1985). Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey – Bass Publishers.

Barabba, V., Zaltman, G. (1991). Hearing the Voice of the Market. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Barnett, H.G. (1973). Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bennett, B., Rolheiser, C. et al (1999). Mokymasis bendradarbiaujant: kur jausmai ir protas susitinka . Vilnius: Tyto alba.

Burnaford, G., Fischer, J.C. et al (1996). Teachers Doing Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

Clayton, P. (1991). Implementation of Organizational Innovation. Toronto: Academic Press.

Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity – a new perspective on learning an innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35.

Despres,C., Chauvel, D. (2000), Knowledge Horizons. The Present and the Promise of Knowledge Management. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Drucker P. (1999). Management Challenges for the 21^st Century. New York: Harper Collins.

Dutrenit, G., Martinez, J. (2004). Knowledge Spillovers, Absorptive Capacity and Economic Performance of the SMEs. Paper presented at 2^nd Globelics International Conference, Beijing, China.

Firestone J. M., McElroy M.W (2003). Key Issues in the New Knowledge Management. Butterworth Heinemann.

Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Routledge Falmer.

Gross, N., Giacquinta,. J.B., Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational innovations. A sociological analysis of planned educational change. New York: Harper&Row Publishers.

Hargreaves, A. (1999). Keičiasi mokytojai, keičiasi laikai. Vilnius: Tyto alba.

Hopkins, D. (1990). Integrating Staff Development and School Improvement. B. Joyce (ed.), Changing School Culture Through Staff Development (1990 Year Book). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Hopkins D., Ainscow M., West M. (1998). Kaita ir mokyklos tobulinimas. Vilnius: Tyto alba

Janiūnaitė, B. (2004). Edukacinės novacijos ir jų diegimas. Kaunas: Technologija.

Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz,N., Lundvall,B.-A. (2004). Absorptive Capacity, Forms of Knowledge and Economic Development. Paper presented at 2^nd Globelics International Conference, Beijing, China.

Jotautienė, M. (20030. Edukacinių novacijų diegimo barjerų nustatymo metodologija ir jos taikymas sisteminės novacijos atveju. Daktaro disertacija. Kaunas, KTU.

Jucevičienė, P. (1997).Ugdymo mokslo raida: nuo pedagogikos iki edukologijos. Kaunas: Technologija.

Kirton, M.J. (1988). Adaptors and Innovators: Problem Solvers in Organizations. In K. Gronhan & G. Kaufmann (eds.), A Cross – Disciplinary Perspective. Norway: Norwegian University Press.

Marsh,C., Willis, G. (1998). Curriculum Alternative Approaches, ongoing issues. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.

Nyströ m, H. (1979). Creativity and Innovation. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, Vol.5, No 1, February 1994.

Potašnik, M., Lazarev, V. (1995). Управление развитием школы. Москва: Новая школа.

Rogers (1995). The Diffusion if Innovations, 4^th edition. New York: the Free Press.

Staessens, K. (1993). Identification and Description of professional Culture in Innovating Schools. Qualitative studies in education, 6 (2).

Stankevičiūtė, J. (2002). Organizacijos žinojimo didinimo metodologija. Daktaro disertacija. Kaunas, KTU.

Todorova, G., Durisin, B. (2003). The concept and the reconceptualization of absorptive capacity: recognizing the value.Sceola di Direzione Aziendale dell’Universite Bocconi, Working Paper N.95/03 September.

Tumėnienė,V., Janiūnaitė, B. (2000). Pedagogo veiklos pokyčiai pasaulinių ir europinių švietimo dimensijų kontekste. Socialiniai mokslai. Kauno technologijos universitetas. Nr.2(23).

Watanable, C. et al.(1998). Analysis on global technology spillovers and its impact to technology management. Abstract of Annual Conference of the Japan Society for Science Policy and Research Management. Tokyo

Загвязинский, В. И., Гильманов, С. А. (Ред.). (1989). Разработка реализация проектов развития образовательных учереждений. Москва: Издательство АСОПиР РФ.

Пригожин, А. И. (1989). Нововведения стимулы и препятствия. Москва: Издательство политической литературы.