“The conservative forces inherent in teaching that serve to inhibit or at least restrain the introduction of innovation are as powerful with digital technology use as any other area” – Schuck, 2018

Sustainable change in many organisations is hard work. In education, there have been many attempts at wide-spread, technology-driven change in the past 20 years. Technology use in schools, colleges and universities is wide-spread, yet effective use with an aim to enhance learning and teaching is rare – particularly beyond isolated teachers, departments or organisations.

Effective technology use will vary in education depending on the vision and context of the organisation and its people. Generally, however, a definition of ‘effective use’ might include practices and use-cases which allow for unique pedagogical or learning advantages not otherwise possible without the technology. For example, these might include

• teachers using digital assessment tools to capture rich and timely formative assessment to better guide student learning;
• students with specific education needs using technology to access, decode and respond to information or interact with others; or,
• collaborative student projects, particularly those which use technology to transcend traditional time / place barriers.

However, many of these practices would challenge teachers’ knowledge, capabilities and even fundamental beliefs of their role and the validity of experiences in relation to curriculum and assessment objectives. While teachers are key to unlocking innovation and technology adoption in the classroom, change and risk-taking is necessary to enabling digitally-rich learning environments – a journey that many have been unwilling to go on. 

While there are a multitude of macro, meso and micro factors which contribute to this, one particularly interesting lens to this challenge is considering the change psychology and brain science of teachers and their attitudes, approaches and psychological ability to enable to deep technology adoption and pedagogical change.

 

Survive and Thrive Channels

Once useful way of thinking about teacher readiness to adopt innovative, technology-driven practices is through the lens of the Survive and Thrive Channels. John Kotter discusses the Survive Channel as a very powerful, primal radar which perceives and reacts to threats – particularly useful thousands of years ago to combat predators. When this hard-wired channel detects a threat, unfamiliar situation or negative experience, chemical signals shoot out into our bodies to increase blood flow, tighten muscles and prepare for ‘fight or flight’. Our minds go into rapid problem-solving model. We try and figure out the shortest route out of danger.  We are psychologically unsafe. As Delizonna (2017) says, this handicaps our ability to think strategically and long-term.

Contrast this to the Thrive Channel. It is also considered a ‘radar system’ but one that looks for opportunities rather than hazards. The emotions triggered are positive ones: excitement, pride, inspiration and possibility. The Thrive Channel also results in the release of chemicals (oxytocin and vasopressin) that predispose us to social interaction and collaboration. The Thrive Channel operates when we are in place of psychological safety. It can foster high levels of trust among teams, and be activated by charismatic, future-focused leaders.

These two channels can be operating at more or less the same time, and can be either operating effectively or not. They can also be operating in a very light way or a very heavy way, depending on the situation. But the key is that Thrive is easily dominated by Survive. Human nature dictates that when we face a threat, lack psychological safety and are faced with intense challenges, it is impossible for us to do the things our Thrive Channel wants us to do. 

 

Human behaviour and technology innovation in schools

This dynamic which exists between the two channels means that school and educational leaders are much more likely to be influenced by inputs that lead to the activation of the Survive Channel rather than the Thrive Channel. High-pressure systems built on high levels of accountability – particularly with amplifying challenges of reduced budgets, increased workloads and challenges with teacher retention and recruitment – means that many school leaders constantly operate in Survive Mode and are overly short-term orientated. For example, the knowledge that an organisation might be “due an inspection” in the short term will overwhelm any medium or longer-term plans for innovation. But triggers for Survival Mode might not always be so clearly defined. More subtle examples in schools which might trigger Survival Mode in leaders and teachers might be:

• Too many policies or procedures
• Excessive data-collection
• Formal, high-stakes classroom observations
• Over-communication by leaders to staff of organisational challenges, or communicating the wrong way
• Parent or media complaints
• Safe-guarding issues

Each of these activates and reinforces our disposition to listen to our threat-seeking radar, but the impact can also be wider than just one individual. When a school leader is driven by their Survive Channel, this also has a significant effect on others in the organisation. Other leaders, middle managers and teachers pick up on this behaviour. A group effect occurs. As a result, the organisation itself functions in Survive Channel, which drives stronger and more desperate behaviours among staff. The default operating procedures and even cultural norms within a school become focused on short-term goals, reactive fire-fighting and maintaining the status quo. Activity to address and combat the threat overwhelms any more strategic and innovate activity attempted by the ‘organisational’ Thrive Channel. 

 

Walk and chew gum

As Kotter surmises, we have to learn to much more aggressively and competently activate our Thrive Channel – despite the superior genetic power of Survive and the fact that our education systems of managerialism and accountability all too-easily over-stimulate Survive and under-value Thrive. Strong leadership which meets both short term ‘threats’ while planning for and enabling long term innovation and whole school change is key to creating a psychologically safe environment which supports teachers to take-risks and innovate with digital technologies.

 

Further reading:

Delizonna (2018) High-Performing Teams Need Psychological Safety. Here’s How to Create It, https://hbr.org/2017/08/high-performing-teams-need-psychological-safety-heres-how-to-create-it

Edmonson (1999) Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2307/2666999

Kotter (2019)  Survive + Thrive, https://www.kotterinc.com/research-and-perspectives/survive-thrive/