Running head: INNOVATION IN CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 1

Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Christian Schools

Stephen R. DeBoer

Queen’s University Faculty of Education

This paper is submitted August 20, 2019 to Professor Dr. Eliana Elkhoury in completion of course

requirements of PME 811

INNOVATION IN CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 2
Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Christian Schools
In this paper we are asked to choose and review 2 pieces of scholarly writing with the purpose of
understanding the implications for our own professional context regarding innovation in teaching and
learning. I have chosen to review Hengeveld’s M.Ed. thesis “Attitudes Towards Educational Innovations in
Christian High Schools in Northwest Iowa and Southeast South Dakota (2004) and “Institutional Types,
Organizational Cultures, and Innovation in Christian Colleges and Universities” by Obenchain, Johnson, &
Dion (2004) from the journal Christian Higher Education.
Review of the Articles
Obenchain, Johnson, & Dion (2004) suggest a key link between organizational culture and innovation,
including at Christian postsecondary institutions. In an increasingly globalized, digitized, and commercialized
society, universities and colleges are scrambling to respond to these challenges with innovative solutions, and
Christian institutions are not immune. Additionally, Christian institutions believe themselves to be potential
users and producers of innovation. However, Christian colleges and universities have the unique challenge of
struggling to preserve the history, tradition, and distinctive religious culture and mission of the school while
navigating necessary change. The purpose of this study by Obenchain et al. was to understand the relationship
between organizational culture and organizational innovation which is defined in the paper as “the intentional
introduction and application within a role, group, or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures,
new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organization or
wider society” (West & Farr, 1990, p. 9, cited in Obenchain et al., 2004, p. 16).
In seeking to understand this relationship, the authors outline a Competing Values Framework
describing four different types of organizational cultures. Although it can be dangerous to overemphasize
distinct categories and oversimplify the complexity of organizational culture, these categories are helpful for
the purposes of this paper. The four categories are: 1) Hierarchy—an “internal processes model” emphasizing
order, rule and regulations, stability, policies and procedures, predictability—2) Market—a “rational goal
model” emphasizing competitiveness, goal achievement and orientation, competitive advantage and market
superiority—3) Clan—a “human relations model” emphasizing cohesiveness, teamwork, loyalty, sense of
family, tradition, and development of human resources—and 4) Adhocracy—a “open systems model”
emphasizing entrepreneurship, creativity, adaptability, innovation and risk-taking. The results found that
while innovation is most frequently seen in organizations with an “adhocracy” culture, not surprisingly
Christian post-secondary institutions most often have a “clan” culture (2004). The implications include not
INNOVATION IN CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 3
only the important link between organizational culture and openness to innovation, but also the key finding
that Christian institutions are “hamstringed” in their ability to promote innovation by the very structural
culture that allows them to maintain their Christian identity and traditions intact against the changes in society.
If a Christian institution wants to improve its innovative potential, it needs to pay attention to the “adhocracy”
culture, seeking ways to adopt these characteristics without compromising its Christian character and mission.
Kim Hengeveld, in her M.Ed. Thesis (2004), examines the attitudes of Christian educators at three
Christian high schools in the American Midwest. Admittedly a small sample size, the implications of the study
are nevertheless valuable for a Christian high school administrator such as myself. In her study, she notes that
amongst all educational institutions, secondary schools have undergone surprisingly little change over the past
half century, despite repeated calls from researchers for much needed innovations for improved models of
learning. Like Obenchain et al. (2004), Hengeveld in her review of the literature notes that educational
institutions are conservative by nature and naturally resist change (2004). For example, with regards to teacher
attitudes, she describes how “the ‘obstinate problem of teacher resistance to imposed change’ can turn
teacher’s professional communities into protectionist ones” (Hargreaves, 1997, cited in Hengeveld, 2004, p.
6). She also highlights a general lack of time and resources, expectations from parents and other stakeholders,
school culture and conventions, and issues with school leadership as all factors playing a role in hindering
innovation at schools, including Christian schools.
Hengeveld’s thesis addressed the attitudes of Christian high school educators to innovation and change
as well as their perceptions of which factors were most significant in influencing decisions made about
innovation and change. Hengeveld found that while educators generally indicated a favourable attitude toward
innovative change, Christian school teachers and administrators were hesitant to adopt especially those
changes which might disrupt the “culture within which Christian schools function and interact” (2004, p. 12).
Additionally, educators were aware of the difficulties that faced the implementation of changes and seemed to
adopt a more “conservative approach of waiting to see if they are ‘shown to be good…feasible and practical’”
(2004, p. 24). Hengeveld found that administrators and individual classroom teachers were perceived to have
the most influence of any stakeholders in influencing innovative decision-making at Christian schools (2004).
She also determined that the years of experience or position of authority of the participants made no statistical
difference in their response (2004). In the words of the author, the implications are significant:
“If everyone believes that innovative change is important to education, and if they see themselves as agents
of change, then why does it seem that there is so little of it? This may simply illustrate the gap that often
INNOVATION IN CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 4
exists between theory and practice—a matter of not acting on what one believes. It also may be a problem
of perception. It is possible that the change is actually alive and well in these schools, in which case this
study might be based on a flawed premise. Individual teachers may be embracing innovative practices in
the classroom which are not evident on a larger scale in the school system” (Hengeveld, 2004, p. 28).

Implications for innovation in Christian schools

Despite the limited availability of academic studies on innovation and Christian education, the two
studies reviewed can offer important insights for Christian school educators about the possibility of innovative
change. First, it is good to note that the authors’ definitions of innovation align with the discussions of
innovation in this course. A plethora of definitions of innovation exist, of course, but most of them suggest
some sort of organizational, procedural, or productive change, in response to an identified problem or
challenge, designed to improve the situation. For example, George Couros famously defines innovation as,
simply, “…a way of thinking that creates something new and better…” (2015, p. 19). Obenchain et al. focus
broadly on organizational innovation (2004) while Hengeveld is looking specifically at examples of
innovation in the context of secondary education. Of course, Christian schools are no different from any other
institution in that their desire for innovative change is rooted in a hope for a better future for our students: “We
should hope for more than we expect and long for more than we hope” (Wolterstorff, 2014, p. 129).
An important implication that arises from these two studies is the concept of challenges that prevent
innovation from happening. Many of these are not unique to Christian institutions, but it is good to note that
religious institutions face peculiar challenges in maintaining their character and faith-based mission. As
mentioned in both studies, schools in general and Christian schooling in particular are by nature conservative
and resistant to change. In addition to the typical obstacles of time, stress, limited resources, and others,
Christian institutions face additional obstacles in that their vision for education does not always align with the
prevailing philosophies and trends of modern educational dogma. In his classic book The Craft of Christian
Teaching, Van Dyk lays out a series of “isms” that Christian teachers must wrestle with as they strive to
“teach Christianly”, including: intellectualism, positivism, perennialism, pragmatism, progressivism,
constructivism, individualism, egalitarianism, elitism, and secularism (see Van Dyk, 2000, pp. 252-259). On
the one hand, Christian teachers must struggle to maintain the Christian character of their classroom. Yet,
what often can happen is an overreaction to these “isms” which results in a stagnant traditionalism (ironically,
another unwanted “ism”). For example, Mitchell discusses this danger: “The rise of constructivist thought
with its post-modern influence can be quickly seen as “evil” because of its secular roots. The constructivist
INNOVATION IN CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 5
approach is then relegated to the side by well-meaning Christian educators who then tenaciously hold on to
past traditional means of education…” (p. 131)
Finally, the concept of organizational culture from Obenchain et al. (2004) is a helpful concept to
consider when determined to advance creative and innovative thought in one’s educational setting. The
challenge, of course, remains the tight-rope balancing act between fostering innovative thinking without
compromising the key attributes that give your organization its “faith-based” authenticity.
Strengths and weaknesses
The two articles chosen were helpful in that they offered a genuine glimpse into the challenges and
attitudes harboured by Christian educational institutions. I appreciated the authenticity of comments from
Hengeveld’s interviews with Christian high school teachers; for example, this quote: “New methods should be
encouraged if they are shown to be good and if feasible and practical to the resources of the school…if you
resist all change, you should not be in education. But change is not a magic bullet. Old, new, whatever. The
key is excellence” (2014, p. 13). However, Hengeveld’s thesis lacked generalizability and reliability in that
the sample size of three Christian high schools was far too small. Meanwhile, Obenchain et al. focused on the
post-secondary context and tended to simplify the complexity of innovation by “pigeon-holing” institutions
into one of the 4 organizational cultures described in the Competing Values Framework.
Implications for my context
As a Christian high school teacher transitioning into an administrative leadership role, I see the value
in understanding both the relationship between school culture and innovation, as well as the challenges that
face innovation in schools. By understanding the similarities and differences between the “clan” culture that is
so typical of Christian institutions (my own high school included) and the “adhocracy” culture that most
successfully breeds innovative thinking, I can “benefit from understanding and implementing operating values
and processes that prepare them for innovation” and develop “an awareness of cultural characteristics [which]
might enhance organizational efforts toward innovation implementation” (Obenchain et al., 2014, p. 36).
The same goes for challenges. Beginning with a desire for my colleagues to become more reflectively
aware of the challenges that we face as educators, as well as how those challenges prevent innovation and
breed stagnant traditionalism which is not beneficial for student learning, we can begin to turn an attitude and
desire for innovation into real innovation. In simple terms, a collective and collaborative awareness of the
complexities and challenges involved with innovative thinking, without compromising the Christian values of
our school mission, can breed a desire to gradually and cautiously move my school in an innovative direction.
INNOVATION IN CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 6
References
Couros, G. (2015). The Innovator’s Mindset. San Diego: Dave Burgess Consulting, Inc.
Hengeveld, K. A. (2004). Attitudes Towards Educational Innovations in Christian High Schools in Northwest
Iowa and Southeast South Dakota (Dordt College). Retrieved from
http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/med_theses
Mitchell, K. (2014). Truth, Traditional Teaching, and Constructivism. In M. Etherington (Ed.), Foundations of
Education: A Christian Vision2 (pp. 131–142). Eugene, Or: Wipf & Stock.
Obenchain, A. M., Johnson, W. C., & Dion, P. A. (2004). Institutional Types, Organizational Cultures, and
Innovation in Christian Colleges and Universities. Christian Higher Education, 3(1), 15–39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15363750490264870
Van Dyk, J. (2000). The Craft of Christian Teaching: A Classroom Journey. Sioux Center, IA: Dordt Press.
Wolterstorff, N. (2014). The Peculiar Hope of the Educator. In M. Etherington (Ed.), Foundations of
Education: A Christian Vision (pp. 119–130). Eugene, Or: Wipf & Stock.