by clicking here. It is a 9.9 Mb file and will take some time to download

Figure 23: Fullan's 3 I's of Educational ChangeThe influence of this diagram on my thinking can be seen in figure 5: N 4 #2.This is a good moment in the reflexive process to pause and note again, for the purpose ofreinforcing the dialogic and spiralling nature of the learning in this project, that this diagram hasbeen in the back of my mind since I saw Tim using it and it popped up as a way of attempting todraw out the relationship between the N's. It would be vain again to say that I believe there is aflaw in Fullan's hypothesis which may account for the failure of so many educational changeprogrammes - perhaps especially those involving technological implementation. What appearsmissing to me is any notion of impact or influence. Fullan argues (1999) that failure is causedby the inability to institutionalise the change intended across an organisation. This relates backto the issue addressed in section 2.3, where the taxonomy of types of adopters was set out (seealso Salmon, 2000 p. 71). I would argue that most resistant behaviour comes from the failure ofchange agents to either 'sell' the benefits of their innovation or for there to be a lack of need (N 1 )for change in the minds of members of the organisation. The impact on them is rarely addressed(e.g. savings on time, reduced effort or reduced cost thereby releasing funds for alternatives andso on) nor the influence such change can have on learners or learning. It needs to be noted thatFullan (1999) was working exclusively in educational contexts albeit mainly in Canada.219Simon Hughes Ph.D. Thesis (October 2012)