Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Ho‘okumu a‘e: innovation, the perception of innovation within the Hawaiian language immersion program
(USC Thesis Other)
Ho‘okumu a‘e: innovation, the perception of innovation within the Hawaiian language immersion program
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
HO‘OKUMU A‘E: INNOVATION
THE PERCEPTION OF INNOVATION WITHIN
THE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE IMMERSION PROGRAM
by
Papaikanī‘au Kai‘anui
_____________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2012
Copyright 2012 Papaikanī‘au Kai‘anui
ii
DEDICATION
“I maika‘i ke kalo i ka ‘ohā.” – Puku‘i.
This work is dedicated to my mother Hōkūlani Holt, without whom I would
not be the person I am today. I appreciate all of your love, compassion, and endless
sacrifice to ensure that Lu‘ukia, Lono and I grew up to be great people. I admire all
the great works you do for our people and our culture. And I am eternally grateful to
you for making education a priority in my life. Mahalo piha iā ‘oe no kāu aloha,
kōkua a kāko‘o palena ‘ole.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“I ulu no ka lālā i ke kumu” – Puku‘i
I acknowledge all those who have come before me. E nā akua, nā ‘aumakua,
nā kupuna, nā mākua a me nā kumu, he wahi mahalo kēia iā ‘oukou pākahi a pau.
Without my ancestors I would not be here. I would like to express my most humble
gratitude to all the educators (formal and most importantly informal) in my life that
has enabled me to successfully journey through my path of life. I am who I am
because of them all.
Mahalo palena ‘ole i ku‘u ‘ohana. First and foremost my immediate family
and the matriarchs in my family; mahalo e Tūtū Ida, e Kupuna a e ku‘u wahi
makuahine aloha no ka hana nui a no ka ‘o‘ole‘a. To my siblings, Lu‘ukia and Lono
and their families (Kelly; Rob) for being there for me. To my Kalani, ‘Anakē loves
you and is so very proud of you. To my extended family thank you all for the love
and support (especially to the Cummings, Sing and Kahalehau family). To all my
friends that have become family over the years (and their families) thank you all for
getting me through the toughest times in my life and celebrating with me during the
greatest times. To my babies, Kahiapohi‘ialoikamehanaokalā and
Kahikinaokawainohia, ‘Anakē loves you always.
To the University of Southern California and all my cohort members, thank
you for taking this journey with me and helping me through. Thank you to all the
professors that I had the privilege to learn from. To the back of the class crew, we
did it! I want to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Dominic Brewer and Dr. Larry
iv
Picus from the University of Southern California. A me ku‘u aloha a mahalo palena
‘ole i ku‘u wahi kumu aloha ē, iā Dr. Puakea Nogelmeier of Kawaihuelani Hawaiian
Language Department at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
Finally, I want to acknowledge all those who came after me. E ku‘u mau
pōki‘i na ‘oukou kēia. I pursued this doctorate degree to be an example for all of the
generations of students and their families that have and will choose Hawaiian
Immersion Education as their educational path. Hawaiian Immersion Education is
the foundation of my education and I would not have been able to reach my
educational goals without Hawaiian culture and language as the bases for my
education. As a Hawaiian Immersion graduate you are able to do anything you set
your mind to and you can achieve greatness because our lāhui is resilient and we are
proof of it. Mahalo i ka ‘Aha Pūnana Leo a ka Papahana Kaiapuni no ka ho‘omau
ana i ka hana maika‘i. A i ko‘u ‘ohana ma ka papahana ‘ōlelo Hawai‘i, nā kumu, nā
mākua a me ku‘u wahi mau hoahānau, e ola mau ka ‘ōlelo Hawai‘i.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
Abstract vii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review 11
Figure 1. Ho‘okumu A‘e 35
Chapter Three: Methodology 42
Chapter Four: Results 53
Chapter Five: Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusion 68
References 80
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Articles Addressing Research Questions 40
Table 2: Interview Questions for Key Informants and Administrator 50
Table 3: Focus Group Questions for Teachers and Parents 51
vii
ABSTRACT
The Hawaiian language immersion program was developed from within a
context of renewed interest in the Hawaiian culture and language and through the
efforts of Hawaiian language activists and other community members interested in
reviving the indigenous language. Many supporters also felt that Hawaiian language
immersion was a method that could serve to increase the achievement and boost the
identity, self-esteem and self-efficacy of the Hawaiian children it serves. There are
many indicators that Hawaii's schools are not adequately addressing the needs of
Hawaiian students. Native Hawaiians are among the lowest scoring minorities in the
nation on standardized achievement tests. They are also overrepresented in special
education and underrepresented in higher education (Melahn, 1986; Office of
Hawaiian Affairs, 1994; Takenaka, 1995).
In an effort to revive the indigenous Hawaiian language and culture, the
Hawaiian language immersion program was created. A primary goal of ‘Aha Pūnana
Leo and Kula Kaiapuni, the Hawaiian Language Immersion Programs (HLIP), is to
develop a strong foundation of Hawaiian culture and values for their students to help
boost their self-esteem and self-efficacy (Department of Education, 1994). Hawai'i is
the only state that has designated a native language, Hawaiian, as one of its two
official state languages, therefore Hawaiian Language Immersion was created in part
to recognize the importance of Hawaiian language use within the state of Hawai‘i.
The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program’s key informants, administrators, teachers and parents
viii
concerning the factors that contribute and diminish the innovativeness of the HLIP.
The perceptions of the individuals and the groups of individuals were described and
analyzed in order to determine if potential discrepancies and agreements in
perceptions are present. The information provided by this research may aid, HLIP
key informants, administrators, teachers and parents and be able to serve HLIP
students more effectively.
This study was able to demonstrate that the HLIP, is perceived to be an
innovative program through its use of Hawaiian language and culture as the medium
of instruction. The results provide evidence that supports the use of Hawaiian
worldview to enable innovation. Hawaiian perspective or worldview emphasizes the
importance of learning from the past, applying what is learned to the present for the
betterment of the future. Learning from the past is the ability to create value through
new uses of existing knowledge (Jamrog, Vickers and Bear, 2006), thereby being
innovative. Participants in this study also believe that the HLIP is an overall
innovative program because of its medium of educating the students.
The findings of this study will assist policymakers, administrators and staff to
develop policies and procedures to improve the educational status of students within
the HLIP. This study recognizes that there are factors that enable innovation. It is
therefore suggested that the HLIP is able to be innovative through shared
communication, shared information and shared resources.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
For many years, the Hawaiian language has experienced declination and
marginalization. In the wake of colonization which resulted from centuries of
international interaction between Hawai‘i and other countries especially America,
Hawaiian language became over taken and was superseded my English. Hawaiian
language was replaced by English as the dominant language in Hawai‘i. In 1896 Act
57 was enacted, which mandated English to be taught in public and private schools.
Prior to this, Hawaiian was the medium of education in Hawai‘i (Benham & Heck,
1998). In the 1980’s it was estimated that there were only 2,000 Hawaiian speakers,
of whom only 30 were under the age of 18 (Dunford, 1991). According to Ng-Osorio
and Ledward (2011) Hawaiian language is now experiencing a renewal. Dedicated
families worked diligently to establish Hawaiian language classes and schools in
order to revive a language once threatened with extinction. Conversations in
Hawaiian language are now heard among students of all ages, from preschools to the
university level. With advancements in technology, the public now has access to
Hawaiian language content through the Internet, radio, and TV programming. Wong
(1999) argues that it is necessary to revitalize Hawaiian language to ensure that the
native identity persists. When an indigenous people, such as the Hawaiians, lose their
language, it is not only their voice that is lost but also a part of themselves and their
culture that is irreplaceable (Kawai‘ae‘a, Housman, & Alencastre, 2007).
2
Background/Statement of the Problem
Upon the arrival of American missionaries, Hawaiian language transitioned
from an oral tradition to a written language. In 1893 at the overthrow of Queen
Lili‘uokalani, the last Hawaiian monarch, Hawaiian was replaced by English as the
medium of instruction in public schools in the late 1800s. By reclaiming space
within the education sector, Hawaiian immersion programs are contributing directly
to the revival of Hawaiian language. According to Kana’iaupuni (2004) the cultural
and language revitalization movement began in the 1970s and spread vigorously
through the reemergence of respect for and practice of language, traditional
knowledge systems, beliefs and customs (Halualani, 2002; Kana'iaupuni, 2004).
Prior to 1893, Hawaiian was the language of business, government, media,
and education (Wilson, in press). Hawaiian was also the language of interethnic
communication, as most children of immigrants spoke Hawaiian in addition to their
first language. The efforts of the Christian missionaries, who came to the islands in
the early 1820s, to convert the populace and to promote literacy resulted in at least
half of the adult population reading and writing in Hawaiian by 1830 (Slaughter,
1997). In 1850, the entire population of Hawaiian adults was considered literate in
their native language and Hawai‘i was declared the most literate nation in the world
(Kloss, 1977).
Originally, Hawaiian was the language of formal education in the islands,
used first by Hawaiians themselves and later by U.S. Protestant missionaries after
their arrival in 1820 (Kuykendall, 1926). However, with increasing pressure from
3
Americans for English language instruction, the language of the public schools
gradually shifted to English. In 1896, when English instruction was mandated in the
public and private school system, many interpreted this new mandate as a ban of the
Hawaiian language in the public schools and English became the official medium of
instruction. Such policies to mandate English instruction caused the decline of the
Hawaiian language resulting in fewer fluent speakers and fewer opportunities to
converse in the language.
During the century following the English mandate in schools and the
interpreted ban on Hawaiian language from the schools, children were taught that
promoting the Hawaiian language and culture was wrong and not as civilized as the
English language and western culture. The policies to mandate English instruction
caused Hawaiian culture and language to be excluded from the formal lives of its
people had dramatic results in the socioeconomic and academic lives of native
Hawaiians (Benham & Heck, 1998). For example, as a group, Hawaiians and part-
Hawaiians are frequently found at the lowest levels of school achievement and other
socioeconomic indexes (Dunford, 1991; Takenaka, 1995).
In 1998, the National Foreign Language Center and the Center for Applied
Linguistics launched the Heritage Language Initiative in response to the growing
concern among those in the second language research and educational communities
that the United States is losing a valuable resource of a multilingual population
(Marcos, 1999). There has been a decrease in the number of indigenous language
speakers in this country. Krauss (1996) estimated that the majority of the 300
4
indigenous languages spoken in the United States and Canada are threatened with
extinction. With the loss of the language, there is also a cultural threat, other aspects
of a community disappear including specific cultural knowledge and values
(Reyhner & Tennant, 1995; St. Clair, 1982) also contributing to low school
achievement.
The Hawaiian language immersion program was established nearly a quarter
of a century ago. What does the program look like now? How far has it come? How
much work is yet to be done? This dissertation seeks to explore the history of
Hawaiian language spanning its origin as an oral language to its transition to a
written language. It continues with a discussion of critical milestones of Hawaiian
language revival, Hawaiian language immersion and the utilization of educational
innovation. Finally, it concludes with an examination of current program status with
interviews and focus groups of key individuals, administrators, teachers and parents
who were instrumental in the implementation of, as well as currently being actively
involved in the Hawaiian language immersion program. This will provide a
necessary context for understanding revitalization efforts as well as the innovative
characteristics of the Hawaiian language immersion program.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The Hawaiian language immersion program was developed from within a
context of renewed interest in the Hawaiian culture and language and through the
efforts of Hawaiian language activists and other community members interested in
reviving the indigenous language. Many supporters also felt that Hawaiian language
5
immersion was a method that could serve to increase the achievement and boost the
identity, self-esteem and self-efficacy of the Hawaiian children it serves. There are
many indicators that Hawaii's schools are not adequately addressing the needs of
Hawaiian students. Native Hawaiians are among the lowest scoring minorities in the
nation on standardized achievement tests. They are also overrepresented in special
education and underrepresented in higher education (Melahn, 1986; Office of
Hawaiian Affairs, 1994; Takenaka, 1995).
In an effort to revive the indigenous Hawaiian language and culture, the
Hawaiian language immersion program was created. A primary goal of ‘Aha Pūnana
Leo and Kula Kaiapuni, the Hawaiian Language Immersion Programs (HLIP), is to
develop a strong foundation of Hawaiian culture and values for their students to help
boost their self-esteem and self-efficacy (Department of Education, 1994). Hawai'i is
the only state that has designated a native language, Hawaiian, as one of its two
official state languages, therefore Hawaiian Language Immersion was created in part
to recognize the importance of Hawaiian language use within the state of Hawai‘i.
In 1987, in light of the Hawai'i State Constitution mandate (Article X,
Section 4) to promote the study of Hawaiian culture, language and history and the
persistent requests of parents and Hawaiian community leaders, the Department of
Education established the Hawaiian Language Immersion Program, Ka Papahana
Kaiapuni Hawai'i. The program is a vehicle for revitalizing the Hawaiian language
and assisting people to regain and maintain their language. The program continues
through the twelfth grade and treats the indigenous language as primary and
6
dominant in the school setting. English is introduced as part of the curriculum
beginning in grade five to ensure bilingual ability at the high school level.
Ka Papahana Kaiapuni Hawai'i strives to provide a quality education based
on knowledge of Hawaiian language and culture as the foundation for instruction and
learning experiences which lead to the achievement of the DOE's Hawai'i Content
and Performance Standards. The kaiapuni student also develops a high level of self-
esteem as perpetuators of the native language of this land and of the cultural heritage.
Ka Papahana Kaiapuni Hawai'i strives to provide a quality education based on
knowledge of the Hawaiian language and culture as the foundation upon which
individuals become responsible, sensitive and productive adults who contribute
significantly to all levels of Hawaii's community.
The program has grown from two sites in 1987 to twenty-two sites with a
student population of about 1,800 in grades kindergarten to grade twelve on five
islands in the state of Hawai‘i. In 1999, the first class of students, entirely educated
in the Hawaiian Language Immersion Program, graduated from high school.
Supporters of the program believe that the program may also serve to
promote the achievement and cultural identity of the native Hawaiians it serves. The
purpose of this study is to analyze some of the important sociohistorical influences
on the program's initiation, development and implementation. In particular, we are
interested in the following questions:
7
1. Do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program (HLIP) perceive the HLIP to be an
innovative program?
2. What do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents of the HLIP
perceive as antecedents (Leadership, Organizational and
Structure/Environment) to the innovativeness of the HLIP?
3. What do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents perceive as
barriers (Leadership, Organizational and Structure/Environment) to the
innovativeness of the HLIP?
4. Do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program (HLIP) perceive cultural practices to be
innovative?
We believe that the future of the Hawaiian language immersion program will
continue to be shaped by its past, including the complex social interactions of those
involved in its making. Indeed, we will be unable to comprehend that future unless
we are aware of its history.
The Importance of the Study
Department of Education statistics for the 1999-2000 school year, reported
that there were over 1,800 students and 100 teachers in the Hawaiian immersion
program on five of the eight Hawaiian islands. Hawaiian medium education is
considered by many as one of the major ways in which Hawaiians are taking control
of the education and future of their people (Benham & Heck, 1998). It is also an
8
example of how the K-12 public schools can be more responsive to the revitalization
and maintenance of a heritage language. Although the majority of Hawaiian
language immersion students and teachers are second language learners of Hawaiian,
most also come from families for whom Hawaiian was their first language three to
five generations ago and Hawaiian culture is and continues to be their primary
culture practiced in their homes.
Those involved in establishing the Heritage Language Initiative suggested
that U.S. schools have not adequately promoted the maintenance and learning of
heritage languages, regarding both immigrant and indigenous languages (Brecht &
Ingold, 1999). Such is the case for the Hawaiian language, which had not been used
in the classroom for over 90 years. Partly as a result of this, Hawaiian became a
threatened language. Considering that the number and age of speakers is an indicator
of the health of a language (Krauss, 1996), Hawaiian language immersion program
has been successful in contributing to the revitalization and maintenance of this
indigenous language. Although the program has become a model for other
communities interested in developing an indigenous language immersion program,
there are still many issues of interest to consider regarding what resources are needed
to begin and sustain such a program. Teaching in a language and culturally based
program is very demanding, especially for those involved in a program that promotes
a threatened language. As such, it is important to understand the role of teachers and
how participation in the program influences their personal and professional
development.
9
Limitations
The following limitations are noted:
1. This study was limited to subjects who agreed to participate voluntarily.
2. Parents’ opinions and responses may be influenced by factors outside the
scope of this study.
3. Teachers’ opinions and responses may be influenced by factors outside
the scope of this study.
4. Administrators’ and opinions and responses may be influenced by factors
outside the scope of this study.
5. Key informants’ opinions and responses may be influenced by factors
outside the scope of this study.
6. This study was limited to the number of subjects surveyed and the
amount of time available to conduct the study.
7. The study was limited to the honesty of the respondents in the completion
of the survey.
Delimitations and Assumptions
1. The sample of this study was limited to Pūnana Leo and Kula Kaiapuni
Hawaiian Immersion Program administrators, key informants, teachers,
and parents.
2. The study was designed to look at the perspective of Hawaiian Language
Immersion Program’s administrators, key informants, teachers, and
parents.
10
3. The study was not designed to measure educational outcomes in the
program.
Definitions
HLIP: Hawaiian Language Immersion Program.
Hawaiian Medium Education: Schools in which Hawaiian is the medium of
instruction and administration. Whether it be Hawaiian language as the medium of
instruction or Hawaiian culture as the medium of instruction.
Ho‘okumu A‘e: Innovation.
Ka Papahana Kaiapuni Hawai'i: The K-12 Hawaiian Medium Education
Program.
Kuana‘ike Hawai‘i: Hawaiian Perspective.
Kula Kaiapuni: The K-12 Hawaiian Medium Education Program.
Piko: Center.
Pūnana Leo: Hawaiian Medium Education Pre-School.
‘Aha Pūnana Leo: Non-Profit Hawaiian Medium Education Organization.
11
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this literature review is to examine innovation in education
that pertains to the implementation of the HLIP in the state of Hawai‘i. This chapter
will also provide background on the status of Native Hawaiian students in education.
The progression of the information will be presented as follows:
1. A review of research on the Native Hawaiian students and Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program.
2. A review of innovation in education, the different types of innovation that
is encountered in education, the implementation of innovation, and
barriers to innovation.
3. A review of innovative frameworks and theory.
Status of Hawaiian Language Immersion Program and Students
Currently, there are twenty-two Hawaiian language immersion schools in the
State of Hawai‘i (HIDOE, 2009). Six of the schools are categorized as Public
Charter Schools (PCS), New Conversion Public Charter Schools (NCPCS), or
Laboratory (Lab) schools; sixteen are public schools, under the direction of the
Hawai‘i Department of Education (HIDOE, 2009). Fifteen of the schools are
considered a school-within-a-school, which means these schools occupy a portion of
a larger, traditional non-immersion school’s campus (HIDOE, 2009). These schools
are under the jurisdiction of the principal of the larger home school. Seven of the
12
schools are self-contained campuses, each being led exclusively by its respective
principal (HIDOE, 2009).
Yamauchi and Ceppi (1998) states that the HLIP was implemented to better
address the education of students who have been potentially placed at risk due to
cultural and linguistic incompatibilities between the school system and home and
community environments (Yamauchi & Ceppi, 1998). Through the medium of
Hawaiian language, the program goals of HLIP are to provide a complete
educational program which assists students in: (a) becoming proficient in
communicating and understanding the Hawaiian language; (b) developing a
foundational core of Hawaiian values and culture; and (c) becoming empowered,
self-directed learners who are positive community contributors (Kawakami, 1999).
The mission of HLIP is to achieve quality educational outcomes based on knowledge
of Hawaiian language and culture as the foundation upon which individuals become
culturally responsive, sensitive and productive adults who contribute significantly to
all levels of Hawaii’s community and the world (Ka Papahana Kaiapuni Hawai‘i,
HIDOE, 2005). HLIP schools assert that language is the foundation of a culture, and
that a strong cultural identity will lead to successful educational engagement and
outcomes (Kana‘iaupuni, Malone, & Ishibashi, 2005).
Studies conducted by Reyhner and Tennant (1995), Reyhner (1996) and St.
Clair (1982) claim that in losing a language, important components of a community
are also lost, including cultural knowledge and values (Yamauchi et al., 2000).
Miller (1999) asserts that immersion students will not only do as well as children in
13
English-only classrooms, with the additional advantage of being functionally
bilingual at the end of seven years, but are likely to outperform monolingual students
on standardized measurements of English language competency. Miller (1999)
suggests that immersion research indicates that immersion students are able to
successfully transfer content area knowledge from the target language (i.e.,
Hawaiian) to their native language (i.e., English).
In research completed by Cummins (1990) in the area of bilingual education,
he proposed a model containing four key components necessary to enhance the
learning of minority or indigenous students: (1) the need to include native language
and culture; (2) curriculum and instructional strategies which are culturally relevant
and meaningful; (3) involvement from the community; and (4) assessment based on
students’ assets rather than needs (Kawakami, 1999). Kawakami (1999) posits that
the combination of Hawaiian research findings with Cummins’ model sets the
platform for discussion in planning effective educational programs for Native
Hawaiian students. She proposes six essential areas for planning and collaboration
purposes: (a) Hawaiian Identity: cultivating Hawaiian history, values, and traditions;
(b) Hawaiian Sense of Place: focusing on the historical significance certain places
and physical environments; (c) Hawaiian Ways of Knowing: the art of inserting
education into the students’ culture, as opposed to inserting culture into the students’
education; (d) Hawaiian language: learning and perpetuating the native language,
which was replaced by English in Hawaii’s schools around 1896; (e) Service to
Hawaiian Communities: promoting cultural values such as family, providing service
14
to the greater community beyond the school; and (f) Focus on Competencies:
creating a cultural learning environment based on a strengths-based and assets
approach (Kawakami, 1999).
Yamauchi, Ceppi, and Lau-Smith (1999) conducted a study to analyze some
of the sociohistorical influences on the Hawaiian language immersion program’s
initiation and development. They were particularly interested in gaining an
understanding of how the history of Hawaiian language usage influenced the start of
the program, and documenting the perception of various stakeholders of the program
(Yamauchi et al., 1999). They gathered data through semi-structured interviews with
people involved in the early development of the program, via review of research
material, newspaper and newsletter articles, and an analysis of selected Hawai‘i
Department of Education and Board of Education documents (Yamauchi, Ceppi, &
Lau-Smith, 1999). As the program sought establishment within Hawaii’s public
schools, they found that it was mainly due to the persistent efforts of a passionate
group of educators, parents, and Hawaiian activists who lobbied the Board of
Education for implementation of the program (Yamauchi et al., 1999). As a result,
on July 23, 1987, the BOE passed a resolution approving the implementation of the
program as a pilot K-1 project at four sites on four different islands for the 1987 fall
semester (Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-Smith, 1999). Yamauchi, Ceppi and Lau-Smith
(1999) concluded that in addition to revitalizing the Hawaiian language, many of the
interviewees recognized the program’s potential influence on promoting the
education of Native Hawaiian youth, who are often regarded academically at risk.
15
Yamauchi and Wilhelm (2001) assert that immersion teachers emphasize
modes of learning that have been used in traditional Hawaiian culture, such as
project-based, place-based, hands-on, observational, memorization, and recitation
(Yamauchi & Wilhelm, 2001). Environmentally, Hawaiian immersion schools
experience a transformation that is strongly embedded in and driven by the values,
knowledge, and activities of the Hawaiian culture (Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-Smith,
2000). As such, daily interaction between Hawaiian immersion teachers and
students includes deeply rooted Hawaiian cultural values (Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-
Smith, 2000). The influence of indigenous language immersion education on student
outcomes has systematically been difficult to evaluate in large part due to the lack of
appropriate assessment measures as well as various types of resource shortages, e.g.,
fiscal, human, facilities, curriculum, and supplies (Kana‘iaupuni, Malone, &
Ishibashi, 2005).
Generally, for indigenous and minority students to have a chance to succeed
academically, there needs to be a cultural fit between students’ home culture and
their school culture (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Through culturally relevant pedagogy,
students develop cultural identity and competence (Bennett, 2001). As their culture
drives relevant learning, students experience academic success and a stronger sense
of self-regard (Bennett, 2001). The work of ‘Aha Pūnana Leo and Kula Kaiapuni,
the Hawaiian language immersion programs have been critical because it draws upon
family and community resources to create intergenerational learning opportunities
16
and culturally responsive pedagogy which is now being considered as educational
innovation (Ng-Osorio & Ledward, 2011).
Innovation
The general agreement amongst researchers and scholars is that innovation in
organizations involves the adoption and implementation of something new
(Fuglsang, 2010). Luecke and Katz (2003) define innovation “as a new method,
custom or device—a change in the way of doing things. It is generally understood as
the successful introduction of a new thing or method” (Brewer & Tierney, 2010).
Duggan (1996) expands the definition of innovation to include its relevancy to
innovative people practices as well as production processes and products describing
it as “the successful exploitation of new ideas” (p. 503). As Christensen, Baumann,
Ruggles, and Sadtler (2006) pose “when too much attention is devoted to providing
more of the same to narrow populations that are already served, it’s time for a
fundamentally different approach” (p. 2). The different approach and
implementation of it would be deemed innovative. According to Slappendel (1996)
the term innovation is used to refer to the process in which new ideas, objects and
practices are created, developed, implemented and reinvented. The innovation
process typically has periods of design and development, adoption, implementation
and diffusion.
No innovation is permanent – a solution to any one problem does not remain
valid from now until eternity. Only change is permanent. In both academic and
practitioner communities, it is commonly perceived that organizations should
17
innovate to be effective, or even survive, and that research can guide the
management of innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). “The innovation may
be incremental or breakthrough and evident at any level of organization: team,
community of practice, project, program, company, joint venture, alliance,
partnership or supply chain” (Beyerlein, Beyerlein, Kennedy, 2010, p. xiii).
Walker (2006) identified three categories to systematically organize the types
of organizational innovations: “product, process, and ancillary” (p. 313). Offering
existing or new products and services to existing and new ‘customers’ is considered
as product type of innovation under Walker’s (2006) framework. Process
innovations include changes in organization’s rules, procedures, and structures, and
communications as well as changes in relationships and exchanges amongst
members, and between members and external environment (Walker, 2006).
“Ancillary innovations are concerned with working across boundaries with other
service providers, users or other public agencies and thus their successful
implementation is reliant upon others” (Walker, 2006, p. 314).
Innovation occurs in phases, Damanpour and Schneider (2006) refer to these
stages as: initiation, adoption decision, and implementation. The initiation phase
involves recognizing that there is a need to innovate. This phase is an exhilarating
one where brainstorming and the generating of ideas exist. Meyer and Goes (1988)
refer to this phase as the Knowledge-Awareness stage where apprehension,
consideration and discussion occur. Initiation or Knowledge-Awareness is rooted in
the need for change, where change is considered an inherent aspect of creativity
18
(Matthew & Sternberg, 2006). Although creativity can be found in all phases, it is
mainly associated with the initiation phase. Psychologist agree that to be creative,
one needs to generate ideas or products that are relatively novel, useful, adaptive,
high in quality and gain social acceptance (Barron, 1955; Csikszentmihalyi, 1994,
1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991,1995). Creativity requires an environment where
people feel free to challenge assumptions and conventional ways of doing things in
search of more innovative alternatives (Matthews & Sternberg, 2006). Once
brainstorming for solutions have occurred, identifying suitable innovations takes
place with the final proposal for the next phase of adoption decision.
The adoption decision phase provides members of the organization
information on the proposed innovation and how it would suit the organization
(Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). Meyers and Goes (1988) refer to this phase as the
Evaluation-Choice Stage. In this phase organizations evaluate the technical,
financial, strategic perspectives and decide whether or not to accept the innovation
(Meyers & Goes, 1988). It is in this phase that top administrators decide to adopt the
innovation and allocate resources to it.
The last phase, implementation, involves modifying and preparing the
organization to use the innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). This phase may
include a trial period in order to ease the acceptance of and continued use of the
innovation.
Damanpour and Schneider (2006) indicated that innovation is a source of
competitive advantage and economic growth, and contributes to the increase of
19
global competition, technological change, fast-changing market situations and
continuous customer/client demand for quality services. In academic communities, it
is commonly perceived that innovation is necessary to be effective, or even to
survive, and that research can guide the management of innovation in education
(Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
Innovation Types
Innovation is creative thinking transformed into useful outcomes, and always
depends on a social network (Beyerlein, Beyerlein, & Kennedy, 2006).
Organizations are beginning to recognize that innovation is not the result of a lone
genius or about individuality in thinking; rather it is a collaborative process where
people from many different parts of the organization contribute to the creation and
implementation of new ideas (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2006). In particular, “scholars
have focused on the issue of integration or the coming together of multiple talents to
focus on the common purpose of innovation” (as cited in Jassawalla & Sashittal,
2006, p. 2).
There are many types of innovation. Types of innovation can be identified
by the way the innovation looks in an organization. To support adoption and
implementation, capacity building among individuals, groups, teams, professional
learning communities, individual schools, partner organizations, entire districts, and
communities is especially important (Bodilly, Chun, Ikemoto, & Stockly, 2004;
Fullan, 2005; Rogers, 2003). Due to the nature of this research, three types are
identified: collaborative innovation, innovation specific and local innovation.
20
Collaborative innovation is creative thinking transformed into useful outcomes, and
always depends on a social network (Beyerlein, Beyerlein, & Kennedy, 2006). The
social network is key to the culture of organizations in regards to the success of the
innovation and regarded as high-quality social interaction.
Collaboration has been characterized as the dynamic cooperation across
complex, loosely tied internal and external networks (Hatchuel, 2001). There is a
growing recognition that innovation is not a linear process but rather a social process
involving a multitude of different actors, sometimes referred to as a social network
(Waters-Bayer, van Velduizen, Wongtschowdki, & Wettasinha, 2010). Innovation
processes can be enhanced by creating more possibilities for actors to interact. If
they are to interact effectively, many social and psychological processes are involved
and many personal and institutional changes are then made (Waters-Bayer et al.,
2010). Therefore, the social network of collaboration is relationship-centered. This
network is key to the culture of organizations throughout the phases of innovation
and regarded as high-quality social interaction (Beyerlein et al., 2010). Research
continues to show that world class levels of performance are impossible without
mastery of collaborative methods, processes and designs (Beyerlein et al., 2010;
Matthews & Sternberg, 2006).
Innovation-specific capacity building is necessary for ensuring stakeholders
and systems have the knowledge, values, and skills needed specific to the innovation
being adopted and implemented. Generic capacity building requires general
competencies for working in teams, relationship building, communication, and
21
broad-based leadership. Both are essential for building capacity among individuals
and systems. Innovation-specific capacity building provides a buy-in from all
stakeholders.
Local innovation: “Local innovation” refers to the dynamics of indigenous
knowledge, the process through which individuals or groups within a given locality
discover or develop and apply improved ways of managing the available resources –
building on and expanding the boundaries of their indigenous knowledge (Waters-
Bayer et al., 2010). Many local innovations are not of a technical nature but rather
are socio-economic and institutional innovations such as new ways of gaining access
to resource-use rights or new ways of organising marketing activities (Waters-Bayer
et al., 2010). Although local innovation has always been happening, it has seldom
been recognized even by people who have been documenting indigenous knowledge
for decades. There is a widespread tendency to regard indigenous knowledge as a
treasure chest of ancient jewels that must be stored well and documented for
posterity – before it is lost – rather than seeing the dynamics in the knowledge of the
people.
Antecedents to Implementation of Innovation
Innovators are requireed when seeking to innovate. Innovative people are less
likely to conform to rules, social norms, and accepted work pattern” (Kirton, 1976).
So naturally, innovators challenge traditions and customs. According to the
individualist framwork perspective, innovative individuals are the cause of
organizational innovations (Slappendel, 1996). The individualist framework
22
perspective focuses on individual level antcendents associated with innovators
(Slappendel, 1996). Based on Linden’s (1990) study of seven successful innovators
in the public sector, they all demostrated the following four characteristics: high
personal drive, held fast to their dreams and vision, never imagined failure, and
pursue their vision with boundless energy. Nicholson and West (1988) and Rushton
and West (1988) identified the three following personality traits; confidence, high
need for growth, and desire for control. These three personality traits are also
demostrated in innovators.
Research indicates that the three antecedents to innovation are:
environmental, organizational and leadership (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
Among the three identified antecedents, organizational and leadership antecedents
have a greater influence on innovation than environmental antecedents (Damanpour
& Schneider, 2006).
Environmental Antecedents in Innovation
Researchers posit that environmental characteristics are critical factors in the
ability for an organization to be innovative (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
Environmental characteristics may include: community size and wealth, the size of
the market or sector within which the organization operates, cultural (values, beliefs,
past experiences of individuals in the social system), societal/social norms,
political/political directives, geographic conditions, access, ability for contact and
information exchange, informal interorganizational networks/interpersonal networks,
intentional spread strategies, wider environments, technological changes, clientele
23
needs and demands, and the labor market (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006;
Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Rogers, 1995; Mohr, 1969). Among the many
environmental factors mentioned above, three factors were common findings among
the research: the size and wealth of the community, networks, and the market.
Therefore, my study will focus on these three particular environmental antecedents:
size and wealth of the community, communication networks (social, access,
information exchange, interpersonal), and the market conditions to also include
political directives.
The size of the community (market or sector) in which the organization
resides has proven to impact an organizations ability to be innovative. As a result,
external resources and/or extra-organizational resources and information are
available to the community to support innovations. Researchers state that the size of
the community alone explains why urbanized areas have more complex and diverse
environments of local government organizations (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
Mohr (1969) echoes this statement by stating, “organizations may be more likely to
innovate when its environment is rapidly changing than when it is steady” (p. 112).
The size of the community is relevant to the study in that Hawaiian organizations are
in various size communities, which yield various external resources. Understanding
whether or not the size of the community in which the organization resides plays a
role in innovation towards meeting the needs of Hawaiian students educationally.
Another environmental antecedent that is critical for innovation is one of
access and the ability for external organizational systems to have contact and
24
information exchange. Damanpour and Schneider (2006) refers to this as
Communication Networks. Accessibility is also influenced by the size of the
community. Accessibility brings about the ability for contact and information
exchanges, which are essential for innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). In
other words, a larger community will yield more external resources and accessibility
than a smaller community. Initiation, adoption, and implementation of innovations
are more abundant in wealthier and growing communities (Damanpour & Schneider,
2006). Damanpour and Schneider (2006) indicate that an organization’s external
communication is among other common predictors of innovation. Greenhalgh et al.
(2004) mimics this statement by indicating external influences such as the
importance of informal interorganizational networks that impact innovation. Mohr
(1969) also state that the social environment with norms that favor change will likely
innovate. Schools as organizations within the community thrive on building
networks for support, therefore, communication networks is likely to be relevant to
the study.
Mohr (1969) contends markets that adhere to the needs and demands of the
clientele and are rapidly changing may be more likely to innovate than markets that
are disconnected with the clientele and are steady. Political directives within the
market also influence innovation. Political directives and/or external mandates are
considered political ‘must-do’s’ that will decrease or increase an organization’s
motivation for innovation (Greenhalgh, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004).
Greenhalgh et al. (2004) indicated that a policy push that occurs at the start of
25
innovation increases the organization’s ability to be successful while making a
dedicated funding stream available. However, political directives may work for or
against innovation. In other words, mandates may cause organizations to lose focus
and/or redirect focus on innovation. The market is important because decisions that
take place in support of innovation is dependent on the market.
To summarize, the environmental antecedents such as the size and wealth of
the community, the social, access, information exchange and interpersonal
communication networks, and the market conditions to include political directives,
affect innovation because these factors in essence determine the extent of extra-
organizational resources and information that will be available to the public and
private sectors that in turn will support innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
Therefore, this study will look at the role that these environmental antecedents and
its relevancy on a Hawaiian organization in being innovative in meeting the needs of
Hawaiian students.
Organizational Antecedents in Innovation
According to Damanpour and Schneider (2006), organizational antecedents
are more influential than environmental antecedents in predicting the phases of
innovation within an organization. However, researchers caution by sharing that
innovation are successful in context-specific organizations. Thus, an innovation may
be successful in one organization and not in another (Albury, 2005).
Organizational antecedents may include: centralization, formalization,
specialization, professionalism, differentiation (divided into semi-autonomous
26
departments), organizations’ design (size and complexity), financial
resources/economic health, trade unions, and the social system (Damanpour &
Schneider, 2006; Greenhalgh, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Rogers, 1995;
Mohr, 1969). Damanpour and Schneider (2006) suggest that trade unions have a
negative effect on innovation while economic health has a positive effect on
innovation. Damanpour and Schneider (2006) posit that centralization and
formalization negatively impacts innovation while specialization, professionalism,
and differentiation positively influence innovation. They also indicate that the most
common accepted predictors of innovation are an organization’s complexity, size,
and financial resources.
Research conducted by Damanpour and Schneider (2006), Greenhalgh,
MacFarlane, Bate and Kyriakidou (2004), Rogers (1995), and Mohr (1969) indicate
that the size and complexity of an organization, organizations financial
resources/internal economic health, and the organizational structure are
organizational antecedents of innovation. Therefore, this will focus primarily on
these three organizational antecedents for innovation in meeting the needs of
Hawaiian students.
The complexity and size of the organization makes up the organization’s
design. These two are considered two of the most important predictors of
organizational innovation. The size of an organization positively influences the
strength and all phases of innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Mohr, 1969).
There are arguments to support innovation in large and small organizations.
27
Arguments for large organizations include the amount of financial resources, diverse
facilities, professional and skilled workers, higher technical potential and knowledge,
and better opportunities for raising capital. Arguments for small organizations
include the ability to make quicker decisions due to less bureaucratic and more
flexible structures, greater ability to adapt and improve, and willingness to accept
and implement change (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). The study will focus on the
HLIP throughout the state. Studies have indicated size, whether large or small, to
have a positive impact on innovation. For this study, size of the organization will be
considered in determining if it affects the role of innovation.
Organizations that are large and complex such that the organization is divided
into departments and units have better chances of being innovative (Greenhalgh et
al., 2004). The knowledge base in complex organizations is full of depth and
diversity that stimulates creativity. The creativity leads to an increase awareness and
cross-fertilization of ideas. Complex organizations also have more access to
information about different innovations, therefore, will more likely identify and
acquire it (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). Complexity is relevant to the study in
that this Hawaiian organization is comprised of various departments, service units,
lay staff, professional staff and consultants.
The financial resources and internal economic health refers to the financial
resources within an organization, which positively influences innovation. Financial
resources allow decision-makers to take risks and invest in new programs
(Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Mohr, 1969). The ability to take risks and invest in
28
new ideas is influenced by the financial resources of the organization. Organizations
that have greater economic health are able to absorb the cost of failure when taking
risks (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
Rogers (1995) defines structure “…as the patterned arrangements of the units
in a system. This structure gives regularity and stability to human behavior in a
system; it allows one to predict behavior with some degree of accuracy” (p. 24).
Coordination among members/units helps to facilitate the cross-fertilization of ideas.
The coordination with members of diverse backgrounds and training, top managers
commitment to innovation, middle managers involvement, and the motivation of the
members to use the innovation all play a role in the structure of the organization.
Time allotted within the organization’s structure is a factor that attributes to
innovation. Borins (2002) posit that providing time to work on innovation may
positively influence the ability to innovate, however, in doing so may result in
reducing other responsibilities and the financial budget. The structure in this study’s
Hawaiian organization may vary from unit to unit (master schedule, vision that
impacts the structure, coordination and collaboration between and among
management and staff). Therefore, the structure of the organization is relevant to the
study.
To summarize, organizational antecedents such as the size and complexity of
an organization, organizations financial resources/internal economic health, and the
organizational structure are factors that influence innovation (Damanpour &
Schneider, 2006; Rogers, 1995; Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Mohr, 1969). Again, this
29
study will focus on one private non-profit Hawaiian organization which mimic the
structure of a school district with various departments, service units that are
complex, have different structures an supports. This study will look at the role that
these organizational antecedents have on this organization in being innovative.
Leadership Antecedents in Innovation
Strategic leaders and/or top managers influence an organizations ability to
innovate by “establishing organizational culture, motivating and enabling managers
and employees, and building capacity for change and innovation” (Damanpour &
Schneider, 2006, p. 220). Leadership characteristics may include age, gender,
education, tenure, and attitude toward innovation, motivation, capacity, competence,
articulates vision, sets high expectations, provides individualized support, is
inspirational, and promotes intellectual stimulation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006;
Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Jaskyte, 2011; Waldman & Bass, 1991; Sarros, Cooper, &
Santora, 2008). According to Damanpour and Schneider (2006), the age, gender and
education of a leader are not significant antecedents that influence innovation. The
findings from the aforementioned studies indicated that tenure in management,
managers competitive and entrepreneurship attitude toward innovation, the ability to
collaborate and the characteristics of transformational leadership influenced an
organizations ability to be innovative. Therefore, this review will focus primarily on
manager’s attitude, transformational leadership and the ability to collaborate.
Manager’s attitude specifically toward competition and entrepreneurship
positively impacts innovation. Damanpour and Schneider (2006) posit that the
30
attitude of a manager is a stronger antecedent over environmental antecedents for
innovation. Research indicates that it is essential to put individuals with positive
attitudes in key leadership positions and/or roles to drive innovation (Damanpour &
Schneider, 2006). The leaders attitude must exemplify and express the systems
structure (Rogers, 1995). Damanpour & Schneider (2006) indicate that a managers’
attitude towards innovation, competition, and entrepreneurship weighs heavily over
the individuals environmental and demographic characteristics. In addition to having
a competitive edge, an attitude that creates and supports pro-innovation cultures,
controls the processes of monitoring the environment and organizational resources,
ability to create policies that respond to external changes and influences strategic
decisions are also factors of leadership antecedents (Jaskyte, 2011).
Transformational leadership has been associated with organizational
innovativeness (Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Jaskyte, 2011; Waldman & Bass, 1991;
Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008). “Transformational leadership is the process
whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level
of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower” (Northouse, 2010).
Factors involved in transformational leadership include: idealized influence
(articulates vision and charisma), inspirational motivation (sets high expectations),
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Northouse, 2010; Jaskyte,
2011; Waldman & Bass, 1991; Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008).
They provide ideological explanations that link followers’ identities to the
collective identity of their organization thereby increasing followers’ intrinsic
motivation (rather than just providing extrinsic motivation) to perform their
31
job. By articulation an important vision and mission for the organization,
transformational leaders increase followers understanding of the importance
and values associated with desired outcomes, raise their performance
expectations, and increase their willingness to transcend their self interests
for the sake of the collective entity. (p. 528)
The aforementioned studies described the factors involved in
transformational leadership. Idealized influence, which includes charisma, is the
ability to act as a strong role model. A leader as such has high standards of moral
and ethical conduct and articulates a vision and a sense of mission (Northouse,
2010). Inspirational motivation occurs when leaders communicate and set high
expectations, motivating and inspiring others to be committed to the vision of the
organization (Northouse, 2010; Sarros et al., 2008). Intellectual stimulation occurs
when leaders stimulate others to be creative, innovative, and to an extent challenge
their own beliefs and that of their leaders and organization (Northouse, 2010;
Waldman & Bass, 1991; Jaskyte, 2011). “This type of leadership supports followers
as they try new approaches and develop innovative ways of dealing with
organizational issues” (Northouse, 2010, p. 179). Individualized consideration
occurs when leaders take the time to listen the needs of individuals and promote and
provide a supportive climate (Northouse, 2010; Waldman & Bass, 1991; Sarros et
al., 2008).
Transformational leadership and its factors are relevant to the study as Top
Administrators within the Children’s Center and Endowment Group will be
interviewed to gain their perspective on their role as leaders, and other staff will be
32
interviewed to gain their perspective on the role that leadership plays on innovation
in meeting the needs of Hawaiian Students.
In collaborative environments, transformational leaders act more as
facilitators, encouraging the staff to put aside differences, think outside of the box,
with the focus always being for the benefit of the issue at hand (Vernon, 2005). Due
to the collaborative nature of social service organizations, the leaders must be able to
facilitate the various viewpoints which may vary from organization to organization.
In this study’s context, the inability to collaborate would be deemed a barrier
towards innovation. Limitations like these are especially apparent in schools and
districts with considerable numbers of young people and families manifesting social-
psychological vulnerabilities and experiencing economic, social, and cultural
hardships. Under these circumstances, educators simply cannot be expected to ‘‘do it
all, alone’’ inside one building. Nor can they achieve good outcomes by focusing
exclusively on what can be done during the restricted hours of the regular school day
(Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010).
Collaboration is seen as a partnership. The best partnerships enable new
interpersonal relationships, including co- operation, coordination, and collaboration
among diverse, once-separate stakeholders (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010; Lawson,
2004). Together, these new partnerships and interpersonal relationships necessitate
systems changes in schools and districts. They also entail cross-systems changes
involving other systems, especially child welfare, juvenile justice, mental health,
sub- stance abuse, youth development, and the health system. Predictably, schools
33
and districts with histories of ‘‘walled-in’’ improvement planning typically lack the
organizational mechanisms, leadership and management structures, supportive
cultures, and organizational expertise required for innovative solutions (Flaspohler,
Anderson-Butcher, Paternite, Weist, & Wandersman, 2006; Fullan, 2005; Hatch,
2009; Honig, 2006).
In summary, leaders are often called upon to sift through the myriad of
seemingly-promising innovations to find those that meet their needs, but are rarely
trained in a formal sequence on how to decide whether to pursue or reject new ideas.
Leaders are often well connected to their professional and social networks, and are
thereby aware of new ideas, but awareness of a new idea is a far cry from making the
decision to investigate or reject it, which is where the innovation takes place.
Collaboration emerges in teams largely as a function of the choices made by the
leadership and their carefully considered actions and initiatives (Jassawalla &
Sashittal, 2006). Leading innovation through collaborations can be found at the
intersection of leadership, creativity and organizational literatures (Matthew &
Sternberg, 2006). Over managing and/or micromanaging or lack thereof of
leadership negatively impacts an organizations ability to innovate (Kelley, 2005). A
manager’s competitive and entrepreneurship attitude toward innovation, and factors
of transformational leadership influence an organizations ability to be innovative.
The study will look at the role that these leadership antecedents have on innovation
within this context of a HLIP.
34
Framework
Detailed conclusions can be made about the effects that innovation has had
upon any organization or system. However, it is less easy to predict the
consequences and probable success of attempting to transfer those practices onto
other systems when they are implemented without due regard to the existing culture
or value system (Duggan, 1996). All organizations will have different methods of
managing the process of innovation. For purposes of this study, we intend to look at
innovation or the perception of innovation from a Hawaiian indigenous worldview.
The framework for this study is grounded in traditions and collaborations. Barnhart
and Kawagley (2005) explain the significance of worldviews and critical
consciousness:
Indigenous peoples throughout the world have sustained their unique
worldviews and associated knowledge systems for millennia, even while
undergoing major social upheavals as a result of transformative forces
beyond their control. Many of the core values, beliefs and practices
associated with those worldviews have survived and are beginning to be
recognized as having an adaptive integrity that is as valid for today’s
generations as it was for generations past. (p. 5)
Kana‘iaupuni (2004) suggests that more research focuses on the unique
contributions Hawaiians offer because Hawaiians have a special sensitivity and
perspective of the world. This special worldview centers on relationships including
connections with their land and genealogy. Like other Indigenous people, the
Hawaiian worldview is relational, based on a harmonic integrity of people and
nature.
35
Ho‘okumu A‘e: Innovation
Figure 1 depicts a construct of innovation from a Hawaiian perspective.
Figure 1. Ho‘okumu A‘e
The following definition of Hawaiian terms are cited here, the content
describing the terms come from personal communication throughout the lifetime of
Papaikanī‘au Kai‘anui and her mother, renown Hawaiian Cultural Practitioner,
36
Hōkūlani Holt. The illustration in the center is referred to as a piko. The piko
denotes the new life or newbeginning (Puku‘i & Elbert, 2003). A piko is a center, a
beginning, and a connection in every sense of the definition. All things have at least
one piko, it signifies the very center and provides a connection between the past and
present. The piko which is the fontanel on our head connects us to our past and
kupuna (ancestors). The piko which is our navel connects us to our present family.
The piko which are our genitals connect us to the future generations. All these
located in our body reminds us that these centers of connection also exist in all living
things and places and for the very same reasons.
Kuana‘ike is defined as perspective or worldview (Puku‘i & Elbert, 2003).
Notice in this illustration, there is either positive and negative space, or black and
white. These spaces represent a Hawaiian worldview and a western worldview,
polar opposites. Kuana‘ike Hawai‘i or Hawaiian worldview is a commonly held
view in Hawaiian culture that there are constant cycles that we are a part of. That all
things revolve through cycles of birth, life, death; of giving and receiving (kōkua
aku, kōkua mai; aloha aku, aloha mai); rising, setting, rising again; generational
learning (kupuna/mo‘opuna); water cycles; and others. As stated earlier, a Hawaiian
worldview is relational to the environment.
Kaulike is defined as balance (Puku‘i & Elbert, 2003). In the Hawaiian
spiritual view things were not inherently bad or good they just were. The value
system of good or bad was related to how things or people assisted the overall. How
did it affect the greater good? Just like us, the gods had both attributes. Pele (the Fire
37
Goddess) can be seen as destroying forests or land but she also makes new land and
brings perspective to human life. Negative and positive are just opposites, not
inherently good or bad. There is balance and duality in all things Hawaiian and it
was imperative that these concepts were maintained. All of our stories and chants tell
about male/female, top/bottom, rising/setting, inland/ seaward balance and duality.
Kū is the erect or rising as is indicated in the rising sun; Hina is the prostrate and
setting as indicated in the setting sun. Kū is male and Hina is female and both must
exist in concept and in reality.
The concepts of piko, kuana‘ike Hawai‘i, Western perspective and kaulike
make up the framework for Hawaiian innovation. Hawaiian innovation is ever
changing, never ending and constantly improving. Hawaiians believed that one must
start with a firm foundation in their lives and in all that they did. Then they made it
more beautiful, more functional, stronger, lighter, smoother, and the many ways it
could be improved, but always starting from making it perfect. If it was not perfect,
it must be done over. If it was perfect then how can it then be made more perfect. A
constant challenging of one’s self. The most profound difference between a western
thought of innovation and Hawaiian innovation is learning from the past to create
anew. Learning from the past is more than an intellectual pursuit, it is a physical
connection also. When one reads about how Hawaiians made nets, it is one type of
learning. But in a Hawaiian sense, that learning is not complete until you learn how
to perfect making that net yourself. (Ma ka hana ka ‘ike, By doing you gain
knowledge) Then once you have perfected that net, you learn how to perfect the othe
38
kinds of nets, then you learn how to use that net to catch fish. Once all of that is
accomplished then you can experiment with making a better or different net.
Learning from the past is not learning something old, it is learning how that skill or
knowldege can be used today and for tomorrow. It will then be amazing to see where
that can also lead. As Figure 1 illustrates, having both the black and white moving in
unison provides a view of differences that still make up a whole. The flow of the
black and white do not blend, they travel together; side by side, beginning and
ending together.
Therefore, an examination of a private non-profit Hawaiian organization
which is considered to be an innovative organization was chosen to be studied. This
study hopes to demonstrate that private non- profit organizations with traditional
roots can innovate and can be an innovative organization given the ‘right’ set of
antecedents are present. For leaders of the public sector entities, including
administrators of K-12 school systems and higher education institutions, with an
increased need to create more innovative organizations, this study can provide an
additional case study and a model for such an endeavor.
Summary
To summarize, the environmental antecedents such as the size and wealth of
the community, the social, access, information exchange and interpersonal
communication networks, and the market conditions to include political directives,
affect innovation because these factors in essence determine the extent of extra-
organizational resources and information that will be available to the public and
39
private sectors that in turn will support innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006);
the organizational antecedents such as the size and complexity of an organization,
organizations financial resources/internal economic health, and the organizational
structure are factors that influence innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006;
Rogers, 1995; Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Mohr, 1969); and collaboration emerges in
teams largely as a function of the choices made by the leadership and their carefully
considered actions and initiatives (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2006). Understanding the
role that these environmental, organizational and transformational leadership
antecedents and its relevancy on the HLIP in being innovative in meeting the needs
of Hawaiian students through a Hawaiian perspective.
40
Table 1
Articles Addressing Research Questions
Research Questions Articles Key Factors
1. Do key informants,
administrators, teachers and
parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program
(HLIP) perceive the HLIP to be
an innovative program?
Greenhalgh, MacFarlane,
Bate, and Kyriakidou
(2004)
Rogers (1995)
Damanpour and
Schneider (2006)
Structure
Social networks/system
Opinion leaders
Relative advantage
Compatibility
Complexity
Trialability
Observability
Reinvention
Risk
Task issues
Knowledge required to use it
Idea, practice, object that is
perceived as new
Innovation
Communication channels
Time
Environment/Contextual
Organization
Individual/Organizational
Leadership
2. What do Key informants,
administrators, teachers and
parents perceive as antecedents
(Leadership, Organizational and
Structure/Environment)to
innovation when implementing
the HLIP?
Borrins (2002)
Damanpour & Schneider
(2006)
Greenhalgh, MacFarlane,
Bate & Kyriakidou
(2004)
Jaskyte (2011)
Linden (1990)
Mohr (1969)
Nicholson and West
(1988)
Rogers (1995)
Rushton and West (1988)
Sarros, Cooper, &
Santora (2008)
Waldman & Bass (1991)
Organizational
Structure/Environment
Role of Leaders
Leadership Attributes
Tenure in management
Manager’s competitive and
entrepreneurship attitude toward
innovation
Transformational leadership
(articulates vision and sets high
expectations; individualized
consideration/support; inspirational;
promotes intellectual stimulation)
Organizational design (size and
complexity)
Financial resources/internal
economic health
Organizational structure
Community (size, wealth, growing)
Networks (social, access, exchange
information, interpersonal)
Market (political directives,
conditions)
3. What do Key informants,
administrators, teachers and
parents perceive as barriers
(Leadership, Organizational and
Structure/Environment) to
innovation when implementing
the HLIP?
41
Table 1, continued
Research Questions Articles Key Factors
4. Do key informants,
administrators, teachers and
parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program
(HLIP) perceive cultural
practices to be innovative?
Cummins (1990)
Kana‘iaupuni, Malone &
Ishibashi (2005)
Kawakami (1999)
Ng-Osorio & Ledward
(2011)
Include native language and culture
in educating students - Culturally
relevant and meaningful curriculum
and instructional strategies
Involvement of community
Hawaiian Identity: Hawaiian history,
values, and traditions
Hawaiian Sense of Place: historical
significance of places and physical
environments
Hawaiian Ways of Knowing:
inserting education into the students’
culture
Hawaiian language: learning and
perpetuating the native language
Service to Hawaiian Communities:
promoting cultural values/providing
service to community beyond the
school
Focus on Competencies: creating a
cultural learning environment based
on a strengths-based and assets
approach
Culturally responsive pedagogy
42
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program’s key informants, administrators, teachers and parents
concerning the factors that contribute and diminish the innovativeness of the HLIP.
The perceptions of the individuals and the groups of individuals were described and
analyzed in order to determine if potential discrepancies and agreements in
perceptions are present. The information provided by this research may aid, HLIP
key informants, administrators, teachers and parents and be able to serve HLIP
students more effectively. The intended beneficiaries of this study will be the
students that will be served by the HLIP administrators and teachers. This chapter
describes sampling procedure, population, instrumentation, and procedures for data
collection and analysis.
The research questions for this study are as follows:
1. Do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program (HLIP) perceive the HLIP to be an
innovative program?
2. What do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents of the HLIP
perceive as antecedents (Leadership, Organizational and
Structure/Environment) to the innovativeness of the HLIP?
43
3. What do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents perceive as
barriers (Leadership, Organizational and Structure/Environment) to the
innovativeness of the HLIP?
4. Do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program (HLIP) perceive cultural practices to be
innovative?
Research Design
Conducting a study of the Hawaiian Language Immersion Program across the
state of Hawai‘i was thought to help determine if perceptions of key informants,
administrators, teachers and parents are aligned among and within each group of
research participants. Patton (2002) states that “formative evaluations…serve the
purpose of improving a specific program, policy, group of staff, or product” and that
“formative evaluations rely heavily, even primarily, on qualitative methods” (p.
220). This study was designed as a descriptive case study of the perceptions of HLIP
key informants, administrators, teachers and parents through a qualitative design
method. A qualitative design was chosen for this study because of the desired
formative evaluation of the selected HLIP. Patton (2002) stated, “detailed case
studies can tell the stories behind the numbers…” because “to simply know that a
targeted indicator has been met (or not met) provides little information for program
improvement” (p. 152). Qualitative research is simply a set of information-gathering
techniques or methodologies that seeks answers to important questions. The three
principal characteristics of qualitative research are: naturalistic, descriptive, and
44
focused on meaning and explanation. This type of research is naturalistic in that it
occurs where the action is, descriptive in that it contains rich and multifaceted
descriptions obtained from interviews and the like, as well as focusing on explaining
and interpreting what is observed, heard and/or read (McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
In addition, qualitative research methods include interviews, observations, and
analyzing documents (McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Patton, 2002). The purpose of
this study was to possibly uncover information that will aid in program improvement
and future program implementation.
I conducted a qualitative study that focused primarily on the perceptions of
stakeholders of the HLIP: key informants, administrators, teachers and parents.
Qualitative methods consisted of conducting focus groups with teachers and parents
and interviews with key informants and administrators to look at their perceptions in
depth and detail. The focus group discussions looked at the perceptions that teachers
and parents have on the environmental, organizational, and leadership antecedents
for innovation in meeting the needs of students in the HLIP. The individual
interviews looked at the perceptions that: key informants, administrators and teachers
have on their leadership, environmental and organizational antecedents for
innovation in meeting the needs of students with in the HLIP.
Sample and Population
This qualitative study utilized purposeful sampling and focused on the
perspectives of key informants, administrators, teachers and parents. Criterion
sampling is described by Patton (2002) as a study of “all cases that meet some sort of
45
predetermined criterion of importance” (p. 238). Criterion sampling was chosen for
this study because the participants have to meet the criteria of key informant,
administrator, parent or teacher of the Hawaiian Language Immersion Program.
Individuals who meet the criteria were potential candidates for the study. This study
consisted of five individual interviews to gain insights into the organizational
dynamics from the perspectives of the key informants and administrators. The
individuals interviewed were chosen due to their extensive involvement in the HLIP.
The individual interviews consisted of a principal of a self-contained kindergarten
through twelfth grade Hawaiian Immersion school who was key to the establishment
and implementation of the HLIP and has been continuously involved with the HLIP
since the late 1070’s; a principal of a kindergarten through sixth grade public
Department of Education school which also contains a Hawaiian language
immersion charter school who has been involved the HLIP since 1987; a state
resource teacher for the Hawaiian language immersion programs under the Hawaiian
education programs of the Department of Education Hawai‘i public schools who has
been involved with the HLIP since 1992; a director of an indigenous teacher program
at the University of Hawai‘i who has been involved with the HLIP since 1985 as a
parent as well as a teacher and now as a resource; and assistant professor of
Hawaiian language and culture at the University of Hawai‘i who has been involved
with the HLIP since 1993 as a parent, teacher and now as a community advocate.
This study also consisted of two focus groups that were conducted to gain insights
into the organizational dynamics from the perspectives of the teachers and parents.
46
The individuals interviewed in the focus groups were chosen due to their extensive
involvement in the HLIP. The individuals in one focus group interview consisted of
two parents who have involved with the HLIP for many years and two current
teachers. The other focus group consisted of four teachers of the HLIP and one
parent of the HLIP. Standardized open-ended interview questions were utilized in
both the individual interviews and the focus groups.
Instrument
There were two researcher-designed instruments for this study, individual
interviews with key informants and administrators of the HLIP and focus groups
with teachers and parents of the HLIP. The interview protocol consisted of two
slightly different versions, a version for key informants and a slightly different
version for administrators.
The interview protocol for administration included questions that revolve
around their leadership role and the influence on innovation on the HLIP. The
interview protocol for key informants included questions that revolve around
information about early implementation of the HLIP, their perception on
administration and teachers and the structure and effectiveness of the current state of
the HLIP. The interviews took a standardized open-ended approach where the “exact
wording and sequence of questions are determined in advance…[and all]
interviewees are asked the same basic question in the same order” (Patton, 2002, p.
349). The limitations to the standardized open-ended interview are in flexibility of
customizing interview questions to individuals and circumstances, and the
47
constraints of naturalness in dialogue (Patton, 2002). Despite these limitations, the
standardized open-ended interview was chosen because the consistency of questions
reduces interviewer effects and bias, while facilitating organization and analysis of
the data (Patton, 2002).
The focus group protocol consisted of two slightly different versions, one for
teachers and one for parents. The protocol for teachers included questions that
revolve around their perception of administration, school structure and effectiveness
of innovation and instructional related question. The protocol for parents included
questions that revolve around their perception on administration, teachers, and the
school’s structure and on innovation.
Data Collection
Prior to conducting the study and collecting data, the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) process was completed between the months of July and August 2011
for both the University of Southern California.
Once IRB was completed and the study received approval to proceed, data
collection began. Focus Groups and interviews were conducted with individuals that
are currently or have worked with HLIP students or in the HLIP. Interviews were
conducted with key informants who were instrumental in the implementation of the
HLIP and HLIP administrators, these interviews were conducted in the 2011-2012
school year. The interviews were conducted within 30-60 minutes in order to gain in-
depth perceptions of the interviewees. Focus groups were conducted at and with
48
selected HLIP schools with teachers and parents. The focus groups were conducted
within 45-75 minutes in order to gain in-depth perceptions of the participants.
Data Analysis
Once data were collected, data were reviewed and organized for analysis.
Data were coded according to response categories for common themes regarding
perceptions of factors that affect the innovative abilities of the HLIP. The qualitative
data analysis is content analysis in that the content of interviews and field notes are
analyzed (Merriam, 1998). The process involves the simultaneous coding of raw data
and the construction of categories that capture relevant characteristics of the
document’s content (Altheide, 1987). All interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data
were analyzed by coding the transcribed interviews, looking for common themes,
and cross-referencing findings. The data were first coded according to the general
research questions and conceptual frameworks guiding this study. Then, more
detailed codes were developed to help themes to emerge. The researcher did not use
any software in sorting the themes; the work was done manually. Charts or tables
were used to facilitate the data analysis process. The data were coded according to
common themes that revolve around the following factors: environmental (size of
community, communication networks), organizational (size and complexity of the
organization, organizational structure), and leadership (attitude and transformational
leadership) antecedents. The themes helped clarify if perceptions were articulated
and aligned among HLIP key informants, administrators, teachers and parents and
49
show if any discrepancies exist. Coding the data to focus on these three themes
assisted in chapter four of reporting this study’s findings.
Triangulation is the use of multiple data collection methods, multiple
reference points, to strengthen the findings of a study (Patton, 2002; McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). The study utilized interviews and focus groups in order to
triangulate the data to provide a comprehensive view. In addition, multiple reference
points such as the perceptions of various stakeholders strengthened the triangulation
of the results. The analysis of the various perceptions allowed the researcher to
determine the consistencies and/or discrepancies among key informants,
administration, teachers and parents.
50
Table 2
Interview Questions for Key Informants and Administrator
Research Questions
Interview Questions for Key
Informants
Interview Questions for
Administrators
1. Do key informants,
administrators, teachers and
parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion
Program (HLIP) perceive
the HLIP to be an
innovative program?
Do you think the HLIP is
an overall innovative
program? Why?
Can you give me examples
of recent organizational
innovations in the HLIP?
Do you think the HLIP is an
overall innovative program?
Why?
Can you give me examples
of recent organizational
innovations in the HLIP?
2. What does Key
informants, administrators,
teachers and parents
perceive as antecedents
(Leadership, Organizational
and Structure/Environment)
to the innovativeness of the
HLIP?
Who do you think are your
most innovative and
creative employees?
Who/what is the most
critical factor/influence
contributing to this
program’s innovativeness?
Who/what do you think
helps new ideas become a
reality in this program?
How?
Could you describe some
barriers and obstacles at
the HLIP in implementing
new ideas and processes?
Could you describe your
vision for the future of this
program?
Do you think everyone on
your staff understands the
mission and vision of the
HLIP?
What are your 3 most
important expectations of
the staff?
How would you rate the
level of trust and loyalty
between yourself and your
staff? Why?
Do you believe you provide
sufficient and appropriate
support for your direct
reports? Why?
Who/what do you think
helps new ideas become a
reality in this program?
How?
Is the community in which
the school located
supportive of the program?
3. Do key informants,
administrators, teachers and
parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion
Program (HLIP) perceive
as barriers (Leadership,
Organizational and
Structure/Environment) to
the innovativeness the
HLIP?
4. Do key informants,
administrators, teachers and
parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion
Program (HLIP) perceive
cultural practices to be
innovative?
Can you provide examples
of cultural practices/values
that you participated in
with HLIP? Would you
consider it to be
innovative? Why?
Can you provide examples
of cultural practices/values
that you participated in with
HLIP? Would you consider
it to be innovative? Why?
51
Table 3
Focus Group Questions for Teachers and Parents
Research Questions
Focus Group Questions for
Teachers
Focus Group Questions for
Parents
1. Do key informants,
administrators, teachers and
parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion
Program (HLIP) perceive
the HLIP to be an
innovative program?
Do you think the HLIP is an
overall innovative program?
Why?
Do you think there are
innovative people in
leadership positions? Why?
Do you think the HLIP is
an overall innovative
program? Why?
Do you think there are
innovative people in
leadership positions? Why?
Do you think the teachers
are innovative? Why?
2. What do key informants,
administrators, teachers and
parents perceive as
antecedents (Leadership,
Organizational and
Structure/Environment) to
the innovativeness of the
HLIP?
Could you describe your
understanding of the vision
for future of this program?
Do you think everyone on
staff understands the mission
and vision of the HLIP?
What you think are 3 most
important expectations of
you from your superiors?
How would you rate the level
of trust and loyalty between
yourself and your superiors?
Why?
Do you believe you receive
sufficient and appropriate
support from your
superior(s)? Why?
Is the community in which
the school located supportive
of the program?
Could you describe your
understanding of the vision
for future of this program?
Do you think everyone on
staff understands the
mission and vision of the
HLIP?
Is the community in which
the school located
supportive of the program?
3. What do key informants,
administrators, teachers and
parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion
Program (HLIP) perceive
as barriers (Leadership,
Organizational and
Structure/Environment) to
the innovativeness of the
HLIP?
4. Do key informants,
administrators, teachers and
parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion
Program (HLIP) perceive
cultural practices to be
innovative?
What cultural activity have
you participated in with the
HLIP? Would you consider
that experience to be
innovative? Why?
What cultural activity have
you participated in with the
HLIP? Would you consider
that experience to be
innovative? Why?
52
Summary
The interview protocol presented in Table 2 represents the interview protocol
that was utilized for the five individual interviews. The five individual interviews
consisted of a principal of a self-contained kindergarten through twelfth grade
Hawaiian Immersion school; a principal of a kindergarten through sixth grade public
Department of Education school; a state resource teacher for the Hawaiian language
immersion programs under the Hawaiian education programs of the Department of
Education Hawai‘i public schools; a director of an indigenous teacher program at the
University of Hawai‘i; and an assistant professor of Hawaiian language and culture
at the University of Hawai‘i. The five individual interviews were performed to gain
insights into the organizational dynamics of the Hawaiian Language Immersion
program from the perspectives of the key informants and administrators.
The focus group protocol presented in Table 3 represents the focus group
interview protocol that was utilized for the two focus group interviews. One focus
group consisted of four participants, two participants are past parents who have been
involved with the Hawaiian Immersion program since its inception and the other two
participants are current teachers in the Hawaiian Immersion program. The other
focus group consisted of five participants, four participants are current teachers in the
Hawaiian Immersion program and one participant is a current parent. The two focus
group interviews were conducted to gain insights into the organizational dynamics of
the Hawaiian Language Immersion program from the perspectives of the teachers
and parents.
53
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to analyze the perceptions of Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program’s key informants; administrators, teachers and parent,
about to the factors that contribute and diminish the innovativeness of the HLIP. The
responses of the individuals and the groups of individuals were coded and analyzed
in order to determine common themes that emerged through these interviews. The
purpose of this chapter is to discuss and analyze the findings and results of the
research. Each research question is discussed by themes that were present in the
individual and group interviews. The results are presented below.
Results and Analysis of Research Question 1
Research Question 1: Do key informants; administrators, teachers and
parents, of the Hawaiian Language Immersion Program (HLIP) perceive it to be an
innovative program?
Theme 1: Shared Mission, Vision and Goals
In 1978, the Hawai‘i State Constitutional Amendment (Article XV, Sec 4)
put in place the Hawaiian Immersion program to “―promote the study of Hawaiian
culture, history and language.” The Department of Education’s stated goals for this
program are “to develop a quality educational experience which will allow students
to: A. Develop a high level of proficiency in comprehending and communicating in
the Hawaiian Language and B. Develop a strong foundation of Hawaiian culture and
values.”
54
“E ola ka ‘ōlelo Hawai‘i (The Hawaiian Language Shall Live)” is a phrase
that is embraced by all Hawaiian language advocates. Although it has its roots as the
vision statement of the ‘Aha Pūnana Leo, the immersion preschool, all 5 of the 5
individual respondent along with all participants in the 2 focus groups involved in
this study stated their support and acknowledgement of the importance of this
statement. One respondent stated, “E Ola Ka ‘Ōlelo Hawai‘i… not just the language,
but the culture, is the foundation for excellence.” An administrated stated
“…everybody understands their role at the school, “E ola ka 'ōlelo Hawai‘i”. A
statement by another respondent further emphasized its importance, “This is our
vision, this is what we’re doing continually. E ola ka ‘ōlelo Hawai’i, e ola ka ‘ōlelo
Hawai’i, and everything you do is “e ola ka ‘ōlelo Hawai’i”. In summarizing one of
the principle’s responses, she had mentioned that the Hawaiian language immersion
program began because a group of individuals recognized the need to revitalize a
nearly extinct language and the way to bring it back to a living language is by
beginning to teach the children. This principle went on by mentioning that when the
language is living in the younger generations than the language shall live and so will
the culture because the bloodline to a culture is through its language. As stated in
chapter two in particular, when an organization has unity in its focus and works
together on an issue to bring together multiple talents to focus on the common
purpose innovation is able to thrive (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2006).
55
Theme 2: Collaboration: Working Together
Along with the support and acknowledgement of the vision is the
collaboration and understanding to be able to implement the mission and vision to its
fullest. Each of the respondents in their own way mentioned collaboration in the
individual interviews as well as the focus groups. A teacher from a focus group
emphasized that “cultural collaboration, shared decision making, common goals, and
working interdependently” was important. An administrator commented “…we think
about all of them as one, a unifying and motivating factor, clear idea of why? Why
are we doing all of this? And it’s helpful in keeping people focused.” Giving his own
spin to the “r’s of education, one administrator listed his version as relationships,
rigor, relevance, and reading, and further stated “by far, by a mile, the most
important “r” is relationships.” One teacher stated, “we’re all in it together as a
aukahi (a unit) so everyone has a role and responsibility”. One administrator
asserted:
While everyone is here working together, everyone grows. So we expect, I
expect, that everyone has a clear idea of what that means and that they also
have a clear idea of our mission and our philosophy…that it inspires them to
do their very best. They can try to improve on what they know and strive to
really excite and connect with students and inspire them to enter into fields of
work that they enjoy and carry our language up.
These statements express the importance of working together and
collaborating to achieve a common goal by following an understood mission and
vision. One teacher stated “when you’re working with people who have the same
mission and vision which you work hard at trying to maintain, it makes it easier to
56
try things because people understand it pretty much in the same way.” “To
accomplish these goals”, a respondent stated, “it’s constantly checking, constantly
reevaluating what we’re doing, making sure we’re on track, making sure that this is
the goal. Every action is always towards fulfilling our goals.” Innovation is not the
result of a lone genius or about individuality in thinking; rather it is a collaborative
process where people from many different parts of the organization contribute to the
creation and implementation of new ideas especially when the collaborative efforts
focus on the issue of integration or the coming together of multiple talents to focus
on the common purpose of innovation (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2006).
Results and Analysis of Research Question 2
Research Question 2: What do key informants, administrators, teachers and
parents of the HLIP perceive as antecedents to the innovativeness of the HLIP?
Theme 1: Environmental (Size of Community, Communication Networks)
The size of the community in which the organization resides has proven to
impact an organizations ability to be innovative. As a result, external resources
and/or extra-organizational resources and information are available to the community
to support innovations (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). Four of the five individual
respondents mentioned the necessity of a supportive educational environment. One
administrator stated their acknowledgement of a single K-12 campus as the source of
their success with innovation due to a supportive environment, “you have that K-12
site that has built strongly over the past 16 years… still one of those sites that are
maintaining that sense of innovation, collaboration with the university, with different
57
business and community partnerships”. Another respondent recognizes the
importance of the support of the surrounding community as an antecedent to the
innovativeness of the HLIP, “critical factors is always your support of your family
and community…parent participation is more than participation in Hawaiian
language revitalization”. An administrator admits, “the power, in order to invoke
change, comes from our community, including our families, our parents, our
families, and our surrounding communities. Their voice is much greater than our
voice within the schools”. The Hawaiian language community is vast however each
program in their own community thrives because of the support of the surrounding
resources.
Theme 2: Organizational (Size and Complexity of the Organization,
Organizational Structure)
The complexity and size of the organization makes up the organization’s
design. These two are considered two of the most important predictors of
organizational innovation. The size of an organization positively influences the
strength and all phases of innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Mohr, 1969).
The HLIP is a very complex organization. With schools on every island in Hawai’i at
many different grade levels, this program thrives on its complexity. Four of the five
individual respondents and both focus groups recognized that the program has
evolved and expanded over the year since its inception. One respondent supported
this notion by stating “the HLIP has grown, from just a few schools on a couple of
islands to now many schools on across the entire state”. Another respondent noted
58
that the immersion program has been able to be more innovative when campuses
have their own campus as some HLIP campus do with the following statement
“campuses that are just immersion schools they have a great opportunity to really
change what a school does and you know how it functions and what it looks like”.
One administrator recognized that the population of Hawaiian speakers has grown
with the following statement “so many people are speaking Hawaiian and growing
up speaking Hawaiian…when in the recent past the language was nearly extinct”. To
summarize the discussion relating to the complexity of the HLIP in one of the focus
groups, the respondents had discussed the vast expansion of the HLIP over the past
30 years, with each school having the ability to innovate by enacting strategies to
better educated their students. The HLIP is now operating on five separate islands
across the state of Hawai‘i; with schools on every major island and in numerous
communities the HLIP’s acceptance has flourished across the entire state. Over the
past almost 30 years that the program has been in existence, it has made giant gains
in size and accessibility. This demonstrates innovation through the continued growth
and evolution of the HLIP.
Theme 3: Leadership (Attitude and Transformational Leadership)
Transformational leadership is the process whereby a person engages with
others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in
both the leader and the follower (Northouse, 2010). Characteristics of a
transformational leader include: idealized influence (articulates vision and
charisma), inspirational motivation (sets high expectations), intellectual stimulation,
59
and individualized consideration. All respondents in both the individual interviews as
well as the focus groups stated their recognition of the characteristics of a
transformational leader in either an administrator or a teacher at each school where
the HLIP is located. One teacher recalled, “It was drilled in me that you are the
difference, you are the difference, not this person, that person, no, you, you are vital
you are important, you are necessary”. One respondent stated, “within the school
environments, the leadership, there’s innovation in leadership, there’s innovation in
the teacher group, there’s also innovation happening within the Hawaiian language
community, the Hawaiian culture community”. A key informant mentions that
teachers in the HLIP are innovative out of need. Unlike other main stream schools,
the HLIP does not have printed curriculum, book or learning materials; all
curriculum and learning materials need to be created by the teacher therefor enabling
in class innovation. This type of innovation allows teachers and leaders within the
HLIP to take initiative and enables them to be creative which is necessary for
innovation. There are innovative leaders within the HLIP which allows each school
or classroom to innovate in their own way.
Results and Analysis of Research Question 3
Research Question 3: What do key informants, administrators, teachers and
parents of the HLIP perceive as barriers to the innovativeness of the HLIP?
Theme 1: Environmental (Size of Community, Communication Networks)
In contrast to the findings of research question two the size of the community
in which the organization resides has proven to impact an organizations ability to be
60
innovative. The Hawaiian language immersion program is so vast across the state of
Hawai‘i the program seems to be disconnected and operating independently from
each other. As a result, resources and information are not always available within
the program in order to support innovations. Many respondents noted this to be a
barrier. Three of the five individual interviews mentioned this to be a barrier and the
2 focus groups had a great deal of discussion on this topic. One teacher expresses her
frustration with the disconnectedness by stating, “there is no true sharing or melding
of communities it becomes one supersedes the other or separate”. One respondent
observed that “we are all one program, we should function as one…we should be
working together, sharing curricula, sharing strategies…communicating, but we’re
not. We are all separate schools, separate schools with the same vision, but separate
nonetheless”. During the discussion in a focus group the participants mentioned that
there is no shared communication between the schools and this causes a great deal of
disconnect. One teacher noted that if the program wanted to progress the sharing of
information between the schools needed to be improved, if it were to continue to
operate in its current state the HLIP will not be able to develop its innovative
potential. Without a unified and shared communication network system innovation
cannot exist within the HLIP.
Theme 2: Organizational (Size and Complexity of the Organization,
Organizational Structure)
The structure gives regularity and stability to human behavior in a system, by
understanding the structure of an organization the members within it can behave
61
accordingly (Rogers, 1995). Coordination among members/units helps to facilitate
the cross-fertilization of ideas. The coordination with members of diverse
backgrounds and training, top managers commitment to innovation, middle
managers involvement, and the motivation of the members to use the innovation all
play a role in the structure of the organization. The structure of the HLIP has proven
to be a challenge for the innovativeness of the program. Although it is complex there
is no shared communication among all sections of the program. It is very separate.
The state office that is tasked with overseeing the program does not have the task of
networking and unifying the program. Three of the five individual respondents
commented on the lack of structure within the program. Both focus groups had
discussion expressing some frustration with the organizational structure at the state
level. One teacher stated, “Our state system. That’s a big issue, I think they should be
tasked with unifying the schools, but there is no clear levels of organization within
the program”. Another teacher conveyed frustration by stating, “the DOE, they don’t
promote innovation, they promote listen to whatever the federal and state guidelines
are and implement and get that done, so we just follow it in our schools without
being able to express our frustrations”. During the discussion in a focus group
several comments were made regarding the lack of structure within the HLIP, in this
discussion the respondents mentioned that there is no real structure of the program,
therefore it is unclear who is held responsible for the actions within each school. The
poor structure of communication amongst all schools in the program hinders the
innovativeness of the HLIP.
62
The financial resources and internal economic health refers to the financial
resources within an organization, which positively influences innovation. Financial
resources allow decision-makers to take risks and invest in new programs
(Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Mohr, 1969). The ability to take risks and invest in
new ideas is influenced by the financial resources of the organization. A few of the
individual interviewees and both focus groups expressed the barriers of finances by
stating “It takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of effort… and financially, it all hinders
innovation”. Several interviewees also stated “financials are always a barrier”. In
another group discussion the respondents mentioned that the HLIP does not have the
financial support to allow innovativeness. The respondents also mentioned that
financial constraints prevent them from taking chances with new ideas and making
changes within the program. Organizations that have greater economic health are
able to absorb the cost of failure when taking risks (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
Theme 3: Leadership (Attitude and Transformational Leadership)
Collaboration emerges in teams largely as a function of the choices made by
the leadership and their carefully considered actions and initiatives (Jassawalla &
Sashittal, 2006). Leading innovation through collaborations can be found at the
intersection of leadership, creativity and organizational literatures (Matthew &
Sternberg, 2006). Although there are transformational leaders in each school there is
a lack of leadership at the statewide level because they are unaware of the HLIP as a
whole. Both focus groups discussed the lack of leadership within the program. The
teacher respondents felt very strongly about the lack of leadership and commented
63
on the leadership at the state level, one respondent stated, “You got the leadership of
the state office, you got the leadership of this larger principal, who really doesn’t
understand the vision and the focus of Kaiapuni”. One administrator commented,
“people are frightened, people are scared. People are scared to make a suggestion
that could be innovative because they’re scared the leaders might say,” A key
informant observes that the reason the HLIP is not progressing is due to the lack of
leadership. According to this respondent each school is innovative in their own way
however without leadership at the state level to oversee the entire program, the
program as a whole will not be able to reach its full innovative potential. Also noted
is the need for an innovative leader in this position at the state level. Without an
innovative leader in the leadership position at the state level for the HLIP, the
program is not able to reach its full innovative capabilities by not being able to be
supported by the leaders to create innovative ideas.
Results and Analysis of Research Question 4
Research Question 4: Do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents
of the HLIP perceive cultural practices to be innovative?
Theme 1: New Ideas: Bridging the Past to the Future
Innovation by definition is the implementation of new ideas (Fuglsang,
2010). It is taking past knowledge and using that knowledge to create new and better
ideas. The term refers to the process in which new ideas, objects and practices are
created, developed, implemented and reinvented based on past ideas, objects and
practices (Slappendel, 1996). All respondents of the individual interviews as well as
64
both focus groups emphasized the importance of utilizing previous knowledge to
create new ideas with the following statements. One teacher respondent commented,
“we’re using also the past…going in the past to see how we can use the past to make
our future better…that’s where the innovation comes in, because if we don’t know
our past, we cannot really move forward.” An important element of this innovative
concept brings this caveat stated by an administrator, “how to mesh the two without
stepping on the cultural parts of the Hawaiian culture.” An administrator
emphasized the HLIP’s innovativeness by stating, “Yes I believe it is an innovative
program because it seeks to utilize the educational context or the context of the
school to the re-establishment of a living Hawaiian language in its homeland,
Hawai‘i.” An administrator stated:
the word innovative is an English word and I just like to think of it as the
natural Hawaiian way to be. So, what we need to know is the natural
Hawaiian ideals or ways to be can be seen as innovative in the English main
stream world.
Innovation is finding a way to take previous ideas and knowledge and make it
modern, current and new. The HLIP takes old knowledge and ways of knowing and
adapts it for modern time to enable students to remain engaged in the content. Local
innovation refers to the dynamics of indigenous knowledge, the process through
which individuals or groups within a given locality discover or develop and apply
improved ways of managing the available resources – building on and expanding the
boundaries of their indigenous knowledge the past knowledge to create new ideas.
(Waters-Bayer et al., 2010)
65
Theme 2: Hawaiian Worldview: Values and Practices
A Hawaiian worldview is the lens in which we respond, think, believe, feel,
act, and learn. Several theorists and researchers agree that a worldview is meeting the
academic and social needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students (Gay,
2000; Howard, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1994). When teaching from a Hawaiian
worldview perspective it is teaching that is designed to fit the school culture but
more importantly to the students’ culture and to also use the student’s culture as the
basis for helping students understand themselves and others, structure interactions,
and conceptualize knowledge (Ladson-Billings, 2001). As with language diversity, it
is important to recognize culture and worldview as a resource for learning in school
settings (Pransky & Bailey, 2002).
All respondents mentioned Hawaiian worldview or culture in each of the
individual interviews and both focus group interviews. One teacher commented,
“using Hawaiian again to teach content in the school requires teachers to know much
more than main stream teaching strategies but to be able to see their content in the
Hawaiian world view”. One administrator stressed the importance of Hawaiian
worldview by stating:
make connections with traditional Hawaiian thoughts … connections can we
make to traditional thinking that can be taught to them to the children because
the outcome of the young person graduates is that that young person has
acquired a world view or a sense of a Hawaiian world view.
One principal recognized innovation by stating, “the way we make connections
between ‘ike ku’una (traditional knowledge) and contemporary Hawaiian
66
experiences in the school is an innovative”. One teacher commented on the
innovativeness of teaching from a Hawaiian worldview by stating:
It could be innovative on a western sense, but it truly is old wisdom, that’s
what makes us unique, that’s what makes our culture unique, its who we are
as Hawai‘i, unique. To teach that uniqueness, to know what makes us unique,
and to teach to that.
A teacher also supporting the notion of innovation with the following statement:
“innovation, incorporating what comes from our culture, that’s just basically
working on a culture standard. We have incorporated culture standards into our
educational standards. That is innovative for Hawai‘i”. Local innovation: “Local
innovation” refers to the dynamics of indigenous knowledge, the process through
which individuals or groups within a given locality discover or develop and apply
improved ways of managing the available resources – building on and expanding the
boundaries of their indigenous knowledge (Waters-Bayer et al., 2010). Many local
innovations are not of a technical nature but rather are socio-economic and
institutional innovations such as new ways of gaining access to resource-use rights or
new ways of organising marketing activities (Waters-Bayer et al., 2010). There is a
widespread tendency to regard indigenous knowledge as a treasure chest of ancient
jewels that must be stored well and documented for posterity – before it is lost –
rather than seeing the dynamics in the knowledge of the people.
Summary
In summary, the qualitative data collected by means of individual and focus
group interviews were able to explore the differences in the perceived innovativeness
67
of the HLIP. Through this process several insights were gained, firstly the HLIP is
perceived to be an innovative program by the key informants, administrators,
teachers and parents interviewed due to the shared vision, mission and goals of the
participants and members of the program as well as the ability of the HLIP to
develop and implement new ideas. Secondly, the perceived antecedes to
innovativeness of the HLIP were the resources within the communities in which each
school is located; the complexity of the organization; and the presents of
transformational leaders in every school. Thirdly, the perceived barriers to the
innovativeness of the HLIP was the disconnected nature of the organization and the
lack of leadership on the state level to be able to unify the complexity of the
organization. Lastly, the ability of the HLIP to bridge past knowledge to present
experiences and modernize old knowledge is a form of innovation. The HLIP does
this by utilizing ancient Hawaiian.
68
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Overview of the Problem and Purpose of the Study
According to Kana‘iaupuni (2004) the cultural and language revitalization
movement began in the 1970s and spread vigorously through the reemergence of
respect for and practice of language, traditional knowledge systems, beliefs and
customs (Halualani, 2002; Kana‘iaupuni, 2004). The Hawaiian language immersion
program was developed from within a context of renewed interest in the Hawaiian
culture and language and through the efforts of Hawaiian language activists and
other community members interested in reviving the indigenous Native Hawaiian
language. Many supporters also felt that Hawaiian language immersion was a
method that could serve to increase the achievement and boost the identity, self-
esteem and self-efficacy of the Hawaiian children it serves.
Hawaiian Language Immersion Program, Ka Papahana Kaiapuni Hawai‘i
was established in response to the Hawai'i State Constitution mandate (Article X,
Section 4) in 1987 to promote the study of Hawaiian culture, language and history.
Upon its inception the HLIP was seen as an innovative educational program.
Innovation is frequently a difficult occurrence to define and study. However, many
researchers and scholars agree that innovation in organizations involves creating and
implementing something new and for others to accept and adopt it (Fuglsang, 2010).
Innovative activities create change, increased risk, uncertainty, and imprecision in
69
organizations (Kirton, 1976). When the HLIP was first implemented there was great
uncertainty in the creation of a new educational program.
According to researchers, innovation in organizations is more than creativity
or invention. However, creativity is an important building block for innovation. An
invention or creative idea does not become an innovation until it is adopted
organization-wide (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Van de Ven, 1986). Fuglsang
(2010) considered the term “innovation” to be inclusive of activities such as
implementation, diffusion, replication, and gaining wider positive benefits from the
invention. The HLIP operates under the Hawai‘i State Department of Education
(HIDOE), which means that in order for the innovation to be adopted system-wide,
all activities and strategies of the HLIP must be adopted and supported by the
HIDOE.
As described in previous chapters the purpose of this study was to analyze the
perceptions of Hawaiian Language Immersion Program’s key informants;
administrators, teachers and parent, in regards to the factors that contribute and
diminish the innovativeness of the HLIP. Chapter four presents the finding for the
following research questions:
1. Do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program (HLIP) perceive the HLIP to be an
innovative program?
70
2. What do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents of the HLIP
perceive as antecedents (Leadership, Organizational and
Structure/Environment) to the innovativeness the HLIP?
3. What do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents perceive as
barriers (Leadership, Organizational and Structure/Environment) to the
innovativeness of the HLIP?
4. Do key informants, administrators, teachers and parents of the Hawaiian
Language Immersion Program (HLIP) perceive cultural practices to be
innovative?
Discussion of Results
The results from research question one revealed two important findings. The
first is when all members of an organization share in the vision, mission and goals
innovation strategies and ideas can be implemented and enacted (Linden, 1990). The
perception of the individuals studied is that all members involved in the HLIP
understand and share the vision and mission of the program to some degree. The
goals that each member pursues may vary, however each goal is always connected to
the vision and mission of the program. According to the individuals studied the
vision of a living Hawaiian language is what drives innovation within the HLIP and
this vision has not changed since the inception of the program. This unchanged
vision enables innovative ideas towards the fulfillment of the vision to be developed
and implemented (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
71
The second notable finding from research question one is the ability for the
members involved within the HLIP to collaborate. In agreement with the literature
the perceptions of the individuals studied support the notion that collaboration within
the program is necessary to enable innovation. According to the perceptions of the
individuals studied innovation and creative thinking cannot occur without the
support of others. Innovation was also recognized as the result of collaborative
process where people from many different parts of the organization contribute to the
creation and implementation of new ideas and not just about individuality in
thinking. Findings from research question one also revealed that integration or the
coming together of multiple talents to focus on the common purpose is what enables
innovation (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2006; Beyerlein, Beyerlein, & Kennedy, 2006).
The results from research question two also revealed three important
findings. The first finding is that the participants in this study perceive the resources
and support from the surrounding community enables the innovativeness of the
HLIP. The support of the community in which the organization resides has proven to
impact an organizations ability to be innovative (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
The size and support of the surrounding community is an important finding because
the literature and the participants perceive the ability of the program to innovate is
directly associated with the support of the community and the general population
(Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). The support of the surrounding community is
extremely important because ultimately they are the participants of the program. If
there were no participants the program would ceases to exist.
72
The second important finding of research question two is according to the
participants of this study perceive the HLIP to be a complex organization with many
different parts that are working effectively to innovate the program. The complexity
and size of the organization makes up the organization’s design. These two are
considered two of the most important predictors of organizational innovation. The
size of an organization positively influences the strength and all phases of innovation
(Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Mohr, 1969). According to the individuals studied,
the HLIP has expanded and developed into a complex program. The HLIP now has
many different working parts that are functioning and thriving across the entire state
of Hawai‘i. According to the literature and the perceptions of the participants in this
study the expansion of the program is a direct example of innovation (Damanpour &
Schneider, 2006). The complexity of an organization is important for innovation
because it allows the members with the organization the room and ability to try new
ideas and new things (Mohr, 1969).
The third finding of research question two is that the participants perceive
there to be the presence of transformational leaders in each school in some form
whether it be a teacher or a principle or an administrator. The findings confirm the
literature regarding transformational leadership within the program with the notion
that the leadership within the HLIP provides intrinsic motivation to others to perform
their job, by supporting the importance of the vision and mission for the program,
transformational leaders increase the understanding of the importance and values
associated with desired outcomes of goals, raise their performance expectations, and
73
increase their willingness participate in the vision and mission of the program
(Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). The participants in this study recognized that
transformational leaders have the ability to act as a strong role model. A leader as
such has high standards of moral and ethical conduct and articulates a vision and a
sense of mission. These are important characteristics of a leader to enable innovation
(Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
The results from research question three revealed three important findings.
The first finding is that the HLIP’s separateness of the organization. Although the
program is complex and vast, each part works independently of the others without all
members sharing and collaborating for the betterment of the program. Participants
perceived that because the HLIP is so vast across the state of Hawai‘i the program
seems to be disconnected and operating independently from each other. As a result,
resources and information are not always available within the program in order to
support innovations. Many respondents noted this to be a barrier. In support with the
literature the respondents agreed that without a unified and shared communication
network system innovation cannot exist within the HLIP.
The second notable finding of research reaction three is the lack of financial
resources for all schools. Some schools within the program do well regardless of the
available funding; however financial constraints tend to hinder the ability of each
school to be innovative. The financial resources within the program can positively
influences innovation. Financial resources allow decision-makers to take risks and
invest in new programs. The ability to take risks and invest in new ideas is
74
influenced by the financial resources of the program. The HLIP does not have a
greater economic health.
The third finding of research reaction three is the lack of leadership in the
state level to unify all sectors of the HLIP. According to the literate and the
respondents creativity is required for innovation. Creativity is also requires an
environment where people feel free to challenge assumptions and conventional ways
of doing things in search of more innovative alternatives. The environment in which
the HLIP exists does not contain leaders at the state level to allow creativity and risk-
taking. The respondents noted that the leadership at the state level are concerned
with the fulfillment of required mandated which leaves little room for creativity or
innovation.
The results from research question four revealed two important findings. The
first is the ability to bridge the past to the future by using strategies to present old
knowledge and information in a cultural context in a new ways. According to the
participants of this study this is seen as an innovative process. According to the
respondents the literature local innovation refers to the dynamics of indigenous
knowledge, the process through which individuals or groups within a given locality
discover or develop and apply improved ways of managing the available resources –
building on and expanding the boundaries of their indigenous knowledge (Waters-
Bayer et al., 2010). Many local innovations are not of a technical nature but rather
are socio-economic and institutional innovations such as new ways of gaining access
to resource use rights or new ways of organising marketing activities (Waters-Bayer
75
et al., 2010). Although local innovation has always been happening, it has seldom
been recognized even by people who have been documenting indigenous knowledge
for decades. There is a widespread tendency to regard indigenous knowledge as a
treasure chest of ancient jewels that must be stored well and documented for
posterity. As reported by the participants of this study the ancient knowledge is being
revived and is now living through the student of the HLIP.
The second finding of research question four is the innovativeness of the
Hawaiian worldview. A worldview is the lens in which we see the world. The
Hawaiian worldview enables the HLIP to be innovative by allowing the program to
implement strategies that are unique to the Hawaiian worldview. Several theorists
and researchers agree that a worldview is meeting the academic and social needs of
culturally and linguistically diverse students (Gay, 2000; Howard, 2001; Ladson-
Billings, 1994). When teaching from a Hawaiian worldview perspective it is teaching
that is designed to fit the school culture but more importantly to the students’ culture
and to also use the student’s culture as the basis for helping students understand
themselves and others, structure interactions, and conceptualize knowledge”
(Ladson-Billings, 2001). As with language diversity, it is important to recognize
culture and worldview as a resource for learning in school settings (Pransky &
Bailey, 2002). The participants of this study agree that the HLIP is innovative
through its use of strategies that were developed utilizing the Hawaiian worldview.
Therefore, according to the perceptions of the individual participants in this study, it
76
is implied that the utilization of Hawaiian worldview at a medium of educating its
students is seen as innovative.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study are specific to the HLIP and have produced some
significant findings that emerged from the study. The findings of this study revealed
several important implications for practice, because the perceptions of the
participants shared commonalities that provided insight into ways of increasing the
effective and innovative abilities of the HLIP. The implications have two foci, the
first two implications focus on the HLIP itself, and the second two implications
focus on the policies that govern the HLIP that is enacted by the HIDOE.
The first implication of the findings was that the HLIP was perceived by key
informants, administrators, teachers and parents to be an overall innovative program
through shared mission, vision and goals, however the lack of communication
between the schools is of great concern. There is great collaboration within each
school however the collaboration between schools is lacking. As stated in chapter
two there are 22 HLIP campuses across the state of Hawai‘i with each school
functioning independently of each other. In order for the HLIP to continue to be
innovative and to continue to experience success the program will need to establish a
vehicle in which the schools can have regular and open communication. The
recommendation is a monthly assembly of administrators of each campus within the
HLIP and an annual assembly of teachers within the HLIP.
77
The second implication of the findings is directly related to the first
implication that along with the open and regular communication, there must also be
an open and regular sharing of innovative strategies and curriculum between
campuses by teachers. In order for the program to progress as a whole, the
innovative strategies and curriculum that are developed by teachers must be shared
among all campuses. The recommendation is that a curriculum sharing website or
resource database be developed within the HLIP where teachers may upload
curriculum, lesson plans, classroom activities and raw materials that is accessible by
all teachers within the program. This notion of shared and equal access to a resource
database will allow the HLIP to be more effective as an overall innovative
organization. A shared and equal access resource database will allow the program to
build from shared raw material and will allow teachers to integrate shared knowledge
into curriculum to create innovative strategies.
The third implication of the findings was that although HLIP key informants,
administrators, teachers and parents perceive there to be innovative leaders within
each school, there is a lack of innovative leaders at the state level within the HIDOE.
The main reason for that is due to the lack of understanding within the HIDOE of the
HLIP. Without full understanding or buy in to the HLIP there cannot be full support
of the program. The recommendation is that all members within the HIDOE receive
training regarding the HLIP and education of the history of the HLIP for all existing
and new members of the HIDOE. This will allow the HLIP to continue to be
78
innovative when all members involved in the program fully understand the vision,
mission and purpose of the program.
The fourth and final implication of the findings was that although the HLIP
key informants, administrators, teachers and parents perceived the HLIP as a
complex organization it is very disconnected. Organizations that are large and
complex such that the organization is divided into departments and units have better
chances of being innovative (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). The knowledge base in
complex organizations is full of depth and diversity that stimulates creativity. The
creativity leads to an increase awareness and cross-fertilization of ideas. Due to the
disconnectedness of the program, knowledge and creative ideas are not being
communicated and shared. The recommendation is that a coordinator of the HLIP be
established within the HIDOE state level to unify all the campuses and coordinate
the sharing of innovative ideas and strategies. It will also be the task of this
individual or group to educate the HIDOE on the history of the HLIP.
Further Research
There is very little literature relating to Hawaiian medium education in
general. This study adds to the sparse literature and, to the knowledge of the author.
This study is a beginning that explored a small part of Hawaiian medium education,
this study explored the Hawaiian Language Immersion program however there are
many different programs that make up Hawaiian medium education. Collecting data
across the state of Hawai‘i will allow for a greater understanding of the true
perceptions of innovation within Hawaiian medium education.
79
This study explored the innovativeness of the HLIP. Through the findings of
the study possible future research topics were revealed. One potential area for future
research is the specific innovative strategies that are being implemented within the
HLIP. This study revealed that the HLIP is perceived to be an innovative program;
however specific strategies and activities were not identified or explored within this
study. Research maybe completed to further explore innovative strategies used
within the HLIP and within other Hawaiian medium education programs.
Another possibility for future research is to explore the differences in
effectiveness between the different Hawaiian medium education programs. Hawaiian
medium education schools are schools in which Hawaiian is the medium of
instruction and administration which could be language, culture, or language and
culture. The Hawaiian Language Immersion program is just one of the examples of
Hawaiian medium education; there are also Hawaiian focused charter schools where
the medium of instruction is Hawaiian culture and Hawaiian Language is an adjunct
of the overall program. It would be interesting to see the similarities as well as the
differences between the different Hawaiian medium education programs that exist in
Hawai‘I and how successful the students are in their overall educational goals..
80
REFERENCES
Albury, D. (2005). Fostering Innovation in Public Services. Public Money and
Management, 25(1), 51-56.
Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H., Iachini, A., Bean, G., Flaspohler, P., Zullig, K.
(2010). Capacity-Related innovations resulting from the implementation of a
community collaboration model for school improvement. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 257-287.
Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005) Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska
native ways of knowing. Retrieved September 23, 2008 from
http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/Curriculum/Articles/BarnharddtKawagley/Indigeno
us_Knowledge.html.
Barron, F. (1955). The disposition towards originality. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 51, 478–485.
Benham, M. K., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Culture and educational policy in Hawai‘i:
The silencing of native voices. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of Research in Multicultural Education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bodilly, S., Chun, J., Ikemoto, G., & Stockly, S. (2004). Challenges and potential of
a collaborative approach to educational reform. Santa Monica, CA: Rand
Corporation.
Borins, S. (2002). Leadership and innovation the public sector. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 23(8), 467-476.
Brecht, R. D., & Ingold, C. W. (1999). Tapping a national resource: Heritage
languages in the United States [On-line]. Available:
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/brecht0l.html
Brewer, D. J., & Tierney, W. G. (2010). Barriers to Innovation in U.S. Higher
Education. Reinventing the American University: The Promise of Innovation
in Higher Education (pp. 1-35). Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise
Institute Conference.
Christensen, C., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. (2006). Disruptive
Innovation for Social Change. Harvard Business Review.
81
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity. In: D. H. Feldman, M.
Csikszentmihalyi & H. Gardner (Eds), Changing the world: A framework for
the study of creativity. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York: Harper Collins.
Damanpour, R., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in
organizations: effects of environment, organization and top managers. British
Journal of Management, 17, 215-236.
Department of Education. (1994). Long-range plan for the Hawaiian language
immersion program Papahana Kaiapuni Hawaiʻi (Rep. No. RS 94-555).
Honolulu, HI: Office of Instructional Services/General Education Branch.
Dunford, B. (1991, December). Language and heritage: A controversial language
immersion program in Hawai‘i is preserving the native culture. Executive
Education, 38-39.
Fuglsang, L. (2010). Bricolage and Invisible Innovation in Public Service
Innovation. Journal of Innovation Economics, 67-87.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004).
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and
Recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629.
Hatchuel, A. (2001). The two pillars of new management research. British Journal of
Management, 12, 33–39.
Jaskyte, K. (2011). Predictors of Administrative and Technological Innovations in
Nonprofit Organizations. Public Administrative Review, 77-86.
Jassawalla, A., & Sashittal, H. (2006). Collaboration in cross-functional product
innovation teams. In Beyerlein, M., Beyerlein, S., & Kennedy, F. (Eds.),
Innovation through collaboration, San Diego, CA: 2006. Chapter 1. JAI
Press.
Ka Papahana Kaiapuni Hawai‘i (2008). The Hawaiian Language Immersion
Program. Hawai‘i Department of Education, Office of Curriculum,
Instruction and Student Support/Instructional Services Branch. Retrieved
Oct. 2, 2008, from Web site: http://doe.k12.hi.us/.
82
Kana‘iaupuni, S. M. (2004). Ka‘akūlai Kū Kanaka: A Call for Strengths-Based
Approaches from a Native Hawaiian Perspective. Educational Researcher,
32-38.
Kana‘iaupuni, S. M., Malone, N. J., & Ishibashi, K. (2005). Ka huaka‘i: 2005 Native
Hawaiian educational assessment. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools,
Pauahi Publications. (Policy Analysis & System Evaluation).
Kawakami, A. J. (1999). Sense of Place, Community, and Identity: Bridging the
Gap Between Home and School for Hawaiian Students. Education and
Urban Society, 32(1), 18-40.
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 622-629.
Kloss, H. (1977). The American bilingual tradition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Krauss, M. (1996). Status of Native American language endangerment. In G.
Cantoni (Ed.), Stabilizing indigenous languages (pp. 16-21). Flagstaff, AZ:
Northern Arizona University.
Kuykendall, R. S. (1926). A history of Hawaiʻi. New York: Macmillan.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! the case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Linden, R. M. (1990). From vision to reality: strategies of successful innovators in
government. Charlottesville: LEL Enterprises.
Luecke, R., & Katz, R. (2003). Managing Creativity and Innovation. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Marcos, K. (1999, October). Are we wasting our nation's language resources?
Heritage languages in America. [On-line]. Available: http://
www.cal.org/ericcll/langlink/1099.html#featurearticle
Matthew, C., & Sternberg R. (2006). Leading innovation through collaboration.
Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 12, 27-52.
83
McEwan, E., & McEwan, P. (2003). Making Sense of Research: What’s Good,
What’s Not, and How to Tell the Difference. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Melahn, C. L. (1986). An application of an ecological perspective to the study of
educational achievement among Native American Hawaiians. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaiʻi, Honolulu.
Meyer, A., & Goes, J. (1988). Organizsational Assimilatiion of Innovations: A
Multi-level Contextual Analysis. Academy of Management Review, 897-923.
Miller, K. (1999, December). What Immersion Research Has Taught Us. The ACIE
Newsletter, 3(1). Retrieved January 12, 2009, from Center for Advanced
Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. Web site:
www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/
Mohr, L. (1969). Determinants of Innovation in Organizations. The American
Political Science Review, 63(1), 111-126.
Nicholson, N., & West, M. (1988). Managerial Job Change: Men and Women in
Transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Fourth ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs. (1994). The native Hawaiian data book. Honolulu, HI:
Author.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (Third ed).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Pukui, M.K., & Elbert, S. H. (2003). Hawaiian dictionary. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawai‘i Press.
Reyhner, J., & Tennant, E. (1995). Maintaining and renewing native languages.
Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 279-304.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sarros, J., Cooper, B., & Santora, J. (2008). Building a Climate for Innovation
Through Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 145-158.
84
Shade, B. J., Kelly, C., Oberg, M. (1997). Creating culturally responsive classrooms.
Washington D.C.: APA Order Department.
Slappendel, C. (1996). Perspectives on Innovation in Organizations. Organization
Studies, 17(1), 107-129.
Slaughter, H. (1997). Indigenous language immersion in Hawaiʻi: A case study of
Kula Kaiapuni Hawaiʻi, and effort to save the indigenous language of
Hawaiʻi. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education:
International perspectives (pp. 105-129). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
St. Clair, R. N. (1982). What is language renewal? In R. St. Clair, & W. Leap (Eds.),
Language renewal among American Indian tribes (p. 317). Rossylyn, VA:
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Takenaka, C. (1995). A perspective on Hawaiians. A report to the Hawai‘i
Community Foundation. Honolulu: Hawai‘i Community Foundation.
Waldman, D., & Bass, B. (1991). Transformational Leadership at Different Phases
of the Innovation Process. The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, 2(2), 169-180.
Walker, R. (2006). Innovation Type and Diffusion: An Empirical Analysis of Local
Government. Public Administration, 84(2), 311-335.
Waters-Bayer, A., van Veldhuizen, L., Wongtschowski, M., Wettashinha, C. (2010).
Recognising and enhancing local innovation processes. In Prolinnova
International Support Team.
Wilson, W. H. (in press). I ka ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi ke ola, 'Life is found in the Hawaiian
language.' International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 132.
Yamauchi, L. A., Ceppi, A. K., & Lau-Smith, J. (1999). Sociohistorical Influences
on the Development of Papahana Kaiapuni, the Hawaiian Language
Immersion Program. Journal of Education For Students Placed At Risk,
4(1), 27-46.
Yamauchi, L. A., Ceppi, A. K., & Lau-Smith, J. (2000). Teaching in a Hawaiian
Context: Educator Perspectives on the Hawaiian Language Immersion
Program. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 385-403.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The Hawaiian language immersion program was developed from within a context of renewed interest in the Hawaiian culture and language and through the efforts of Hawaiian language activists and other community members interested in reviving the indigenous language. Many supporters also felt that Hawaiian language immersion was a method that could serve to increase the achievement and boost the identity, self-esteem and self-efficacy of the Hawaiian children it serves. There are many indicators that Hawaii's schools are not adequately addressing the needs of Hawaiian students. Native Hawaiians are among the lowest scoring minorities in the nation on standardized achievement tests. They are also overrepresented in special education and underrepresented in higher education (Melahn, 1986
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The perception of innovation in the delivery of services for Hawaiian students
PDF
Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices
PDF
Raising cultural self-efficacy among faculty and staff of a private native Hawaiian school system
PDF
An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii
PDF
Personnel resource allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex
PDF
The anatomy of the innovative organization: a case study of organizational innovation within a military structure
PDF
The relationship of a culturally relevant and responsive learning environment to achievement motivation for Native Hawaiian secondary students
PDF
Planning for preeminence: perceptions of prestige in Catholic universities of the western United States
PDF
Innovation in meeting the needs of students with disabilities
PDF
Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students
PDF
Perception and use of instructional technology: teacher candidates as adopters of innovation
PDF
Hawaiian language and culture in the middle level math class
PDF
Adequacy in education: an evidence-based approach to resource allocation in alternative learning environments
PDF
Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii
PDF
African American airmen and the CCAF degree: a mixed methods study conducted on joint base Pearl Harbor-Hickam
PDF
Effective professional development strategies to support the advancement of women into senior student affairs officer positions
PDF
Google Apps: an opportunity to collaborate
PDF
Professional development: a six-year data evaluation of HIDTA law enforecement task force training programs
PDF
An investigation of hiring English language learner paraprofessionals in Hawaii
PDF
Educational resource allocation at the elementary level: a case study of one elementary school district in California
Asset Metadata
Creator
Kai'anui, Papaikani'au
(author)
Core Title
Ho‘okumu a‘e: innovation, the perception of innovation within the Hawaiian language immersion program
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
10/04/2012
Defense Date
05/05/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
educational innovation,Hawaii,Hawaiian medium education,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Brewer, Dominic J. (
committee chair
), Nogelmeier, M. Puakea (
committee member
), Picus, Lawrence O. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kaianui@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-101227
Unique identifier
UC11288963
Identifier
usctheses-c3-101227 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-KaianuiPap-1226.pdf
Dmrecord
101227
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Kai'anui, Papaikani'au
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
educational innovation
Hawaiian medium education