This paper examines the implementation of second-order organisational and pedagogical innovation in an Arab primary school, analysing the factors that shaped the process across Lewin’s (1951) three-stage model of change: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. The study addresses a critical question for educational systems experiencing cultural and structural transformation: What factors promote or hinder second-order educational change in a culturally conservative school context?

Topic and Research Objectives

Situated within the field of educational improvement and organisational change, the study explores how deep-rooted cultural norms, teacher beliefs, leadership practices, and systemic constraints shape efforts to embed school-wide pedagogical innovation. It examines why surface-level adjustments often fail to become routine practice and how schools negotiate the shift toward inquiry-based learning, outdoor learning, and game-based learning. Focusing on a minority cultural setting provides insights relevant to marginalised educational systems across Europe and beyond, contributing to discussions on school improvement, teacher agency, cultural resistance, and the long-term sustainability of pedagogical innovation.

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

The analysis is grounded in Lewin’s Three-Stage Model, which conceptualises change as a dynamic process involving unfreezing existing structures, implementing new practices, and refreezing to stabilise new norms. This model is complemented by scholarship on second-order change (Carnall & Todnem By, 2014), emphasising transformations that reshape organisational culture and pedagogical identity. Literature on educational innovation (Fullan, 2007; Nair, 2017) and organisational climate and leadership (Kaya, 2021; Klein & Sorra, 1996) further informs the analysis, highlighting interactions between individual beliefs, organisational systems, and policy environments.

Methodology

A qualitative case study design (Yin, 2009) enabled an in-depth examination of the school as a dynamic organisational system. Data were collected through 31 semi-structured interviews with all 28 teachers and the school principal, as well as three focus groups conducted at different points in the reform. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was employed to identify patterns relating to each stage of Lewin’s model. Codes were developed inductively and then grouped into themes reflecting the cultural, organisational, and pedagogical components of the change.

Key Themes and Contribution

In the unfreezing stage, traditional pedagogical beliefs and cultural expectations limited readiness for change. During the change stage, seven influential factors emerged: the depth of the innovation, parental resistance, contrasts between novice and veteran teachers, leadership style, physical building constraints, competing demands from the Ministry of Education, and the fit between innovation and subject area. In the refreezing stage, stabilisation was hindered by teachers’ concerns about losing their traditional professional identity and the lack of long-term systemic and community support.

The study demonstrates that second-order reform is shaped by the interplay between cultural norms, organisational structures, and teacher identity. It highlights the need for differentiated professional support, culturally responsive leadership, and structural mechanisms to sustain pedagogical transformation.

European and International Relevance

The findings are highly relevant to European educational systems facing similar challenges in sustaining school-wide innovation, particularly in culturally diverse or socio-economically disadvantaged contexts. Many countries grapple with tensions between traditional teaching identities and progressive reforms and with ensuring equity in innovation adoption. By offering an empirically grounded perspective from a minority context, this study contributes to international debates on inclusive school improvement, equitable innovation, and the cultural dimensions of educational change.

This study adopted a qualitative case study design to examine a complex process of second-order pedagogical change within its authentic cultural and organisational context. The research focused on an Arab primary school undergoing a multi-year reform and explored how teachers and the school principal experienced and interpreted the change across Lewin’s (1951) three-stage model: unfreezing, change, and refreezing. The research involved 29 participants—28 teachers and the school principal—representing diverse subject areas, levels of experience, and degrees of exposure to the innovation. This comprehensive inclusion allowed for a multilayered understanding of the school’s internal dynamics during the reform. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with all 29 participants, offering insight into personal experiences, perceived challenges, cultural expectations, and professional beliefs. Interviews were conducted in Arabic and lasted between 60 and 105 minutes. The interview guide evolved across three rounds of data collection to reflect the shifting stages of change. To enrich the individual accounts, three focus groups were conducted, enabling the identification of shared tensions, collective interpretations, and group-level reactions to the innovation. In addition, school documents, internal reports, and notes from the pedagogical mentor and organisational consultant were examined to contextualise participants’ narratives and trace structural decisions throughout the reform. Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis framework. Transcripts were reviewed repeatedly to ensure familiarity; initial codes were generated inductively; and themes were refined and mapped onto Lewin’s model, capturing patterns related to resistance, leadership practices, parental expectations, structural constraints, and professional identity. Trustworthiness was supported through triangulation across interviews, focus groups, and documents; member checking; and reflexive memo-writing. Ethical approval was obtained, confidentiality was ensured, and pseudonyms were used throughout the reporting. This methodological design provided a rich, coherent, and culturally grounded understanding of the organisational, pedagogical, and socio-cultural forces shaping second-order change in the school.

The findings indicate that implementing second-order pedagogical innovation in a culturally conservative Arab primary school is a complex, non-linear process shaped by cultural expectations, organisational constraints, and diverse teacher identities. Using Lewin’s (1951) three-stage model, the analysis shows how both enabling and inhibiting factors influenced the reform. In the unfreezing stage, many teachers found it difficult to detach from traditional beliefs regarding authority, discipline, and structured teaching. Although some were open to innovation, others expressed uncertainty and limited readiness. The lack of early collective dialogue contributed to uneven motivation and preparedness. During the change stage, seven key factors influenced implementation: the depth and demands of the innovation, strong parental expectations for conventional schooling, differences between novice and veteran teachers, the principal’s leadership style, physical constraints of the school building, competing Ministry of Education requirements, and the degree of fit between subject areas and the promoted pedagogical approaches. These factors created tensions between innovation, cultural norms, and system-level pressures. In the refreezing stage, the innovation did not fully stabilise. Teachers feared losing their pedagogical identity, felt unsure about sustaining new practices, and reported insufficient long-term support. Without shared ownership, community alignment, and structural mechanisms for continuity, the reform remained fragile. Overall, the study demonstrates that second-order change requires culturally responsive leadership, differentiated teacher support, and alignment between school vision, community expectations, and policy demands.

Aboulhassan, S., & Brumley, K. M. (2019). Arab women, social norms, and the decision to pursue higher education. Gender & Society, 33(2), 234–259. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Carnall, C., & Todnem By, R. (2014). Managing change in organizations. Harlow: Pearson. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. Kaya, M. F. (2021). Organisational culture and teachers’ innovative behavior: Examining the mediating role of change readiness. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 493–510. Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055–1080. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row. Nair, P. (2017). Blueprint for tomorrow: Redesigning schools for student-centered learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Oplatka, I., & Arar, K. (2017). Leadership for equity and inclusion: Cases from the Arab world. London: Routledge. Oplatka, I. (2010). The place of “teachers’ emotions” in educational change: Implications for educational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 427–441. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2011). Teachers’ critical incidents: Ethical dilemmas in teaching practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 648–656. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.