Research on building innovative practices for enhancing the educational effectiveness has gained momentum. Schools as business units play a critical role in building effectiveness. Empirical investigation on the role of parents, the primary customers taking decisions with respect to availing school services for their children, as co-creators in conceptualizing and executing educational innovations is thin. To bridge this research gap, a mixed methods study was conducted on a sample of elementary schools in India. The study also investigated the impact of parents’ involvement on their perceived value and satisfaction. The results suggested that schools are undertaking various innovative initiatives in which parents play a primary role in execution both at home and in the school. It was found that parents’ perception of value for innovative practices introduced by the schools is high, irrespective of their low involvement in the conceptualization stage. The findings also indicated that parental involvement in the execution stage of the initiatives impacts their perceived value more than at the conceptualization stage.
BhalotraS., & ZamoraB. (2006, July). Primary education in India: Prospects of meeting the MDG target (Research Paper No. 2006/080). Helsinki: United Nations University–World Institute for Development Economics Research. Retrieved from https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/rp2006-80.pdf
2.
BurroughsJ. E., & MickD. G. (2004). Exploring antecedents and consequences of consumer creativity in a problem solving context. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 402–411.
3.
CaldwellB., & SpinksJ. (2013). The self-transforming school. Oxford: Routledge.
4.
CoelhoP. S., & EstevesS. P. (2006). The choice between a five point and ten point scale in the framework of customer satisfaction measurement. International Journal of Market Research, 49(3), 313–339.
5.
CovielloN. E., & JosephR. M. (2012). Creating major innovations with customers: Insights from small and young technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 76(6), 87–104.
6.
Darling-HammondL. (2002). Teacher education and the American Future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47.
7.
DatarA., & MasonB. (2008). Do reductions in class size ‘crowd out’ parental investment in education?Economics of Education Review, 27, 712–723.
8.
EpsteinJ. L. (1995, May). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712.
9.
EpsteinJ. L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family, and community partnerships. In BoothA. & DunnJ. F. (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 41–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
FangE., PalmatierR. W., & EvansK. R. (2008). Influence of customer participation on creating and sharing of new product value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(3), 322–336.
11.
GatignonH., GottelandD., & HaonC. (2016). Getting the customer involved. In Making innovation last (Vol. 2, pp. 49–98). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
GermundenH. G., RitterT., & HeydebreckP. (1996). Network configuration and innovation success: An empirical analysis in German high tech industries. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(5), 449–462.
13.
GhaiK.K. (n.d.). Weaknesses in education sector in India. Retrieved from http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/weaknesses-in-education-sector-in-india/40428/
14.
GledinningM. (2014, Spring). Designing the future at one of the nation’s oldest schools. Design Management Review, 25(1), 33–39.
15.
GonzalezR. L., & JacksonC. L. (2013). Engaging with parents: The relationship between school engagement efforts, social class, and learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(3), 316–335.
16.
GreanyT. (2016, November). Innovation is possible, it’s just not easy: Improvement, innovation and legitimacy in England’s autonomous and accountable school system. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–21. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216659297
17.
GreeneJ. C., CaracelliV. J., & GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
18.
GreeneJ. C., & CaracelliV. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In GreeneJ. C. & CaracelliV. J. (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 5–17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
GrunerK. E., & HomburgC. (2000). Does customer interaction enhance new product success?Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 1–14.
20.
GuW., & WongA. (2015). Productivity and economic output of the education sector. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 43, 165–182.
21.
HaelermansC. (2010). Innovative power of Dutch secondary education. Innovation: Management Policy & Practice, 12(2), 154–165.
22.
HallgartenJ., HannonV., & BeresfordT. (2015). Creative public leadership: How school system leaders can create the conditions for system-wide innovation. Dubai: WISE.
23.
HallingerP., & HeckR. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improvement: Classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(1), 1–27.
24.
Hoover-DempseyK. V., & SandlerH. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education?Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.
25.
HopkinsD., StringfieldS., HarrisA., StollL., & MackayT. (2014). School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Improvement and Effectiveness, 25(2), 257–281.
26.
JohnsonJ. P., & LivingstonM. (2000). What makes a good elementary school? A critical examination. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(6), 339–348.
27.
KoutroubaK., AntonopolouE., TsitsasG., & ZenakouE. (2009). An investigation of Greek Teachers’ views on parental involvement in education. School Psychology International, 30(3), 311–328.
28.
LauE. Y. H. (2016). A mixed methods study of paternal involvement in Hong Kong. British Educational Research Journal, 42(6), 1023–1040.
29.
LavardaR. A. B., GinerM. T. C., & BonetF. J. P. (2010). How middle managers contribute to strategy formation process: Connection of strategy processes and strategy activities. RAE, 50(4), 358–370.
30.
LevinB. B., & SchrumL. (2013). Using systems thinking to leverage technology for school improvement: Lessons learned from award-winning secondary schools/districts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(1), 29–51.
31.
LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
32.
LindgreenA., & WynstraF. (2005). Value in business markets: What do we know? Where are we going?Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 732–748.
33.
Lo¨fgrenM., WitellL., & GustafssonA. (2011). Theory of attractive quality and life cycles of quality attributes. The TQM Journal, 23(2), 235–246.
34.
MahrD., LievensA., & BlazevicV. (2014). The value of customer cocreated knowledge during the innovation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 599–615.
35.
MengucB., AuhS., & YannopoulusP. (2014). Customer and supplier involvement in design: The moderating role of incremental and radical innovation capability. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 313–328.
36.
MeredithJ. (1998). Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 441–454.
37.
MHRD (n.d.). Themes and questions for policy consultation on school education. Retrieved from http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/Themes_questions_SE.pdf
38.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
39.
MitchellC., & SackneyL. (2016). School improvement in high capacity schools: Educational leadership and living systems ontology. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(5), 853–868.
40.
NambisanS. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product development: Toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 329–413.
41.
Offbeat Society (2009, July13). Education system of India: Its functions, drawbacks and its contribution. Retrieved from http://theviewspaper.net/education-system-of-india-its-functions-drawbacks-and-its-contribution/
42.
PakterA., & ChenL. L. (2013). The daily text: Increasing parental involvement in education with mobile text messaging. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 41(4), 353–367.
43.
PapagiannisG. J., KleesS. J., & BickelR. N. (1982). Toward a political economy of educational innovation. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 245–290.
44.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
45.
PenaD. C. (2000). Parental involvement: Influencing factors and implications. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 42–54.
46.
PenaA. I. P., JamilenaD. M. F., & MolinaM. A. R. (2014). Value co-creation via information and communication technology. The Service Industries Journal, 34(13), 1043–1059.
47.
PincusJ. (1974). Incentives for innovation in the public schools. Review of Educational Research, 44(1), 113–144.
48.
PisanuF. (2014). Educational innovation and technology. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 14(2), 103–108.
49.
PrahaladC. K., & RamaswamyV. (2004). Co-creating unique value with customer’s. Strategy and Leadership, 32(3), 4–9.
50.
PrescottJ. E., BundschuhK., KazakoffE. R., & MacarusoP. (2017). Elementary school wide implementation of a blended learning program for reading intervention. The Journal of Educational Research. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2017.1302914
51.
PuccioniJ. (2018). Parental beliefs about school readiness, home and school based involvement, and children’s academic achievement. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2018.1494065
52.
PuzioK., & ColbyG. T. (2013). Cooperative learning and literacy: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(4), 339–360.
53.
SelfS., & GrabowskiR. (2004). Does education at all levels cause growth? India, a case study. Economics of Education Review, 23(1), 47–55.
54.
SeppanenK., HuiskonnenJ., & KarpinnenH. (2015). Customer input management in service processes: Needs and tools. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 9(1), 100–114.
55.
SiguroardottirS. M., & SigporssonR. (2016). The fusion of school improvement and leadership capacity in an elementary school. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(4), 599–616.
56.
SkaliotisE. (2010). Changes in parental involvement in secondary education: An exploration study using the longitudinal study of young people in England. British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 975–994.
57.
SnyderF., FlayB., VuchinichS., AcockA., WashburnI., BeetsM., & Kin-KitL. (2009). Impact of a social-emotional and character development program on school-level indicators of academic achievement, absenteeism, and disciplinary outcomes: A matched-pair, cluster-randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(1), 26–55.
58.
Stokburger-SauerN. E., Scholl-GrissemannU., TeichmannK., & WetzelsM. (2016). Value cocreation at its peak: The asymmetric relationship between coproduction and loyalty. Journal of Service Management, 27(4), 563–590.
59.
SweeneyJ. C., & SoutarG. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220.
60.
TettL. (2001). Parents as problems or parents as people? Parental involvement programmes, schools and adult educatorsInternational Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(3), 188–198.
61.
TohT. L., ChengL. P., HoS. Y., JiangH., & LimK. M. (2017). Use of comics to enhance students’ learning for the development of the twenty-first century competencies in the mathematics classroom. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02188791.2017.1339344
62.
VargoS. L., & LuschR. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
63.
WilliamsK., SwiftJ., WilliamsH., & Van DaalV. (2017). Raising children’s self-efficacy through parental involvement in homework. Educational Research, 59, 1–19.
64.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
