Challenges with mission, vision, and change in a 1:1 school: a faction analysis

Abstract

Purpose Although organizational visions can guide everyday work, little is known about how visions relating to non-academic goals, such as social justice, might be integrated into educators’ technology practices. The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyze one school’s 1:1 iPad initiative, including the potential role played by the school’s social justice mission. Design/methodology/approach This mixed-methods case study drew upon data collected in a 1:1 school enrolling approximately 1,500 students. In total, approximately 138 educators responded to the online survey, and 18 educators participated in interviews. Social network analysis (SNA) techniques (i.e. faction analysis) and analysis of variance helped to describe educators’ instructional practices and attitudes involving iPads, including the extent to which devices were used in alignment with the school’s mission and vision. Findings Lacking a centralizing core of actors, the school was found to be divided into nine distinct, cohesive subgroups (i.e. factions). Statistically significant differences were found among these communities of discourse. Leaders’ lack of centrality in school change, especially as it related to helping teachers envision ways to connect mission with practices, may have hindered technology integration and instructional innovation. Originality/value Whereas prior research has described the centralizing role leaders may play in 1:1 initiatives, this study demonstrates how a lack of centralized leadership structures may adversely impact a sense of mission, and ultimately, technology integration. Moreover, this study advances the use of SNA methodologies in studies of leadership, especially the use of latent, underlying communities of discourse as categories for further analysis. As such, the authors discuss recommendations for leaders regarding the development of cohesion around issues of mission, vision and technology integration. Further, the authors point toward ways in which scholars might conceptualize about technologically supported educational change.

Structures and relationships in organizational learning for change

“…This may have been due to the concentration of STEM resources in one room (the makerspace) controlled by one educator combined with the perception that this was the only space where STEM instruction should occur. The difference may also be attributed to the different approaches taken by school leaders in developing a collective vision for STEM instruction within their buildings (Cho et al. , 2019).…”

“…Future research in this area might explore the relationship between school culture and the emergence of informal learning structures, and how school leaders can foster a culture in which informal OLMs may thrive. Such explorations should include an examination of the clarity and strength of school vision for change, as a lack of clarity has been found to hinder change efforts (Cho et al. , 2019).…”

“…In addition, clear and consistent messaging about a reform contributes to organizational learning by motivating and focusing educators as they participate in these knowledge structures (Bryk et al. , 2015; Cho et al. , 2019).…”

Bildung im digitalen Wandel

“…9 Während in dem vorangegangenen Kapitel die Handlungsfelder und der Prozess der Schulentwicklung im Kontext der Digitalisierung in den Blick genommen wurden, können hier nun acht Faktoren identifiziert werden, die eng miteinander verzahnt sind und in der Summe die Medienintegration befördern können. Die Existenz einer Vision (1), in der Ziele festgeschrieben werden, die mit dem Einsatz digitaler Medien erreicht werden soll, wird als eine Gelingensbedingung in acht Studien explizit belegt (Armistead, 2016;Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017;Cho, Hamilton & Tuthill, 2019;Cole & Sauers, 2018;Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017;Eickelmann & Gerick, 2018;Francis, Ngugi & Kinzi, 2017;Lumagbas, Smith, Care & Scoular, 2019).…”

“…3.3.3. 19 Agélii Genlott et al, 2019Burow, 2018;Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017;Cho et al, 2019;Cole & Sauers, 2018;Dong et al, 2020;Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017;Eickelmann & Gerick, 2018; Eickelmann et al, 2019a;Gilmore & Deos, 2020; Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018;Lumagbas et al, 2019;Pais et al, 2016;Schiefner-Rohs, 2016.…”