School based ict policy plans in primary education

School-based ICT policy plans in primary education:Elements, typologies and underlying processes_1191 505..519

Ruben Vanderlinde, Sara Dexter and Johan van Braak

Ruben Vanderlinde is a research assistant at the Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Belgium. Hisresearch focuses on the influence of school level conditions on the integration and implementation of ICT in education.He is currently finishing his PhD study on school-based ICT policy planning in primary education. Dr Sara Dexter isan associate professor at the Curry School of Education’s Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Policy at theUniversity of Virginia, USA. Her research and teaching focuses on the development of effective school leaders,particularly as it pertains to the effective integration and implementation of ICT. Dr Johan van Braak is professor atthe Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Belgium. He coordinates the research group “Innovationin Compulsory Education.” Address for correspondence: Mr Ruben Vanderlinde, Ghent University, Department ofEducational Studies, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Email: [email protected]

AbstractSchools are more and more encouraged to write a school-based information and com-munication technology (ICT) policy plan. In such a plan, a school describes its expecta-tions, goals, content and actions related to the future role of ICT in teaching andlearning. Although this is encouraged by researchers and policy makers, the literatureon ICT policy plans and ICT policy planning is rather general and underdeveloped. Inthis study, the content of school-based ICT policy plans and underlying policy processesis explored. Data were gathered in 31 primary schools in Flanders: the schools’ ICTpolicy plan was submitted to a content analysis, and a semi-structured interview wasadministered to the school leader or the ICT coordinator. Using a framework of ICTleadership practices to guide the analysis (setting direction, developing people andmaking the organization work), we identified three types of ICT policy plans: (1) an ICTpolicy plan as a vision blueprint, (2) a technical inventory and (3) a comprehensive ICTpolicy plan. Although the last type takes into account all ICT leadership practices, wefound a variety of different approaches in the processes used to create and execute suchplans, such as the support of ICT training activities, data-driven decision-making pro-cesses and monitoring activities.

Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic

• Different conditions situated on different levels support the integration of ICT in teach-ing and learning. School-based ICT policy planning is considered as one of the school-level conditions influencing the integration process.

• School-based ICT policy planning is the underlying school process leading towards theICT policy plan.

• ICT leadership must be considered as a school-level property rather than associating itwith any one particular leadership role. ICT leadership is described in terms of theleadership practices, carried out collectively by the school staff members, of settingdirection, developing people and developing the organization.

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 43 No 3 2012 505–519doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01191.x

© 2011 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2011 BERA. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, OxfordOX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

What this paper adds

• School-based ICT policy plans contain a broad spectrum of different components,which can all be organized under the ICT leadership practices of setting direction,developing people and developing the organization. These categories aid how schoolsmight analyze the process of creating their ICT policy plans and their content.

• A typology is made of three kinds of school-based ICT policy plans: (1) an ICT policyplan as a vision blueprint, (2) a technical inventory and (3) a comprehensive ICTpolicy plan.

• A comprehensive ICT policy is defined as a policy plan grounded in a vision on edu-cation and ICT integration with implications for how the school organization shouldprovide supportive conditions for teachers’ classroom practices and pupils’ learningactivities.

• Different underlying processes are found in schools (eg, data-driven decision making,teachers’ participation in decision making, monitoring activities) influencing thecontent of the school-based ICT policy plan, which are also tied to these categories ofeffective leadership practice.

Implications for practice and/or policy

• Schools should elaborate comprehensive ICT policy plans. These plans should reflectall ICT leadership practices, and as such have the greatest chance of being successful.

• Schools should use specific school data to develop their ICT policy plan; they shouldinvolve all teachers in the process of policy planning managed by an ICT coordinatorwith a clear leadership role.

• Policy makers should be aware of the multiplicity of the content of ICT policy plans,and could make use a broad range of actions to promote the development of ICT policyplans in schools.

ICT integrationOne of the central activities in information and communications technology (ICT) research is theinvestigation of conditions that support the integration of ICT into schools (Hew & Brush, 2007).In this context, many researchers have presented overall frameworks or models illustrating con-ditions that can have an influence on ICT integration into teaching and learning. These frame-works are based on literature reviews (eg, Hew & Brush, 2007), qualitative research methods (eg,Lim, 2002) or quantitative research methods (eg, Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010a). All the theseframeworks have in common that ICT integration is described from a holistic point of viewinfluenced by conditions situated on different levels (pupils, teachers, schools, policy makers). Acondition situated on the school level, next to conditions like “ICT infrastructure” or “ICT schools’support,” that recently gains attention is school-based ICT policy planning. Hew and Brush(2007) speak about “having a shared vision and ICT policy plan.”

ICT policy planningICT policy planning or technology planning exists on different levels (Fishman & Zhang, 2003;Jones, 2003). Whereas nations, states, districts and schools can all write an ICT policy plan,which serve as blueprints for how education with ICT should look (Fishman & Zhang, 2003),their specificity will vary in accordance with the policy level. Recently, from both a research andpolicy perspective attention has been paid to ICT policy planning at the school level. Severalauthors have argued that working out a school-based ICT policy plan is a crucial step towardsintegrating ICT in education (eg, Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Bryderup & Kowalski, 2002; Tondeur,

506 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 43 No 3 2012

© 2011 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2011 BERA.

Van Keer, van Braak & Valcke, 2008). For instance, Tondeur et al (2008) found that teachers inschools which have an explicit ICT policy plan that stresses shared goals use educational tech-nology more regularly in their classroom. Jones (2003) found a relationship between ICT schoolpolicies and changes in the classroom and Gülbahar (2007) found that the process of developingan ICT policy plan is important for using technology in an efficient and effective manner forteaching, learning and administrative purposes.ICT policy planning is considered as the underlying school process leading towards a school-basedICT policy plan. This conceptualization encompasses what Fishman and Zhang (2003) call anarrow and deeper definition of ICT policy planning. According to Fishman and Zhang (2003),a narrow definition of ICT policy planning refers to the outcome or a result in an official docu-ment. A deeper definition of ICT policy planning refers to the process of developing, revising andimplementing ICT plans in order to guide organizations towards their broader goals. An ICTpolicy plan is then a document that describes technical and infrastructure specifications, butparticularly describes the learning objectives for ICT use as well as strategies of its implementa-tion (including professional development). Such a document needs regular formative evaluationsto ensure that the plan is being met. In this study, a school-based ICT policy plan is defined as aschool document containing different elements of the integration of ICT in education (van Braak,2003). In an ICT policy plan, the school describes its expectations, goals, content and actionsrelated to the use of ICT in education (van Braak, 2003). The plan contains strategic elements (eg,what are the schools’ ambitions?) as well as operational elements (eg, which steps should be takento realize these ambitions?). Baylor and Ritchie (2002) state that the content of an ICT policy planacts as a blueprint for the sequence of events a school hopes to achieve, describes the overallphilosophy of ICT and explores how ICT would improve teaching and learning. The plan thereforeincludes elements such as a vision for using ICT in classrooms, the provision of professionaldevelopment, ICT skills expected of teachers and students, ICT curriculum, hardware and soft-ware to acquire and support, funds to allocate, etc. Furthermore, school improvement literaturedraws our attention to several processes that influence the success of ICT policy plans (see alsoVanderlinde, van Braak & Tondeur, 2010). First, an ICT policy plan should be grounded in ashared vision of teaching and learning on the one hand and ICT integration on the other hand(Fishman & Pinkard, 2001). The point of departure should thus be the schools’ vision of goodeducation. Second, an ICT policy plan needs to be frequently updated (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001)following the monitoring of the implementation of the plan. In other words, an ICT policy plan isa dynamic document (van Braak, 2003) subject to continuous improvement and revision. Third,an ICT policy plan should be jointly constructed. ICT policy planning requires collaboration ofteachers during the process of policy planning and decision making (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001).Fourth, schools need someone that guides them in the process of ICT policy planning, like theschool leader (Hayes, 2007) or the ICT coordinator (Devolder, Vanderlinde, van Braak & Tondeur,2010).Specifically, in this study ICT policy planning refers to the underlying school process leading to aschool-based ICT policy plan. While “ICT policy planning” refers to a process dimension, “ICTpolicy plan” refers to an outcome or product dimension. Therefore, the process dimension isdescribed using a verb, and the outcome dimension is indicated as a noun. These two dimensionsare what Fishman and Zhang (2003) defined as narrow (ie, outcome) or deeper (ie, process) ICTpolicy plans.In Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, school-based ICT policy planning is a hot itemon the educational agenda. In 2007, the Flemish Government administered a compulsory ICTcurriculum to primary schools. The ICT curriculum is written in terms of ICT attainment targetsor minimum objectives, which describe the ICT knowledge, skills and attitudes viewed by thegovernment as necessary for and attainable by all students in compulsory education. The ICT

School-based ICT policy plans in primary education 507


attainment targets do not focus on technical skills, but emphasize the integrated use of ICT withinthe teaching and learning process (Vanderlinde, van Braak & Hermans, 2009). The FlemishGovernment expects that schools implement the ICT curriculum into practice and translate thebroadly formulated ICT attainment targets into concrete teaching and learning activities. Withinthe context of this ICT curriculum reform, Flemish schools are strongly encouraged to work outan ICT policy plan. The Flemish Government believes ICT policy planning will facilitate theprocess of ICT integration in general and the realization of the ICT curriculum in particular(Vanderlinde et al, 2009). Moreover, the encouragement of ICT policy planning resulting in anICT policy plan fits within a broader governmental movement of stimulating the ‘policy makingcapacity of Flemish schools’ (Van Petegem, Devos, Warmoes & Dang Kim, 2006). This means thateducational policy is being decentralized in favor of local school autonomy and responsibility foreducational reform and curriculum implementation.

Although ICT policy planning is encouraged by researchers and policy makers, research on ICTpolicy plans and ICT policy planning is rather general and underdeveloped, both from the per-spective of the ICT integration and the leadership literature. To further our understanding of thistopic, the present study examines—using ICT leadership practices as a lens of analysis—thecontent of ICT policy plans in the context of Flemish ICT curriculum reform. The extent of howICT leadership practice is associated with specific ICT policy plan characteristics is explored, thatalso play out in the processes of the plan’s development at the school. ICT leadership is thusunderstood as a necessary precondition for ICT policy planning (Tondeur, Coenders, van Braak,ten Brummelhuis & Vanderlinde, 2009).

ICT leadershipDexter (2008) argues that ICT leadership must be considered as a school-level property ratherthan being simply associated with a particular leadership role because of the multiple leaders—such as the school leader or principal, the ICT coordinator and teacher leaders—typicallyinvolved in a school’s ICT leadership. Distributed leadership theory (Spillane, 2006) emphasizesa similar organization-level way of viewing leadership through focusing on leadership practices,which encompasses the interactions both among multiple school leaders and between them andtheir followers, and altogether how these interactions give shape to, and are shaped by, thesituation (eg, school or organization) itself. In the situation, tools, routines and structures that arecreated by leaders in order to accomplish programs or tasks organize the interactions betweenleaders and followers (Spillane, 2006). As externalized representations of leaders’ intentions,such tools, routines and structures serve as an analytic window into the extent of the scope andaims of leadership practice (Halverson, 2003). An ICT policy plan is an example of such anartifact and illustrates this study’s outcome dimension, whereas the leaders’ practices for ICTpolicy planning and the interactions they engender illustrate its process dimension.

Analysis of research on leaders’ impact on teaching practice and student achievement concludethat effective leaders employ three broad categories of leadership practices: (1) setting direction,(2) developing people and (3) making the organization work (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson &Wahlstrom, 2004; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003, 2005). According to these researchers, the leader-ship practices for (1) setting direction are about fostering the development of a shared vision,meaning and organizational goals, involving teachers in decision making. It is about fostering theacceptance of group goals, where teachers know which procedures they are expected to follow.The leadership practices associated with (2) developing people include providing well-designedprofessional development that models desired knowledge and behaviors. It provides individual-ized support and encourages data-driven decision making that relates current and desired prac-tices to student learning goals. The leadership practices associated with (3) making theorganization work include understanding and facilitating the change process and modifying the



use of time and other resources to aid successful change. They also include continuous monitor-ing and evaluation of progress and needs, building positive relations with school stakeholders andcollaborative processes among staff.

Dexter (2008, 2011) applies these three categories to describe ICT leadership practices in terms ofthe elements that affect the level of teachers’ ICT integration. These include attending to (1) thevision for ICT (eg, Dawson & Rakes, 2003; Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003; Testerman, Flowers &Algozzine, 2002); (2) ICT teacher development, including instructional support and professionalcommunity building (eg, Dexter, Seashore & Anderson, 2002; Dexter, Seashore Louis & Ander-son, 2009; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon & Byers, 2002); and (3) ICT access and technical aid, andsupportive policies and other conditions (eg, Dexter, Anderson & Ronnkvist, 2002; Zhao & Frank,2003). We believe that this complete range of ICT leadership practices is a necessary preconditionto create a complete ICT policy plan in a school (Tondeur et al, 2009), and positively influencerelationships among the school staff and the general school climate (Hadjithoma, 2009), and assuch, indirectly affects the integrated use of ICT for teaching and learning.

In this study, we use these three categories of leadership practices to analyze both the outcomedimensions (ie, the schools’ ICT policy plan) and the process dimensions (ie, the leadershippractices that encourage interactions among ICT leaders and the teachers who integrate ICT).This way we can infer the intentions of the ICT leaders and the scope and aims of their ICTleadership practices. This analysis scheme also allows for discussing the quality of leadershippractices for ICT policy planning and ICT plans in the same terms as many general leadershipstudies.

PurposeIn this exploratory study, we aim to use ICT leadership practices to examine the content ofschool-based ICT policy plans in primary education. The main questions in this study concern (1)how the three categories of ICT leadership practices (setting direction, developing people anddeveloping the organization) are represented in ICT policy plans, and (2) whether it’s possible toidentify different types of ICT policy plans. Furthermore, we also aim (3) to examine the devel-opmental process underlying the actual content of the school-based ICT policy plan. The first andsecond research questions have a clear focus on the outcome dimension (the ICT policy plan as aproduct), while the third research question has a focus on the process dimension (ICT policyplanning).

Procedure and methodTogether with the introduction of the ICT attainment targets in primary education, a surveystudy (Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010b) was carried out in 62 Flemish primary schools toexamine teachers’ perceptions of the new ICT curriculum. The 62 schools included are repre-sentative of province and educational network or umbrella organization. Of these, 40 schoolswere selected and invited to participate in the study on ICT policy plans. These schools wereselected as they had the highest aggregated score on the measurement scale “Schools’ ICT visionand policy” (see Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010a). This scale assesses the extent to which aschool has a clear vision on the place of ICT in education, and the extent to which a school has apolicy and policy plan concerning the integration of ICT in education. Of the 40 schools, 31schools agreed to participate in this study. Staff turnover and alternative research commitmentswere the main reasons for the non participation of the other nine schools.

The ICT policy plans were collected from the remaining 31 primary schools and submitted to acomparative document analysis. This is a systematic procedure for reviewing documents in orderto elicit meaning, gain deeper understanding and develop empirical knowledge (Bowen, 2009).



Given the exploratory nature of this study, the initial coding scheme was adapted several timesduring the analysis. In addition, a semi-structured interview was administered to the person withthe final responsibility for the ICT policy plan in order to gather information about the underlyingprocesses of the policy plan development (eg, teacher involvement, time span of the policy plan,etc.). Overall, 26 ICT coordinators, four school leaders and one person who combine both posi-tions were interviewed. The combination of a content analysis and an in-depth interview with theICT coordinator is important from a triangulation methodological point of view when conduct-ing document or content analysis (Hodder, 1994).

Constant comparative analysis (Kelchtermans, 1994) was used for the data analysis. For allschools (cases), the coded ICT policy plans and interview protocols were systematically comparedfor similarities, differences and recurring patterns. A structured coding scheme was used for theanalysis containing three main coding areas. The first set of codes focused on the backgroundinformation of the school and the interviewees. The next set of code contained content elementsof the ICT policy plan and the third set of codes contained the ICT leadership practices. Allinterpretations were discussed among the researchers in order to safeguard the validity of theinterpretative data. NVivo 8.0 (QSR International) was used for the qualitative data analysis.

Results of this study are presented in two main sections. First, we present results on the contentof the ICT policy plans, secondly the results on the underlying processes. Results on the contentanalysis are mainly based on the document analysis; results on the underlying processes aremainly based on the semi-structured interviews. Based on our distinction between “ICT policyplan as a result” and “ICT policy planning as a process,” the first section has a focus on theoutcome dimension; the second section on the process dimension.

Findings: Content and typologySchools without an ICT policy planAlthough all schools were selected on the basis of their score on a specific measurement scaleassessing their ICT vision and policy, we found that of the 31 schools, six did not have an ICTpolicy plan and 25 schools did. Not surprisingly, the six schools without an ICT policy plan werealso the schools with the lowest score on the selection variable “Schools’ ICT vision and policy.”An analysis of the interview data of these schools revealed that three schools had already startedthe ICT policy planning process. This means that these three schools previously had team meet-ings to discuss how the school would elaborate their school-based ICT policy plan, which indi-vidual should be mandated for this process and what the ICT policy plan should contain. Theseschools had started the process of ICT policy planning following the advice of the school inspec-torate. Two ICT coordinators testify:

Last year the school inspectorate evaluated us. They were very positive about the way we use ICT in theclassrooms, and about my work as an ICT coordinator. On the other hand, they advised me to translateeverything in an ICT policy plan, that was the only remark they had (CT coordinator—School 57).

The other ICT coordinator was more skeptical about the school inspectorates’ advice to work outan ICT policy plan:

To be honest, I don’t understand them (the school inspectorate). We do a lot of good things with ICT with ourkids in the different classrooms. We are a school supporting ICT integration in education, and now, suddenly,everything has to be put on paper. Why? I really don’t know ... But we don’t have an option, so we will puteverything on paper (ICT coordinator—School 30).

While of the six schools without an ICT policy plan, three schools had already started the processof ICT policy planning, the three other schools had no intention of creating an ICT policy plan.The main arguments for not doing so were a lack of time and a lack of governmental pressure. AnICT coordinator of one of these schools argues:



As long as having an ICT policy plan isn’t forced by the government or school inspectorate, we don’t do it(ICT coordinator—School 58).

Schools with an ICT policy planA content analysis was carried out on the ICT policy plans of the remaining 25 schools. In the firststep, we clustered—based on the constant comparative data analysis of the interpretative codes asdescribed above—all elements described in the different ICT policy plans into three categories ofICT leadership practices and then further differentiated the elements into 15 subcategories. Allelements placed under these categories were discussed between the researchers to improvecontent validity. These subcategories are shown in Table 1 and outlined below.

When it comes to (1) setting direction, we found three subcategories of an ICT plan’selements that might foster shared goals and meanings for the role of ICT among the schoolstaff:

Table 1: Content of the ICT policy plans: Listing per school and type of ICT policy plan

Category of ICT leadershippractice/content ICTpolicy plans

Typology of ICT policy plan

Vision blueprint(6 schools)

Technical inventory(3 schools)

Comprehensive ICT policyplan (16 schools)

Listing per school*

1. Setting direction1.a. General vision on

education6, 21 5, 7, 11, 26, 31, 36, 39, 49, 50,

51, 591.b. Vision on ICT in

education6, 21 5, 7, 11, 14, 26, 31, 32, 36, 38,

39, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 591.c. Description ICT-

enriched activities12, 23, 24, 56 5, 7, 11, 14, 31, 32, 36, 38, 47,

49, 51, 592. Developing people

2.a. ICT professionaldevelopment

5, 7, 11, 14, 26, 31, 32, 36, 39,46, 49, 50, 51, 59

2.b. External ICT trainingactivities

7, 32, 46, 47, 51, 59

2.c. ICT support forteachers

7, 11, 36, 38, 51, 59

3. Developing organization3.a. Descriptions of

hardware20, 40, 55 7, 11, 14, 26, 31, 32, 38, 39,

47, 50, 51, 593.b. Descriptions of

software20, 40, 55 7, 11, 14, 26, 36, 31, 32, 38,

39, 47, 50, 51, 593.c. Safe use of the Internet 5, 14, 383.d. Job description ICT

coordinator20 5, 7, 11, 14, 26, 31, 32, 36, 38,

39, 47, 50, 51, 593.e. Role school network 5, 7, 14, 32, 38, 50, 513.f. School website 55 26, 38, 49, 513.g. ICT steering committee 26, 46, 49, 593.h. Collaboration other

organizations5, 7, 11, 14, 31, 32, 36, 46, 47,

51, 593.i. ICT budget plan 20 7, 32, 26, 47, 49, 593.j. ICT code of behavior 14, 38, 51, 59

*Numbers in the table refer to the school number of the initial teacher sample (n = 62).



a. A description of the schools’ vision on education as well as teaching and learning;b. A general description of the place for ICT in teaching and learning;c. A detailed overview of the ICT activities schools want to organize with their pupils in the

different classrooms or teaching grades.

For the ICT leadership practices concerning (2) the development of people, we found threesubcategories that would increase the opportunities for school staff members to learn about ICT:

a. ICT professional development activities organized within the school for teachers;b. Description of training courses teachers will attend externally;c. ICT support (technical and educational) for teachers.

For ICT leadership practices that (3) develop the organization, we found content referring to abroad spectrum of features related to the organization that potentially increase enabling condi-tions for and remove barriers to the use of ICT, such as

a. Descriptions of in-house hardware;b. Descriptions of in-house software;c. Guidelines concerning the safe use of the Internet;d. The job description of the school’s ICT coordinator;e. The role of the school network in ICT policy planning;f. Descriptions of the role of the school’s website;

g. Composition and setting of tasks of the ICT steering committee;h. Collaboration with other organizations;i. The school’s ICT budget plan;j. An ICT code of behavior for teachers and pupils.

Table 2 presents these subcategories more in depth by presenting specific contents found in thestudied ICT policy plans. This table is based on the concrete content found in the policy plans, andprovided by the NVivo data analysis program.

In the second step, we looked for patterns within the 25 ICT policy plans and identified three typesof ICT policy plans (see Table 1): six ICT policy plans only paid attention to issues related to settingdirection, three ICT policy plans only stressed issues related to developing the organization and 16ICT policy plans referred to all three of the categories of ICT leadership practices.

In the final step, we combined this typology of ICT policy plans with the content we found in thefirst step of our analysis. Table 1 shows the type of plan together with the content of the differentschools’ ICT policy plans classified by the subcategories of ICT leadership practices.

The first category of ICT policy plans (n = 6) is labeled as “an ICT policy plan as a vision blue-print,” because it only emphasizes the first category of ICT leadership practices (see Table 1). Suchan ICT policy plan only presents a description of the schools’ general vision on education and ICTintegration. These plans are mostly short documents (one or two pages), and are seen as blue-prints for how education with ICT should look. Schools which have developed “an ICT policy planas a vision blueprint” state that they do not feel the need to spend time working out a moreelaborated ICT policy plan. One school leader argues:

I don’t like comprehensive policy plans. Therefore, our ICT policy plan is rather concise and only describesour vision on ICT. I felt that it was important to express our engagement when it comes to ICT integrationstating that our school will prepare children for the knowledge based society by using all kinds of new mediaand information and communication technologies (School leader—School 21).

The second type of ICT policy plan (n = 3) is described as “a technical inventory.” Schools whichhave developed such a plan only present issues related to developing the organization in that mostsimply presented descriptions of hardware and software (see Table 1). This limited discussion of



Table 2: Illustrations of content per subcategory

Category of ICT leadershippractice/content ICT policy plans Illustrations of content for the subcategories

1. Setting direction1.a. General vision on

educationeg, Preparing students for a knowledge-based society, promoting

self-regulated learning, promoting digital literacy in education,promoting pupil-centered education.

1.b. Vision on ICT ineducation

eg, ICT as a means to achieve teaching objectives, ICT as a mean todevelop pupils’ communication skills, descriptions of the influences ofthe new ICT curriculum on teaching and learning activities.

1.c. DescriptionICT-enrichedactivities

Detailed overviews of the ICT activities schools want to organize withtheir pupils in the different classrooms or teaching grades.

2. Developing people2.a. ICT professional

developmentDescriptions of a broad range of ICT professional development activities

organized within the school for teachers, mostly initiated by theschools’ ICT coordinator.

2.b. External ICT trainingactivities

Descriptions of specific ICT in-service teacher-training courses, bothtechnical (eg, PowerPoint courses, software application trainings) anddidactical (eg, how to use an interactive white board in the classroom)

2.c. ICT support forteachers

Information about the organization of technical (what to do and who tocontact when encountering these problems?), and educational support(from the ICT coordinator, from colleagues, etc.) for teachers.

3. Developing organization3.a. Descriptions of

hardwareeg, Number of computers (with or without Internet connection),

equipment of the computer classroom, digital white boards, security ofthe ICT infrastructure, other ICT equipment (eg, digital cameras).

3.b. Descriptions ofsoftware

eg, Educational software packages, the use of instructional website orweb quests, web sharing for teachers, descriptions of the availablesoftware.

3.c. Safe use of theInternet

Enumeration of guidelines for pupils to make safe use of the Internet (eg,do not give any personal information during chat sessions, watch outwhen using a webcam), violating and discriminating communication.

3.d. Job description ICTcoordinator

eg, Responsible for the schools’ ICT policy plan, organization ofschool-based ICT training courses for teachers, maintenance of theschools’ computer infrastructure.

3.e. Role school network eg, Joint buying of computer infrastructure, common server use,collaboration meetings for ICT coordinators of different schools.

3.f. School website eg, Content of the school website, weblogs of classrooms, communicationwith parents, update of the website, documents placed on the schoolwebsite.

3.g. ICT steeringcommittee

Composition (eg, teachers, parents, IT experts) and responsibilities of thesteering committee (eg, website support, technical support, networkmaintenance, IT fundraising)

3.h. Collaboration otherorganizations

eg, Teacher training institutions (traineeship), secondary schools in theneighborhood (school computer classroom), IT companies (networkmaintenance).

3.i. ICT budget plan eg, Allocation of the schools’ budget to purchase hardware and software,spreadsheet files of the phased buying of ICT equipment, fundraisingactivities.

3.j. ICT code of behavior Guidelines for teachers (how to make safe use of the Internet, websharing, web space on the server, use of the schools’ email address,information for the schools’ website), guidelines for pupils (see 3c).



leadership practices to make the organization work for ICT thus leaves out the key issues ofproviding teachers with technical and instructional support and establishing a shared vision. AnICT coordinator explains:

Actually, our ICT policy plan does not contain new information. We’ve just put on paper our hardwareinfrastructure and what kind of software packages we use in the classrooms (ICT coordinator—School 55).

The last category (n = 16) is labeled as “a comprehensive ICT policy plan.” These ICT policy plansare grounded in a vision of education and ICT integration, and address the capacity of the schoolas an organization to support the development of teachers’ classroom practices and pupils’learning activities. As such, they stress all three categories of ICT leadership practices (seeTable 1). Only this last type pays attention to both strategic and operational elements. As illus-trated below, schools have different reasons for working out a comprehensive ICT policy plan,reporting that both external forces (ie, the school inspectorate) and internal school improvementgoals influence this process:

Since ICT is compulsory in the primary school’s curriculum, there will be a formal evaluation by theinspectorate. And then, we will be able to prove we are working on ICT integration in education, and we willbe able to show that we can put the ICT curriculum into practice (ICT coordinator—School 32).

ICT is at the top of our reform agenda. Working out an ICT policy plan with all my teachers was impor-tant because I feel we need a shared vision and we need to do it together (School leader—School 59).

In these 16 schools, most of the ICT policy plans were single documents (n = 12), others wereintegrated in a more general school improvement document (n = 4). The average length of theICT policy plans was 28 pages, with a minimum of seven pages and a maximum of 107 pages.The differences between schools in terms of the length of their ICT policy plans are shown inTable 1. For instance, schools 51 and 7 have the most categories of the content analysis notedin their ICT policy plan, and were also the two schools with the longest ICT policy plan. Incontrast, the ICT policy plans of schools 46 and 49 were rather short, containing fewer contentareas. All 16 comprehensive ICT policy plans present a vision of ICT integration (category 1.b),and almost all of them present ideas about ICT professional development (category 2.a.), hard-ware and software specifications (categories 3.a and 3.b), and a job description of the ICT coor-dinator (3.d). These schools were least likely to discuss the role of the school’s website (3.f)or the ICT steering committee (3.g). Categories mentioned here refer to the categories (ICTleadership and 16 subcategories) presented in Table 1 and Table 2. The average number of sub-categories of content within the plans of these 16 schools was 8.75, with a median of 8.5 anda mode of 7.

While the ICT coordinators’ task description (category 3.d) was present in 14 of the ICT policyplans, they differed in terms of how comprehensive that information was. For example, schools14, 26, 38, 39 and 47 presented a detailed list of all tasks the schools’ ICT coordinator was tofulfill (eg, maintenance of computer infrastructure, technical support for teachers). Otherschools (ie, 5, 7, 11, 31, 32, 36, 50, 51 and 59) presented a more general mandate, such asbeing responsible for the schools’ ICT policy or the implementation of the Flemish ICT curricu-lum. In this latter category, the more broad mandates describe the ICT coordinator as a ‘changeagent’ in the school. Interestingly, ICT coordinators with such a mandate situated themselves ina middle management position in their primary schools as the following two quotationsillustrate:

I’m like the assistant school leader. (ICT coordinator—School 11).

I’m a policy advisor. I see myself as being on the same level as our school leader (ICT coordinator—School31).

Conversely, ICT coordinators with a detailed job description list situated themselves at the samelevel as the classroom teachers:



I’m equal to the other teachers. I don’t see myself as more important than others (ICT coordinator—School47).

I think I’m like the other teachers. An ICT coordinator isn’t that important (ICT coordinator—School 14).

Analysis: Processes underlying the creation of comprehensive ICT policy plansDuring the interviews, the ICT coordinators and school leaders provided further insight into theICT leaders’ concerns during the planning process. In doing so, differences were found betweenschools in the processes used to create the ICT policy plans. These differences provide furtherinsight into the degree to which the ICT policy plans meet the recommendations for effectiveleaders attending to an entire range of practices that not only set direction, but also developpeople and make the organization work. Underlying process differences were found in (1) theamount of teacher involvement in the process of ICT policy planning, (2) the type and extent ofthe planned ICT professional development activities, (3) the nature of data-driven decisionmaking and (4) the attention to monitoring progress during implementation, from which we infertheir attention to the leadership practices of making the organization work. As such, the resultspresented in this section focus on ICT policy planning as a process.

Teacher involvementSimilar to the schools without an ICT policy plan, some schools (5, 11 and 14) had worked out anICT policy plan just to please the school inspectorate. In these schools, the ICT policy plan wascompiled by the ICT coordinator individually and teachers were not involved. In comparison,eight schools (7, 31, 36, 38, 47, 50, 51 and 59) involved teachers in the process of ICT policyplanning. Teachers in these schools regularly discussed the content of the ICT policy plan (eg,during the weekly scheduled team meetings) and the strategic decisions the school must make(eg, vision on ICT integration, task description of the ICT coordinator). One ICT coordinatorstated how teachers are involved in this process:

If we put something on paper, we always do it with the whole school team so everybody agrees with thecontent (ICT coordinator—School 50).

In the other four schools (26, 46, 49 and 59), the structure of an ICT steering committee (seecategory 3.g in Table 1) guided coordinated interactions about the ICT policy planning processamong teachers, parents and sometimes information technology engineers. In this context,teachers and other groups have representative membership and the ICT steering group acts as ago-between, taking input from the different groups and presenting it to leaders regarding ICTplanning.

Our ICT steering committee has worked out the ICT policy plan of the school. We meet monthly and thegroup consists of teachers and parents. I think we are the pivot when it comes to ICT, because we commu-nicate upstairs to the school leader and the school community, and downstairs to the other teachers (ICTcoordinator—School 26).

Three of the four schools with ICT steering groups (schools 26, 46 and 49) had relatively shortICT policy plans with most of the content focused on the ICT steering group (ie, their composition,responsibilities and meetings). An exception to this pattern was school 59, which also detailedmost of the other subcategories. This school was the only one to use an online planning tool tocreate their ICT policy plan development, as described below.

Professional developmentWe found that the overall content of the “developing people” leadership practice is rather weaklyelaborated in most of the ICT policy plans, especially when compared to the other two leadershipcategories. This means that all comprehensive ICT policy plans presented issues concerningteachers’ ICT professional development (see Table 1, category 2.a), but do this by describing



general ideas about ICT training (eg, we will assess teachers’ ICT training needs, the ICT coordi-nator will organize ICT training courses), by presenting basic assumptions (eg, ICT professionaldevelopment needs to be school based), or by presenting basic ICT competencies teachers need topossess. Among the 16 schools, only four (schools 7, 31, 51 and 59) formulated concrete actionsfor “developing people.” These were the four schools that collected school-based data by admin-istrating a teacher survey to guide their policy development (see below). In three of these fourschools (the fourth school, 59, used the online tool pICTos), the surveys assessed teachers’ ICTcompetencies or teachers’ ICT training needs, paying attention to technical and didacticalaspects. Based on this school-specific data, the three schools formulated clear actions concerningteachers’ ICT professional development. First, actions are presented as an overview of externalICT training that teachers will attend (category 2.b), or internal ICT training the ICT coordinatorwill organize (category 2.a and 2.c). Second, some actions are concerned with the establishmentof an ICT professional community (category 2.c) and stress the importance of ICT peer support,ICT peer coaching or ICT open classroom door policy. One of the ICT coordinators of these schoolsillustrates this point of view:

What’s of interest for one individual teacher is usually of interest for all teachers. So, when teachers havequestions or problems with ICT, we try to handle and fix it as a team (ICT coordinator—School 7).

Data-driven decision makingFour schools (7, 31, 51 and 59) based the content of their ICT policy plans on specific data thathave been collected with the teachers. In these schools the teachers were involved in the processof ICT policy planning (see above). Three schools (7, 31 and 51) administrated a teacher surveyas a tool to guide interactions between ICT leaders and teachers and inform their policy develop-ment; school 59 used the online tool described below to guide them. The teacher survey that wasadministrated in the three schools assessed current ICT use by teachers (see category 1.a), teach-ers’ ICT competencies and their ICT training needs (see categories 2.a and 2.b), and payingattention to technical aspects as well as didactical aspects.

We first started with our vision and tried to formulate an answer to the question ‘What is it that we want torealise with our pupils when comes to ICT integration?’ then we studied the new ICT curriculum. To do that,I made a short survey for the teachers, asking what they already do with ICT and their pupils. These datawere then used to work out our ICT future (School leader—School 51).

The online tool used by school 59 for their ICT policy plan development is called pICTos (Planningfor ICT in Schools) and has been recently developed by order of the Flemish Government. Themain idea behind the tool is to offer schools a platform for the development of their ICT policy planwithin the context of implementing the new ICT curriculum (see Vanderlinde, van Braak &Tondeur, 2010) for a detailed description of the tool). The tool consists of five different steps: (1)gaining insight into teachers’ vision on education; (2) making an inventory of the actual use ofICT; (3) setting ICT priorities; (4) considering new ICT activities; and (5) drawing up an actionplan. Every step is supported by specific software that collects and present school-specific data.

Monitoring activitiesFollowing the previous point, we found that most of the ICT policy plans did not map out theimplementation of the plan. For 10 of the schools, the content of the ICT policy plan suggests thatestablishing an ICT policy plan was a “once-off” activity. Only six schools (5, 7, 31, 32, 51 and 59)paid explicit attention to how the plan would be put into action, including clear actions, deadlinesand expectations concerning how its implementation would be monitored and revised. Most ofthese details were related to the specific ICT classroom activities teachers should perform (cat-egory 1.c) and the ICT professional development activities teachers should receive (categories 2.aand 2.b). In all six of these schools, the ICT coordinator is seen as a “change agent” (see above)who potentially has familiarity with the additional leadership practices of evaluating and moni-



toring progress. Additionally, among these six schools were the four that based their policy onschool-specific data (7, 31, 51 and 59). The other ICT plans only presented general informationabout monitoring activities, ie, “once a year we will evaluate the ICT policy plan,” or informationabout the phased purchase of new hardware and software.

Conclusion and discussionGiven the multitude and complexity of conditions supporting the integration of ICT in teachingand learning (see ICT integration paragraph), this study explored the leadership practicesinvolved in the process of ICT policy planning and the ICT policy plan as an outcome of thisprocess. More concretely, this study analyzed the content of 31 ICT policy plans in primaryschools to better understand the role of an ICT policy plan when implementing ICT for teachingand learning in education. By applying three categories of recommended ICT leadership practices(setting direction, developing people and making the organization work) as an analytic lens, weidentified three types of ICT policy plans: (1) an ICT policy plan as a vision blueprint, (2) an ICTpolicy plan as a technical inventory and (3) a comprehensive ICT policy plan. The last type takesinto account all three categories of ICT leadership practices and has been defined as a policy plangrounded in a vision on education and ICT integration with implications for how the schoolorganization should provide supportive conditions for teachers’ classroom practices and pupils’learning activities. Viewing the ICT policy plan as an artifact of the leaders’ understanding of theactivities required to fully support teachers’ integration of ICT in the classroom, the third type ofplan illustrates how leaders are planning for a greater range of functions and responsibilities forteachers and leaders. It stands to reason that a school that is prepared to carry out aspects of allthree leadership practices is more likely to have leaders who will act on these plans and as a resultmay have the greatest chance of being successful with ICT implementation.

Among the schools with a comprehensive plan (outcome dimension), we identified differences inthe underlying processes (process dimension) used to create them. While overall, the ICT policyplan documents a direction that a school sets for ICT integration, only some schools carried outthe full range of activities regarding what it means to set direction. Only half of these 16 schoolscollected the input of teachers and only a handful used data in the creation of the plan. Both ofthese leadership practices could foster the development of shared meanings and the acceptance ofgroup goals. Only six schools created the means to monitor the feasibility of the plans they weredeveloping. These additional practices related to setting direction often all occurred in the sameschool, and always in a school where the ICT coordinator is seen as a leader instead of a helper.The use of data along with the involvement of teachers in the creation of the policy plan tendedto result in a more complete (eg, greater detail regarding developing people) and a more elaborateplan (ie, schools with a dozen or more of the 16 subcategories). This indicates that in someschools, leaders—or leadership teams—have a greater understanding of the variety of ICT lead-ership practices required for success, and suggests that these leaders may in fact be the ICTcoordinators who are acting as change agents.

This study adds to the research literature by discerning what types of ICT policy plans arecurrently being used. It also outlines the relations between underlying policy planning processes,particularly the relationship between data-driven decision making, monitoring activities andauthorizing the ICT coordinator as a leader. It also has implications for guiding school leadershippractices about policy plan development. These findings extend for practitioners’ recommenda-tions about distributed leadership practices from the literature into the realm of ICT policyplanning and illustrate key elements of plans as well as key interactions among leaders andfollowers leading to their creation. In addition, this research has also implications for policymakers. Policy makers should do more than just expect schools to have an ICT policy plan.Possible actions are, for instance, disseminating ICT policy plans, which can be labeled as “good



practices” and relating effective leadership practices to their content and creation, or providingtraining sessions for school leaders and ICT coordinators on how to establish school-based ICTpolicy plans. Related to this approach is how certain national governments have developed onlinetools that schools can use (see Vanderlinde et al, 2010) to support data-driven decision making inthe context of local ICT policy planning (eg, “the pICTos tool” in Flanders, the “Four in Balance”tool and the “ICT-assessment tool” in the Netherlands, and Becta’s “Self-review framework” inthe UK). Future research is needed to analyze whether or not comprehensive plans createdthrough the processes we highlight here are more effective in accomplishing their objectives.

ReferencesBaylor, A. L. & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, perceived student

learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39, 395–414.Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9,

27–40.Braak, J. van (2003). Opstellen van beleidplannen voor ICT in het onderwijs. [Redacting policy plans for ICT

in education]. ICT en onderwijsvernieuwing, 7, 67–82.Bryderup, I. M. & Kowalski, K. (2002). The role of local authorities in the integration of ICT in learning.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 470–479.Dawson, C. & Rakes, G. (2003). The influence of principals’ technology training on the integration of

technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 29–49.Devolder, A., Vanderlinde, R., Braak, J. van & Tondeur, J. (2010). Identifying multiple roles of ICT coordi-

nators. Computers & Education, 55, 1651–1655.Dexter, S. (2008). Leadership for IT in schools. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds), International handbook of

information technology (pp. 543–554). New York: Springer.Dexter, S. (2011). Instructional leadership practices that structure school technology leadership. Journal of

School Leadership, 21, 1–25.Dexter, S., Anderson, R. E. & Ronnkvist, A. (2002). Quality technology support: What is it? Who has it? and

what difference does it make? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26, 287–307.Dexter, S., Seashore, K. R. & Anderson, R. E. (2002). Contributions of professional community to exemplary

use of ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 489–497.Dexter, S., Seashore Louis, K. R. & Anderson, R. E. (2009). The roles and practices of specialists in teamed

instructional leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 445–465.Fishman, B. J. & Pinkard, N. (2001). Bringing urban schools into the information age: planning for tech-

nology vs. technology planning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 63–80.Fishman, B. J. & Zhang, B. H. (2003). Planning for technology: the link between intentions and use.

Educational Technology, 43, 14–18.Flanagan, L. & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of

Educational Administration, 41, 124–142.Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: a roadmap to successful technology integration in schools.

Computers & Education, 49, 943–956.Hadjithoma, C. (2009). The role of principal’s leadership style in the implementation of ICT policy. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 311–326.Halverson, R. (2003). Systems of practice: how leaders use artifacts to create professional community in

schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11. Retrieved May 10, 2005 from http://epaa.asa.edu/epaa/v11n37/

Hayes, D. N. A. (2007). ICT and learning: lessons from Australian classrooms. Computers & Education, 49,385–395.

Hew, K. F. & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledgegaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55,223–252.

Hodder, I. (1994). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 392–402). London/New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Jones, R. M. (2003). Local and national ICT policies. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation andeducational change: a global perspective (pp. 163–194). Eugene: ISTE.

Kelchtermans, G. (1994). Biographical methods in the study of teachers’ professional development. In I.Carlgren, G. Handal & S. Vaage (Eds), Teachers’ minds and actions: research on teachers’ thinking and practice(pp. 93–108). London: The Falmer Press.



Leithwood, K. A. & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia, PA:Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University. Retrieved April 1, 2011, from http://eric.uoregon.edu/pdf/whatweknow103.pdf

Leithwood, K. A. & Riehl, C. (2005). What do we already know about successful school leadership? In W. A.Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 12–27). New York:Teachers College Press.

Leithwood, K. A., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S. & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences studentlearning: a review of research for the learning from leadership project. New York: Wallace Foundation.

Lim, C. P. (2002). A theoretical framework for the study of ICT in schools: a proposal. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 33, 411–421.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Testerman, J. C., Flowers, C. P. & Algozzine, R. (2002). Basic technology competencies of educational

administrators. Contemporary Education, 72, 58–63.Tondeur, J., Coenders, A., van Braak, J. , ten Brummelhuis, A. & Vanderlinde, R. (2009). Using online tools

to support technology integration in education. In R. Subramaniam (Ed.), Handbook of research on newmedia literacy at the K-12 level: issues and challenges (pp. 437–450). Hershey: IGI Global.

Tondeur, J., Van Keer, H., van Braak, J. & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: challengingthe potential of a school policy. Computers and Education, 51, 212–223.

Van Petegem, P., Devos, G., Warmoes, V. & Dang Kim, D. (2006). Development of an instrument for measuringpolicymaking capacities of schools. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association (AERA), San Francisco.

Vanderlinde, R. & van Braak, J. (2010a). The e-capacity of primary schools: development of a conceptualmodel and scale construction from a school improvement perspective. Computers & Education, 55, 541–553.

Vanderlinde, R. & van Braak, J. (2010b, in press). Teacher perceptions of a new ICT curriculum: defining andpredicting innovation attributes. International Journal of Educational Technology & Society. Manuscriptaccepted for publication.

Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J. & Hermans, R. (2009). Educational technology on a turning point: curricu-lum implementation in Flanders and challenges for schools. Educational Technology Research & Develop-ment, 57, 573–584.

Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J. & Tondeur, J. (2010). Using an online tool to support school-based ICT policyplanning in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 434–447.

Zhao, Y. & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an ecological perspective.American Educational Research Journal, 40, 4, 807–840.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S. & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations.Teachers College Record, 104, 482–515.



Copyright of British Journal of Educational Technology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

School based ict policy plans in primary education

Education

Transcript of School based ict policy plans in primary education