Methods

Technology as Infrastructure for Change: District Leader Understandings of 1:1 Educational Technology Initiatives and Educational Change

Alexandra J. Lamb

Findings

Introduction

alexandra.lamb@uconn.edu :@alexjlamb

1:1 technology initiatives are continuing to grow in popularity as a mechanism to: • Increase student engagement • Foment change to pedagogy and instruction • Increase equity• Increase student achievement (Graves & Bowers, 2018; Dexter et al., 2016; Harper & Milman, 2016; Milman, 2019; Sauers & McLeod, 2018)

However, implementation is mixed and many programs don’t meet these goals. (Cuban, 2018; Weston & Bain, 2010)

1:1 initiatives can meet stakeholders’ goals if administrators, teachers, and students change their beliefs and practices. (Ertmer, 1999; Mehta et al., 2019)

The core of change is learning. Learning is about possibility and loss and this makes change difficult. (Drago-Severson, 2016, Elmore, 2015; Schein, 2010)

Research Questions1) How do superintendents and district technology leaders understand and enact 1:1 technology initiatives as educational change?

2) How do superintendents and district technology leaders understand 1:1 technology initiatives as part of the educational infrastructure?

Qualitative Phenomenology • Explored the phenomenon of 1:1 technology implementation using an

organizational lens• Conducted two interviews per participant over the course of 6 months• Four districts in the Northeast, see Table 1• Interviewed the district technology leader and superintendent in each district

because they were the primary decision makers in 1:1 implementation• Coded using inductive codes from data(Boyatzis, 1998; Charmaz, 2014; Cresswell & Poth, 2018; Moustakas, 1994)

Conceptual Framework

• Researchers can apply the 1:1 technology infrastructure to examine the impact and power of 1:1 technology.

• Practitioners can use the 1:1 technology infrastructure framework to approach district change.

• This study provides a novel organization of educational infrastructure literature, as well as the additional infrastructure of 1:1 technology.

Educational Infrastructure and Educational Technology Literature(Mehta & Fine, 2015; Peurach & Neumerski, 2015; Woulfin, 2015)

Physical InfrastructureBuildings, furniture, wireless networks, schedules, and other tangible structures

Technology Physical Infrastructure• Lack of tools stunts implementation -

Unreliable WiFI, malfunctioning hardware

• Technical support is vital• Device choice matters to implementation

(Beschorner & Woodward, 2019; Downes & Bishop, 2015; Ertmer, 1999; Milman, 2019: Oliver et al., 2012)

Cultural InfrastructureOrganizational norms, beliefs, relationships, and structures

Technology Cultural Infrastructure• Teacher beliefs and approach to change

matter to success• School and district climate – risk-taking,

diverse teams and shared leadership help success

• Professional development – should be tailored and embedded

(Donovan et al. 2010; Ertmer, 1999; Metha et al., 2019; Milman, 2019; Pautz & Sadera, 2017; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002)

Instructional InfrastructureTeaching and learning practices – curriculum, pedagogy, and classroom relationships

Technology Instructional Infrastructure• 1:1 programs can improve student

achievement across the curriculum.• Classroom practices change and support

1:1 programs (ex: personalized learning, teachers’ roles, student-centered practices).

• Logistical work and communication change in 1:1 programs.

(Bebell & Kay, 2010; Chou et al., 2012; Ditzler et al., 2016; Dunleavy & Heinecke, 2007; Hull & Duch, 2019; Lowther et al., 2003; McClanahan et al., 2012; Moran et al., 2008; Shapley et al., 2010; Rosen & Manny-Ikan, 2011)

Leadership InfrastructureBeliefs, practices, and structures associated with leadership

Technology Leadership Infrastructure• Leaders should be collaborative, set clear

expectations and support risk-taking to support change with technology.

• Shared Leadership helps support tech adoption.

• Vision for technology use is vital.• Leaders must support change across

system.(Cho, 2017; Dexter, 2011; Downes & Bishop, 2015; Hughes et al., 2016; McLeod & Richardson, 2011; Milman, 2019; Richardson, et al. 2015; Rikkerink et al., 2013; Sterrett & Richardson, 2017; Pautz & Sadera, 2017; Topper & Lancaster, 2013)

• 1:1 technology is present in and changing all four infrastructures and creates opportunity for educational change.

• 1:1 technology can be better understood as an infrastructure that stretches across the other infrastructures.

• This framework offers a new way to think about alignment and power across the educational system.

Discussion

District No. of Students No. of Schools Racial Demographics 1:1 Implementation

Groveville 5,900 985% White7% Asian5% Hispanic/Latino2% Black

K-12 iPad

2013 Rollout

Morton 6,000 1258% White14% Black14% Hispanic/Latino11% Asian

6-12 Chromebook

2013 Rollout

Norchester 2,600 681% White9% Hispanic/Latino5% Asian 3% Black

6th Chromebook

2018 Rollout

Oceanside 5,700 1384% White 7% Hispanic/Latino5% Asian3% Black

6-9 Chromebook

2018 Rollout

Table 1District Demographic Information

Implications

Physical Infrastructure1:1 devices changed what classrooms looked like, how students moved around

the school building, and how the library and other spaces operated.

WiFi/Network“We had wireless in our buildings, in the elementary schools, but it wasn’t good. It was spotty…Any district that doesn’t invest in the infrastructure is not going to be able to get to that program, get to that level.”

School Space“I know I've really changed the dynamics of her [the librarian’s] space. But she's like, ‘You know what? I knew that this was going to come at some point. We can embrace it as a component of library media science.’"

Cultural InfrastructureThe 1:1 program inspired change in hiring and staffing practices, school

culture, and support structures.

Hiring“People are retiring and…the new people I hire...you don't even get into our offices if you don't know technology. You don't get past the principal and director if you don't know anything...I need people that are brought up on it.”

School Culture“The student expectation is that they're going to [use the devices]...The teachers feel the pressure. They feel the pressure from colleagues and from their students.”

Instructional Infrastructure1:1 programs spanned classrooms and departments, encouraging changes to curriculum and instruction and relationships between teachers and students.

Curriculum + Instructional Goals“I'm not just banking on "let's go 1:1 and it'll transform classroom practice" because actually it won’t…if I'm only rolling out Chromebooks and not addressing the instructional model, not addressing what the interaction of student and teacher is around content and curriculum, then all I have is this digital worksheet or a great way to hand in your homework that's much more efficient”

Leadership Infrastructure1:1 programs inspired shared leadership structures and pushed leaders to provide vision for how technology was rolled out, used, and integrated across the system.

Vision“I think as a leader, I have to help develop a perspective and a context for technology, and then ensure that we have access to that in an appropriate way.”

Shared Leadership“The decision-making process is including teachers…I have to look beyond the formal structure of leadership in our school district. So, while the Tech Director is brilliant and so is our Assistant Superintendent, I think I need teachers’ hands on this.”

In their efforts to create educational change via 1:1 programs, district leaders understood technology as embedded in and changing all four infrastructures.

Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the berkshire wireless learning initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ873676Beschorner, B., & Woodward, L. (2019). Long-term planning for technology in literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 73(3), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1828Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications.Cho, V. (2017). Vision, mission, and technology implementation: Going one-to-one in a catholic school. Journal of Catholic Education, 20(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.15365/joce.2002082017Chou, C., Block, L., & Jesness, R. (2012). A case study of mobile learning pilot project in K-12 schools. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 5(2). https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.0502.02Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. SAGE Publications.Cuban, L. (2018). The Flight of a Butterfly Or the Path of a Bullet?: Using Technology to Transform Teaching and Learning. Harvard Education Press.Dexter, S. (2011). School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 166–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461102100202Dexter, S., Richardson, J. W., Nash, J. B., Richardson, J. W., & Nash, J. B. (2016, August 19). Leadership for technology use, integration, and innovation: A review of the empirical research and implications for leadership preparation. Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315724751-18Ditzler, C., Hong, E., & Strudler, N. (2016). How tablets are utilized in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1172444Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.4.dDownes, J. M., & Bishop, P. A. (2015). The intersection between 1:1 laptop implementation and the characteristics of effective middle level schools. RMLE Online, 38(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2015.11462120Dunleavy, M., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). The impact of 1:1 laptop use on middle school math and science standardized test scores. Computers in the Schools, 24(3–4), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v24n03_02Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597Graves, K. E., & Bowers, A. J. (2018). Toward a typology of technology-using teachers: A latent class analysis (lca) of the NCES fast response survey system teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools, 2009 (frss95). 120(8), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-ddmv-y558Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to-one technology in K–12 classrooms: A review of the literature from 2004 through 2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146564Hughes, J. E., Boklage, A., & Ok, M. W. (2016). A case study of technology leadership in situ: A high school iPad learning initiative. Journal of School Leadership, 26(2), 283–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461602600204Hull, M., & Duch, K. (2019). One-to-one technology and student outcomes: Evidence from Mooresville’s digital conversion initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718799969Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. M. (2003). When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504551McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad facilitated reading improvement. TechTrends, 56(3), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0572-6Mcleod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 216–240.Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2015). Bringing values back in: How purposes shape practices in coherent school designs. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 483–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9263-3Mehta, R., Henriksen, D., & Rosenberg, J. M. (2019). It’s not about the tools. Educational Leadership, 76(5), 64–69.Milman, N. B. (2019). School leadership of a one-to-one laptop initiative. Journal of School Leadership, 1052684619852114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684619852114Moran, J., Ferdig, R. E., Pearson, P. D., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2008). Technology and reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 6–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960802070483Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Sage.Oliver, K., Mollette, M., & Corn, J. (2012). Administrative perspectives on the implementation of one-to-one computing.Pautz, S., & Sadera, W. A. (2017). Leadership practice in a one-to-one computing initiative: Principals’ experiences in a technology driven, second-order change. Computers in the Schools, 34(1–2), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1296314Richardson, J. W., McLeod, S., & Sauers, N. (2015). Technology leadership is just good leadership: Dispositions of tech savvy superintendents. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 12(1), 11–30.Peurach, D. J., & Neumerski, C. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 379-420.Rikkerink, M., Verbeeten, H., Simons, R.-J., & Ritzen, H. (2016). A new model of educational innovation: Exploring the nexus of organizational learning, distributed leadership, and digital technologies. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9253-5Rosen, Y., & Manny-Ikan, E. (2011). The social promise of the Time to Know program. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10(3), 150–161.Sauers, N. J., & McLeod, S. (2018). Teachers’ technology competency and technology integration in 1:1 schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(6), 892–910. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117713021Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Effects of technology immersion on teachers’ growth in technology competency, ideology, and practices. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.1.aSterrett, W. L., & Richardson, J. W. (2019). The change-ready leadership of technology-savvy superintendents. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0160Topper, A., & Lancaster, S. (2013). Common challenges and experiences of school districts that are implementing one-to-one computing initiatives. Computers in the Schools, 30(4), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2013.844640Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(6). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ873680Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039001165Woulfin, S. L. (2015). Highway to reform: The coupling of district reading policy and instructional practice. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9261-5

References