The schools in the United States undergo reforms that involve the integration of data-intensive improvement process known as strategic improvement plans (SIPs). This process requires digital systems to set goals, create interventions, use and analyse student data, monitor and report SIPs. A challenge with digital systems is the integration of a highly diverse set of data sources and identifying users who are engaged with the processes. This study explored how teachers and principals carry out SIPs currently. We applied the sociotechnical walkthrough, a qualitative method that combines a modelling notation and focus group interviews to understand the current workflows, technology use and interactions of teachers and principals developing SIPs. The results illustrate a variety of existing activities and indicate how a newly developed technology may have an impact as well as propose design recommendations to fill a gap in managing SIPs.
AlfagehDDemirF (2018) The usability evaluation of a digital book application for elementary school students. International Journal of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences3(8):27–33.
2.
BaxterGSommervilleI (2011) Socio-technical systems: from design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers23(1):4–17.
3.
ButlerK (2008) CRAFTING strategic plans (cover story). District Administration44(4):36–41.
4.
CalhounEF (1994) How to Use Action Research in the Self-Renewing School. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
5.
DemirF (2011) Technology Use in Community Policing: Usability Evaluation by Eye Tracking Method. Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
6.
DemirFHernandezWH (2018) The more complex the less success in online library services. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology6(2):50–64.
7.
DemirFKulM (2011) A modern research technique. [Q method, Modern bir araştırma yöntemi olarak; Q metodu]. Ankara: Adalet.
8.
DemirFAhmadSCalyamP, et al. (2017) A next-generation augmented reality platform for mass casualty incidents (MCI). Journal of Usability Studies12(4):193–214.
9.
DemirFKarakayaMTosunH (2012) Research Methods in Usability and Interaction Design: Evaluations and Case Studies, 2nd edn. Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
10.
DevosGVerhoevenJC (2003) School self-evaluation – conditions and caveats: the case of secondary schools. Educational Management & Administration31(4):403–420.
11.
DonoffSBRosserVJ (2016) Closing up shop: perspectives on the departmental/programmatic elimination experience. The Journal of Higher Education87(2):272–299.
12.
FischerGHerrmannT (2011) Socio-technical systems: a meta-design perspective. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development3(1):1–33.
13.
GrudinJ (1988) Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces. In: GreifI (ed) CSCW '88 Proceedings of the 1988 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Portland, OR, 26–28 September 1988, pp. 85–93. New York: ACM.
14.
HalversonRSmithA (2009) How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education26(2):49–54.
HerrmannT (2009) Systems design with the socio-technical walkthrough. In: WhitworthBde MoorA (eds) Handbook of Research on Socio-Technical Design and Social Networking Systems. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 336–351.
17.
HerrmannTHoffmannMKunauG, et al. (2004) A modelling method for the development of groupware applications as socio-technical systems. Behaviour & Information Technology23(2):119–135.
18.
HerrmannTLoserKUJahnkeI (2007) Sociotechnical walkthrough: a means for knowledge integration. The Learning Organization14(5):450–464.
19.
JahnkeI (2015) Digital Didactical Designs: Teaching and Learning in CrossActionSpaces. New York: Routledge.
20.
KaragiorgiYNicolaidouMYiasemisC, et al. (2015) Emergent data-driven approaches to school improvement: the journey of three schools through self-evaluation. Improving Schools18(1):69–82.
21.
KaufmanTEGrahamCRPiccianoAG, et al. (2014) Data-driven decision making in the K-12 classroom. In: SpectorJMMerrillMDElenJBishopMJ (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Springer, pp. 337–346.
22.
KnightJ (2014) Strategic Planning for School Managers. New York: Routledge.
23.
LaFranceJABeckD (2014) Mapping the terrain: Educational leadership field experiences in K-12 virtual schools. Educational Administration Quarterly50(1):160–189.
24.
MandinachEBGummerE (2013) A systematic view of implementing data literacy in educator preparation. Educational Researcher42(1):30–37.
25.
MandinachEBHoneyM (2008) Data-Driven School Improvement: Linking Data and Learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26.
MandinachEBHoneyMLightD, et al. (2005) Technology-based tools that facilitate data-driven decision making. In: LooiCKJonassenDIdedaM (eds) Toward Sustainable and Scalable Educational Innovations Informed by the Learning Sciences. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 267–74.
27.
MarshJAFarrellCC (2015) How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision making: a framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management Administration & Leadership43(2):269–289.
28.
MayeD (2013) Hitting the mark: strategic planning for academic rigor. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin79(4):29–36.
29.
MeansBPadillaCDeBargerA, et al. (2009) Implementing data-informed decision making in schools: teacher access, supports, and use. US Department of Education. Available at:http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504191 (accessed 18 May 2018).
OrlikowskiWJScottSV (2008) Sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work, and organization. The Academy of Management Annals2(1):433–474.
32.
PrillaMJahnkeI (2011) The socio-technical walkthrough for participatory process design. In: BöhmannTBurrWHerrmannTKrcmarH (eds) Implementing International Services: A Tailorable Method for Market Assessment, Modularization and Process Transfer. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler, pp. 83–100.
33.
SchifterCCNatarajanUKetelhutDJ, et al. (2014) Data-driven decision making: facilitating teacher use of student data to inform classroom instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education14(4):419–432.
VaughnSSchummJSSinagubJM (1996) Focus Group Interviews in Education and Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36.
WallaceRC (1995) From Vision to Practice: The Art of Educational Leadership, 1st edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
37.
WambaN (2008) Book review: Democratic dilemmas: joint work, education politics, and community, by J. A. Marsh. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2007. Educational Administration Quarterly44(3):436–442.
38.
WarrenPGiselleC (2015) Implementing Local Control in California’s Schools: The First Year of Planning. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
39.
WaymanJC (2005) Involving teachers in data-driven decision making: using computer data systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk10(3):295–308.
40.
WaymanJCStringfieldS (2006) Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education112(4):549–571.
