This qualitative case study explores considerations for leading instructional initiatives in high-performing high schools by examining a pilot one-to-one laptop initiative in a Catholic high school. As participant-observer, Cameron collected data through open-ended electronic surveys and the left- and right-hand column case method and reviewed documents to compare responses from those involved in the initiative and their department chairs (i.e., immediate supervisors to the teachers involved in the pilot). Findings and discussion reveal how two participant groups made different sense of the pilot laptop initiative. We advocate that an awareness of sensemaking and sensegiving are necessary leadership considerations when leading instructional initiatives, particularly if the new instructional approach differs significantly from the status quo.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertS., & WhettenD. A. (2004). Organizational identity. In HatchM. J., & SchultzM. (Eds.), Organizational identity: A reader (pp. 89–118). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
AndersonL. W., & ShirleyJ. R. (1995). High school principals and school reform: Lessons from a statewide study of Project Re: Leaming.Educational Administration Quarterly,31(3), 405–423.
3.
ArgyrisC. (1980). Making the undiscussable and its undiscussability discussable.Public Administration Review,40(3), 205–213.
4.
ArgyrisC. (1995). Action science and organizational learning.Journal of Managerial Psychology,10(6), 20–26.
5.
BalogunJ., & JohnsonG. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking.Academy of Management Journal,47(4), 523–549.
6.
BeckerH. J. (2000). Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey.Education Policy Analysis Archives,8(51). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/442
7.
BeckerH. J., & RielM. M. (1999, April). Teacher professionalism and the emergence of constructivist-compatible pedagogies. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
8.
BogdanR. C., & BiklenS. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
BransonC. M. (2007). Achieving organisational change through values alignment.Journal of Educational Administration,46(3), 376–395.
10.
CoburnC. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy.Educational Policy,19(3), 476–509.
11.
CorbettH. D., FirestoneW. A., & RossmanG. B. (1987). Resistance to planned change and the sacred in school cultures.Educational Administration Quarterly,23(4), 36–59.
12.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
CubanL., KirkpatrickH., & PeckC. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox.American Educational Research Journal,38(4), 813–834.
14.
DaftR. L., & WeickK. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems.Academy of Management Review,9(2), 284–295.
15.
DexterS. (2011). School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice.Journal of School Leadership,21(2), 166–189.
16.
ErtmerP. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?Educational Technology, Research and Development,53(4), 25–39.
17.
ErtmerP. A., & Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,42(3), 255–284.
18.
ErtmerP. A., & Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. T. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen's vision of authentic technology-enabled learning.Computers & Education,64, 175–182.
19.
ErtmerP. A., Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. T., SadikO., SendururE., & SendururP. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.Computers & Education,59(2), 423–435.
20.
FullanM. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age.Journal of Educational Change,10, 101–113.
21.
Fung TamA. C. (2010). Understanding the leadership qualities of a head of department coping with curriculum changes in a Hong Kong secondary school.School Leadership & Management,30(4), 367–386.
22.
GioiaD. A., & ChittipeddiK. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation.Strategic Management,12(6), 433–448.
23.
GioiaD. A., CorleyK. G., & FabbriT. (2002). Revising the past (while thinking in the future tense).Journal of Organizational Change Management,15(6), 622–634.
24.
HallG. E., GeorgeA. A., & RutherfordW. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire.Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
25.
HannayL. M., & RossJ. A. (1999). Department heads as middle managers? Questioning the black box.School Leadership & Management,19(3), 345–358.
26.
HargreavesA. (1993). Individualism and individuality: Reinterpreting the teacher culture. In LittleJ. W., & McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.), Teacher's work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 51–76). New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
HennessyS., RuthvenK., & BrindleyS. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change.Journal of Curriculum Studies,37(2), 155–192.
28.
HewK., & BrushT. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research.Educational Technology Research & Development,55(3), 223–252.
29.
HughesJ. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,13(2), 277–302.
30.
InanF. A., & LowtherD. L. (2010). Laptops in the K–12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use.Computers & Education,55(3), 937–944.
31.
JohnsonS. M. (1990). The primacy and potential of high school departments. In McLaughlinM. W., TalbertJ. E., & BasciaN. (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers’ realities (pp. 167–184). New York: Teachers College Press.
KeengweJ., OnchwariG., & WachiraP. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise.Journal of Science Education & Technology,17(6), 560–565.
34.
LauC.-M., KilbourneL. M., & WoodmanR. W. (2003). A shared schema approach to understanding organizational culture change.Research in Organizational Change and Development,14, 225–256.
35.
LimC. P., & KhineM. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,14(1), 97–125.
36.
LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
LiuY., & SzaboZ. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes toward technology integration in schools: A four-year study.Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,15(1), 5–23.
38.
MaitlisS. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking.Academy of Management Journal,48(1), 21–49.
39.
MarksH. M., & PrintyS. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership.Educational Administration Quarterly,39(3), 370–397.
40.
McLeodS., & RichardsonJ. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage.Technology Leadership,21(2), 216–240.
41.
O'BrienD. G., StewartR. A., & MojeE. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture.Reading Research Quarterly,30(3), 442–463.
42.
OrrM. T., BergB., ShoreR., & MeierE. (2008). Putting the pieces together: Leadership for change in low-performing urban schools.Education and Urban Society,40(6), 670–693.
43.
ParkS. H., & ErtmerP. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using a performance support systems approach.British Journal of Educational Technology,39(4), 631–643.
44.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
PearsonM., & NaylorS. (2006). Changing contexts: Teacher professional development and ICT pedagogy.Education and Information Technologies,11, 283–291.
46.
PhelpsR., GrahamA., & ThorntonP. (2006). Technology together: Getting whole schools involved with ICT through a metacognitive approach.Australian Educational Leader,28(1), 22–24.
47.
RobinsonV. M. J., LloydC. A., & RoweK. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.Educational Administration Quarterly,44(5), 635–674.
48.
RogersE. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations.New York: Free Press.
49.
ScribnerJ. P., CockrellK. S., CockrellD. H., & ValentineJ. W. (1999). Creating professional learning communities in schools through organizational learning: An evaluation of a school improvement process.Educational Administration Quarterly,35(1), 130–160.
50.
SeashoreK. R. (2009). Leadership and change in schools: Reflections over the last 30 years.Journal of Educational Change,10(2/3), 129–140.
51.
SiskinL. S. (1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject subcultures in secondary schools.Educational Administration Quarterly,27(2), 134–160.
52.
SpillaneJ. P., DiamondJ. B., BurchP., HallettT., JitaL., & ZoltnersJ. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy.Educational Policy, 16(5), 731–762.
53.
SpillaneJ. P., ReiserB. J., & ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research.Review of Educational Research,72(3), 387–431.
54.
StemlerS. E., BebellD., & SonnabendL. A. (2011). Using school mission statements for reflection and research.Educational Administration Quarterly,47(2), 383–420.
55.
StensakerL., FalkenbergJ., & GrønhaugK. (2008). Implementation activities and organizational sensemaking.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,44(2), 162–185.
56.
SternbergR. J., & GrigorenkoE. L. (1995). Styles of thinking in the school 1.European Journal of High Ability,6(2), 201–219.
57.
StollL. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape.Journal of Educational Change,10(2/3), 115–127.
58.
StromP., StromR., WingC., & BeckertT. (2009). Adolescent learning and the Internet: Implications for school leadership and student engagement in learning.NASSP Bulletin,93(2), 111–121.
59.
SullivanJ. (2011). Promoting the mission: Principles and practice.International Studies in Catholic Education,3(1), 91–102.
60.
van den BergR. (2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice.Review of Educational Research,72(4), 577–625.
61.
WahlstromK. L., & LouisK. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility.Educational Administration Quarterly,44(4), 458–495.
62.
WatsonD. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching.Education and Information Technologies,6(4), 251–266.
63.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
WeickK. E., SutcliffeK. M., & ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking.Organization Science,16(4), 409–421.
65.
YangP. Q., & KayaardiN. (2004). Who chooses non-public schools for their children?Educational Studies,30(3), 231–249.
66.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
67.
YoungsP., & KingM. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity.Educational Administration Quarterly,38(5), 643–670.
