Challenges with mission, vision, and change in a 1:1 school: a faction analysis
| Pages | 68-84 |
| Date | 11 February 2019 |
| Published date | 11 February 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2018-0089 |
| Author | Vincent Cho,Erica R. Hamilton,Kaitlyn F. Tuthill |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Challenges with mission, vision,
and change in a 1:1 school:
a faction analysis
Vincent Cho
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA
Erica R. Hamilton
Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, and
Kaitlyn F. Tuthill
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA
Abstract
Purpose –Although organizational visions can guide everyday work, little is known about how visions
relating to non-academic goals, such as social justice, might be integrated into educators’technology
practices. The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyze one school’s 1:1 iPad initiative, including the
potential role played by the school’s social justice mission.
Design/methodology/approach –This mixed-methods case study drew upon data collected in a 1:1 school
enrolling approximately 1,500 students. In total, approximately 138 educators responded to the online survey,
and 18 educators participated in interviews. Social network analysis (SNA) techniques (i.e. faction analysis)
and analysis of variance helped to describe educators’instructional practices and attitudes involving iPads,
including the extent to which devices were used in alignment with the school’s mission and vision.
Findings –Lackinga centralizing core of actors,the school was found to be divided intonine distinct, cohesive
subgroups(i.e. factions). Statisticallysignificant differenceswere found among these communitiesof discourse.
Leaders’lackof centrality in school change,especially as it related to helpingteachers envision ways to connect
mission with practices, may have hinderedtechnology integration and instructional innovation.
Originality/value –Whereas prior research has described the centralizing role leaders may play in 1:1
initiatives, this study demonstrates how a lack of centralized leadership structures may adversely impact a
sense of mission, and ultimately, technology integration. Moreover, this study advances the use of SNA
methodologies in studies of leadership, especially the use of latent, underlying communities of discourse as
categories for further analysis. As such, the authors discuss recommendations for leaders regarding the
developmentof cohesion around issuesof mission, vision and technologyintegration. Further,the authors point
toward ways in which scholars might conceptualize about technologically supported educational change.
Keywords Vision, Social network analysis, Technological change, Sensemaking, School change
Paper type Research paper
Aiming to ensure that every student has individual-level access to a computing device
(e.g. laptop, iPad and smartphone), one-to-one (1:1) initiatives have proliferated in the
USA and around the world (Richardson et al., 2013). With 1:1 initiatives, it is hoped that
access to mobile computing devices will revolutionize teaching and learning, such as
through more constructivist or personalized student learning (Hatakka et al., 2013; Sauers
and McLeod, 2012). One sticking point, however, is that such transformations are unlikely to
occur if technology is tacked onto curriculum or other expectations without purpose or care
(Hamilton, 2017).
In educational reforms, organizational mission and vision can often serve as sources of
cohesion (Hallinger, 2011; Klar and Brewer, 2014). Indeed, studies about 1:1 technology
initiatives have described how mission and vision can shape technology integration and
practices (Carlson and Patterson, 2015; Dexter, 2011; Swallow, 2017). Accordingly, today’s
technology initiatives present an opportunity to bridge the divide between an espoused
mission –such as might appear in a brochure or placard –and the values and beliefs
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 57 No. 1, 2019
pp. 68-84
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-05-2018-0089
Received 7 May 2018
Revised 27 July 2018
15 October 2018
23 October 2018
Accepted 25 October 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
68
JEA
57,1
actualized by school members in everyday life. In many cases, this bridge may be quite
broad. Looking beyond academic outcomes, many schools also prioritize broader purposes,
such as students’personal or social-emotional development (Cook and Simonds, 2011). In
this context and facing so many potential aims, however, some schools may struggle to
arrive at consistency in their educational practices (Honig and Hatch, 2004; Scanlan, 2012).
Exactly how mission and vision play out in technology initiatives, especially when it
comes to broader, non-academic goals, is not yet well understood. As a context for
examining such phenomena, Catholic schools may be especially useful because of their
shared emphasis on broader educational goals (e.g. social justice; service to others) (Cook
and Simonds, 2011; McLaughlin, 1996). Prior research in this context suggests that although
some educators may infuse more holistic, non-academic values into their 1:1 initiatives, such
practices may be inconsistent even within schools (Cho, 2017; Carlson and Patterson, 2015;
Swallow, 2017). One potential explanation for such inconsistencies is that patterns in social
groupings (i.e. social networks) may matter. For example, Cho (2016) described how a
densely connected, core group of technology leaders helped provide momentum and
cohesion to one school’s 1:1 initiative.
Even so, little is known about the factors influencing how organizational missions and
visions, especially those embracing broader, non-academic goals, may play out in
technology initiatives. Insights about such matters could be valuable to schools seeking to
enact their values and beliefs in the digital age. Therefore, the purpose of this
mixed-methods case study is to describe and analyze one school’s 1:1 iPad initiative,
including the potential role played by school mission and vision. This study is guided by
two research questions:
RQ1. What were the 1:1 instructional practices of educators at the school?
RQ2. In what ways, if any, did the school’s mission and vision influence educators’1:1
technology practices?
Technological change: a sensemaking perspective
When it comes to new developments in educational technology, it is not uncommon for
schools and districts to jump into new initiatives, assuming that the latest promises will
directly result in educational transformation (Brooks, 2011; Cho and Wayman, 2015). This
belief that technologies will have linear, inevitable effects on organizational practices and
outcomes is known as technological determinism (Leonardi, 2009; Markus and Robey, 1998).
Unfortunately, one pitfall of technological determinism is that it fails to account for the ways
in which individual- and group-level attitudes might influence technology adoption or
rejection (Cho and Wayman, 2015; Ertmer, 2005; Leonardi, 2009). In essence, assuming that
the benefits of technologies are inevitable leads to a blind spot regarding how, why or if new
technologies might actually be associated with improvements to educational practices.
In contrast with technological determinism, sensemaking perspectives do not take
technological artifacts at face value. Instead, they recognize that people are constantly
interpreting information about themselves, their work and their environments (Brown and
Duguid, 1991; Coburn, 2001). As such, technological artifacts can be understood not as
having universal, objective meanings, but rather as also being subject to social
interpretation. For example, when educators fail to agree about the nature and purposes
of new technologies, technology adoption might occur sporadically or inconsistently
(Carlson and Patterson, 2015; Leonardi, 2009). In contrast, coherent sensemaking helps
ensure that teams and team members work from similar rules and assumptions. Thus,
sensemaking perspectives foster examinations into how various individuals or groups
might sustain common understandings or negotiate discrepant viewpoints (Weick, 1993).
69
Mission,
vision, and
change in a
1:1 school
To continue reading
Request your trial