ICT Policy Planning in a Context of Curriculum

Reform: Disentanglement of ICT Policy Domains

and ArtifactsRuben Vanderlinde, Johan van Braak & Sara Dexter (2011)

John Hagoiya

12th Sept. 2012

Introduction . . .

Researchers and policy makers ‘acknowledge the importance

of developing a school-based ICT policy to facilitate the

integration of ICT in education’. Despite this interest, ‘not

much is known about how schools can develop their local ICT

policy capacity’ and how to establish this policy (Vanderlinde, Braak

& Dexter, 2011 ).

ICT researchers seek answers to conditions that

support the integration of ICT into classrooms;

ideal conditions at the school level is ‘having a

shared vision and ICT policy plan’ (Hew & Brush, 2007);

A key condition – described here as ICT policy

planning – has recently gained attention from both a

research and a policy perspective because it might

support classroom integration (Fishman & Zhang, 2003; Zhao &

Conway, 2001) .

Leadership in ICTLeadership is associated with better outcomes for teachers’

professional conditions as well as students’ learning (Hallinger,

2003; Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe, 2008).

This research investigates leadership practice – what

leaders actually do – and specifically how their leadership

styles create particular school conditions that influence

teachers’ instructional practices.

examines leadership practices, particularly the use of

artifacts (tools, routines, structures) to support these

leadership practices in order to facilitate the collaboration

of leaders and followers (Vanderlinde, Braak & Dexter, 2011 ).

Leadership and ICT Policy Planning Distributive leadership facilitates ICT policy through the

artifacts (Spillane, 2006);

A school’s ICT policy lays out the school leader’s intentions for the nature, duration and frequency of their interactions with followers to integrate ICT in their work (Halverson, 2003, 2005;

Halverson & Clifford, 2003).

Tools = job descriptions of staff in relation to ICT;

Routines = regular presentations about ICT at meetings, monitoring activities that shape recognisable patterns/activities among staff;

Structures = staff shared planning periods to promote professional community about ICT integration, the distribution of ICT itself at a school.

Artifacts are organisational conditions or characteristics that enhance or constrain interactions among staff. Together, the artifacts in the school provide a blueprint for the nature, frequency and duration of interactions among leaders and followers and operationalise the leadership practice (Vanderlinde,

Braak & Dexter, 2011).

School ICT PolicyNations, states, districts and schools can all write ICT policy

plans which serve as blueprints for what education with ICT

should look like (Fishman & Zhang, 2003).

ICT policy plans are strategic and based upon ‘collective and

interactive’ processes (Lim, Chai & Churchill, 2011).

School-based ICT policy plans are ‘ideally linked with

classroom activities and how ICT can benefit student learning’.

This reflects a relationship between leaders’ ideas for ICT –

represented in their school policies – and desired classroom

outcomes (Jones, 2003).

‘ICT policy plans guides school leaders’ involvement and the

degree to which leadership practices connect with and

influence classroom practices’ (Vanderlinde, Braak & Dexter, 2011 ).

What makes Schools’ ICT plans successful?

Successful school ICT policy plans are:

1. grounded in a shared vision of teaching and learning

(Fishman & Pinkard, 2001; Lim et al., 2011). However, schools’ plans

vary depending on its particular vision of good education (Vanderlinde, Braak & Dexter, 2011 ).

2. dynamic; frequently updated following the monitoring

and evaluation of its implementation (Braak, 2003; Lim et al.,

2011; Fishman & Pinkard, 2001);

3. jointly constructed (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001). When teachers

participate in policy planning and decision-making, they

take ownership of the ICT policy plan. Shared goals

‘drive’ leaders, teachers and support staff to be involved

to attain these goals (Picciano, 2006; Tondeur et al., 2008).

Teacher involvement critical … Teachers need leaders who guide and support them in

the process of implementing ICT in education (Devolder, Vanderlinde, Braak & Tondeur, 2010; Dexter, 2008; Lai & Pratt, 2004).

This study: the content of ICT policy is described in five ICT-related policy domains:

1. Vision Development (linking the vision of ICT to the schools’ vision of education);

2. Finance (managing ICT budget);3. Infrastructure (practical organization of the ICT

infrastructure, hardware and software issues);4. Professional Development (the management of ICT-

related professional development activities),5. curriculum (management and implementation of ICT

for teaching and learning) (Vanderlinde, Braak & Dexter, 2011)

This research:

Three (3) Schools and their ICT Policies, Planning

and Implementations: What can we learn from

their experiences?

School 1rural community school;

long tradition of using ICT – 3rd version of ICT policy;

up-to-date computer infrastructure;

teachers receive regular pedagogical and technical support;

lends computers to underprivileged stds;

no formal ICT curriculum, but has developed and

implemented own ICT policy plan;

prioritised ICT infrastructure, ICT competencies of stds, ICT

and teachers and ICT professional development activities;

The ICT policy plan consists of clear and concrete actions to

further improve ICT integration in the school.

School 2medium-sized rural Catholic school;

2 ICT co-ordinators (technical & pedagogical);

a clear vision on ICT integration, structured around the

idea that working with ICT is finding a balance between

use of ICT in individual classrooms and school’s computer

room;

Priorities: use of new and innovative ICT practices;

A co-ordinator testifies: ‘The promotion of the use of web

2.0 applications in our classrooms is on top of our reform

agenda. Skype, MSN, Facebook, we all use these kinds of

things in our classrooms.’

Aim: To be an ICT innovative school;

No formal ICT policy plan: ‘Putting your policy on paper is useless, especially for a rapidly changing domain like ICT.’

One teacher: ‘We don’t have an ICT policy plan. If there is something to discuss or debate, then we just do it. In fact, we just help each other when necessary.’

Another teacher: ‘The school can be characterised by its strong collegial relations. We are really good colleagues. We trust each other and we appreciate each other’s work. That’s why everything works so well here’.

School Leader: ‘In our school, we have a tradition of delegation. My two ICT co-ordinators have all the responsibilities. They can do whatever they want. I co-ordinate the financial aspect of the ICT policy of the school. Of course, the ICT wallet remains in my pocket.’

ICT coordinators: ‘We are free. Our school leader isn’t interested in ICT. We just do what we think is important for the school.’

School 3a large subsidised private (Catholic) school; has a clear focus on ICT integration as described in the

school-based ICT Policy Plan;Central Theme: ICT is a powerful tool to learn new

knowledge and to practise existing knowledge and skills;Stds access computer classroom when needed. high on ‘teachers’ actual use of ICT in their classrooms’ =

teachers score highly ‘basic ICT skills’. School Leader: ‘ICT use should support traditional teaching

and learning practices’.School Inspectorate: ‘The school has a fully equipped

computer classroom and some computers in individual classrooms. The ICT co-ordinator has compiled a school specific ICT policy plan containing different ICT activities for all classrooms. He also provides individual teachers with software packages and instructional websites.’

The ICT co-ordinator is fully responsible of the school’s ICT

Policy.

School Leader: ‘We have the chance of having a very

competent ICT co-ordinator. I mean, he is pedagogically

skilled, he has a strong technical background, and he is very

committed to everything that happens in individual

classrooms. And yes, I gave him full responsibility for

everything associated with ICT in our school. I rely on him.

But to be honest, ICT is not one of my interests.’

One teacher: ‘I don’t know what our school leader exactly

does when it comes to ICT. Our ICT co-ordinator is our

leading man.’

ICT co-ordinator: very satisfied with his job description and

with the ‘space and freedom’ given to him by the school

leader.

His work strongly appreciated by the school leader and the

teachers.

Teachers are minimally involved ICT policy planning,

having only been involved in the ‘ICT Professional

Development’ and ‘ICT Curriculum Policy’ domains.

Development of the school-based ICT Policy Plan (ICT

coordinator): ‘I wrote it myself. I think we don’t have to

bother teachers with policy issues. It is better to provide

them with ready to use ICT lessons.’

Teachers: ‘Teachers have to execute the policy prescribed

by the ICT coordinator. That doesn’t matter; there have to

be executors too.’

School Leader hasn’t been deeply involved: ‘My tasks as a

school leader? A bit of ICT budget control and a bit of ICT

vision monitoring. Of course, always in close consultation

with the ICT coordinator.’

[Is ICT co-ordinator powerful?]

What do the findings inform us about ICT Policy Planning and Implementation in these schools?

ICT Policy Domains

Teachers ICT Co-ordinators

School Leaders

Schools 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Vision Dev.

Finance

Infrastructure

Professional Dev.

Curriculum Dev.

Involved Leaders only Not involved

Com

mun

ity

[Source: Vanderlinde, Braak & Dexter, 2011, p.1348]

What does this research inform us?The school culture influences the roles and responsibilities

of teachers, ICT co-ordinators and leaders. School leaders are particularly concerned with the schools’

vision and financial policy domains. ICT co-ordinator held the decision-making power in the

professional development domain (Lai & Pratt, 2004), and the teachers were involved in the curriculum domain.

The key concerns within each domain – overall direction and budget decisions, instructional support, and classroom use of ICT – are closely aligned with typical job responsibilities of the school leader, ICT co-ordinator, and the teachers, respectively.

Area of Interest: How and when individuals in different positions in a school involve others in decision-making and thereby increase the likelihood of co-ordinated, cohesive leadership practices that include opportunities for input by a broader section of the school community?

School 1 leadership practices of both the leader and the

ICT co-ordinator involve teachers in decision-making

and working together as a team. These leadership

practices are translated in co-operative and

collaborative ICT policy artifacts (Vanderline, Braak & Dexter, 2011).

School 2 & 3: similar leadership practices = delegation

of powers.

ICT co-ordinators’ leadership practices in these schools

strongly differ. School 2 are collegial by nature. School

3’s ICT co-ordinator is authoritative, resulting in an ICT

policy plan that is developed by him and executable by

the teachers.

Discussion (10mins)

1. How do the five domains of ICT Policy

Planning – vision, finance infrastructure,

professional development and curriculum –

impact ICT integration in your school?

2. You are an ICT expert who has just completed

this research. What practical advice would you

provide to these schools to enhance their ICT

integration and implementation?

Conclusion

ICT policy planning implementation is enhanced through the

different ICT policy domains.

Distribution of management tasks between the school leader and

the ICT co-ordinator. Using a distributed leadership lens (Spillane,

2006) we see further into the process of leading ICT policy planning

in schools. Not only because it directs attention beyond the role of

the school leaders, but also because such a perspective

emphasizes the tools, routines and structure that shape the

interactions between the leaders, followers and the situation (Dexter, 2011).

School ICT policy is a product of joint interactions among school

leaders, ICT co-ordinators and teachers and aspects of their

situation, such as tools, routines and structures.

a multi-faceted phenomenon grounded in school culture;policy domains: vision, finance, infrastructure,

professional development and curriculum drive ICT implementation in school;

domains regarded as policy artifacts (tools, routines and structures);

schools differ in teacher involvement in policy planning process and in management tasks distribution;

distributed leadership perspective drives ICT policy planning;

Results = important for school leaders, ICT coordinators and professional development trainers;

ICT school policy is about ‘developing shared meanings among stakeholders for ICT, and co-ordinating their relations and interactions in keeping with the school’s culture’ (Vanderlinde, Braack & Dexter, 2011).

ReferenceVanderlinde, R., van Braak, J. & Dexter, S. (2012). ICT Policy planning in context of curriculum reform: Disentanglement of ICT policy domains and artifacts. Computers & Education 58, pp. 1339-1350.