REFRAMING TECHNOLOGY NARRATIVES AND ROUTINES

TO ENERGIZE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Gigi L. Johnson, Ed.D.

Maremel Institutegigi@maremel.com

@maremel@gigijohnson

This research was supported in part by a Fielding Research Grant Award

Abstract: Educational Technology as dialogic OD in Action Research

Computer-enhanced educational technology penetration has reached high levels in many U.S. public school districts, while educational use of computers in classrooms for student learning has stayed relatively low. Many researchers have blamed teacher beliefs and implementation problems.

This action research study approached the gap from a different direction: how do decision makers consider technology alternatives for classrooms before decisions are even made? This qualitative study explored how educational organizations can use their own narratives to better understand their decisions, as well as to create capacity for stronger technology-enriched learning in the classroom. Through five intervention workshops in January 2011 across a K-12 school district, I worked with 16 stakeholders to examine, understand, and engage narratives that I had gathered in a 2010 district pilot study.

Page 2

Abstract (Continued): Routines and Frictions Matched Values in Organization

•On the positive side, the intervention spurred intent for personal change processes from some of the individuals. It also identified narratives that restrained change. Those restraining narratives linked with district values that reinforced technology as (a) time consuming, (b) expensive, and (c) not part of the core teaching mission. Most other alternatives were missing from consideration, as were considerations and stories of students as technology users. Organizational leaders did not see that they had any responsibilities to encourage new routines, alternatives, and narratives about a positive-focused future using technology.

•From these insights, I posed a model of how narrative drivers affect alternatives and routines around technology and other organizational decisions. This approach resulted in a new model, combining theories at the intersection of organizational routines and decision making, narrative research, and technology frames, and organizational cognition. I provided further suggestions for actions at the intervention site, as well as further research directions at this intersection of organizational narratives, decision-making, and social actions involving technology and education.

Page 3

Problem: Bridging a Gap

• Centralized educational technology systems have penetrated more than 80% of U.S. School districts (CDW-G, 2006; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010)

• In-class educational technology is available to 1/4 to 2/3 of students (CDW-G, 2010; Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010)

• Researchers have focused on causes of the gap in teaching implementation, including teacher beliefs (e.g., Ertmer, 2005) and adoption design flaws (e.g., Bates & Poole, 2003)

Research Question

How can educational organizations use their own narratives to better understand their decisions and to create capacity for stronger technology-enriched learning in the classroom?

Page 4

Expanding the Research Question with Subquestions: Building Understanding + Capacity

Building Understanding:• What are the drivers for educational organizations to make technology

choices?• How do their decision-making routines limit alternatives around technology

choices?• What are the factors in technology use, beliefs, and assumptions that differ

from or are subsets of other types of decisions, and how do they interplay with these routines?

Building Capacity for Change:• How can organizational narratives be used for its members to gain insights

into their values and routines?• How can those narratives be used to affect technology frames and improve

organizational learning about how to achieve different, desired technology results?

Page 5

Structuration + Technology Frames:Stories Building to Understood Structure

Page 6

Organizational Structuration

Technology Frames: Orlikowski & Gash,1994Structuration: Giddens, 1979; Barley, 1986; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991

Structuration Impacts•Legitimization: Authority•Signification: Naming rules•Domination: Money and Power

Exploring the Overlap Between Diverse Theory Frameworks

Page 7

Stories driving

technology routines

Research Design: An Action Research Cycle with Peterson Unified**

Page 8

Action Research (e.g., Stringer, 2007) Appreciative Inquiry

(Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987):Choose, discover, dream, design, destiny

(Ludema, Cooperrider, & Barrett, 2001)

Narrative Analysis: engaging stories with the

group. Dialogic organizational

development (OD) (Bushe & Marshak, 2009) and

organizational discourse (Marshak & Grant, 2008)

cultures of inquiry (vs. diagnostic OD)

Scenario Thinking:(Ertel et al., 2007; Scearce & Fulton, 2004; Schwartz, 2007):

Orienting; exploring on critical uncertainties and pre-determined environmental elements; and synthesizing views into scenarios.

Post-Session Intervention Survey

Narrative analysis

Discussions

Recommendations

**PUSD; A pseudonym used throughout

Engaging Themes from 2010 Pilot: 22 PUSD Individual Stakeholder Reflections

•Time• Identity •Brand as cognitive

shortcut•Change: non-ownership of

routines•Salesperson as narrator

and provider of alternatives

• Missing stories

• Repeated patterns of limited follow-through, measurement, reflection, and evaluation

• Social recognition of Technology Heroes and pilots

• Missing boundary spanners and information pathways

Chart: ATLAS.ti visualization of high-frequency phrases from 2010 Pilot Study.Data Collected: 40 hours of videotaped individual interviews; from 50 candidates identified through purposeful and snowball sampling (Grinnell & Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, 1995)

Page 9

Breakdown of PUSD Participants, by Role

10

10

PUSD RoleDistrict Officeand School

Board

Site Administration

Site Users (primarily secondaryteachers)

Total

Intervention** Sessions

4 2 10 16

Pilot Study 6 7 9 22

Both Groups 2 2 7 11

Either Group 8 7 12 27

Estimated Population

12 14 81 107

**50 candidates identified through purposeful and snowball sampling (Grinnell & Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, 1995)

Data Collection and Analysis: Group Narratives

Tools and Data Collection•Audio recording of group sessions, field notes, secondary data document archives (public and web-based)•Post-session evaluation surveys•Transcription, coding, pattern analysis

Pilot and Main Study Analytical Methods•Word count and high-frequency phrase analysis (using ATLAS.ti)•Narrative chunking/theme analysis (ATLAS.ti and other tools)•Group analysis included patterns of agreement, additive narratives, and protest/politics of humor and interactions•Visual concept mapping with participants and later during analysis

Page 11

Action Research Action Research StageStage EvidenceEvidence ResultsResults DetailsDetails

Session A interventions

Narrative chunks, interplays, maps

Cognition of text and systems and

routines

Mostly, with some push back

Session B interventions

Narrative chunks, interplays

Focus on economic and

political

Some exceptions.

Evidenced core values

Post surveys

Qualitative answers to 7

questions about self and group

Focus on self and small actions

Wide differences by cognition and

level

Casual interfaces Emails, coffee

Supportive comments and awareness of

personal learning

Impacts on small plans; no

momentum

Stages Exposed Different Facets of PUSD Values

12

Example: Narrative Shift from Session A to B: What is a cell phone?

G. What else is a cell phone?

05: It’s a camera. ((lots of gently overlapping comments here, as people try to add something))

G: ((G’s cell phone alarm rings)) It’s a stupid alarm clock.

01: Clock. Alarm.

02: It’s a way to consume and organize personal media.

05: Phone book.

G: Watch purchases are down 30% this year.

05: It’s also a phone book.

03 and 01: Phone book.

01: Photo album.

05: Photo album.

01: Music library

.

02: Social network.

01: A reader. Like a Kindle. Access to…restaurants, theater….hotels.

04: GPS.

03: GPS.

01: Locator.

04: Tracking your children.

01: Mapping.

02: I just got this. This is a Droid. I just got this, like, I don’t know, like a week ago, a week and a half ago. And it’s just like… I don’t even call it a phone. It’s a handheld computer.

G: I haven’t heard any of you talk about it as a learning device for your students yet. ((muffled reaction))

G: Well, NO, that’s ((mumble))

02: Distraction! ((laughter and loud multiple voices))

26

Session A1:

Page 13

Surface Issues: Lack of knowledge and ownership of alternative narratives

•Lack of knowledge of each others' narratives•Little vision into external options (only WASC and friends)•Frustration with my including Learning Walks into technology narratives -- seeing usage shouldn't be counted as technology•Almost no idea how other schools use tech, despite being only 2-5 minute drives apart

Core Symptoms•Void of narrative leadership: No one felt it is their job•Limited fuel for new narratives and alternatives: No paths for new perspectives

Page 14

Deeper Themes and Frictions: Stories and Routines Matched Core District Values

Narrative DriverNarrative Driver StoriesStories ValuesValues

TimeTime We don't have time; We don't have time; technology costs moneytechnology costs money

My time, not yours; existing My time, not yours; existing class time structures and class time structures and routinesroutines

Technology and Technology and Perceived ResourcesPerceived Resources Technology costs moneyTechnology costs money

Brand name technology, Brand name technology, limited measurement and re-limited measurement and re-evaluation pathsevaluation paths

Identity; Power;Identity; Power;Teaching and Teaching and SuccessSuccess

Technology Heroes and Technology Heroes and Pilots; student achievement Pilots; student achievement narratives centered on narratives centered on testing and measurementtesting and measurement

Limited PBL or collaboration Limited PBL or collaboration narratives; focus on narratives; focus on presentation and presentation and measurement of textbook measurement of textbook and test driversand test drivers

Page 15

Push Back: Frictions to Assumptions under Appreciative Inquiry and Action Research

•Narratives rich in problem identification•Became a conflict with Appreciative Inquiry as a positive process

•Narratives shored with defenses from more powerful stakeholders•Did not deny existence or dysfunction of routines and narratives; instead

defended the dysfunctions’ existence•Threaded politics through the narratives: interruption, talking over me as

facilitator, taking over conversation from rest of group, speaking as the organization instead of self, not letting others give their POVs, condescending

Page 16

Missing Narratives: Participants/Learners/Supporters•Minimal consideration of issues of Hispanic student majority:

•Thin consideration and few tales of principals, parents, students, and community:• Parents [28 comments out of 2,500] as enforcers against teachers and

students, not partners or learners• Students [110 comments] as learners of static, tested content and users

of cell phones• Principals minimally in narratives [16 comments]• Community as source of money and hassle, and not contacts or

resources

Page 17

In my halted and broken Spanish, [I] spoke with some parents about how to use School Loop and how it's available. . . . we broke some rules and put some Internet in the gym, so that we could have parents have access to School Loop with a teacher there. Because when we did it in the lab, nobody came over there because it was far away from where everybody else was meeting. (Site User 15)

Missing Narratives:Teaching and Learning vs. Presenting and Measuring

•Focus on certain technology skills for teachers:• Presentation • Communication• Measuring and reporting student outcomes.

•Missing or thin narratives on new ways of teaching or learning:• Narratives about interactive whiteboards and School Loop focused on

presentation and communication, not collaboration or connecting with external-world resources.

Page 18

It's... it's kind of confusing to me too. Like the role that schools ought to play. . . . Does it matter, who has access to the Internet? Like, which families do, which families don't? I... I mean, and if a lot of people do, does that change what goes on in my classroom? I don't know. (Site User 11, Session B)

Model of Driving Factors Narratives Drive Technology Frames and Organizational Learning

Drivers must change to broaden alternatives and routines: •New narrative leadership •Information flows/discussions•Friction from external forces

Drivers must change to broaden alternatives and routines: •New narrative leadership •Information flows/discussions•Friction from external forces

Feedback Discussion

New Influences

New Info

Page 19

Conclusions and Reflections: Next Steps and What Happened Next

•PUSD leadership launched a new narrative and a new cycle of action research • CTO and Superintendent got School Board to fund a tiered rollout of iPad 1-to-1, starting

with the principals, then senior faculty• Focused on changing narratives of principals, based largely on this study• New story created to skip missing technologies and aim for future needs• NOT investing in PD – using a story that teachers will figure this out for themselves• NOT creating action research methods of action, then testing – following historical

narratives of change for the organization

•Smaller steps could supplement this work to encourage new narratives on a deeper level

• Conscious changes and nudges around the routine changes and new organizational narratives, once these are recognized

• Routines and habits of new evidence can be grown to seed new stories of change and opportunity; narratives can be intentionally planted to open new alternatives and reproduce pilots to create new options for change

• Senior leaders can build understandings of their own personal roles in enhancing and guiding group narrative

• Site Users’ focus on personal skill growth can be encouraged and built into peer groups and leaders

Page 20