A FRAMEWORK FOR INVESTIGATING SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ICT

1. A FRAMEWORK FOR INVESTIGATING SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ICT Liisa Ilomäki and Minna Lakkala, Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, (Email: Liisa.Ilomaki@helsinki.fi ) EARLI, 23 - 27 August, 2005 Faculty of Behavioural Sciences

2. School as an object of research 1 A complex object: • It consists of different actors: students, teachers with various roles, a principal, parents; they all have a different view of the phenomena in school; • It is highly connected to the societal goals and purposes, thought its rather high independence; • Its resources are organized by national and local administration, it (typically) has only limited possibilities to affect on student or teacher choice, but it is expected to achieve high-level results In research, it is essential to create a combination of these points of views, in order to make conclusions about school development. Ilomäki and Lakkala, 2005

3. Crucial for succesful school improvement at school level 2 • The vital importance of teacher development; • Importance of leadership in securing school-level change; • Approaches should vary across different types of schools and a school requires strategies for improvement that match its particular context, circumstances and developmental needs; • The attention should be focused at the student level; • Importance of understanding and working with school culture. • The technological adoption model • The catalytic integration model • Cultural innovation model (Yuen, Law &Wong, 2003) Ilomäki and Lakkala, 2005

4. Goal of the study 3 The goal is to investigate wheter it is possible to combine the positive effects of ICT in education, and the results of research about learning organizations to an entity, which is an effective and capable school for the information age: An innovative, knowledge-creating school Ilomäki and Lakkala, 2005

5. A mixed method solution 4 • The underlying belief: mixed-methods research intentionally engage a multiple set of paradigms, and all paradigms are valuable and have something to contribute to understanding, but only partially • Conducted in 9 elementary and seconday schools in Finland • Data: Teacher & principal interviews, questionnaires Student interviews, questionnaires Classroom observations "Papers of the school”: official and inofficial Inofficial discussions Ilomäki and Lakkala, 2005

6. 5 Ilomäki and Lakkala, 2005

7. An example:Teacher community's working culture 6 Ilomäki and Lakkala, 2005

8. Some first outcomes 7 • The schools differed from each other radically in all dimensions investigated. • ICT resources were rather similar (Finnish policy). However, the resources were used differently in each school. • It was typical for the schools with good ICT level that several teachers used ICT, and they used it in many ways, from pedagogically low-level practicing to student-centred, inquiry-based activities and challenging projects. Teachers in such schools alsohad more common visions and goals, as well as commonly agreed daily working manners. These schools had more networking within the school and outside of school, and they had more support for common development work. In many aspects there was a feeling of collaboration and interest in development. Ilomäki and Lakkala, 2005

9. References (1) 8 Dexter, S., Seashore, K., & Anderson, R. (2002) Contributions of professional community to exemplary use of ICT', Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18, 489-497. Engestöm, Y., Engeström, R. & Suntio, A. (2002). Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for Life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural Perspectives on the Future of Education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2002). The Role of Leadership in the Promotion of Knowledge Management in Schools. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3/4), 411-419.  Granger, C., Morbey, M., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. & Wideman, H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers' successful implementation of ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 480-488. Hargreaves, D. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 122-144. Ilomäki and Lakkala, 2005

10. References (2) 9 Hopkins, D. (2000). Powerful learning, powerful teaching, powerful school. Journal of Educational Change, 1(2), pp. 135–154. Ilomäki, L. & Lakkala, M. (Eds.) (in press).Computers in school's daily life. A final report of the Educational Technology Project of City of Helsinki 1996 – 2000. Availabe http://www.edu.hel.fi/DynaGen_Attachments/Att2144/2144.pdf (12 May, 2005). Teddle, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major Issues and Controversies in the Use of Mixed Methods in the Social ans Behavioral Studies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddle (Eds.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. (pp. 3–50). Thoudsand Oaks: Sage Publications. Venetzky, R. & Davis, C. (2001). Que Vademus? The Transformation of Schooling in a Networked World', Unpublished research report, OECD/CERI, on-line. Available http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00027000/M00027107.pdf(12 May, 2005). Yuen, A., Law, N. & Wong, K. (2003), ICT implementation and school leadership. Case studies of ICT integration in teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 158–170. Ilomäki and Lakkala, 2005