Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 197–216 | Cite as

The emergence of innovative work in school development

  • Kirsten Foshaug Vennebo
  • Eli OttesenEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this article, we analyse the school developmental work of a project team in Norwegian upper secondary schools. The team aims to improve teaching and learning by making use of new technologies. The aim of the article is to explore the “black box” of developmental work practices by analysing the interactions between the team members to make the processes transparent and reveal how work becomes innovative and newness is created. The theoretical framework builds on cultural–historical activity theory. The study shows how innovative work is brought into being when pluralities of perspectives are externalised in a team’s discussions. Moreover, for innovative work to result in school-wide and sustainable change, systematic inquiry into the underlying contradictions of schooling is warranted.

Keywords

School development Innovative work Cultural–historical activity theory Perspectives Agency Interaction trajectory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is financially supported by the Department of Teacher Education and School Research and FALK research group for research on workplace learning in the knowledge society (http://www.uv.uio.no/forskning/grupper/falk/) at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo. We thank our colleagues at the Department of Teacher Education and Research, members of FALK and participants of the Norwegian Graduate School of Education Research (NATED) for their advice, support and constructive criticism. Finally thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and valuable comments.

References

  1. Adelman, N. E., & Walking-Eagle, K. P. (1997). Teachers, time, and school reform. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind: 1997 ASCD Handbook (pp. 92–110). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, E. E., & Jamissen, G. (2011). Cultivating collective reflection on experiences of teaching with ICT. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1–2, 22–35.Google Scholar
  3. Blase, J. (1998). The Micropolitics of educational change. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 544–557). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blase, J., & Björk, L. (2010). The micropolitics of educational change and reform: Creaking open the Black Box. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 237–238). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chin, R., Benne, K. D., & Bennis, W. G. (1970). The Planning of change. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  6. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dalin, P. (2005). School development: Theories and strategies: an international handbook. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. University of Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved July 30, 2012, from http://depts.washington.edu.
  9. Dreier, O. (1999). Personal trajectories of participation across contexts of social practice. [critical psychology, participation, trajectory, social practice]. Outlines Critical Social Studies, 1, 5–32.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, A. (2009). From the systemic to the relational: relational agency and activity theory. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 197–211). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.Google Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R.-L. Punamäki-Gitai, & R. Miettinen (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engeström, Y. (2005). Knotworking to create collaborative intentionality capital in fluid organizational fields. In M. M. Beyerlein, S. T. Beyerlein, & F. A. Kennedy (Eds.), Collaborative capital: Creating intangible value. Oxford: Elsevier Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (2006). Development, movement and agency: Breaking away into mycorrhizae activities. In K. Yamazumi (Ed.), Building activity theory in practice. Toward the next generation. Osaka: Center for Human Activity Theory, Kansai University. Technical Report no. 6.Google Scholar
  15. Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engeström, R. (2009). Who is acting in an activity system? In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Guiterrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 257–273). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engeström, Y. (2011). Activity theory and learning at work. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. N. O’Connor (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of workplace learning. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  18. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foot, K. A. (2002). Pursuing an evolving object: A case study in object formation and identification. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 132–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
  21. Fullan, M. (1997a). Emotion and hope: Constructive concepts for complex times. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The challenge of school change (pp. 287–304). Arlington Heights, Illinois: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Fullan, M. (1997b). Leadership for change. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The challenge of school change (pp. 115–136). Arlington Heights, Illinois: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Furberg, A. (2010). Scientific inquiry in web-based learning environments: Exploring technological, epistemic and institutional aspects of students’ meaning making. Doctoral dissertation thesis, University of Oslo: Oslo, Unipub.Google Scholar
  25. Hargreaves, A. (2005). Extending educational change: international handbook of educational change. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W, Jr, Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Holland, D., & Reeves, J. R. (2001). Activity theory and the view from somewhere: Team perspectives on the intellectual work of programming. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness. Activity theory and human-computer interaction (3rd ed., pp. 257–282). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hollins, E. R. (1996). Culture in school learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kärkkäinen, M. (1999). Teams as breakers of traditional work practices: A longitudinal study of planning and implementing curriculum units in elementary school teacher teams. Helsinki: Department of Education, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  32. Kuutti, K. (2005). Defining an object of design by the means of the cultural–historical activity theory. Conference proceedings (CD-ROM) by University of Arts Bremen.Google Scholar
  33. Little, J. W. (1997). Getting school-based management right. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The challenge of school change (pp. 181–190). Arlington Heights, Illinois: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Miles, M. B. (1998). Finding keys to school change: A 40-year Odessey. In A. Hargreaves, A. Liebermann, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  35. Ottesen, E. (2014). Teachers’ storied experience: rules or tools for action? In V. Ellis & J. Orchard (Eds.), Learning teaching from experience: Multiple perspectives, international contexts. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  36. Parker, C. A. (1980). The literature on planned organizational change: A review and analysis. Higher Education, 9(4), 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roth, W. M., & Rückriem, G. (2005). Participation, learning, and identity. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar
  38. Sahlberg, P. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sannino, A., & Nocon, H. (2008). Introduction: Activity theory and school inspection. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 325–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmoker, M. (1997). Setting goals in turbulent times. In Hargreaves (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind: 1997 ASCD yearbook (pp. 128–148). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  41. Somekh, B., Tinklin, T., Edwards, L., & Mackay, R. (1996). The evaluation of the national record of achievement. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education: 26.Google Scholar
  42. Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tondeur, J. (2007). Development and validation of a model of ICT integration in primary education Doctoral Dissertation. Gent: Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar
  44. Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Curricula and the use of ICT in education: Two worlds apart? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 962–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Towndrow, P., Silver, R., & Albright, J. (2010). Setting expectations for educational innovations. Journal of Educational Change, 11(4), 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Engeström, Y., & Young, M. (2003). From transfer to boundary-crossing between school and work as a tool for developing vocational education: An introduction. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work. New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  47. Vennebo, K. F., & Ottesen, E. (2011). School leadership: Constitution and distribution. International Journal of Leadership in Education.Google Scholar
  48. Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. @ctivités, 3(1), 44–66.Google Scholar
  49. Virkkunen, J., & Kuutti, K. (2000). Understanding organizational learning by focusing on ‘activity systems’. Accounting Management and Information Technologies, 10(4), 201–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher Education and School ResearchUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations