Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 145–169 | Cite as

Leading sustainable pedagogical reform with technology for student-centred learning: A complexity perspective

  • Yancy Toh
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The literature on school improvement is littered with sombre reports of how ICT-mediated innovations have failed to create impact on teaching and learning. Even when evidence-based successes are palpable, they are sporadic and rarely sustainable. Against the backdrop of the litany of such studies, this paper reports the case of a primary school in Singapore that has a decade-long experience in integrating, growing and sustaining ICT-mediated innovations. By distilling the influences underpinning its integration, the article aims to make a contribution to the theorisation of educational leadership situated in the context of technology-mediated reform for student-centred learning. Using a complexity lens, this paper looks at how school leaders, together with other autonomous actors in its ecological system, foster the favourable conditions for sustainable technology-mediated pedagogical reform. Data of the study are drawn from interviews, observations of lessons, fieldtrips and professional development meetings as well as document analysis. Based on the findings, a complexity-informed model for technology-mediated reform is devised and its implications discussed. They include the need to cultivate the following within and across the subsystems of the school: (a) ecological awareness; (b) collective reflexivity on practices and implementations; (c) creating alignment; and (d) capacity to forge ecological coherence.

Keywords

School change Sustainable pedagogical reform Complexity perspective Ecological alignment Technology leadership Technology integration 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge Dr. Janet Ainley and Dr. Clive Dimmock for their constructive inputs during the preparatory stage of this research.

References

  1. Aesaert, K., & van Braak, J. (2014). Exploring factors related to primary school pupils’ ICT self-efficacy: a multilevel approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albion, P. (2006). Technology leadership. Paper presented at the 17th international conference of the society for information technology & teacher education Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, S. J. (2012). Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-Spy guide to the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1), 17–28. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2011.650940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). Ecological models of human development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 37–43). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Burns, M., & Dimock, K. V. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for school communities: Beyond boxes and bandwidths. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  7. Chai, C.-S., Koh, J. H.-L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational. Technology & Society, 16(2), 31–51.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, I.-H., Chin, J. M., & Hsu, C.-M. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of the dimensions and implementation of technology leadership of principals in Taiwanese elementary schools. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 229–245.Google Scholar
  9. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, L., Mannion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). The second educational revolution: How technology is transforming education again. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: Rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26(1), 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coppola, E. (2004). Powering up: Learning to teach well with technology. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Creighton, T. (2003). Principal as technology leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Cuban, L. (2008). Frogs into princes: Writings on school reform. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cuban, L. (2013). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching practices? Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Davis, B., Sumara, D., & D’Amour, L. (2012). Understanding school districts as learning systems: Some lessons from three cases of complex transformation. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 373–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dimmock, C. (2000). Designing the learning-centred school: A cross-cultural perspective. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  20. Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., Vickers, M., & Williams, M. (2002). Making better connections. Canberra: DEST, commonwealth department of education science and training. Accessed August 2, 2008Google Scholar
  21. Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fullan, M. (2002). Principals as leaders in a culture of change. Educational Leadership, 59, 16–20.Google Scholar
  24. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. W. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldspink, C. (2007). Rethinking educational reform—A loosely coupled and complex systems perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall, R., & Stahl, B. (2012). Against commodification: The university, cognitive capitalism and emergent technologies. Triple-C: Cognition, Communication and Co-Operation, 10(2), 184–202.Google Scholar
  27. Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. Harris, J. (2005). Our agenda for technology integration: It’s time to choose. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 116–122.Google Scholar
  30. Hazy, J. K., Goldstein, J. A., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (Eds.). (2007). Complex systems leadership theory: New perspectives from complexity science on social and organizational effectiveness (Vol. 1). Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich learning environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497–537.Google Scholar
  32. Law, N., Yuen, H. K., & Fox, R. (2011). Educational innovations beyond technology: Nurturing leadership and establishing learning organizations. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leithwood, K. (2011). Characteristics of high performing school systems: Final report. Toronto: Institute for Education Leadership.Google Scholar
  34. Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (Eds.). (2009). New perspectives on an old idea: A short history of the old idea. In Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 1–14). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Lemke, J. (2001). Toward systemic educational change: Questions from a complex systems perspective. Retrieved from http://www.necsi.edu/events/cxedk16/cxedk16_3.html accessed August 8, 2010
  36. Lemke, J. Y., & Sabelli, N. H. (2008). Complex systems and educational change: Towards a new research agenda. In M. Mason (Ed.), Complexity theory and the philosophy of education (pp. 112–123). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell (Educational Philosophy and Theory Special Issues).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2012). Leading technology-rich schools: Award-winning models for success. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lewin, R. & Regine, B. (2000). An organic approach to management. Perspectives on Business Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.providersedge.com/docs/leadership_articles/an_organic_approach_to_management.pdf accessed 27 January, 2012
  39. Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J. D., & Schreiber, C. (2006). Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(4), 2–12.Google Scholar
  40. Looi, C. K., Lim, W. Y., & Hung, D. (2005). Sustaining innovations in Singapore schools: Issues and challenges. In C. K. Looi, D. Jonassen & M. Ikeda (Eds.) Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, Singapore, Vol 133, pp 244–251.Google Scholar
  41. Mason, M. (2008). What is complexity theory and what are its implications for educational change? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCulloch, G. (2004). Documentary research in education, History and the social sciences. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  43. McTavish, M. (2009). “I get my facts from the internet”: A case study of the teaching and learning of information literacy in school and out-of-school contexts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2008, 5 August). Opening address by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for education and second minister for defence at the international conference on teaching and learning with technology (iCTLT). Singapore. Accessed July 2, 2009.Google Scholar
  47. Morrison, K. R. B. (2002). School leadership and complexity theory. London: Routledge, Falmer.Google Scholar
  48. O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 293–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. (2004). Identifying teacher, school and district characteristics associated with elementary teachers’ use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n48 accessed May 25, 2008
  50. OECD. (2015). Students. Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi: 10.1787/9789264239555-en.Google Scholar
  51. Owen, P., & Demb, A. (2004). Change dynamics and leadership in technology implementation. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(6), 636–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). longitudinal field research on change. Theory, & Practise, Organization Science, 1, 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Plowman, L., Stephen, C., & McPake, J. (2010). Growing up with technology: Young children learning in a digital world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36(1), 94–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schlechty, P. C. (2009). Leading for learning: How to transform schools into learning organizations. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  57. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organisations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Tan, S. C., Hung, D., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education in the knowledge age: Engaging learners through knowledge building. In D. Hung & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 91–106). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thompson, A., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking News: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38–64.Google Scholar
  62. Toh, Y., Jamaludin, A., Hung, D., & Chua, P. (2014). Ecological leadership: Going beyond system leadership for diffusing school-based innovations in the crucible of change for 21st century learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(4), 835–850. doi: 10.1007/s40299-014-0211-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Toh, Y., & So, H. J. (2011). ICT reform initiatives in Singapore schools: A complexity theory perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(3), 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Toh, Y., Wong, L.-H., Chai, C. S., Lee, J. Y. L., & Ng, J. P. S. (2013). Complex interaction between technology, pedagogy and content knowledge: Case study in a Chinese Language classroom. In L.-H. Wong, C.-C. Liu, T. Hirashima, & M. Lukman (Eds.), International conference on computers in education 2013 (pp. 865–875). Denpasar, Indonesia: APSCE.Google Scholar
  65. Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer use in primary education: Teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 494–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Urry, J. (2005). The complexity turn. Theory, Culture and Society, 22(5), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weston, M., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9, 6.Google Scholar
  68. Wheatley, M. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  69. Wong, E. M. L., & Li, S. C. (2008). Framing ICT implementation in a context of educational change: A multilevel analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 19(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research, design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  71. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zucker, A. A. (2008). Transforming schools with technology: How smart use of digital tools helps achieve six key education goals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Education Research, National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options