If we assume that schools are organisations whose structures and
processes are directed towards achieving the best possible learning of
students, then they will change if they are convinced of at least one
of three things:
(a) that what constitutes learning has been redefined;
(b) that new understandings of how learning best occurs need to be
incorporated in their practices;
(c) that new tools have been developed which make possible
improvements in learning processes.
The literature on ICT in schools, and the theory of ICT in
organisations considered in the context of schools, reveals that all
three of these factors are claimed to be relevant. One thread
considers the view that the widespread presence of ICT in society at
large in itself redefines what constitutes what schools have to do to
prepare students for life. Another thread argues that ICT is a
technology with properties whose use has a profound effect on
cognitive processes, with the most radical view suggesting that the
impact may be as great as attends the shift from oral to literate
cultures. Finally there is a body of opinion which maintains that the
main impact of ICT in schools is likely to be that of enriching and
enhancing existing learning processes. The debate on these matters
often seems to confuse them.
One of the difficulties of discussing schools as learning
organisations is linguistic. It is necessary to distinguish between
the business of schools, which is learning, and thinking about
innovation in schools, which involves practitioners in learning about
learning. Innovation occurs in schools when the organisation learns
something about the process of classroom learning.
We have found the innovation model proposed by Blackler et al (1997)
useful in understanding this complexity. Blackler describes
organisations as consisting of `communities of activity' which are
emergent, overlapping and interacting groups, each of which exists to
achieve an organisational goal:
" Expansive learning occurs when, in response to tensions and
incoherencies within or between communities of activity, members
collectively develop new approaches to their activity and refashion
the systems through which they enact their practices."
The arrival of a new technology is one thing which can create
`tensions and incoherencies' in and between existing communities of
activity.
Blackler proceeds to argue that there are four kinds of innovation
which can emerge from such developmental processes:
(a) `Normal innovation'. With such innovation neither the technology
nor the organisation changes very much, but practitioners deal with
emergent problems by tweaking or adapting existing technologies and
practices, or learn how to do what they already do a little better.
In such environments change is incremental and communities of activity
see little point in adopting radically new technologies or radically
transformed organisational structures or processes..
(b) `Boundary innovation.' In this case new perspectives are taken on
existing technologies and practices, with the result that some
significant change in practice or organisational structure is adopted.
This sort of innovation is most frequently stimulated by the need to
resolve a tension between two different communities of activity within
the organisation (`boundary' alludes to the boundary between such
groups). For example an organisational change might be adopted to
resolve a tension between the music department's need to bring
students together from different classes for practices of the school
orchestra, and the Maths departments need to have maximum
uninterrupted classroom time to complete an examination syllabus.
(c) `Domain' innovation. In this case change results in a new
perspective being created within a community of activity. This kind of
innovation is most frequently stimulated by the identification of a
need within one community of activity, the need being very often
associated with the emergence of a new technology (`domain' refers to
the domain of a particular community of activity). For example the
senior management of the school may decide that it needs to
computerise all student records in order to provide better information
to support management decisions.
(d). `Radical' innovation. In this case change occurs throughout the
organisation, both within communities of activity and between them.
this represents a major reform event, and often requires substantial
risk taking. For example the school might decide to introduced ICT
into classrooms in such a way that major timetable and curriculum and
timetable changes are required.
In everyday organisational life these types of innovation are most
commonly linked in a `chain reaction'. For example a school may
generally resist ICT and be tied into a pattern of normal innovation.
Eventually one part of the school starts to use ICT (a domain
innovation), which creates tension with other parts of the school.
when these tensions are resolved a boundary innovation is necessary,
but a whole sequence of consequent boundary innovations may eventually
lead to the school enduring a major change event (radical innovation).
Such chain reactions assume that the organisation deals with tensions
actively by entering an expansive learning cycle. But this is not
always what happens. An alternative scenario for the foregoing chain
reaction would see the tensions created by the initial domain
innovation being met by a management decision that due to the friction
created by the adoption of ICT in one part of the school no further
expansion of use is to take place. In this case the school retreats
back into an environment of `normal' innovation, and development
through expansive learning does not occur.
The Blackler model provides a useful heuristic for making sense of the
range of organisational responses in school systems to ICT. It also
allows the formulation of a useful set of guiding questions to help
schools clarify their attitudes to ICT use, and to help them
understand and manage the organisational issues associated with major
technological change. Our review of the literature suggests that a
framework for managing such discussions, and a management commitment
to engage in them systematically, is what is most urgently needed if
schools are to make coherent and sensible decisions about ICT.
Phillip Capper
Centre for Research on Work, Education and Business (WEB Research)
PO Box 2855
7th Floor 142 Featherston Street
Wellington
New Zealand
Ph: (64) 04 499 8140
Fx: (64) 04 499 8395
pcapper who-is-at actrix.gen.nz