ICT policy planning in a context of curriculum reform: Disentanglement of ICT policy domains and artifacts

Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

ICT policy planning in a context of curriculum reform: Disentanglement of ICT policy domains and artifacts Ruben Vanderlinde a, b, *, Johan van Braak a, Sara Dexter c a

Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), Belgium c Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 5 November 2010 Received in revised form 8 December 2011 Accepted 10 December 2011

Researchers and policy makers around the world are increasingly acknowledging the importance of developing a school-based ICT policy plan to facilitate the integration of information and communication technology (ICT) in education. Despite this interest, not much is known about how schools can develop their local ICT policy capacity and how to establish an ICT policy plan. In order to fill the gap in research on ICT policy planning, a multiple case study analysis with a mixed-method design was carried out with three Flemish primary schools. Primary schools in Flanders are encouraged by the government to develop local ICT policy planning in a context of ICT curriculum reform. Data from multiple sources (e.g. interviews with school leaders and ICT coordinators, focus group interviews with teachers, school policy document analysis, and a teacher questionnaire) were gathered and analyzed. The results indicate that ICT policy planning in schools should be considered as a multifaceted phenomenon grounded in school culture. ICT policy consists of different policy domains: vision development, financial policy, infrastructural policy, continuing professional development policy, and curriculum policy. Each policy domain can be described in terms of policy artifacts (tools, routines, and structures), and differences exist between schools concerning the involvement of teachers in the policy planning process and in the distribution of management tasks. As such, the study illustrates a distributed leadership perspective on ICT school policy planning. The results are of particular importance for school leaders, ICT coordinators and professional development trainers, and illustrates that ICT school policy is as much about developing shared meanings among stakeholders for ICT, and coordinating their relations and interactions in keeping with the school’s culture as it is about content related decisions. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: ICT policy planning ICT curriculum Primary education Case study Mixed method Leadership

1. Introduction One of the central activities of researchers in the field of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is the quest for conditions that support the integration of ICT into classrooms. In this pursuit, researchers have described supporting conditions situated at both the teacher and school level. A review of the literature reveals that one of the conditions situated at the school level is “having a shared vision and ICT policy plan” (Hew & Brush, 2007). This condition – described here as ICT policy planning – has recently gained attention from both a research perspective (e.g. Fishman & Zhang, 2003) and a policy perspective (e.g. Zhao & Conway, 2001) because of how it might influence teachers’ classroom integration. Far less often discussed is how leadership for ICT creates supportive school-level conditions in general, and nearly never the creation of ICT policy plans in particular (McLeod & Richardson, 2011). Leadership has been empirically associated with better outcomes for teachers’ professional conditions (Hallinger, 2003), as well as students’ learning (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). To establish such linkages this research increasingly investigates leadership practice – what leaders actually do – and specifically how this creates particular school level conditions and influences teachers’ instructional practices. For example, a distributed leadership perspective (Spillane, 2006) builds upon situated cognition and activity theory to examine

* Corresponding author. Ghent University – Department of Educational Studies, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B9000 Ghent, Belgium. Tel.: þ32 9 264 86 30; fax: þ32 9 264 86 88. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Vanderlinde). 0360-1315/$ – see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.007

1340

R. Vanderlinde et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

leadership activities as embedded in context. It emphasizes the examination of leadership practices, particularly the tools, routines, and structures, that are used to accomplish the leadership and/or management practices that organize the work of the leaders and followers. Here we apply such a perspective to ICT policy planning to illustrate ICT policy planning in terms of leadership practices to contribute descriptive detail of how leaders and followers go about this work and organize aspects of their situation to support it. Through case studies we investigate leadership practices for ICT policy planning in three schools where previous research (Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2011) showed teachers have very high and favorable perceptions of the ICT curriculum. While this descriptive research cannot establish that the school level conditions of ICT policy planning leadership practices led to this outcome, it contributes insights in this little understood area that are conceptually aligned with relationships found in leadership studies and upon which further ICT research can build. This is especially the case in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium, were schools are strongly encouraged by the government to develop local ICT policy capacity and to create a school-based ICT policy plan. This encouragement is strongly linked with the implementation of a compulsory ICT curriculum for primary education (Vandenbroucke, 2007). Besides, school-based management literature (e.g. Fullan & Watson, 2000) teaches us that school-based management initiatives have the greatest chance of being successful when focused on curriculum reform. The Flemish curriculum is structured in terms of ICT attainment targets, defined as minimum objectives regarding the ICT knowledge, skills and attitudes viewed by the government as necessary for and attainable by all students in compulsory education. The ICT attainment targets do not focus on technical skills, but emphasize the integrated use of ICT within the teaching and learning process. Since 2007, primary schools in Flanders have a clear understanding of what the government expects when it comes to ICT integration, and they must all put the ICT curriculum into practice (Vanderlinde, van Braak, & Hermans, 2009). Given the decentralized educational policy nature of Flanders, schools are given strong autonomy and are responsible for implementing and translating the ICT curriculum into concrete teaching and learning activities. Within this context, ICT policy planning is encouraged, and seen as a lever that facilitates both the process of ICT integration and the realization of the Flemish ICT curriculum (Vanderlinde et al., 2009). Within the context of the Flemish ICT curriculum reform, this study explores how primary schools develop local ICT policy capacity through a lens focused on leadership practices. 2. Leadership studies and ICT policy planning In this analysis we take a distributed leadership perspective (Spillane, 2006), which emphasizes, as described above, the examination of leadership practices. Such a perspective attends to the details of tools, routines, and structuresdor artifactsdin a situation and how these both shape and are shaped by the interactions among leaders, and followers. From such a perspective, a document such as the school’s ICT policy plan is an artifact (Halverson, 2003, 2005; Halverson & Clifford, 2003) of the school leaders’ intentions for the nature, duration, and frequency of their interactions with followers within an organizationdin this case about ICT. For example, a tool such as the job description of the ICT coordinator is an external representations of leaders’ ideas that shape the interactions among school staff. A routine, such as regular presentations about ICT at staff meetings, ICT hallway talks or ICT monitoring activities will shape in recognizable repetitive patterns activity among school staff. Structures such as the teachers’ shared planning periods to promote professional community about ICT integration, the distribution of ICT itself at a school, or a schools’ networked shared server space for teacher exchange or materials, are the organizational conditions or characteristics of the situation that further enhance or constrain interactions among school staff. Altogether, the tools, routines and structures in a situation provide a sort of script for the nature, frequency, and duration of interactions among leaders and followers and serve to operationalize leadership practice. ICT policy planning which we use synonymously with technology planning exists on different levels (Fishman & Zhang, 2003; Jones, 2003). Nations, states, districts and schools can all write an ICT policy plan, and although their specificity will vary in accordance with the policy level, all ICT policy plans will serve as blueprints for what education with ICT should look like (Fishman & Zhang, 2003). ICT policy plans are strategic and based upon collective and iterative processes (Lim, Chai, & Churchill, 2011). As such, school-based ICT policy plans are ideally linked with classroom activities and how ICT can benefit student learning. This reflects a relationship between leaders’ ideas for ICT – represented in their school policies – and desired changes in the classroom (Jones, 2003). Thus, ICT policy plans and leaders’ involvement in their making and implementation provide us insight into the nature of ICT leadership at a school and the degree to which leadership practices connect with and might influence classroom practices. The ICT research literature presents no unequivocal definition of ICT policy planning. Interestingly, Fishman and Zhang (2003) make a distinction between a narrow and a deeper definition of ICT policy planning. The narrow definition states that ICT policy planning is a process resulting in an official document. The deeper definition states that ICT policy planning is a process of developing, revising and implementing ICT plans in order to guide organizations toward broader goals. Apart from technical and infrastructural specifications, this definition outlines the learning objectives for the use of ICT, its strategies of implementation (including professional development), and the regular formative evaluation activities that should take place in order to assess whether the plan is being met. In this study, a school-based ICT policy plan is situated within Fishman and Zhang’s (2003) deeper definition of ICT policy planning, and is defined as a comprehensive school document containing a variety of strategic and operational elements concerning the integration of ICT in teaching and learning (van Braak, 2003; Frazier & Bailey, 2004). It describes the overall philosophy of ICT use, and explores how ICT will improve teaching and learning (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002). As such, an ICT policy plan acts as a blueprint for the sequence of events a school hopes to achieve. The content of an ICT policy plan refers to the school’s expectations, goals, and actions concerning the integration of ICT in education. This includes elements such as vision building, professional development, ICT curricula, and ICT planning and evaluation (van Braak, 2003). An ICT policy plan is thus not only about hardware and internet connections, but particularly about how ICT is integrated within the instructional program (Gülbahar, 2007). ICT policy planning and the establishment of a school-based ICT policy plan have recently gained attention because they can act as a lever for successful ICT integration (Vanderlinde et al., 2009). In this context, Bryderup and Kowalski (2002) argue that creating an ICT policy plan is a crucial step toward the practical implementation of the integrated use of ICT. Gülbahar (2007) argues that ICT policy planning is a way of solving problems that emerge during the ICT integration process. Baylor and Ritchie (2002) indicate that schools which are successful in integrating ICT are often guided by an ICT plan. Similarly, Tondeur, Van Keer, van Braak, and Valcke (2008) found that teachers in schools with an explicit ICT policy plan that emphasizes shared goals tend to use ICT more regularly in their classrooms.

R. Vanderlinde et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

1341

In order to be successful (see also Vanderlinde, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2010); (1) An ICT policy plan should be grounded in a shared vision of teaching and learning on the one hand and ICT integration on the other hand (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001; Lim et al., 2011). One school’s plan will vary from another’s because of its particular vision of good education, not the technical specificities of ICT or descriptions of hardware and software packages. (2) An ICT policy plan must be related to particular curriculum content and the enhancement of student learning (Staples, et al. 2005 in Hew & Brush, 2007). (3) An ICT policy plan needs to be frequently updated (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001) following the evaluation and monitoring of the implementation of the plan. An ICT policy plan is a dynamic (van Braak, 2003) or iterative (Lim et al., 2011) document subject to continuous improvement and revision. (4) An ICT policy plan should be jointly constructed. ICT policy planning requires collaboration (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001). When teachers participate in the process of policy planning and decision making, they can become aware of the content of the ICT policy plan. Goals need to be shared and teachers must be involved in determining the means to attain these goals (Picciano, 2006; Tondeur et al., 2008). Next to the last condition, which emphasizes teacher involvement in the process of ICT policy planning, several authors argue that schools need leaders that guide and support them in the process of implementing ICT in education (Dexter, 2008). For the context of ICT policy planning, both the school leader (Hayes, 2007) and the ICT coordinator can fulfill this specific role (Devolder, Vanderlinde, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2010; Lai & Pratt, 2004). In this study the content of ICT policy is described in five ICT related policy domains: (1) ICT vision development (the establishment of a school-based vision of ICT integration, linking the vision of ICT to the schools’ vision of education); (2) Financial ICT policy (managing the ICT budget); (3) ICT policy concerning the infrastructure (practical organization of the ICT infrastructure, hardware and software issues); (4) ICT continuing professional development policy (the management of ICT related professional development activities, the organization of school-based ICT in-service training courses); (5) ICT curriculum policy (management and implementation of ICT for teaching and learning). These domains are similar to domains proposed by other authors (see for instance Lim et al., 2011; or Vanderlinde et al., 2010). Our focus on ICT policy is rather unique in the field of ICT integration research. Although researchers and policy makers acknowledge the importance of developing a school-based ICT policy plan to facilitate the integration of ICT in education, not much is known about how schools develop their local ICT policy capacity or how they establish an ICT policy plan. Moreover, the literature on ICT policy planning appears to be rather underdeveloped (Fishman & Zhang, 2003) and general in nature (Vanderlinde et al., 2010). 3. Research purpose The study reported in this article is part of a broader case-study research project on the implementation of the new Flemish ICT curriculum. The purpose of this project was to validate the previously developed ‘e-capacity framework’ (Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010a) through qualitative research data. The e-capacity framework is a statistical measurement model developed to examine the complex process of integrating ICT for instructional purposes. The model is situated within a school improvement perspective (e.g. Hopkins, 2001) and consists of conditions fostering the integration of ICT into teaching and learning practices. The central aspect of the model is the e-capacity of a school, which refers to the schools’ ability to create and optimize school and teacher level conditions to bring about effective ICT change (Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010a). The concept has similarities with the concept of school culture (e.g. Maslowski, 2001). These conditions have been translated into reliable and valid measurement scales through statistical data analysis, and are clustered into four mediating subsets of variables: teachers’ actual use of ICT, ICT related teacher conditions, ICT related school conditions, and school improvement conditions. The subsets of variables illustrate the multilayered nature of the conditions affecting ICT integration. In this article we specifically investigate the role of ICT policy planning processes. While the broader case-study research project focused on the implementation of the new Flemish ICT curriculum in general, the study reported in this article has a more narrow focus on ICT policy planning. The research question in this article concerns how primary schools develop a local ICT policy, focusing on the five different ICT policy domains outlined above and on teacher involvement and leadership or management issues. The five ICT policy domains will be described in terms of the ICT policy artifacts (tools, routines, and structures) used to carry out activity within each domain. 4. Method 4.1. Data collection and analysis A multiple case study research design (Yin, 1989) was used to investigate ICT policy planning processes in three case study schools. The study is considered as a mixed method design (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009), meaning that in these three schools quantitative and qualitative data were collected, analyzed and interpreted to investigate the underlying phenomenon of ICT policy planning. More concretely, a convergent parallel design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) was chosen as the quantitative and qualitative data was gathered at the same time, and only mixed in the interpretation phase. Quantitative data were gathered through the administration of a teacher survey. All conditions from the e-capacity framework of Vanderlinde and van Braak (2010a) were assessed in the three participating case study schools. All teachers (see Table 2), the schools’ ICT coordinator and the school leader filled in a questionnaire that measures the conditions form the e-capacity framework. Conditions are presented as self-reported measurements. Table 1 presents the different measurement scales of the e-capacity framework including a short

1342

R. Vanderlinde et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

Table 1 School and teacher related variables from the e-capacity framework. Measurement scale

Description

Authors

Teachers’ actual use of ICT in their classroom practice Basic ICT skills referring to the learning of basic ICT skills ICT as a learning tool referring to the use of ICT to support pupils’ learning ICT as an information tool referring to the use of ICT to select, retrieve, and present information ICT related teacher conditions Teachers’ ICT professional assesses the extent to which teachers keep up with developments in the field of ICT development integration, like taking part in in-service teacher training programmes Teachers’ ICT competences measures the degree to which teachers find themselves competent in integrating ICT into their classroom practice ICT related school conditions Schools’ ICT vision and policy assesses (a) the extent to which a school has a clear vision on the place of ICT in education, and (b) the extent to which a school has a policy and policy plan containing different elements concerning the integration of ICT in education ICT school support and assesses the degree to which ICT integration is coordinated at the school level and the coordination extent to which ICT support is arranged within the school ICT infrastructure assesses the availability and appropriateness of the ICT school and classroom equipment (i.e., hardware, software, and peripheral equipment) School improvement conditions Leadership – initiating structure scale related to task and achievement oriented leadership behavior; the school leader makes his or her attitudes and expectations clear and maintains definite standards of performance Leadership – supportive leadership measures efforts to motivate teachers by using constructive criticism and setting an example through hard work; at the same time, the school leader is helpful and genuinely concerned with the personal and professional welfare of teachers Professional relations among measures the level of communication and cooperation between teachers teachers Participation in decision making measures the extent to which teachers believe that they participate in processes and outcomes of the schools’ decision making around issues of education, innovation, and school improvement

Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010a; Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2007

Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010a

Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010a

Hoy & Tarter, 1995, 1997

Staessens, 1990; Staessens & Vandenberghe, 1994 Geijsel, Sleegers, van den Berg, & Kelchtermans, 2001; Geijsel, Sleegers, Stoel, & Krüger, 2009

description of what is being measured. Detailed information about the questionnaire (items, scales, validation results, etc.) can be found in Vanderlinde and van Braak (2010a). Scale scores are based on teachers’ perceptions of the conditions form the e-capacity framework. The subsets of variables presented in the e-capacity model are based on a review of the educational change and ICT integration literature (see Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010a). Qualitative data were gathered from multiple sources to enhance data triangulation. For each school, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the school leader and the ICT coordinator, and a focus group interview was carried out with the teachers. Furthermore, school relevant policy documents (ICT policy plan, ICT school curriculum guidelines, school inspectorate reports) were collected and analyzed, and class observations were carried out. All interviews (semi-structured and a focus group interview) were recorded and transcribed verbatim. All interview transcripts and school relevant documents were analyzed with a structured coding scheme that was derived from the conceptual framework of the study. This scheme contained four main coding areas. The first set of codes focused on the background information of the interviewees and the school. The next set of codes contained all conditions from the e-capacity framework of Vanderlinde and van Braak (2010a) structured around school improvement conditions, ICT school level conditions, ICT teacher level conditions and ICT practices (see Table 1 for a detailed description of the codes). The third set of codes contained the ICT policy domains explored in this study, and the last coding area concerned the implementation of the Flemish ICT curriculum. SPSS 15.0 was used for the quantitative data analysis and NVivo 8.0 was used for the qualitative data analysis. In the first phase of data analysis, all coded data from each school was brought together and a vertical analysis or within-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) was applied. This led to the creation of a case specific report which organizes and presents both the statistical and interpretative data of each school in the same format using a fixed set of paragraphs. In the second data analytic phase, the results of the vertical analysis of each case study school were submitted to a horizontal analysis or cross-site analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) in which the cases were systematically compared for similarities and differences. 4.2. School selection and presentation Together with the introduction of the ICT attainment targets, a survey study was carried out in 62 Flemish primary schools (representative for province and educational network) to examine teachers’ perceptions of the new ICT curriculum (Vanderlinde & van Braak, Table 2 Background information of the case study schools.

Educational network District type Number of pupils Number of teachers Average age of teachers Computers in the computer classroom Pupil computer ratio (classrooms)

School 1

School 2

School 3

Community Rural 164 7 female, 3 male 31 12 1:1.6

Subsidized private (catholic) Rural 278 20 female, 3 male 40 16 1:3.7

Subsidized private (catholic) Small town 435 28 female, 3 male 37 26 1:3.6

R. Vanderlinde et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

1343

2011). The three schools selected for the case study analysis reported in this article belong to the school sample of the initial survey study, and were chosen on the basis of their aggregated score on a previously developed measurement scale ‘Teacher perceptions of the new ICT curriculum.’ Schools with the highest score on this scale (element a, see Table 3) were selected for our case study analysis as these schools were the most eager to implement the ICT attainment targets into practice. As our main research goal was related to the validation of the conditions presented in the ‘e-capacity framework’, we needed to explore these conditions in schools in where we assume that these conditions are put into practice. Put differently, by only selecting the schools with the highest score on our selection variable, we consider these schools as ‘good practices’ providing us with excellent opportunities to learn (see also Trinidad, Newhouse, & Clarkson, 2004). Table 2 presents the relevant background information of the three case study schools. School 1 can be characterized as a small rural community school, School 2 as a medium-sized subsidized catholic school, and School 3 as a large urban catholic school. Table 3 presents the aggregated scores for the three case study schools on the variables that assess the conditions from the e-capacity framework. The variables are presented as aggregated sum scores, ranging from a minimum score of 0 to a maximum score of 100. For all variables, Table 3 presents the sample mean, and the ranking of the case study schools compared to the initial survey school sample (n ¼ 62). 5. Findings When systematically comparing (Miles & Huberman, 1994) the interpretative research data of the three case study schools, by using the method of ‘constant comparative analysis’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), we found little differences between them on the conditions (teachers’ actual use of ICT, ICT related teacher conditions, ICT related school conditions, and school improvement conditions) of the e-capacity framework (see Table 1). This means that, for instance, all three schools had a clear vision on ICT integration, resulting in a broad spectrum of ICT enriched teaching and learning activities (Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010b); all three schools had also appointed an ICT coordinator with a clear pedagogical mandate; and in all three schools technical and instructional ICT support was established at the school level. Furthermore, in the three schools, teachers found themselves competent in integrating ICT in practice and ICT professional development activities were highly valued. Moreover, the three schools had a well-equipped ICT infrastructure (e.g. broadband and wireless internet connections, interactive white boards, etc.). On the other hand, the three schools differed in terms of how ICT policy is arranged at the school level. In other words, significant differences appeared in terms of the specific ICT policy planning conditions. For this reason, in our results section we exclusively focus on the schools’ ICT policy planning processes. 5.1. Results of the vertical analysis The results of the vertical analysis of the three case study schools are presented around two themes. Next to a contextual description of the school, we describe the school’s ICT policy planning situation. We end each case description by presenting a table containing the ICT Table 3 Variables from the e-capacity framework as measured in the three case study schools. Scale/variablea ICT curriculum a. Teachers’ perceptions of the ICT curriculum School improvement conditions b. Initiating structure (leadership dimension) c. Supportive leadership d. Professional relations e. Participation decision making ICT related school conditions f. Schools’ vision and policy g. ICT school support and coordination h. ICT infrastructure ICT related teacher conditions i. Teachers’ ICT professional development j. Teachers’ ICT competences Teachers’ actual use of ICT in their classroom practice k. The use of basic ICT skills l. ICT as an information tool m. ICT as a learning tool

Sample mean SD

School 1

School 2

School 3

59.95 11.24

79.3 (1/62)

75.00 (2/62)

70.52 (3/62)

73.48 16.96 71.02 19.93 68.36 14.24 51.37 11.43

83.00 (15/62) 80.71 (19/62) 84.57 (2/62) 65.00 (2/62)

85.14 (7/62) 70.44 (41/62) 72.85 (9/62) 51.67 (36/62)

61.25 (53/62) 68.45 (45/62) 66.19 (31/62) 50.83 (44/62)

51.69 18.92 64.40 20.12 58.65 23.11

82.22 (1/62) 85.00 (2/62) 82.50 (4/62)

60.91 (18/62) 76.59 (13/62) 71.53 (14/62)

77.08 (2/62) 92.26 (1/62) 81.25 (5/62)

43.04 19.64 58.09 19.51

53.75 (12/62) 74.00 (5/62)

48.61 (19/62) 75.00 (4/62)

41.66 (31/62) 63.75 (22/62)

47.25 25.22 22.60 19.77 42.41 25.50

66.25 (8/62) 28.57 (16/62) 61.00 (7/62)

56.94 (22/62) 28.97 (15/62) 68.33 (3/62)

63.02 (11/62) 25.00 (25/62) 46.56 (21/62)

Data between brackets refers to the ranking of the case study school compared to all sample schools (n ¼ 62). Sum scores printed in bold are scores above the sample mean. a Scores are aggregated sum scores ranging from 0 to 100.

1344

R. Vanderlinde et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

policy artifacts (tools, routines and structures) for each ICT policy domain. This table shows the ‘who’ (by role of teachers, ICT coordinators, or school leader) as well as the ‘how’ for each ICT policy domain (by artifact). 5.1.1. School 1: ICT policy as a process of teacher involvement and strong leadership of the ICT coordinator and the school leader School profile School 1 is a small community school located in a rural area near the Belgian language border. The school has a long tradition in working with ICT, and the high scores on the teachers’ actual use of ICT measurement scales (element k, l, and m) presented in Table 3 illustrate the variety of ICT activities organized by teachers in the school. Some teachers are even winners of ‘ICT innovative practices’ awards. The school has a clear vision of the place of ICT in teaching and learning – outlined in the school ICT policy plan – and characterized as a means of achieving other teaching objectives. The school sees ICT as a powerful instrument to cope with social inequality and to stimulate cooperative learning among pupils. In this context, the school lends computers to pupils from underprivileged families without charge. Other ICT related teacher and school level conditions from the e-capacity model are highly elaborated in School 1. This means, for instance, that the school has an up-to-date computer infrastructure or that teachers can receive pedagogical and technical support while working with ICT in their classroom. This situation validates the high scores on the ICT related teacher and school level conditions presented in Table 3. For conditions, such as the schools’ ICT vision and policy, and ICT school support and coordination (elements f and g), School 1 is among the three highest of the survey sample. ICT policy planning School 1 has recently redacted and presented a third version of its ICT policy plan. Having an ICT policy plan is self-evident for School 1, and the school leader argues that “.we assume that every educational change has to be considered in accordance with school policy.” The school leader is convinced that schools need to develop local policy capacity when being confronted with educational change. Concerning the development of ICT policy capacity, the school leader argues: “We have a long tradition of ICT policy planning. Even when there was no formal ICT curriculum in Flanders, we had our own ICT policy plan.” This long tradition is reflected in the school’s highest score on the survey sample of the ICT vision and policy scale from the e-capacity framework (element f, see Table 3), and in the school’s thoroughly redacted ICT policy plan. The ICT policy plan of School 1 is a comprehensive policy plan containing 36 pages, structured around different themes (e.g. vision, curriculum, competencies, etc.). The ICT policy plan is grounded in a clear vision on learning and instruction on the one hand, and ICT integration on the other hand. The ICT policy plan of School 1 also pays attention to ICT infrastructure, ICT competencies of pupils, ICT competencies of teachers and ICT professional development activities. The ICT policy plan consists of clear and concrete actions to further improve ICT integration in the school. All actions are based on survey data gathered by the ICT coordinator: “It was important to have an ICTinventory of the school or an idea of our early situation; what do teachers do with ICT in their classrooms? what ICT competencies do teachers have? what ICT competencies do pupils have? etc. So, I developed questionnaires for the teachers, and then translated the results of my ‘research’ into spreadsheet graphs.” The results of the ICT coordinators’ research were discussed by all teachers during different team meetings and then translated into concrete ICT policy actions. The ICT policy actions are presented in the ICT policy plan of the school and for every action engagements were made concerning which teachers should be involved, when the action should be realized (deadline), how the realization should be evaluated (monitoring), and who should be responsible for its realization (ICT coordinator or school leader). While actions related to pupils’ ICT competences are described as ICT curriculum activities, actions related to teachers’ ICT competencies are described as ICT professional development activities. Moreover, actions related to the school and classroom ICT infrastructure are linked to the school budget. In other words, all five policy domains are included in the schools’ ICT policy plan. The process behind the establishment of the schools’ ICT policy plan started a long time before the formulation of the Flemish government’s ICT curriculum. This process was introduced by the ICT coordinator and the school leader, who work closely together on all five policy domains. The ICT coordinator clarifies this specific school situation: “Every week on Friday morning we have for a short meeting. budgeting, monitoring the implementation process of the ICT attainment targets, technical issues, etc. Every step I take, I discuss with our school leader first.” In School 1 the ICT coordinator and the school leader jointly manage the five ICT policy domains. This means that they coordinate and monitor the implementation of the ICT school policy and guide teachers when putting the ICT policy plan into practice. The ICT coordinator further clarifies: “And of course, we have to regularly think about what we are doing, and about the need to change our ICT goals.” In this context, teachers speak of a “tandem between the ICT coordinator and the school leader,” and strongly appreciate the “inspiring leadership style” of the school leader, and the supportive role of the ICT coordinator. The high scores on the two leadership dimension scales (initiating structure and supportive leadership) and the high score on the ICT coordination and support scale (Table 3), concord the strong leadership approaches of both the school leader and ICT coordinator. Responsibilities for the five ICT policy domains are distributed among the ICT coordinator and the school leader. For instance, the school leader has the final responsibility for the school’s ICT budget, while the ICT coordinator has the final responsibility for the ICT professional development policy and the ICT curriculum policy. Moreover, teachers in School 1 are strongly involved in all ICT policy domains. One teacher reports: “I remember when we started with our ICT policy plan. We first discussed our vision on learning and instruction, and then tried to translate it to the context of ICT.” Another teacher continues: “I think this is quite a unique situation. But it is typical for us. We jointly think about our future and then go back to work.” This situation was also observed by the school inspectorate and is described in their report as follows: “.all team members work strongly together in a collegial and professional atmosphere to realize the school priorities.” Similarly, a school teacher testifies: “We are an innovative school. We are very critical and look constantly to improve our teaching. And, we do all things together. Thinking, reflecting, searching, planning . always together.” Another teacher specifies this situation for ICT when saying that “everything is jointly discussed.” ICT policy planning in School 1 is grounded in supportive collegial relations and involvement in all aspect of ICT decision making. This is not only the case for ICT integration and ICT policy planning, but can be considered as a school characteristic. Teachers in School 1, for instance, score very highly on the scales ‘Professional relations among teachers’ and ‘Participation in decision making’ of the e-capacity framework (element d and e). Participation in decision making for the ICT policy domains means that teachers can decide which ICT training courses they want to attend, that teachers have a say in the purchase of computer equipment, or that teachers are responsible for ICT curriculum implementation

R. Vanderlinde et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

1345

in their individual classrooms. Following from this point, the school leader argues that the school has no ICT steering group because ICT policy planning is a concern of all school team members. One teacher adds: “ICT is a weekly item on the agenda of our team meetings.” School conclusion In School 1, ICT policy planning is a concern of all school-team members and jointly coordinated by the school leader and the ICT coordinator. This results in a variety of different tools, routines and structures (see Table 4) used by teachers, the ICT coordinator, and the school leader to guide their interactions about ICT policy planning. ICT policy planning is embedded in a collegial atmosphere, and supported by the school leader and the ICT coordinator. In this context, School 1 can be characterized by referring to one of the final conclusions presented in the school inspectorate report: “The inspectorate strongly values the supportive leadership approaches and participative policy character of the school, resulting in a qualitative and innovative educational school policy grounded in a clear vision on the nature of good education.” 5.1.2. School 2: ICT policy as an informal process School profile School 2 is a medium-sized catholic school situated in a rural area. The school has appointed two ICT coordinators (each with a 40% appointment): one with a technical mandate and a degree in IT engineering, and one with a more pedagogical mandate with a teaching background. The school has a clear vision on ICT integration, structured around the idea that working with ICT is finding a balance between the use of ICT in the individual classrooms and the use of ICT in the school computer room. Next to that, the school pays a lot of attention to the use of new and innovative ICT practices. One of the ICT coordinators testifies: “The promotion of the use of web 2.0 applications in our classrooms is on top of our reform agenda. Skype, MSN, Facebook, we all use these kinds of things in our classrooms. And we want to present ourselves as an ICT innovative school.” Teachers confirm this by saying that they all try to implement these new ICT applications. In this school, each classroom has its own social book-marking website consisting of instructional websites that pupils can use for their homework, PowerPoint presentations developed by the teacher, classroom pictures and videos, exercises, games, and background information (pictures, videos, websites) of classroom themes. Concurring with the high score on the ‘ICT as a learning tool’ measurement scale (see element m, Table 3), the main goal behind the implementation of these social book-marking websites is to support pupils’ learning processes. Although this clear vision of ICT integration is shared by all team members, it has not been written in a formal school document. Contrary, the schools’ vision of ICT integration is clearly communicated on the school website. ICT policy planning ICT policy planning as a process is acknowledged by all team members, but just like the vision of ICT integration it is not written in a formal policy document. The technical ICT coordinator explains why the school has no formal ICT policy plan: “. putting your policy on paper is useless, especially for a rapidly changing domain like ICT..” The pedagogical ICT coordinator continues by arguing that ICT policy in their school is a spontaneous and informal process: “ICT policy? It’s spontaneous. It’s on our mind, but we don’t need to put it all on paper. If we have questions or if teachers have questions, we just ask each other. We don’t like that ‘assembling culture’ so typical of education.” In their opinion, ICT policy is not a formal process that needs regular attention during formal meetings. Instead it is seen as an organic process that needs to be shared with Table 4 ICT policy artifacts (tools, routines and structures) in School 1.

1346

R. Vanderlinde et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

all school’s teachers: “Listen, ICT policy is a team event. If it is necessary to discuss something, we just do it. That’s how things work here.” This situation is confirmed by teachers during the focus group interview and can be characterized as hallway talk. One teacher says: “We don’t have an ICT policy plan . if there is something to discuss or to debate, then we just do it. In fact, we just help each other when necessary.” Another teacher argues in this context, that the school can be characterized by its strong collegial relations: “We are really good colleagues. This means that we trust each other, and that we appreciate each other’s work. That’s why everything works so well here.” The pedagogical ICT coordinator argues that this strong sense of collegiality is a sufficient condition for ICT policy planning and illustrates that the school has an ‘open classroom door policy’ which means that teachers step into each other’s classes to help each other with ICT. Moreover, the quantitative data (see scale ‘Professional relations among teachers,’ element d in Table 3) confirms that collegial relations in School 2 are indeed well established. Furthermore, in School 2, there is no clear person in charge of managing or coordinating the process of ICT policy planning. In this context, the school leader argues that “In our school, we have a tradition of delegation. This means that for ICT, my two ICT coordinators have all the responsibilities. They can do whatever they want.” However, the school leader nuances his statement by saying that he coordinates the financial ICT policy of the school: “Of course, the ICT wallet remains in my pocket.” This situation is confirmed by the two ICT coordinators. The pedagogical ICT coordinator says: “We are free. Our school leader isn’t interested in ICT. We just do what we think is important for the school,” and the technical ICT coordinator argues: “Of course, the school leader decides how the ICT budget should be spent. But, to be honest, we insist until we get what we want.” Concerning the role of the school leader in the process of ICT policy planning, it is interesting to look at the scores on the general leadership scales (element b and c, see Table 3). The scores illustrate that the school leader of School 2 is perceived as a person initiating structures more than motivating team members. As noted above, the school leader in School 2 has delegated almost all ICT policy domains to the ICT coordinators. Within this context, the two ICT coordinators argue that, although they have different job descriptions, they want to act as a team. The pedagogical ICT coordinator further explains: “It is clear that we have different job descriptions and that we have different interest, but we want to appear as a team to our teachers. We think it is important to show them that two people are in charge of ICT here in the school . This gives more weight to ICT.” One teacher argues: “we are lucky to have two ICT coordinators at school.” In this context, it is also important to note that both ICT coordinators see themselves as full team members, not as formal leaders. School conclusion ICT policy in School 2 is strongly characterized by its informal nature (see Table 5). ICT policy in this school is about tacit knowledge, and specific ICT routines are imbedded in a collegial atmosphere between the teachers and the ICT coordinators. 5.1.3. School 3: ICT policy as an exclusive responsibility of the ICT coordinator School profile School 3 is a large subsidized private (catholic) school situated near a small historic town. School 3 is known as a school with a clear focus on ICT integration. This is confirmed by one of the conclusions formulated by the school inspectorate: “The realization of ICT competencies within pupils is a strong characteristic of the school.” The school vision on ICT integration – as described in the school-based ICT policy plan and presented by the ICT coordinator – strongly focuses on ICT as a powerful instrument to learn new knowledge and to practice existing knowledge and skills. All ICT activities in School 3 are linked with this central idea. This means that pupils in School 3 mainly use ICT in the school computer classroom, in the context of (preceding) class-based instruction. The results on the ‘Teachers’ actual use of ICT in their classroom’ scales show that teachers in School 3 score particularly highly on the subscale ‘basic ICT skills’ (element k, see Table 3). This kind of ICT use is confirmed by the school leader who describes ICT use as supportive of traditional teaching and learning practices.

Table 5 ICT policy artifacts (tools, routines and structures) in School 2.

R. Vanderlinde et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

1347

Furthermore, as shown in Table 3 (elements f, g, and h), the ICT related school level conditions from the e-capacity framework are highly elaborated in School 3. This corroborates with information provided by teachers during the focus group interview. Teachers in School 3 appreciate the up-to-date computer equipment and highly value the work of the school’s ICT coordinator. The school inspectorate observes: “. the school has a fully equipped school computer classroom and some computers in the individual classrooms. The ICT coordinator has compiled a school specific ICT policy plan containing different ICT activities for all classrooms. The ICT coordinator also provides individual teachers with software packages and instructional websites.” ICT policy planning The ICT policy plan of School 3 is a 21-page plan, presenting relevant aspects of the implementation and integration of ICT in teaching and learning. The ICT policy plan is structured around different themes: guidelines for pedagogical use of ICT (including the school’s vision on ICT integration), a description of the ICT infrastructure, and an ICT code of behavior for pupils. Next to this, the policy plan contains a school specific ‘ICT learning line.’ This is an overview of all planned ICT activities per class related to general ICT goals (e.g. to operate the computer, to use an operating system, the use of educational software packages, to search and process digital information, to communicate with ICT, and ICT attitudes). This overview is made by the ICT coordinator and acts as a blueprint for all ICT activities that individual teachers have to organize for their pupils. The ICT coordinator of the school has compiled the ICT policy plan. The ICT coordinator is given the full responsibility of the schools’ ICT policy. The school leader phrases the school situation as follows: “We have the chance of having a very competent ICT coordinator. I mean, he is didactically and pedagogically skilled, he has a strong technical background, and he is very committed to everything that happens in the individual classrooms. And yes, I gave him full responsibility for everything associated with ICT in our school. I rely on him. But to be honest, ICT is not one of my interests.” One teacher confirms this by saying “I don’t know what our school leader exactly does when it comes to ICT. Our ICT coordinator is our leading man.” Moreover, data from the leadership scales of the e-capacity framework shows that the school leader scores lower on these scales (initiation structure and supportive leadership, elements b and c) than the sample mean. The ICT coordinator is very satisfied with his job description and with the “space and freedom” given to him by the school leader. His work is strongly appreciated by the school leader and the teachers. This is reflected in the highest score on the subscale “ICT school support and coordination.” The school leader particularly appreciates his professionalism and strongly relies on the ICT coordinator. At the same time, the school leader is aware of the consequences of this situation: “I’m afraid of the day the ICT coordinator will step into my office announcing that he will leave our school for a job in a commercial IT company.” Teachers appreciate the ICT coordinator’s enthusiasm and the fact that “. he gives us concrete guidelines of what we have to do with ICT. he makes step-by-step plans of ICT lessons.” Teachers are minimally involved in the process of ICT policy planning in School 3, having only been involved in the policy domains “ICT professional development” and “ICT curriculum policy.” The ICT coordinator elaborates on the process of establishing the school-based ICT policy plan: “I wrote it myself. I think we don’t have to bother teachers with policy issues. It is better to provide them with ready to use ICT lessons.” The absence of teacher participation in the process of ICT policy planning is not surprising and reflects the low score on the general school improvement condition “Participation in decision making” (element e, see Table 3). In this context, one teacher from School 3 argues that “teachers have to execute the policy prescribed by the ICT coordinator.” Another teacher adds “. that doesn’t matter; there have to be executors too.” The school leader hasn’t been deeply involved in the process of ICT policy planning. After explaining why he distributed ICT policy to the ICT coordinator, he notes the ICT policy domains that deserve his attention: “My tasks as a school leader? A bit of ICT budget control and a bit of ICT vision monitoring. Of course, always in close consultation with the ICT coordinator.” The responsibility given to the ICT coordinator for all five ICT policy domains is translated into a broad range of ICT management tasks. For example, the ICT coordinator has worked out the school’s vision of ICT integration, he decides how the ICT budget should be spent, he decides which ICT training activities teachers have to attend, he decides which (commercial) software packages have to be purchased, and he decides which ICT activities teachers should organize for their pupils (see the above mentioned ‘ICT learning line’ developed by the ICT coordinator). Moreover, in School 3 the ICT policy is further situated at the school network level. More concretely, financial ICT aspects and issues concerning the ICT infrastructure are planned at this level. This means, for instance, that the seven primary schools belonging to the school network jointly buy computer hardware and software (e.g. Office applications and instructional software packages), and that these seven schools have a common computer server. The ICT coordinator states: “ICT policy on the school community level is new for all schools and has just started. I see potential benefits for the future.” School conclusion School 3 has an ICT policy plan consisting of clear activities compiled by the ICT coordinator, which need to be implemented by individual classroom teachers (see Table 6). ICT policy planning in School 3 is the exclusive responsibility of the ICT coordinator. This means that the school leader has delegated almost all aspects of ICT policy planning to the ICT coordinator, and that teachers are seen as implementers of the ICT policy elaborated by the ICT coordinator. 5.2. Results of the horizontal analysis 5.2.1. School configurations The description of the vertical analysis of the three case study schools showed that although the three schools had a relative high score on the measurement scale ‘Schools’ ICT vision and policy’ (element f, see Table 3) indicating that these schools have a clear vision and policy on ICT integration, yet, ICT policy planning in these schools still appeared as three very different configurations in terms of who interacts with who; the frequency, nature, and duration of their interactions; and the tools, routines and structures that shape those interactions. This illustrates that there is no one “right” leadership approach to get to the desired end of a shared vision and practice for ICT. Instead, the leaders’ ways of developing ICT policies at the three schools vary quite a bit from one another, but keep within the culture and climate suggested by their school improvement condition scores on the e-capacity framework (see Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010a; and see elements b, c, d, and e in Table 3). These measures of the school’s culture and climate evidently capture some of the same norms that influence the range of tools, routines, and structures that the teachers and leaders created to formulate the school’s ICT policy response to

1348

R. Vanderlinde et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

Table 6 ICT policy artifacts (tools, routines and structures) in School 3.

the Flemish ICT curriculum requirements. A matrix table (see Table 7) summarizing the horizontal analysis clearly illustrates the different approaches to handling ICT policy among the three case study schools. Table 7 illustrates teachers’, ICT coordinators’, and school leaders’ involvement within each of the five ICT policy domains, as well as who manages the activities within the policy domains. The creation of Table 7, as well as Tables 4–6 upon which it is based, was discussed with the schools’ ICT coordinators in an additional interview to verify the accuracy and quality of the interpretative data. The schools’ culture and climate, as indicated by elements b, c, d, and e in Table 3 (supportive leadership, initiating structure, professional relations, and participation decision making), and as discussed in the vertical analysis, is reflected also in the frequency, nature and duration of the interactions among teachers, ICT coordinators, and school leaders. While we see that each school developed tools, routines and structures related to all of the five ICT policy domains (see within case tables), the particular levels of involvement by teachers, ICT coordinators, and school leaders in those tools, routines, and structures are in keeping with the previously established norms for those roles and interactions among them. For example, School 1’s leadership task and achievement oriented behavior, such as the clarity of leader(s) regarding expectations for classroom practice and degree of motivation and support (element b and c in Table 3), together with the schools professional and collegial culture (element d and e in Table 3), is represented in a number of ICT artifacts. These include a weekly meeting between the ICT coordinator and the school leader, ICT as a fixed item during team meetings, clear ICT goals for the future, and expectations on monitoring, etc. Whereas, in School 2 the teachers’ professional relations and interactions were informal and characterized as cooperative and friendly (element d in Table 3), and it is through this climate that they accomplished their ICT work. For example, through the ‘ICT open classroom door policy,’ the ‘ICT hallway talk,’ and the absence of a formal ICT policy plan (element f in Table 3). In contrast, for School 3, leadership task and achievement oriented behavior and professional relations and interactions could be described as hierarchical (element e and g in Table 3), and there is no tradition of participation in decision making. As such, the ICT coordinator is held responsible for all ICT policy domains, and teachers are seen as executors of the prescribed ICT policy.

Table 7 Involvement and management of the five ICT policy domains.

R. Vanderlinde et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

1349

5.2.2. School culture and leadership The school culture also appeared to influence the roles and responsibilities of teachers, ICT coordinators and leaders. Comparing the three schools (see Table 7), we see that the school leaders are particularly concerned with the schools’ vision and financial policy domains. At all three schools the ICT coordinator held the decision-making power in the professional development domain (see also the study of Lai & Pratt, 2004), and the teachers were involved in the curriculum domain. The key concerns within each domain – overall direction and budget decisions, instructional support, and classroom use of ICT – are closely aligned with typical job responsibilities of the school leader, ICT coordinator, and the teachers, respectively. In these three schools ICT policy making is taken up within the realm of typical responsibilities for different job roles in the school. What is of greater interest is how and when individuals in the job roles involve others in decision making and thereby increase the likelihood of coordinated, cohesive leadership practices that include opportunities for input by a broader section of the school community. In School 1, for instance, leadership practices of both the school leader and the ICT coordinator are characterized by involving teachers in decision making and by acting together as a team. These leadership practices are translated in cooperative and collaborative ICT policy artifacts, as seen above. For School 2 and 3, we see that the leadership practice of the school leader emerges in a rather similar way because of its delegation of power. On the other hand, the leadership practices of the ICT coordinators in these schools strongly differ. The leadership practices of the ICT coordinators in School 2 are collegial by nature. The ICT coordinators even do not want to be perceived as leaders by the teachers. In this sense, schools 2’s ICT policy is characterized by its informal, collegial and tacit nature. On the other hand, the leadership practice of school 3’s ICT coordinator is authoritative in nature, resulting in an ICT policy plan that is redacted by the ICT coordinator and executable by the teachers. This suggests that the traditional role of the school leader and the ICT coordinator, prior to the introduction of the Flemish ICT curriculum, set the tone for the distribution of responsibilities and shared decision making at the school more than the requirements of the government. 6. Conclusion This study adds to the ICT integration literature in several respects by illustrating that the concept of school ICT policy should be considered as one that is multifaceted and related to the school’s culture and climate. First, ICT policy planning is further operationalized by delineating five different ICT policy domains: ICT vision development, financial ICT policy, ICT infrastructural policy, ICT continuing professional development policy, and ICT curriculum policy. Second, in addition to this outcome-based view of ICT policy planning, this study provides insight into the process of ICT policy planning. The three cases demonstrate that for each policy domain, differences exist 1) between types of policy artifacts (tools, routines, and structures) that result in ICT policy; 2) between the level of teacher involvement in the policy planning process; and 3) between the distribution of management tasks between the school leader and the ICT coordinator. Using a distributed leadership lens (Spillane, 2006) we see further into the process of leading ICT policy planning in schools. Not only because it directs attention beyond the role of the school leaders, which is clearly important for the case of ICT as we have seen here, but also because such a perspective emphasizes the tools, routines and structure that shape the interactions between the leaders, followers and the situation (Dexter, 2011). School ICT policy is then seen as a product of joint interactions among school leaders, ICT coordinators and teachers and aspects of their situation, such as tools, routines and structures. Third, by theorizing that different clusters of tools, routines, and structures relate to a school’s culture of teacher involvement and leadership styles it focuses recommendations for leaders that they consider how their school’s work already gets done, how knowledge and understanding is built, and how innovations diffuse and construct the appropriate tools, routines and structures to accomplish the desired outcomes of ICT policy planning. School cultures and climates can range from very collaborative to rather hierarchical, as shown in the cases studies above, yet still accomplish the necessary work to establish ICT policy plans that are clear to all school stakeholders. While the literature may suggest the collaborative climate is more desirable (e.g. Tearle, 2004), ICT policy planning is unlikely to be the impetus for a leader changing school climate and the tone for how a school goes about getting its work done. Obviously, we have to take into account that the schools for this study consciously were selected as schools that are considered the most successful in ICT integration in Flanders, but such cases provide excellent opportunities to learn. The schools in this study demonstrated not only that schools can develop local ICT policy planning and share common outcomes for ICT policy making, as evidenced by their high score on the selection variable, but that it is possible to take rather different paths to reach this same end point. This study further illustrates that ICT school policy is more than making content related decisions, it is also important to consider the relations and interactions about ICT between teachers and their leaders that are necessary for maximum impact and develop artifacts in keeping with the school’s culture. This conclusion is of particular importance for future ICT planning professional development activities and illustrates, for instance, the need for teacher involvement and technology leaders in schools. Besides, the results are also relevant for staff-development trainers and supervisors of intervention studies as they reveal school dynamics related to ICT policy planning activities. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness and sustainability of the ICT policy in all three schools. Tying the process of planning to such outcome variables will further develop needed recommendations for school ICT leaders and the implications regarding their preparation to further lead ICT integration into practice. Such research should further include schools with different success rates in terms of ICT integration outcomes to see if they had differences as a result of their ICT policy planning efforts. This also includes research on schools that do not possess ICT policy capacity features as illustrated by the successful schools presented in this study. References Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39, 395–414. Bryderup, I. M., & Kowalski, K. (2002). The role of local authorities in the integration of ICT in learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 470–479. Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Devolder, A., Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Identifying multiple roles of ICT coordinators. Computers & Education, 55, 1651–1655. Dexter, S. (2008). Leadership for IT in schools. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology (pp. 543–554). New York: Springer. Dexter, S. (2011). School technology leadership: artifacts in systems of practice. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 166–189.

1350

R. Vanderlinde et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1339–1350

Fishman, B. J., & Pinkard, N. (2001). Bringing urban schools into the information age: planning for technology vs. technology planning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 63–80. Fishman, B. J., & Zhang, B. H. (2003). Planning for technology: the link between intentions and use. Educational Technology, 43, 63–80. Frazier, M., & Bailey, G. D. (2004). The technology coordinator’s handbook. Washington: ISTE. Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2000). School-based management: reconceptualizing to improve learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 453–473. Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., van den Berg, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the implementation of large-scale innovation programs in schools: teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 130–166. Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Stoel, R. D., & Krüger, M. L. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological, school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in schools. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 406–427. Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: a roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers & Education, 49, 63–80. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329–351. Halverson, R. (2003). Systems of practice: how leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, Retrieved May 10, 2005 from. http://epaa.asa.edu/epaa/v11n37/. Halverson, R. (2005). A distributed leadership perspective on how leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the University Council of Education Administration, Nashville, TN. Halverson, R., & Clifford, M. (2003). Evaluation in the wild: A distributed cognition perspective on teacher assessment. Paper presented at the meeting of the University Council of Education Administration, Kansas City, MO. Hayes, D. N. A. (2007). ICT and learning: lessons from Australian classrooms. Computers & Education, 49, 385–395. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223–252. Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. London and New York: Routledge Falmer. Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1995). Administrators solving the problems of practice: Decision-making cases, concepts and consequences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change. Thousand Oaks: Corwinn Press. Jones, R. M. (2003). Local and national ICT policies. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education. Lai, K. W., & Pratt, K. (2004). Information and communication (ICT) in secondary schools: the role of the computer coordinator. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 461–475. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed method research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265–275. Lim, C. P., Chai, C. S., & Churchill, D. (2011). A framework for developing pre-service teachers’ competencies in using technologies to enhance teaching and learning. Educational Media International, 48, 60–83. McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2011). The dearth of technology coverage. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 216–240. Maslowski, R. (2001). School culture and school performance. Enschede: Twente University Press. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Picciano, A. G. (2006). Educational leadership and planning for technology (4th ed.). Columbus: Prentice Hall. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635–674. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Staessens, K. (1990). De professionele cultuur van basisscholen in vernieuwing: elke school heeft haar verhaal [The professional culture of primary schools in innovation: each school has its story]. Leuven: Universitaire Pers. Staessens, K., & Vandenberghe, R. (1994). Vision as a core component in school culture. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 187–200. Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal from Research on Technology in Education, 37, 285–311. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Technique and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Tearle, P. (2004). A theoretical and instrumental framework for implementing change in ICT in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 331–351. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Towards a typology of computer use in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 197–206. Tondeur, J., Van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers and Education, 51, 212–223. Trinidad, S., Newhouse, P., & Clarkson, B. (2004). A framework for leading school change in using ICT. In S. Trinidad, & J. Pearson (Eds.), Using ICT in education: Effective leadership, change and models of best practice (pp. 148–164). Singapore: Pearson Education Asia. van Braak, J. (2003). Opstellen van beleidplannen voor ICT in het onderwijs. [Redacting policy plans for ICT in education]. ICT en onderwijsvernieuwing, 7, 67–82. Vandenbroucke, F. (2007). Competenties voor de kennismaatschappij: Beleidsplan ICT in het onderwijs [Competencies for the knowledge based society: Policy plan for ICT in education]. Brussels: Flemish Ministry of Education. Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010a). The e-capacity of primary schools: development of a conceptual model and scale construction from a school improvement perspective. Computers & Education, 55, 541–553. Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010b). Implementing an ICT curriculum in a decentralized policy context: description of ICT practices in three Flemish primary schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, e139–e141. Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2011). A new ICT curriculum for primary education in Flanders: defining and predicting teachers’ perceptions of innovation attributes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14, 125–135. Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Hermans, R. (2009). Educational technology on a turning point: curriculum implementation in Flanders and challenges for schools. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57, 573–584. Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Using an online tool to support school-based ICT policy planning in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 434–447. Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills/London: Sage. Zhao, Y., & Conway, P. (2001). What’s in, what’s out: an analysis of state educational technology plans. Teachers College Record, Retrieved July 14, 2010 from. http://www. tcrecord.org [ID Number 10717].