A CUE 2012 poster presentation. This action research study approached the gap from a different direction: how do decision makers consider technology alternatives for classrooms before decisions are even made? This qualitative study explored how educational organizations can use their own narratives to better understand their decisions, as well as to create capacity for stronger technology-enriched learning in the classroom. Through five intervention workshops in January 2011 across a K-12 school district, I worked with 16 stakeholders to examine, understand, and engage narratives that I had gathered in a 2010 district pilot study. On the positive side, the intervention spurred intent for personal change processes from some of the individuals. It also identified narratives that restrained change. Those restraining narratives linked with district values that reinforced technology as (a) time consuming, (b) expensive, and (c) not part of the core teaching mission. Most other alternatives were missing from consideration, as were considerations and stories of students as technology users. Organizational leaders did not see that they had any responsibilities to encourage new routines, alternatives, and narratives about a positive-focused future using technology. From these insights, I posed a model of how narrative drivers affect alternatives and routines around technology and other organizational decisions. This approach resulted in a new model, combining theories at the intersection of organizational routines and decision making, narrative research, and technology frames, and organizational cognition. I provided further suggestions for actions at the intervention site, as well as further research directions at this intersection of organizational narratives, decision-making, and social actions involving technology and education.

1. REFRAMING TECHNOLOGY
NARRATIVES AND ROUTINES
TO ENERGIZE
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Gigi L. Johnson, Ed.D.
This research was supported in part by a
Fielding Research Grant Award
Maremel Institute
gigi@maremel.com
@maremel
@gigijohnson

2. Page 2
Abstract:
Educational Technology as dialogic OD in Action Research
Computer-enhanced educational technology penetration has reached
high levels in many U.S. public school districts, while educational use of
computers in classrooms for student learning has stayed relatively low.
Many researchers have blamed teacher beliefs and implementation
problems.
This action research study approached the gap from a different
direction: how do decision makers consider technology alternatives for
classrooms before decisions are even made? This qualitative study
explored how educational organizations can use their own narratives to
better understand their decisions, as well as to create capacity for
stronger technology-enriched learning in the classroom. Through five
intervention workshops in January 2011 across a K-12 school district, I
worked with 16 stakeholders to examine, understand, and engage
narratives that I had gathered in a 2010 district pilot study.

3. Page 3
Abstract (Continued):
Routines and Frictions Matched Values in Organization
• On the positive side, the intervention spurred intent for personal change
processes from some of the individuals. It also identified narratives that
restrained change. Those restraining narratives linked with district values
that reinforced technology as (a) time consuming, (b) expensive, and (c)
not part of the core teaching mission. Most other alternatives were
missing from consideration, as were considerations and stories of
students as technology users. Organizational leaders did not see that
they had any responsibilities to encourage new routines, alternatives, and
narratives about a positive-focused future using technology.
• From these insights, I posed a model of how narrative drivers affect
alternatives and routines around technology and other organizational
decisions. This approach resulted in a new model, combining theories at
the intersection of organizational routines and decision making, narrative
research, and technology frames, and organizational cognition. I provided
further suggestions for actions at the intervention site, as well as further
research directions at this intersection of organizational narratives,
decision-making, and social actions involving technology and education.

4. Page 4
Problem: Research
Bridging a Gap Question
• Centralized educational technology
systems have penetrated more than How can
80% of U.S. School districts (CDW- educational
G, 2006; Ertmer & Ottenbreit- organizations
Leftwich, 2010)
• In-class educational technology is
use their own
available to 1/4 to 2/3 of students narratives to
(CDW-G, 2010; Gray, Thomas, & better understand
Lewis, 2010)
• Researchers have focused on
their decisions and
causes of the gap in teaching to create capacity
implementation, including teacher for stronger
beliefs (e.g., Ertmer, 2005) and
adoption design flaws (e.g., Bates &
technology-
Poole, 2003) enriched learning
in the classroom?

5. Page 5
Expanding the Research Question with Subquestions:
Building Understanding + Capacity
Building Understanding:
• What are the drivers for educational organizations to make technology
choices?
• How do their decision-making routines limit alternatives around technology
choices?
• What are the factors in technology use, beliefs, and assumptions that differ
from or are subsets of other types of decisions, and how do they interplay
with these routines?
Building Capacity for Change:
• How can organizational narratives be used for its members to gain insights
into their values and routines?
• How can those narratives be used to affect technology frames and improve
organizational learning about how to achieve different, desired technology
results?

6. Page 6
Structuration + Technology Frames:
Stories Building to Understood Structure
Structuration Impacts
•Legitimization:
Authority
•Signification: Naming
rules
•Domination: Money
Organizational
and Power
Structuration
Technology Frames: Orlikowski & Gash,1994
Structuration: Giddens, 1979; Barley, 1986; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991

7. Page 7
Exploring the Overlap Between Diverse Theory
Frameworks
Stories
driving
technology
routines

8. Page 8
Research Design: An Action Research Cycle with
Peterson Unified** Action Research (e.g., Stringer, 2007)
Appreciative Inquiry
(Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987):
Choose, discover, dream, design, destiny
(Ludema, Cooperrider, & Barrett, 2001)
Discussions
Recommendations
Narrative Analysis:
engaging stories with the
group. Dialogic
organizational
Post-Session development (OD) (Bushe
Intervention Survey & Marshak, 2009) and
organizational discourse
Narrative analysis (Marshak & Grant, 2008)
cultures of inquiry (vs.
diagnostic OD)
Scenario Thinking:
**PUSD; A pseudonym (Ertel et al., 2007; Scearce & Fulton, 2004; Schwartz, 2007):
Orienting; exploring on critical uncertainties and pre-determined
used throughout environmental elements; and synthesizing views into scenarios.

9. Page 9
Engaging Themes from 2010 Pilot:
22 PUSD Individual Stakeholder Reflections
• Missing stories
• Repeated patterns of
• Time limited follow-through,
• Identity
measurement,
reflection, and
• Brand as cognitive
evaluation
shortcut
• Change: non-ownership of • Social recognition of
routines Technology Heroes and
• Salesperson as narrator pilots
and provider of • Missing boundary
alternatives spanners and
information pathways
Chart: ATLAS.ti visualization of high-frequency phrases from 2010 Pilot Study.
Data Collected: 40 hours of videotaped individual interviews; from 50 candidates identified
through purposeful and snowball sampling (Grinnell & Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, 1995)

10. 10
Breakdown of PUSD Participants, by Role
Site Users
District Office
Site (primarily
PUSD Role and School Total
Administration secondary
Board
teachers)
Intervention**
4 2 10 16
Sessions
Pilot Study 6 7 9 22
Both Groups 2 2 7 11
Either Group 8 7 12 27
Estimated
12 14 81 107
Population
**50 candidates identified through purposeful and snowball sampling
(Grinnell & Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, 1995) 10

11. Page 11
Data Collection and Analysis:
Group Narratives
Tools and Data Collection
•Audio recording of group sessions, field notes, secondary data
document archives (public and web-based)
•Post-session evaluation surveys
•Transcription, coding, pattern analysis
Pilot and Main Study Analytical Methods
•Word count and high-frequency phrase analysis (using ATLAS.ti)
•Narrative chunking/theme analysis (ATLAS.ti and other tools)
•Group analysis included patterns of agreement, additive narratives,
and protest/politics of humor and interactions
•Visual concept mapping with participants and later during analysis

12. 12
Stages Exposed Different Facets of PUSD Values
Action Research
Evidence Results Details
Stage
Cognition of text
Session A Narrative chunks, Mostly, with
and systems and
interventions interplays, maps some push back
routines
Some
Focus on
Session B Narrative chunks, exceptions.
economic and
interventions interplays Evidenced core
political
values
Qualitative
Wide differences
answers to 7 Focus on self
Post surveys by cognition and
questions about and small actions
level
self and group
Supportive
Impacts on small
comments and
Casual interfaces Emails, coffee plans; no
awareness of
momentum
personal learning

13. Page 13
Example:
Narrative Shift from Session A to B: What is a cell phone?
Session A1:
.
G. What else is a cell phone? 02: Social network.
05: It’s a camera. ((lots of gently overlapping comments01: A reader. Like a Kindle. Access to…restaurants,
here, as people try to add something)) theater….hotels.
G: ((G’s cell phone alarm rings)) It’s a stupid alarm 04: GPS.
clock.
03: GPS.
01: Clock. Alarm.
01: Locator.
02: It’s a way to consume and organize personal media.
04: Tracking your children.
05: Phone book.
01: Mapping.
G: Watch purchases are down 30% this year.
02: I just got this. This is a Droid. I just got this, like, I don’t
05: It’s also a phone book. know, like a week ago, a week and a half ago. And it’s just like…
03 and 01: Phone book. I don’t even call it a phone. It’s a handheld computer.
01: Photo album. G: I haven’t heard any of you talk about it as a learning device
05: Photo album. for your students yet. ((muffled reaction))
01: Music library G: Well, NO, that’s ((mumble))
02: Distraction! ((laughter and loud multiple voices))
26

14. Page 14
Surface Issues:
Lack of knowledge and ownership of alternative
narratives
•Lack of knowledge of each others' narratives
•Little vision into external options (only WASC and friends)
•Frustration with my including Learning Walks into technology narratives
-- seeing usage shouldn't be counted as technology
•Almost no idea how other schools use tech, despite being only 2-5
minute drives apart
Core Symptoms
• Void of narrative leadership: No one felt it is their job
• Limited fuel for new narratives and alternatives: No paths for new
perspectives

15. Page 15
Deeper Themes and Frictions:
Stories and Routines Matched Core District Values
Narrative Driver Stories Values
My time, not yours; existing
We don't have time;
Time class time structures and
technology costs money
routines
Brand name technology,
Technology and
Technology costs money limited measurement and re-
Perceived Resources
evaluation paths
Limited PBL or collaboration
Technology Heroes and
Identity; Power; narratives; focus on
Pilots; student achievement
Teaching and presentation and
narratives centered on
Success measurement of textbook
testing and measurement
and test drivers

16. Page 16
Push Back:
Frictions to Assumptions under Appreciative Inquiry and Action Research
• Narratives rich in problem identification
• Became a conflict with Appreciative Inquiry as a positive process
• Narratives shored with defenses from more powerful stakeholders
• Did not deny existence or dysfunction of routines and narratives; instead
defended the dysfunctions’ existence
• Threaded politics through the narratives: interruption, talking over me as
facilitator, taking over conversation from rest of group, speaking as the
organization instead of self, not letting others give their POVs,
condescending

17. Page 17
Missing Narratives:
Participants/Learners/Supporters
•Minimal consideration of issues of Hispanic student majority:
In my halted and broken Spanish, [I] spoke with some parents about
how to use School Loop and how it's available. . . . we broke some
rules and put some Internet in the gym, so that we could have parents
have access to School Loop with a teacher there. Because when we
did it in the lab, nobody came over there because it was far away from
where everybody else was meeting. (Site User 15)
•Thin consideration and few tales of principals, parents, students, and
community:
• Parents [28 comments out of 2,500] as enforcers against teachers and
students, not partners or learners
• Students [110 comments] as learners of static, tested content and users
of cell phones
• Principals minimally in narratives [16 comments]
• Community as source of money and hassle, and not contacts or
resources

18. Page 18
Missing Narratives:
Teaching and Learning vs. Presenting and Measuring
• Focus on certain technology skills for teachers:
• Presentation
• Communication
• Measuring and reporting student outcomes.
• Missing or thin narratives on new ways of teaching or learning:
• Narratives about interactive whiteboards and School Loop focused on
presentation and communication, not collaboration or connecting with
external-world resources.
It's... it's kind of confusing to me too. Like the role that
schools ought to play. . . . Does it matter, who has access
to the Internet? Like, which families do, which families
don't? I... I mean, and if a lot of people do, does that
change what goes on in my classroom? I don't know. (Site
User 11, Session B)

19. Page 19
Model of Driving Factors
Narratives Drive Technology Frames and Organizational Learning
New Influences
New Info
Feedback Discussion
Drivers must change to broaden
alternatives and routines:
•New narrative leadership
•Information flows/discussions
•Friction from external forces

20. Page 20
Conclusions and Reflections:
Next Steps and What Happened Next
• PUSD leadership launched a new narrative and a new cycle of action research
• CTO and Superintendent got School Board to fund a tiered rollout of iPad 1-to-1, starting
with the principals, then senior faculty
• Focused on changing narratives of principals, based largely on this study
• New story created to skip missing technologies and aim for future needs
• NOT investing in PD – using a story that teachers will figure this out for themselves
• NOT creating action research methods of action, then testing – following historical
narratives of change for the organization
• Smaller steps could supplement this work to encourage new narratives on a
deeper level
• Conscious changes and nudges around the routine changes and new organizational
narratives, once these are recognized
• Routines and habits of new evidence can be grown to seed new stories of change and
opportunity; narratives can be intentionally planted to open new alternatives and
reproduce pilots to create new options for change
• Senior leaders can build understandings of their own personal roles in enhancing and
guiding group narrative
• Site Users’ focus on personal skill growth can be encouraged and built into peer groups
and leaders