Second-Order Change in Educational Technology

I recently read the book "District Leadership that Works:  Striking the Right Balance" by Robert J. Marzano and Timothy Waters (2009).  Chapter 7 is about the Perils and Promises of Second-Order Change.  My reading of this chapter caused me to reflect upon our district's decision to launch a 1:1 iPad program at our high school.  

We are currently in the gear up phase of implementation of the 1:1 iPad program.  In May of 2011 a group of high school teachers and an administrator were awarded the Transforming Teaching and Learning Grant.  This grant provided for high quality professional development from eTech Ohio during the summer of 2011 in Project-Based Learning (PBL).  The team then reviewed many different types of devices in the Fall of 2011 to determine which one would be best for implementing PBL.  The team decided to purchase 5 iPad carts.  One iPad cart would be used by each of the four teachers involved in grant and the fifth cart would be available for the other teachers in the high school to check out from the library.  After a couple months, the grant team began to flourish and the fifth cart was always reserved and being used.  There was a high demand for another cart so the district provided a sixth cart.  The staff at the high school used it to its fullest also.  It was obvious that a shift was happening at the high school and the staff could see the difference the carts and PBL was having on student learning.

The district decided to include the implementation of a 1:1 iPad program at the high school in the new Technology Plan in May of 2012.  This plan called for all high school teachers to receive iPads before the summer so they could learn the basics of the new devices.  The plan also called for the teachers to engage in professional development during the 2012-13 school year so they would be prepared for the students to get iPads in August of 2013.  During the 2012-13 school year the high school has focused on the pedagogy behind PBL and on how to use the devices to support student learning.  Building department meetings, late-starts, our PBL grant team, and Apple professional development have all been utilized to prepare our teachers for the 2013-14 school year.


With this background in mind and after reading Chapter 7, I asked myself the following questions:

Is this a first or second-order change?
Have we properly prepared our stakeholders for the change?
Have we communicated our change well to all stakeholders?
Do we need to alter our program in any way right now in order to make the change more successful?


To delve deeper into these questions to find solutions I will first give you an overview of Second-Order change as is detailed in this chapter.

Table 7.1 Characteristics of First-Order Change and Second-Order Change (P. 105)

First-Order Change	Second-Order Change
Is perceived as an extension of the past	Is perceived as a break from the past
Fits within existing paradigms	Lies outside existing paradigms
Is consistent with prevailing values and norms	Conflicts with prevailing values and norms
Can be implemented with existing knowledge and skills	Requires the acquisition of new knowledge and skills
Requires resources currently available to those responsible for implementing the innovations	Requires resources currently not available to those responsible for implementing the innovations
May be accepted because of common agreement that the innovation is necessary	May be resisted because only those who have a broad perspective of the school the innovation as necessary

Is the Lancaster High School 1:1 iPad Program a first or second-order change?

First, this change is definitely perceived as a break from the past.  The important thing to note in this change is that the change agents in this process were the high school teachers.  They saw the impact it would have on student learning. They were the ones demanding more technology.  They were the ones who started to change their instructional practices.  They, led by the initial grant team of teachers, have be the change agents.

Second, this change lies outside existing paradigms.  Providing each student with a learning device and sending it home with the students is definitely a new paradigm.  We are still debating the particulars of the program and defining boundaries.  There are currently changing regularly as we have visited other schools implementing the program and discussed it with policy and legal experts.

Third, this change conflict with prevailing values and norms but not as much as you would think.  The high school staff, in general, has been integrating technology with instruction for several years.  The change here is that it is now directly affecting student learning, not just instruction, in that each student will have a device to learn with.

Fourth, this program has necessitated increased professional development so teachers can be prepared for the change next school year.  Most teachers have welcomed the training and have already advanced further than I thought possible.  We will be wrapping up our Apple PD later in this school year to complete the first year of training.

Fifth, the board of education, superintendent, high school administrators, and myself have all had to allocate resources differently to implement this innovation.  This program will cost over $1 million and required a level of dedication by the administration to technology that has been quite impressive.  The board of education has provided leadership and direction to the district and is advancing this program because they know it is best for student learning.

And Sixth, there was initial resistance to this program by some high school teachers and administrators.  This initial resistance has been mitigated by the year-long professional development effort we have put in place.  There is still some resistance but with continued effort we will bring them along as well.  There has also been no real opposition from our parents.  We have communicated through video, print, and in parent meetings about the program.  There response has been overwhelmingly positive.

This change, after reviewing Table 7.1, leads me to conclude that this is indeed a second-order change.

Have we properly prepared our stakeholders for the change?

I think we have worked well with our high school teachers in preparing them for the change.  Of course, there will be tough times ahead as Marzano and Waters describe on pages 107-109.  Some teachers, parents, and administrators may think we were all crazy to do this when we get into the midst of the program in the Fall of 2013.  It will be critically important that the administration listen to the concerns of staff and parents when we get into the fall and make some adjustments.  Most importantly, however, will be the reiteration of the vision for the program and its impact on student learning.  We must maintain the vision and stay true to it, no matter how difficult it may be.

Have we communicated our change well to all stakeholders?

We have created several videos about the program and how it will impact student achievement.  We have also communicated to our parents in our district and building newsletters.  In January, all incoming freshman parents came to an event known as SPIN night and listened to administrators explain the program.  We will also have more parent meetings in August to inform our parents.  We need to continue to reach out to parents, especially now that we are close to the spring of 2013 so they are properly informed about the change.  Communication is often the hardest part and we will continue to make a concerted effort to communicate.

Below are some of our videos from early in the process to the present.

Lancaster High School using iPads 2012-2013

Project Based Learning and Common Core Standards - Kelli Marvin

Project Based Learning and Common Core Standards - Matt Gillispie

Do we need to alter our program in any way right now in order to make the change more successful?

I welcome input in this area.  We are currently struggling with policy considerations such as charging a deposit for the devices, opening or closing the App store during the school day, and how to check-in/check-out iPads for students who have not paid a deposit at the end of the school day.  What we have done is put the preparation of our teacher first.  They have worked through the pedagogy to change their practices in anticipation of what is to come next school year.  How can we better communicate with our parents?  Any input you can provide is welcome.  I will continue to blog about this program and the change process in the coming days and months.  Please check back as we progress through the program.