University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

From meaning‐making to expansive learning: how contradictions shape teachers' implementation of technology‐based personalized learning

(USC Thesis Other)

From meaning‐making to expansive learning: how contradictions shape teachers' implementation of technology‐based personalized learning

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION

FROM MEANING-MAKING TO EXPANSIVE LEARNING:
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE TEACHERS' IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY-
BASED PERSONALIZED LEARNING

By

Andrea J. Bingham

______________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

August 2015

Copyright 2015 Andrea J. Bingham
ii
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of several important
people. First, I would like to thank the amazing teachers and administrators at Blended
Academy. I am so grateful that they shared their thoughts and opinions with me. I would also
like to thank my former students and teaching colleagues, who inspired me to start this journey
in the first place.
I am extremely grateful to my advisor, Dr. Patricia Burch, for her guidance and
mentorship throughout this process. Thank you for your generous feedback and your support,
especially in this dissertation writing process. I would also like to thank the members of my
committee, Dr. Morgan Polikoff, Dr. Jamy Stillman, Dr. Julie Marsh, and Dr. Paul Adler for
lending me their expertise and guidance as I developed my work.
I am also grateful for my extraordinary group of friends. To my friends in the Ph.D.
program, especially the PICCLES Koreatown writing group – Sophie, Kristen, and Sean – thank
you for reading my work and for making me read yours. And to my LA family – Nic, Greg,
Mikey, and Dave – thank you. I wouldn’t be here without you. You made LA my home.
I am especially grateful for my partner in life, Patrick. Your love astounds me every day
and I don’t know what I would do without you. Thank you for making me laugh, for putting up
with my grad school anxiety, and for supporting me throughout this process. I love you!
Finally, thank you to my family, and in particular my mom and my dad – Launa Cook
and Doug Bingham – for helping me reach this point. You loved me, supported me, bought me
countless books, and instilled a love of learning for which I can never thank you enough.
Because of you, I get to have the career of my dreams. I love you both and this dissertation is
dedicated to you.
iii
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables v

List of Figures vi

Abstract vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Background 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 8
Significance 10
Organization of the Study 12
Definition of Terms 13

Chapter 2: Review of Relevant Literature 16
Policy Context: Antecedents and Drivers of Personalized Learning 17
Elements and Strategies of Personalized Learning 23
Technology in the Classroom as a Conduit of or Platform for Personalized Learning 29
Summary of the Current Research 47
Conclusion 54

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framing 55
Cultural Historical Activity Theory 56
Sensemaking Theory 67
From Meaning-Making to Expansive Learning: An Inclusive Frame of Analysis 73
Chapter 4: Methodology and Research Design 77
Study Overview 77
Qualitative Methodology 80
Research Setting and History 83
Data Collection 93
Data Analysis 99
Strengths and Limitations of Case Study Design 102
Trustworthiness 104
Summary 107

Chapter 5: The Case of Blended Academy 109
From Vision to Implementation to Adjustment: Blended Academy, Years 1-3 111
Year 0: Background, History, and the Vision for Blended Academy 112
Year 1: Navigating the Disconnect between Vision and Practice 124
Year 2: “No Excuses” and The Accountability Imperative 144
Year 3: The Reprioritization of Personalized Learning 177
iv
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Summary 195

Chapter 6: Discussion and Application of Theory 199
Core Argument 200
Chapter Structure 202
Re-conceptualizing Blended Academy Using CHAT and Sensemaking Theory 203
From Meaning-Making to Expansive Learning: 256
How Sensemaking Shaped Practice and Triggered Expansive Learning
Conclusion 264

Chapter 7: Lessons Learned, Implications, and Conclusion 266
Lessons Learned from Blended Academy 267
Implications 280
Conclusion 291

Bibliography 293

Appendices 322
Appendix A: Interview Topic Guides 322
Appendix B: Observation Protocol 326
Appendix C: Coding Manual 328
Appendix D: Linking Research Questions, Theory, and Protocol 336

v
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE PERSONALIZED LEARNING

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Summary of School Demographics 84

Table 4.2: Embedded Case Teachers 87

Table 4.3: Other Key Participants 87

Table 4.4: Summary of Collected Data and Timeline 94
Table 5.1: Digital X Curriculum 120

vi
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: CHAT Mediational Triangle 59

Figure 3.2: Blended Academy as an Activity System 60

Figure 3.3: Integrating Sensemaking Theory and CHAT 74

Figure 6.1: BA as an Activity System 204

Figure 6.2: Contradictions as Opportunities for Learning and Change 206

Figure 6.3: Contradictions at BA – Year 1 219

Figure 6.4: Contradictions at BA – Year 2 233

Figure 6.5: Contradictions at BA – Year 3 245

vii
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
ABSTRACT

In recent years, there has been an upsurge in educational policies aimed at improving the
academic achievement of all students, with an emphasis on traditionally-underserved students –
low-income students, students of color, and particularly those students at the intersection of those
two groups. These policies have focused on increasing accountability, and encouraging the
development of innovative instructional practices and school models. At the forefront of this
wave of system-changing reform is a confluence of initiatives encouraging the use of
personalized learning (PL) and driving the growth of educational technology in K-12 contexts. In
this climate, school models that leverage technology to deliver personalized educational
experiences – blended learning, for example – have proliferated.
PL, as a learning model, is intended to tailor instruction to students’ needs, strengths, and
interests to promote mastery of skills and content. There has been little research on PL strategies,
and even less research on school models that are based on a theory of action of PL. Related
research, such as that on blended or online learning, provides some understanding of the changes
required of teachers, and some evidence around questions of effectiveness, but does not focus
specifically on instructional practice in these models, or on implementation over time.
Examining how teachers make sense of, navigate, and enact technology-based PL school
models and program goals in their classroom practices is central to understanding teachers’
practices in an educational climate that promotes high levels of technology use and
personalization in conjunction with an emphasis on accountability. Specifically, examining
teachers’ instruction in a high-tech PL charter school in the context of the current policy climate,
focusing on how teachers make sense of and respond to the school’s vision for PL in their
instructional practices, illustrating how program design and teachers’ practices toward PL evolve
viii
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
over time, and exploring why design and practice develop as they do is critical to understanding
high-tech PL school models that may require teachers to make substantive changes to their
practice. In addition to this, theoretically-informed research is needed that examines systemic
contradictions as they are experienced by teachers, their responses to and the sources of these
contradictions, and the ways in which this process might generate change.
The purpose of this dissertation study was thus to: (1) to examine teachers’ instruction in
a high-tech PL school model, focusing on how teachers make sense of and respond to the
school’s vision of personalization in their instructional practices; (2) to illustrate how both the
school’s program design and teachers’ practices evolve over time and; (3) explore why design
and practice develop as they do. A secondary aim of this dissertation study was to apply theory
to what is otherwise a theoretically-impoverished area of study – high tech PL. To accomplish
these aims, I conducted a qualitative single institution case study designed to elicit a deeply
contextualized understanding of the organizational development of a blended PL charter school,
the evolution of teachers’ practices within that organization, and the systemic contradictions that
enabled and constrained how the organization and its teachers developed over time. I utilized a
combined theoretical framework of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) and sensemaking
theory to help me understand how and why practices developed as they did.
Ultimately, I found that the school experienced substantive changes as an organization –
a process of expansive learning. These changes were rooted in a series of contradictions arising
from: (1) a disconnect between vision and practice; (2) the implementation of a “No Excuses”
model and the emphasis on accountability; (3) the reprioritization of PL as a school-level goal.
Along with each of these key changes came the emergence of contradictions and accompanying
cycles of sensemaking that prompted organizational and classroom-level changes. The changes
ix
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
in organizational practices were also rooted in how teachers understood the concept of PL as a
school-level goal, and as a driver of classroom activity. Of particular consequence was a
Primary contradiction that emerged between the drivers of PL: student-centered, constructivist
teaching practices and market-driven, accountability-based reforms. This Primary contradiction
undergirded other emerging contradictions, and served as a key mediator of teachers’
understanding and interpretation of PL. Overall, teachers did not appear to experience
substantive changes to their existing beliefs about teaching; instead, they drew on their existing
knowledge frames to first reconcile the disconnect between vision and practice, and then to
attempt to reconcile a contradiction between the tenets of a “No Excuses” model and the ideals
of PL.

1
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE PERSONALIZED LEARNING

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been an upsurge in educational policies aimed at improving the
academic achievement of all students, with an emphasis on traditionally-underserved students –
low-income students, students of color, and particularly those students at the intersection of those
two groups. These policies have focused on increasing accountability and competition, and
encouraging the development of innovative instructional practices and school models. At the
forefront of this wave of system-changing reform is a confluence of initiatives encouraging the
use of personalized learning (Banister, Reinhart, & Ross, 2014; U.S. Department of Education,
2009; 2012; 2015) and driving the growth of educational technology in K-12 contexts (Burch &
Good, 2014; Kennedy & Archambault, 2012; Watson, Muraw, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2011).
In this context, school models that leverage technology to enact personalized learning – blended
learning models, for example – have proliferated (Horn & Maas, 2013; Staker, 2011; Staker &
Horn, 2012). Still, few studies have investigated these phenomena in K-12 contexts (Means,
Toyama, Murphy, & Bakia, 2013), with even fewer studies examining high-tech personalized
learning models beyond questions of effects.
Background
Personalized learning (PL) is defined in a variety of ways and can take several different
forms. PL, as a learning model, is intended to tailor instruction to students’ needs, strengths, and
interests to promote mastery of skills and content (Miller, Gross, & Lake, 2014; Patrick,
Kennedy, & Powell, 2013; RAND Corporation, 2014). PL is also meant to provide high levels of
choice and flexibility for both students and teachers (RAND Corporation, 2014). For example,
students may move through different types of content at different paces, or might provide
2
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
different kinds of evidence for mastery. PL’s proponents point to its potential to improve
outcomes for both traditionally-underserved students and gifted/accelerated students (Patrick,
Kennedy, & Powell, 2013; U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Others have suggested that PL
may actually limit opportunities for students, or increase tracking into specific college and career
tracks (Tanenbaum, Le Floch, & Boyle, 2013). Still, PL is gaining traction as theory of action in
high-tech school models toward improving students’ academic outcomes (See Patrick, Kennedy,
& Powell, 2013; RAND Corporation, 2014; Tanenbaum, Le Floch, & Boyle, 2013).
In the classroom, PL instructional strategies can include creating personal learning paths
based on student needs and interests; targeted grouping; utilizing instructional approaches that
engage multiple learning modalities; creating opportunity for learning that takes place in a
variety of locations, including at home and through external partnerships with universities or
local businesses; developing flexible scheduling or learning spaces; online course content; and/or
adaptive content and assessment (Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013; Tanenbaum, Le Floch, &
Boyle, 2013; RAND Corporation, 2014). PL also often relies heavily on learner autonomy and
teachers’ use of data to provide or design personal learning paths and attend to students’ needs
(Bingham, in press; Next Generation Learning Challenges, 2014; RAND Corporation, 2014).
Some models also rely on alternative forms of grading, including mastery- or competency-based
grading, which allow students to move at different paces, depending on their level of mastery
(RAND Corporation, 2014). Mastery-based grading models also provide students with various
forms of assessment – students may demonstrate mastery through a variety of tasks, possibly
representing a variety of learning modalities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Completion
of these tasks is how students are graded, rather than grades received as a result of some
combination of effort, completion, progress, and percentage correct.
3
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Technology, as a mechanism of the aforementioned PL instructional strategies, is a
critical component in PL (Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013; RAND Corporation, 2014). The
use of digital course content and assessment and high-tech devices to deliver content is meant to
increase teachers’ capacities to personalize students’ pacing and learning paths and make the
process of designing and delivering PL more manageable for teachers. Using technology as a
means of personalization is further intended to ease the burden on individual teachers, making
them more readily available for targeted one-on-one instruction (Staker & Horn, 2012).
Nevertheless, there is little empirical research pointing to what teachers are actually doing in
schools toward using technology to improve student achievement through personalization.
Understanding how teachers make sense of and enact PL as an instructional goal is paramount to
future research on outcomes and best practices. In addition, research that aims, through the use of
theory, to understand the complex interplay of mediating factors influencing teachers’
understanding and implementation of PL in their classrooms can contribute a more nuanced
understanding of individual and school change in an era of educational reform encouraging high-
tech teaching practices and PL.
Policy Drivers behind High-Tech Personalized Learning School Models
Several recent policy initiatives urge educators to develop school models and
instructional practices that support technology-mediated personalized learning experiences for
students. Initiatives like ConnectED (U.S. Department of Education, 2013a) or the National
Education Technology Plan 2010 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), encourage the
development of technology-facilitated PL in schools by attempting to build school and teacher
capacity through increases in funding and training (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). As
another example, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) requires students to take online
4
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
assessments and infuses technology into certain standards (Common Core State Standards,
2014a; 2014b). In this policy climate, many schools have adopted various technological tools
and high-tech school models, such as one-to-one computer or tablet initiatives, online
educational tools, or blended learning to facilitate personalization. Utilizing online learning in
the traditional classroom, for example, may provide personalized curricula; wider course
choices; multiple instructional approaches; adaptive content and assessment; and may allow
teachers to gather almost instantaneous data on student understanding and progress (Staker &
Horn, 2012). Blended learning, by definition, relies on technological tools, such as computers
and iPads, to deliver personalized content, to facilitate projects based on students’ individual
interests, and to allow for more flexible pacing and scheduling (Staker, 2011; Staker & Horn,
2012). Teachers’ use of these tools of personalization is meant to support classrooms in which
students are working on multiple assignments, using multiple learning modalities, and moving
through content at differentiated paces and through multiple paths (Moeller & Reitzes, 2011).
However, research on teaching practices as they are actually enacted toward PL is scant. This
makes it difficult to identify how teachers in these models are interpreting or enacting
personalization at the classroom level, particularly in blended learning models (Means et al.,
2013).
Statement of the Problem
There has been little research on PL strategies, and even less research on school models
that are based on a theory of action of PL. Related research, such as that on blended or online
learning, provides some understanding of the changes required of teachers (Staker & Horn, 2012;
Bingham, in press), and some evidence around questions of effectiveness (Means et al., 2010;
2013), but does not focus specifically on instructional practice in these models, or on
5
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
implementation over time (Bingham, in press). Other related research, such as that on teachers’
integration of technology into the classroom, offers some understanding of the barriers to
teachers’ technology use (e.g. Groff & Mouza, 2008; Hew & Brush, 2007; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon,
& Byers, 2002), but does not investigate teachers’ practices toward enacting a theory of action of
high-tech PL. Further, though PL models and other high-tech school models are often promoted
by policymakers, administrators, and educators as a way to provide more effective instruction for
traditionally under-served students (Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013; Rose & Blomeyer, 2007;
U.S. Department of Education, 2015), little research specifically focuses on these subgroups
(Archambault et al., 2010 is an exception to this).
School models designed to use technological resources to personalize students’ learning
experiences intimate substantive changes in teachers’ practices
1
towards improved student
outcomes (Ertmer, 2005; Ertmer et al., 2012; Oliver & Trigwell, 2005; Staker, 2011; Staker &
Horn, 2012; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). This makes teachers vital in implementing a PL model.
For example, a PL model may require changes in teachers’ classroom roles, grading practices,
and lesson designs. However, enacting substantive changes in teachers’ instruction is a dynamic
and evolving process – teachers’ understanding and enactment of instructional reform is
mediated by a compendium of factors influencing practice at multiple levels (Spillane, Reiser, &
Reimer, 2002). Teachers’ prior experiences and existing beliefs (Ertmer, 2005), their
participation in communities of practice (Gallucci, 2003), and the organizational context in
which they operate can influence how they interpret, develop, and enact instructional reform
(Coburn, 2004; Cohen & Ball, 1990). Further, teachers’ instructional practices, particularly

1
I broadly define teachers’ practices as any activities done by the teacher that are meant to stimulate, engage, or
evaluate student learning. Given the scope of my study, the instructional practices to which I am attending are those
practices involving the use of technology to accomplish these aims, as well as curriculum delivery and design, and
assessment and use of student data, particularly toward increasing personalization. I use “teachers’ practices” and
“teachers’ instructional practices” interchangeably to capture this broad definition.
6
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
toward new instructional goals, are mediated by the tools teachers use to facilitate and deliver
instruction (Bingham, in press). The introduction of new technologies in a school toward the goal
of personalizing students’ learning experiences could influence how instruction is designed and
implemented toward that goal and could facilitate or constrain instructional reform at the
individual- or the school-level. For example, if an online curriculum is introduced as the primary
mechanism for content delivery in a school, teachers’ understanding of their own roles in the
classroom might change – teachers may begin to view themselves more as tutors than as
traditional
2
teachers, which might have implications for their teaching practices and/or their
teaching identities. As such, instructional and organizational development is sometimes fraught
with challenges, tensions, and contradictions in practice and design that can serve as
opportunities for or barriers to change (Engeström, 1999b). Tensions and contradictions
experienced by the individuals in an organization and the disequilibrium inherent in these
tensions and contradictions is what drives expansive learning (a concept discussed in further
detail in chapter three) – the process of organizational learning and change (Engeström &
Sannino, 2010). In other words, tensions and contradictions, and how actors within an
organization interpret and respond to those tensions and contradictions, can push the system and
individuals within that system to change, learn, and transform (Cole & Engeström, 1993). Under
some conditions then, how teachers respond to the tensions and contradictions of practice can
contribute to changes in individual and organizational practices. With that in mind, this
dissertation study presented an opportunity to study the tensions and contradictions faced by

2
Throughout this dissertation study, I refer to “traditional” teaching or forms of instruction as a foil to the so-called
“innovative” school models dominating current discourse (blended models, virtual schools, PL models). In general,
when referring to traditional teaching practices, I am referring to aspects of traditional teaching that contrast
specifically with aspects of PL models. For example, lecture-based, teacher-centric classrooms contrast with the
ideal PL classroom, in which students are working through personal learning paths. Similarly, assessing students as
a group at the end of each unit contrasts with mastery-based grading, in which students would be assessed
individually. In this study, I am not commenting on the efficacy of either traditional or PL practices, as that is
beyond the purview of both my research questions and my data.
7
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
teachers at a blended PL charter high school in-depth and over time, providing a level of
granularity that allows me to examine how teachers respond to contradictions and how those
responses may be related to changes in individual teacher practices (e.g. changes in how teachers
use technology) and to changes in organizational practices (e.g. school goals or the types of
practices prioritized at the school-level).
Examining how teachers make sense of, navigate, and enact technology-based PL school
models and program goals in their classroom practices is central to understanding teachers’
practices in an educational climate that promotes high levels of technology use and
personalization in conjunction with an emphasis on accountability and competition. Specifically,
examining teachers’ instruction in a high-tech PL charter school in the context of the current
policy climate, focusing on how teachers make sense of and respond to the school’s vision for
PL in their instructional practices, illustrating how program design and teachers’ practices
toward PL evolve over time, and exploring why design and practice develop as they do is critical
to understanding high-tech PL school models that may require teachers to make substantive
changes to their practice. Still, research examining the nature and development of teachers’
experiences and instructional practices in the context of high-tech, PL school models is lagging
behind implementation. Given the complex nature of teacher learning and instructional reform,
more research is needed that takes a multi-level view of teachers’ practices in these
environments. Specifically, research is needed which zooms in on teacher practice in PL models
in order to understand how technology-based PL is enacted in daily practice, while also
considering how individual micro-processes (e.g. existing beliefs and understandings;
interpretation and filtering processes) and larger contextual dynamics (e.g. school-level priorities
and goals; educational policy climate) interact to influence practices at both the individual- and
8
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
the organizational-levels. This type of research can help to develop a fuller picture of whether
and how technology mediates PL and may contribute understanding to whether and how
technology mediates instruction more generally. In addition to this, theoretically-informed
research is needed that examines systemic contradictions as they are experienced by teachers,
their responses to and the sources of these contradictions, and the ways in which this process
might generate change. This is a particularly critical gap in the literature on technology-based PL
models. Theoretically-informed analyses can help to provide explanations for decisions and
events in a study (Kezar, 2006; Smith, 1999). For example, in this study, utilizing theory can
help me to understand how and why teachers’ practices develop as they do, in relation to changes
in organizational practices. Investigating these issues is a critical step toward understanding the
design, impact, and effectiveness of high-tech PL models in context.
Purpose of the Study
This dissertation study addresses the aforementioned gaps in the current research base
using key concepts from cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) – a theoretical framework
emphasizing the contextual factors influencing learning and change – and sensemaking theory –
a theory aimed at uncovering factors influencing individual and collective meaning-making – to
understand the dynamics of teachers’ practices in a blended learning charter high school aimed at
personalizing students’ learning. Aspects of sensemaking theory, particularly the influence of
existing schemas on future practice, provide the theoretical grounding for an analysis of practice
at the individual-level (Spillane et al., 2002; Weick, 1988; Weick, 1995). Aspects of CHAT,
including the activity system, tensions and contradictions as drivers of learning and change, and
the expansive learning cycle provide the theoretical grounding for an analysis of practice that can
move between the individual- and the school-levels (Engeström, 1987; 1999a; Engeström &
9
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Sannino, 2011). In other words, using CHAT informed by sensemaking theory helps me to
identify tensions and contradictions that may trigger teacher sensemaking, which allows me to
understand how and why practices develop as they do. Further, this integrated theoretical frame
allows me to probe the relationship between organizational and instructional practices, and focus
on the interactions between teachers’ individual sensemaking and belief structures and any
changes in organizational practices. Integrating these two theories into one framework allows for
a multi-dimensional analysis of the interactions and relations among salient factors at multiple
levels influencing individual and organizational practice and development. Utilizing this
integrated theoretical framework as a guide, I answer the following research questions:
1. What is the nature of teacher practice in a blended learning charter high school with a
theory of action of personalized learning?
a. What does instruction look like in this school? How is technology used toward
personalization? What are the approaches to student progression and evaluation?
b. What are the schools’ goals? What is the school vision for teacher practice? What
are the formal and informal rules/norms to which teachers are subject?
c. What are the roles of the teachers? How are responsibilities divided among
stakeholders (i.e. what is the division of labor in the school, as articulated and as
enacted)?
2. How do teachers interpret the school’s program goals and underlying theory of action?
a. What shapes teachers’ interpretations of the school’s program goals and
underlying theory of action? How, if at all, do teachers’ existing schemas appear
to shape how they interpret and respond to the model? How do teachers’
interpretations vary by experience?
3. What, if any, are the systemic contradictions that develop around technology-mediated
personalization?
a. What tensions and disruptions, as manifestations of underlying contradictions,
emerge as the school develops? How do contradictions manifest in the daily
activities of the school?
b. What are the interacting and mediating factors involved in these contradictions?
c. How do teachers interpret the contradictions? How, if at all, do teachers’ existing
schemas influence how they respond to tensions and contradictions in the system?
d. How do contradictions shape teachers’ interpretations of the school’s program
goals and underlying theory of action?
4. How, if at all, do systemic contradictions and teachers’ interpretations of those
contradictions interact to shape school design and teachers’ practices over time?
a. How, if at all, do the schools’ program goals and vision for practice evolve
throughout the first several years of implementation?
10
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
b. How do teachers interpret and respond to contradictions? How, if at all, do these
contradictions prompt individual sensemaking or activity toward personalized
learning and instruction?
c. How, if at all, do contradictions create opportunity for or conditions for changes
in instructional practice and program design? In what ways, if any, do
contradictions trigger individual and collective changes in the activity system?

Consequently, the goals of this study are as follows: (1) to examine and understand
teachers’ practices in a high-tech PL school model, focusing on how teachers make sense of and
respond to the schools’ vision of personalization in their instructional practice; (2) to understand
how both the school’s program design and teachers’ practices evolve over time by identifying
tensions and contradictions in the system, examining the mediating and interacting factors
undergirding these tensions and contradictions, exploring how teachers individually interpret and
respond to contradictions, and investigating whether and how this dynamic interplay shapes
practices and goals at the individual- and school-levels. Using sensemaking theory attends to the
individual and collective micro-processes influencing teachers’ work, while using CHAT
supports an analysis of larger contextual and cultural-historical factors, and how they interact
with and mediate individual-level factors. The integration of these two theoretical frameworks
allows me to examine the process by which sensemaking occurs at both the individual and
organizational levels, and to develop explanations for how and why individual instructional
practices and school-level practices developed as they did. More specifically, using CHAT and
sensemaking in tandem allows me to look at how individual, organizational, and cultural-
historical factors interact to shape teachers’ understanding and enactment of PL as a school
model.
Significance
This study has implications for research, policy, practice, and theory. This dissertation
study contributes much needed empirical work on PL in the charter school context. The findings
11
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
from this dissertation study are also a critical step toward future investigation or evaluation of
high-tech PL models and teaching practices, including analysis of student outcomes in these
settings. Further, examining the introduction and evolution of a PL model and focusing on
specific tensions, disruptions, and contradictions faced by implementers provides future funders,
and funding recipients, with an idea of the issues faced during implementation, so that better
resource allocation can be planned. Findings from this study also offer some understanding of
how teachers are making sense of and managing demands to personalize their instruction and
how they are using specific technological tools and practices to achieve program goals. This
provides direction for practitioners interested in enacting a high-tech PL model. Additionally,
this study identifies tensions faced by teachers and schools in attempting to personalize student
learning experiences as well as the possible systemic sources of these tensions (contradictions),
which potentially helps practitioners and policymakers anticipate and respond to similar issues in
the future and provides the foundation for future lines of analysis around PL. Through this
study, I also extend theory by bringing two theoretical frameworks (CHAT and sensemaking)
into conversation, and using this integrated framework to provide a highly-contextualized, multi-
dimensional, and longitudinal view of an increasingly prominent learning model and its
development over time. In so doing, I explore the usefulness of this integrated framework in a
study of school change and innovation and contribute to the research base on implementation by
utilizing CHAT and sensemaking theory to uncover “the multiplicity and interdependency of
variables as a complex ecology, welcome contingency, and indicate how programs, systems and
people intersect with each other, thereby generating rich narratives and cases (Lee, 2011, p. 405).
Ultimately, I argue that the school exhibited substantive changes in organizational
practices (which I describe as a process of expansive learning). These changes were rooted in a
12
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
series of contradictions arising from: (1) a disconnect between vision and practice; (2) the
implementation of a “No Excuses” model and the school-level prioritization of accountability;
and (3) the reprioritization of PL. The changes in organizational practices were also rooted in
how teachers understood the concept of PL as a school-level goal, and as a driver of classroom
activity. Of particular consequence was a Primary contradiction
3
that emerged between the
drivers of PL: student-centered, constructivist teaching practices and market-driven,
accountability-based reforms. This Primary contradiction undergirded other emerging
contradictions, and served as a key mediator of teachers’ understanding and implementation of
PL. Overall, teachers in the school did not appear to experience substantive changes to their
existing beliefs about teaching; instead, they drew on their existing knowledge frames to first
reconcile the disconnect between vision and practice, and then to attempt to reconcile a primary
contradiction between the tenets of a “No Excuses” model and the ideals of PL.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into seven chapters. In the next chapter, chapter two, I
discuss relevant literature related to PL school models, including empirical research on
instructional strategies associated with PL, technology as a mechanism as personalization, and
research on relevant school models. Though research on PL in and of itself is scant, I review
related research, including studies examining learner autonomy and data-driven instruction, and
studies of online and blended learning, in order to provide a descriptive understanding of some
instructional strategies and assumptions associated with PL and to highlight what is known about
the practices and effectiveness of PL elements. In chapter three, I discuss my theoretical framing,

3
Throughout this dissertation, I distinguish between a Primary contradiction (between use-value and exchange-
value) and a primary contradiction (a contradiction located within a specific component of an activity system).
When Primary is capitalized, it indicates the foundational Primary contradiction in a capitalist society. I discuss this
in further detail in chapters three and six.

13
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
first outlining the tenets of CHAT and sensemaking theory, and then delineating an integrated
theoretical framework. In chapter four, I present my study design – qualitative single institution
case study – and discuss the appropriateness of this study design in answering my research
questions. Also in chapter four, I describe the research and participants, and discuss data
collection and data analysis strategies. In chapter five, I present the case of Blended Academy
4
–
the blended PL charter high school that is the subject of this dissertation study – providing an in-
depth, detailed description of teachers’ practices and school design as they were envisioned, as
they were enacted, and as they evolved over time. In so doing, I set the stage for an analysis and
discussion in chapter six of how and why school design, teachers’ interpretations of PL, and
teachers’ instructional practices developed as they did. Thus, in chapter six, I interpret the case of
Blended Academy, applying theoretical concepts from CHAT and sensemaking theory to aid in
that interpretation. Finally, in chapter seven I connect my findings with existing research, present
lessons learned, and discuss the implications of this study. I conclude with recommendations for
practice, policy, and theory, and offer some directions for future research, based on my findings
and interpretations.
Definition of Terms
Blended learning: a learning model that utilizes a blend of online and face-to-face
instruction toward a goal of increased personalization for students (Staker & Horn, 2012).
Personalized learning: an instructional model designed to tailor instruction to student
needs, strengths, and interests to promote mastery of skills and content (Patrick, Kennedy, &
Powell, 2013; Tanenbaum, Le Floch, & Boyle, 2013; RAND Corporation, 2014).
5

4
Pseudonym
5
I distinguish between this and personalized instruction, which I define (for the purposes of this dissertation study)
as the instructional practices, teacher roles, and classroom components designed to enact personalized learning.
14
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Mastery-based grading: a form of grading/evaluating students in which a student’s
progress is based on providing evidence that specific learning objectives or standards have been
mastered, rather than based on seat time. Students move on to the next level or grade when they
successfully complete the pre-requisite assessment (which may take a variety of forms) (Next
Generation Learning Challenges, 2014; RAND Corporation, 2014; U.S. Department of
Education, 2015).
6

Sensemaking: individuals’ processes of generating interpretations – specifically, how
individuals interpret messages from their environment, why and through what processes they
make those interpretations, and how those interpretations shape and reshape the environment in
which those individuals interact (Weick, 1995).
Activity System: an object-oriented, artifact-mediated, collective system (Engeström,
2001).
Activity: the primary unit of human action, activity is an attempt to change current reality
that is mediated by interacting factors in the activity system (Davydov, 1999; Engeström, 1999a).
Tensions: “deviations from the normal scripted course of events in the work process,
interpreted as symptoms or manifestations of inner contradictions of the activity system in
question.” (Engeström & Sannino, 2011, p. 372).
Contradictions: “historically accumulating structural tensions within and between
activity systems” (Engeström, 2001, p.137); drivers of individual and organizational change
(Engeström & Sannino, 2010).

6
I use the term mastery-based grading because this is the term used by teachers and leaders in my case study school.
However, it should be noted that mastery-based grading is often used interchangeably with competency-based or
proficiency-based grading, and sometimes also with standards-based grading.
15
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Organizational Change: concrete changes in how an organization operates, including
organizational structure, systemic goals, leadership, resource allocation, and/or program design
(Huber, Sutcliffe, Miller, & Glick, 1993; Weick & Quinn, 1999).
Expansive Learning: the process through which the activity system develops and
transforms over time – the process of organizational learning and change (Engeström, 1987;
1999a). The process of expansive learning involves the development and resolution of tensions
and contradictions (Engeström & Sannino, 2010).

16
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
Neither the emphasis on personalization, nor technology use in the classroom is a new
concept in education. The notion of adapting learning experiences to the needs and interests of
specific students emerges often in various learning theories and educational reforms. For
example, constructivist learning theory, student-centered learning, and various forms of
alternative assessment strategies place great emphasis on student individuality, personalized
learning experiences, and the importance of student voice and choice. However, in its current
instantiation, PL is not only a product of the desire to improve educational equity through
student-centered instructional approaches, but also of the increased interest in integrating
technology into the classroom, and the emphasis on accountability and market-based educational
reforms. The increased availability and potential capabilities of educational technology has
renewed interest in the idea of PL to achieve the aforementioned aims. The ConnectED initiative,
for example, highlights competition, personalization, and the use of educational technology,
explicitly stating that the capacity of U.S. students to “get good jobs and compete with other
countries relies increasingly on interactive, personalized learning experiences driven by new
technology” (U.S. Department of Education, 2013a).
In this chapter, I first discuss some of the antecedents and drivers of PL in order to
provide an understanding of the rationale behind its development. I then give an overview of the
elements and components of PL, to build a foundational understanding of the ways in which PL
could be enacted in schools and classrooms, and the instructional strategies associated with PL.
In this section, I define and elaborate on these elements and components, and where possible,
discuss associated empirical research to highlight what is known about the practices in and
17
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
effectiveness of PL models and strategies. Next, I discuss the current research on teachers’ use of
technology in the K-12 classroom, examining the individual and school-level factors that
influence whether and how teachers’ integrate technology into the classroom. Finally, I examine
the research on prominent high-tech learning models aimed at personalizing students’ learning
experiences, highlighting empirical findings and elements of instruction in these models in order
to provide a descriptive understanding of PL models and illustrate what is known about
prominent PL models. In this section, I also further explore school context as it pertains to PL
models – particularly, charter schools and “No Excuses” charter schools – to illustrate salient
factors about the context within which teachers in PL models may often work. I conclude this
section with an exploration of the intersections and gaps in the literature, and well as with a
discussion of how the existing literature can contribute to a study of instructional practices in a
blended PL charter school.
Overall, the themes I identify in the research suggest that how teachers make sense of
and implement PL is shaped by factors at the individual, organizational, and societal levels.
More specifically, teachers’ understanding and implementation of PL may be mediated by the
larger educational climate; by teachers’ knowledge gaps, existing beliefs about technology, and
teaching identities; and by school context.
Policy Context: Antecedents and Drivers of Personalized Learning
The notion of personalizing students’ learning experiences is not necessarily a new one.
Throughout the history of education in the United States, educators have developed and
embraced many different educational theories and teaching strategies that aim to place the
student at the center of the learning experience. In the current policy climate, there is a
confluence of antecedents and initiatives driving a resurgence of interest in PL. In essence, PL
18
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
sits at the intersection of an interest in improving the educational outcomes of traditionally-
underserved students through competition, accountability, and increased efficiency via
technology. In the next section, I provide a brief overview of some of the drivers of PL models.
Constructivism and Student-Centered Learning
Proponents of PL often frame it as being firmly grounded in constructivism and student-
centered instructional practices (Next Generation Learning Challenges, 2014; Patrick, Kennedy,
& Powell, 2013). Indeed, as is the case with PL, constructivist pedagogy and student-centered
instruction are often offered as preferable alternatives to more traditional “transmission” models
of instruction, like lecturing.
Constructivist educators contend that learners create their own learning and that this
should be attended to within learning environments (Schunk, 2011). For example, to provide
optimal learning environments, teachers should not deliver instruction to students, but rather
should structure learning situations so that students are actively involved in the learning.
Constructivist teaching also relies on the concept of the multi-dimensional classroom, in which
students experience greater degrees of differentiation, more autonomy, less ability grouping or
tracking, and more flexibility in grading (Schunk, 2011). Additionally, constructivist lessons
should draw on students’ prior knowledge; prompt students to identify gaps between what they
already know and what they need to know at the end of the lesson; apply new knowledge with
feedback; and allow students to reflect on their learning (Baviskar, Hartle, & Whitney, 2009).
Constructivist classrooms are also characterized by tasks that are structured to promote mastery,
distributed authority (students have more input into learning experiences and classroom design),
and promoting self-regulation and efficacy by giving students more control over time
management in the classroom (pacing, workload, etc.) (Richardson, 2003; Schunk, 2011). Still,
19
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
some scholars have indicated that there has been difficulty in translating constructivism as a
theory of learning into teaching practice (Richardson, 2003).
Student-centered learning (SCL) models, also based in constructivist principles, are also
often positioned as an alternative to more traditional, teacher-centric or lecture-driven
classrooms. In essence, in a SCL environment, students are empowered to connect new
knowledge with their existing knowledge and understandings (Hannifan & Land, 1997; Land &
Hannifan, 2000). Teachers and students are more like collaborators in the classroom, who work
together to find answers and understand new concepts. As with PL, scholars have identified the
integration of technology into the classroom as a viable means of managing the demands of
student-centered teaching (Knowlton, 2000). Indeed, scholars and educators alike have identified
high-tech practices, including online and blended learning, as possibly facilitating more student-
centered classrooms (Knowlton, 2000).
On the surface, PL does seem to reflect many of the characteristics of constructivist
teaching and SCL. Indeed, some of the teaching practices associated with PL are also often
prioritized within constructivism, including “problem-based learning…exposure to multiple
sources of information, and opportunities for students to demonstrate their understanding in
diverse ways” (Windschitl, 1999, p. 752). Further, researchers have posited that classrooms with
high levels of technology use benefit from engaging in constructivist or student-centered
teaching practices (Keengwe, Onchwari, & Agamba, 2014; Knowlton, 2000) However,
constructivism and student-centeredness are not the only drivers behind PL. Current
manifestations of PL are also developing out of a policy climate that emphasizes accountability,
competition, and efficiency.

20
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Accountability and Market-Based Educational Reforms
Current educational policy in the United States demonstrates a blend of market-based
reforms and other reform initiatives aimed at personalizing students’ learning experiences and
improving the academic achievement of all students. With an underlying theory of action of
competition and accountability, reforms nested in policies and initiatives like No Child Left
Behind and its subsequent waivers, ConnectED, and Race to the Top, are intended to increase
student achievement and make educating those students more cost-efficient by increasing
accountability at both the school- and classroom-level (Abelmann, Elmore, Even, Kenyon, &
Marshall, 1999), supporting the development of charter schools (U.S. Department of Education,
2013a; 2015), privatizing some school components (e.g. curricula, assessment, educational
technology, data management, tutoring) (Burch, 2009; Burch & Good, 2014), and encouraging
both charter and traditional public schools to experiment with innovative school models and
instructional practices (U.S. Department of Education, 2013a; 2015). These types of initiatives –
and this policy climate more generally – highlight measurable goals and quantifiable results,
particularly for traditionally-underserved students, and students in high needs schools.
7

Several recent policy initiatives also urge educators to develop school models and
instructional practices that support PL for students. For example, Race to the Top – a program
through which states and districts compete for money to develop innovative educational
strategies (U.S. Department of Education, 2009) – promotes personalization explicitly by touting
PL as “absolute priority number one” and mandating that applicants will only receive funds if
their proposals include plans for some form of personalized learning. Race to the Top also
encourages personalization implicitly, emphasizing school choice and competition, and

7
When I use the term “high needs,” I am describing schools that are under-resourced, in terms of teacher
experience, supplies, or other resources.
21
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
financially supporting the development of “high-quality” charter schools and the implementation
of high-tech school models, particularly those with a mission of personalization. Other initiatives
such as ConnectED – designed to connect all public schools to high-speed internet, train teachers
in high-tech teaching strategies, and promote private sector innovation (U.S. Department of
Education, 2013a) – encourage personalization through the use of technology in the classroom,
particularly in pursuit of increased access and individualized educational experiences for all
students (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Still, measurement and accountability are
integral components of these initiatives, prioritizing measurable goals and quantifiable results.
Indeed, the increasing emphasis on personalization is nested in a context that emphasizes the
importance of standardized test scores and the utilization of standardized curricula, particularly
for students in high needs schools (Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Gutiérrez, 2006) – the very
schools (most often charter schools) where blended and PL models are primarily being
implemented (Horn & Maas, 2013; RAND Corporation, 2014).
The Confluence of Personalization and Technology
In much of the rhetoric around increasing personalization, particularly for traditionally-
underserved students, classroom technology use and the development of high-tech school models
are touted as being keys to the movement toward personalization. One notable example is the
introduction of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which requires students to take
online assessments and infuses technology into certain standards (Common Core State
Standards, 2014a; 2014b). In response to the CCSS rollout, school districts across the nation
have spent millions of dollars to purchase digital devices and software for teachers and students,
and improve school and teacher capacity to deliver more personalized, high-tech learning
experiences (Ash, 2010; Burch & Good, 2014; Wilson & Gielniak, 2012).
22
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
In addition, a report issued by the Nellie May Education Foundation indicates that
technology can be used to support many of the goals of PL, including helping to diagnose and
support individual student needs (Moeller & Reitzes, 2011). Also reifying the notion that
technology supports personalization, the U.S. Department of Education (2014) has declared that
the use of technology
infuses classrooms with digital learning tools, such as computers and hand held devices;
expands course offerings, experiences, and learning materials; supports learning 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week; builds 21
st
century skills; increases student engagement and
motivation; and accelerates learning.

Policymakers and educators also propose that technology has the potential to link teachers to
content, resources, and systems to help them improve their own instruction and to personalize
learning; close gaps in learning and in access; increase motivation and engagement; and provide
expanded educational offerings, all while maintaining or decreasing current costs (U.S.
Department of Education, 2014).
Initiatives like ConnectED (U.S. Department of Education, 2013) or the National
Education Technology Plan 2010 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) encourage the
development of PL models mainly through use of technology (including online and blended
learning) in schools. These initiatives aim to increase student academic achievement by
attempting to build school and teacher capacity through increases in funding and training in how
to use technology to improve student learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). These
initiatives are nested simultaneously in a theory of action driven by personalization, and in
market-based reform. ConnectED, for example, emphasizes personalization for high needs
students, but also encourages private sector innovation. Further, as noted earlier, ConnectED
promotes the idea that in order for the U.S. to efficiently produce higher-achieving individuals
who can compete with those in other countries, schools will need to increasingly utilize
23
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
technology to attend to individual student needs. In this context then, personalized learning is
often described in terms of how classroom technology and digital education can enable the
enactment of PL models toward equity (better outcomes for traditionally-underserved students)
and efficiency (cost-effective, competition-driven outcomes).
Elements and Strategies of Personalized Learning
Little peer-reviewed research exists that examines PL, and even less that looks at PL as a
school model. Part of the reason for this may be that PL, in its current iteration, is a relatively
new phenomenon. The lack of research could also be because PL is not necessarily well-defined
as a school model. There are, however, other strands of research that can shed some light on PL.
These strands of research include those studies that examine some of the core components of PL
as separate instructional models or strategies. These components include: (1) personal learning
paths and learner profiles, which are grounded in data-driven instruction and learner autonomy
and self-regulation; and (2) alternative forms of grading or student progression, including
mastery-based grading (Next Generation Learning Challenges, 2015; RAND Corporation, 2014;
Tanenbaum, Le Floch, & Boyle, 2013). In this section, I discuss some of the prior research on
these components, in order to provide some understanding of the key elements and strategies of
PL models, and to examine what is already known about these elements and strategies separate
from their inclusion in a PL model. On the whole, research on many of these PL strategies and
components is scant, particularly around questions of effects. Still, the current literature base
indicates that there may be possible teacher knowledge gaps related to some of the strategies of
PL that could potentially mediate their capacities to implement.

24
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Personal Learning Paths and Profiles
The concept of PL hinges on teachers’ and schools’ capacities to create personalized
learning paths for their students that are based on quantitative (test scores, gaps, strengths,
weaknesses) and qualitative data (preferences, interests) about the student (RAND Corporation,
2014). These personal learning paths are meant to allow for personal pacing and a variety of
learning preferences through a certain amount of learner autonomy and self-regulation and a
higher degree of flexibility in the learning environment (Next Generation Learning Challenges,
2015; RAND Corporation, 2014). Though there is little research specifically addressing personal
learning paths as they are conceptualized in PL environments, some preliminary research on PL
models utilizing PL paths and learner profiles suggests that students in these models make
significantly greater math and reading gains than a “virtually matched comparison group” made
up of other similar students in comparable charter schools (RAND Corporation, 2014). This
preliminary research suggests that there may be potential for PL models that emphasize PL paths
and learner profiles, along with immediate data use, learner autonomy, and alternative methods
of grading, as the schools in the sample did. Still, this RAND study is the only study to date that
even tangentially addresses learner profiles and personal learning paths in PL models. However,
there is other existing research that examines data-driven instruction, learner autonomy, and
alternative forms of grading.
Data-driven instruction. Heightened technology use and the push for increased teacher
and school accountability for student outcomes has contributed to an interest in using student
data to identify effective teachers and practices, to diagnose students’ gaps, strengths, and
weaknesses, and to design effective learning experiences for students based on that data
(Schildkamp & Kuiper, 2010; Walsh, 2003). However, the mere presence of data is not enough
25
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
to ensure its use (Marsh et al., 2006; Mandinach, 2012); rather, there needs to be a way for
teachers to gather, organize, and analyze the data in order to turn it into usable information
(Marsh & Farrell, 2015). Part of the purpose of technology in PL models is to help teachers do
just that, by providing a central place where student data can be gathered, organized, and
analyzed. Further, the use of technology is intended to offer teachers the opportunity to analyze
data in real time, allowing them to adjust to students’ needs immediately (Staker, 2011). In this
way, student data (and the information that results from that data) can be used to design student
learning experiences or to encourage self-paced or self-directed learning (Breiter & Light, 2006;
Schildkamp & Kuiper, 2010). However, current research suggests that teachers do not always
have the knowledge needed to use data to enact substantive changes in practice and improve
student outcomes (Marsh et al., 2006; Means, Chen, DeBarger, & Padilla, 2011; Oláh, Lawrence,
& Riggan, 2010; Supovitz & Klein, 2003). This indicates possible knowledge gaps for teachers
in enacting PL as well.
Learner autonomy and control. Learner autonomy, control, and choice are also key
design components of PL environments. Self-direction, self-determination, and choice are key
concepts, and students are often expected “to act independently, take responsibility for their
learning process and regulate their own school behavior” (Kirschner & von Merriënboer, 2010,
p. 177). However, some research indicates that learners do not always benefit from such control
(Kirschner & von Merriënboer, 2010; Williams, 1996), particularly in computer-based
environments (Kirschner & von Merriënboer, 2010; Lee, Lim, & Grabowski, 2010). The first
issue involves placing the control for learning entirely on the learner. Forcing control on learners
can sometimes be counterproductive, as learners can “misregulate” their learning – they may not
have specific standards against which to judge their learning, the necessary knowledge to
26
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
diagnose their own level of learning in relation to standards or objectives, or the ability to change
course when new strategies or learning experiences are needed (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996;
Taminiau et al., 2013)
The second problem is in relying entirely on learner choice. As Kirschner and von
Merriënboer (2010) put it, “learners often choose what they prefer, but what they prefer is not
always best for them” (p. 177). For example, students may choose to complete or practice tasks
in which they are already well-versed (Kicken, Brand, Gruwel, & van Merriënboer, 2009). It is
difficult, in other words, for students to find their own zone of proximal development
8
and stay
there while learning. This suggests that an overreliance on learner autonomy may undermine the
goals of PL, particularly when those goals reflect constructivist teaching practices like
connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge and applying new knowledge with feedback.
Additionally, if students are given too many choices, they may experience frustration in trying to
choose an appropriate learning experience. To remedy this, some researchers have suggested that
a system of “shared control,” in which teachers provide a set of learning tasks that are chosen
specifically for certain learners. Research has indicated that this may increase student motivation
and learning (Corbalan, Kester, & van Merriënboer, 2009).
Finally, and particularly in blended or PL environments, teachers may not always
understand how to structure their classrooms to facilitate learner autonomy, and may also not
have the existing knowledge necessary to develop learner autonomy in other ways (Bingham, in
press). Further, teachers may not have enough support to implement PL or may not have the right
support (i.e. the kind of support that aligns with the goals of PL). For blended PL school models

8
The zone of proximal development is "the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under
adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). In other words, it is the
optimal area of learning located between what students can do by themselves and what they need help to do.
27
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
that often rely on student autonomy and self-regulation, this may be an especially pertinent
problem.
Alternative forms of grading or student progression. Researchers and educators alike
have identified shortcomings with so-called traditional grading systems,
9
including subjectivity
and an over-reliance on factors related to effort and behavior that do not necessarily indicate
student content knowledge (e.g. homework completion, participation, and attendance) (Hooper &
Cowell, 2014). Traditional forms of grading often focus on a variety of indicators, including unit
tests, quizzes, homework, group work, and attendance or behavior. Completion is emphasized,
along with student understanding and ability. Typically, students may only take a test or
complete an assignment once and the grade that they receive becomes a percentage of their final
grade.
In an educational climate that prioritizes standards and standardization, some schools
and teachers are implementing alternative forms of grading in which students’ grades are based
on growth over time, and on students’ abilities to master learning objectives or standards
(Hooper & Cowell, 2014; Welsh, D’Agostino, & Kaniskan, 2013). These alternative forms of
grading – including standards-based, competency-based, proficiency-based, or mastery-based
10

grading – are often implemented as a critical component PL models (Next Generation Learning
Challenges, 2015; RAND Corporation, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2015). These
alternative forms of grading emphasize student growth and mastery of defined objectives – some

9
For the purposes of this dissertation study, I define traditional forms of grading as “students earning points on
various types of assignments and assessments throughout a grading period and a teacher averaging those points on a
100-point scale to determine a student’s overall grade” (Hooper & Cowell, 2014). Behavior, effort, attendance,
punctuality, and participation are also often included as part of students’ grades.
10
These terms are often used interchangeably, though they do not always mean the same thing. There are differences
in (and some debate around) how these terms are used and defined, and I do not discuss that here. I discuss these
types of grading systems as one group because they are often used interchangeably, little research exists on these
alternative forms of grading, and I aim to discuss current research on alternative forms of grading that are similar to
or related to MBG.
28
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
form of standards in the case of standards-based grading, or in other cases, objectives defined
and created by the teacher, or the school, or based on a given curriculum. Frequent feedback and
opportunity for students to resubmit assignments and assessments are also prioritized
components of these alternative grading systems (Marzano, 2000; Miller, 2013). Current
manifestations of MBG stem from the work of Bloom (1984), who identified the concept of
“mastery-based” learning or assessment as a method to increase student motivation. Bloom also
described mastery-based learning as way to vary learning time and instructional approaches,
making it similar to some of the tenets of PL. Mastery-based grading developed out of Bloom’s
idea that the ideal learning situation involves one-to-one teaching (Bloom, 1984; Slavin, 1987a).
As with other components of PL, there is not a lot of research on these alternative forms
of grading, particularly when it comes to effects and to research in K-12 environments. Existing
studies indicate that there may be teacher knowledge gaps when it comes to developing and
implementing alternative forms of grading (Richards, 2014).
Summary of Research on Personalized Learning Elements and Strategies
Overall, the extant research on PL strategies and components of PL models is relatively
scant. That which does exist suggests that teachers may lack the knowledge, experience, or tools
to engage in (or may need to build their capacities around) some of the strategies and
components of PL models – including implementing personal learning paths, developing learner
autonomy, utilizing data to immediately inform instruction, and using alternative forms of
grading and assessment – which could potentially mediate teachers’ capacities to implement.
Further, though there is more research on constructivist teaching practices, in the current
educational climate, PL is also situated in high stakes accountability, which suggests that
teachers’ practices toward implementing PL might be mediated by the requirements of an
29
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
accountability-heavy climate. For example, teachers may have to engage in higher levels of test
preparation (perhaps via digital devices in a blended PL model). Additionally, PL, in its current
manifestation, relies heavily on digital resources and technological devices. In order to provide a
better understanding of the foundations of PL, and teachers’ understanding and implementation
of a PL model, then, it is useful to discuss technology use in the classroom as a conduit of PL
strategies.
Technology in the Classroom as a Conduit of or Platform for Personalized Learning
As discussed earlier, there has been little research on the implementation or effectiveness
of PL models. However, there is some related research on which we can draw to begin to
understand some of the factors that may influence whether and how PL is implemented and its
level of effectiveness. For example, because technology plays such a critical role in the design
and implementation of a PL model, we can draw on the research base on technology
implementation in schools, which is more extensive. In particular, researchers have investigated
teachers’ integration of technology into their classrooms, and the factors that may hinder or
facilitate that integration. Generally, researchers have identified teachers’ individual beliefs
about and comfort with technology, the beliefs and behaviors of teachers’ communities, and the
quality of the technology itself as factors that influence whether or not teachers use technology
regularly in their classrooms.
Teachers’ Use of Technology
There is no doubt that technology use in schools is increasing (e.g. U.S. Department of
Education, 2010). Still, scholars have suggested that despite the nearly ubiquitous presence of
computer technology, consistent use of technology in the classroom is still relatively rare
(Ertmer, 2005; Hew & Brush, 2007). A few researchers have investigated the factors behind this
30
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
inconsistency, finding that merely introducing technology into the school environment is not
enough to garner widespread teacher and student use (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001;
Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Scholars and policymakers alike have generally recognized that there
may need to be a significant shift in teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes toward teaching
and learning with technology (Cuban, 2012; Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, &
Sendurur, 2012; Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009). Indeed, teachers often use technology in such a
way that it sustains traditional teaching practice,
11
rather than changing it (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, &
Peck, 2001). In addition, research focused specifically on the factors that influence technology
integration in K-12 schools has indicated that multiple factors can inhibit the implementation of a
high-tech innovation. Specifically, researchers have identified the quality of available
technological resources (Groff & Mouza, 2008), as well as the distance of the innovation from
schools’ and teachers’ current practices as mediators of technology implementation (Zhao, Pugh,
Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). The socioeconomics of a school’s surrounding area also appears to
play a role in how technology is used in the classroom. Though high-level use of technology use
is infrequent across schools, teachers teaching in low-income areas in particular may use
classroom technology for lower-level activities like email, accessing content materials, and
collaborating with other educators (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2013).
Studies that seek to explain why teachers are not implementing high-level activities using
technology in their classrooms have identified teachers’ pre-existing pedagogical beliefs, as well
as their colleagues’ use of technology in the classroom as salient explanations for varying levels

11
Throughout this dissertation study, I refer to “traditional” forms of instruction as a foil to the so-called
“innovative” school models dominating current discourse (blended models, virtual schools, PL models). In general,
when referring to traditional teaching practices, I am referring to aspects of traditional teaching that contrast
specifically with aspects of PL models. For example, lecture-based, teacher-centric classrooms contrast with the
ideal PL classroom, in which students are working through personal learning paths. Similarly, assessing students as
a group at the end of each unit contrasts with mastery-based grading, in which students would be assessed
individually. In this study, I am not commenting on the efficacy of either traditional or PL practices, as that is
beyond the purview of both my research questions and my data.
31
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
of technology integration (Ertmer, 2005; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, &
Byers, 2002). In one study involving comparative, multiple case studies, Windschitl and Sahl
(2002) examined how teachers respond to and execute an initiative to integrate computer-use
into their classrooms. In one case, the teacher felt dissatisfied with traditional methods of
teaching and thus embraced the use of laptops in her classroom. Over the course of two years,
the teacher’s classroom culture became more constructivist and she noticed distinct changes in
her teaching (less lecturing, facilitating autonomous students rather than constantly directing
them). In another case, the teacher had initial doubts about the usefulness of technology, and her
use of the laptops declined markedly after the first year of implementation. In each case, the
teacher’s pre-existing beliefs about technology and instruction, and about student learning,
influenced how (and if) they chose to use the technology.
Time also plays a role in whether and how teachers use technology in the classroom –
teachers need time to preview and vet technological resources, and time to plan how and why
they will use digital resources (Cuban et al., 2001; Hew & Brush, 2007). Teachers may also need
more time to understand and implement high-tech teaching practices; those who are not given
appropriate time in which to plan may be at risk for “burnout” or for not integrating technology
into their classrooms (Hew & Brush, 2007).
Still, some scholars and policymakers have suggested that simply integrating technology
into the classroom is not necessarily an appropriate end goal (Groff & Mouza, 2008). Rather,
creating learning goals first, and then selecting appropriate instructional tools – high-tech or not
– is the key to integrating technology into classrooms in a productive way (McKenzie, 2003),
instead of mandating that teachers spend a specific amount of time using technological tools.
Additionally, the influx of initiatives driving PL suggest that the call for technology-mediated
32
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
teaching really requires that teachers are tailoring instruction to students’ strengths, weaknesses,
interests, and needs (Ertmer et al., 2012), managing student data and digital resources (Bingham,
in press), acting as a tutor or coach that facilitates rather than delivers knowledge (Cole, Simkins,
& Penuel, 2002), and redesigning their classrooms around these PL strategies (Bingham, in
press; Staker, 2011). These new types of teaching practices may require a departure from
teachers’ existing norms of practice, or from their existing beliefs and understandings of teaching
as a profession, which may present a challenge to teachers’ teaching identities or their self-
efficacy (Cuban, 2012; Ertmer et al., 2012; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer,
2010) – a key impetus for change or for regression to more traditional practices. Still, neither the
presence of technology, nor teachers’ beliefs toward technology-based teaching practices are the
only factors influencing teachers’ understanding and implementation of PL. Indeed, the school
context, including the specific school model and whether the school is a traditional public school
or a charter school, may be a significant mediator of teachers’ practices as well. Nevertheless,
little is known about teaching practices in online or blended environments, particularly toward
enacting a theory of action of PL.
Toward PL as a School Model: Online Learning, Blended Learning, and the Charter
School Environment
Online learning
12
, blended learning, and other manifestations of digital education often
rely on an underlying theory of personalization. However, few empirical studies have reported

12
Various terms are used describe online learning: online education, distance education, distance learning, digital
education, e-learning, virtual learning, and virtual education are often used interchangeably to denote some form of
web-based instruction. In this paper, I use the terms “online,” “virtual,” and “digital” learning or education
interchangeably to mean that the instruction and content delivery takes place online (Barbour et al., 2011; Watson,
Winograd, & Kalmon, 2004).

33
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
on in-depth examinations of what teaching looks like in these environments, or how teachers
interpret and apply PL in the context of K-12 virtual or blended schools.
K-12 online learning: Research and outcomes. Research on the effectiveness of online
learning in K-12 contexts has produced mixed results. Some studies indicate positive impacts on
student outcomes (e.g. Means et al., 2010; 2013), while others suggest negative results (e.g.
Miron et al., 2012; Molnar et al., 2013). Still others point to the wide variation in online models
as the reason that effects are neutral or difficult to generalize (e.g. Bernard et al., 2004;
Cavanaugh, 2004; Zhao et al., 2005).
Research on online learning often compares online and face-to-face instruction. For
example, in a meta-analysis of existing empirical research comparing the effects of traditional
face-to-face education and distance education on student achievement, attitude, and retention,
researchers reported that effect sizes were close to zero with wide variability, suggesting that
some online educations programs produce good results, while others perform poorly (Bernard et
al., 2004). The researchers admitted that, due to scant research, they cannot offer any advice on
how to design effective online learning experiences; however, they do suggest that opportunities
for face-to-face interaction and collaboration (i.e. blended learning) may increase the
effectiveness of online models.
Other researchers have suggested that online and distance learning models are just as or
more effective than traditional learning models in improving student achievement (Means et al.,
2010; 2013). For example, in another meta-analysis of studies comparing online learning to
traditional face-to-face learning, Means and colleagues (2010; 2013) found that students learning
material online performed better than students learning the same material in traditional face-to-
face situations. However, here again, the researchers emphasize that instruction that employed
34
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
both online and face-to-face components seemed to be the most effective. Further, the
researchers acknowledge that the lack of rigorous, empirical studies on online learning models in
K-12 settings is problematic; only five of the 48 studies analyzed by the researchers involved K-
12 students.
Still other researchers have found that, on average, there is no significant difference
between online and traditional face-to-face education, in terms of student outcomes (Cavanaugh,
2004; Zhao et al., 2005). For example, Zhao and colleagues (2005) found that effective online
learning experiences facilitated interaction among participants and instructors and involved
human instructors. Again, a combination of human interaction and technology was found to be
preferable to online-only learning. However, there was wide variation in outcomes across
studies, which again suggests that some models were effective and others were not. Additionally,
as with the other meta-analyses mentioned, studies involving K-12 online education are lacking.
Some recent research has suggested that online learning models produce lower levels of
student achievement than do traditional school models (e.g. Heinrich et al., 2014; Miron &
Urshel, 2012; Molnar et al, 2013). For example, a recent report by the National Education Policy
Center (NEPC) indicates that online learning models, particularly those of K-12 Inc., a principal
provider of online learning courses, do not perform as well as traditional school models (Miron
& Urschel, 2012). The NEPC researchers found that on-time graduation for K-12 Inc. students
was 30% less than the average for comparable traditional schools. In addition, K-12 Inc. students
scored lower in math and reading. Similarly, another recent study suggests that virtual school
students are failing, falling behind, or dropping out at a greater rate than their peers in more
traditional schools (Molnar et al., 2013). However, as not much is known about the teaching
practices in these schools, it is difficult to draw conclusions about why these schools are
35
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
underperforming (Burch & Good, 2014). Some of the aforementioned scholars argue that
because policymakers and researchers are so far behind in researching and evaluating these
virtual schools, expansion of these virtual schools is progressing too quickly and could be
detrimental to student learning.
Pedagogy in online teaching. The mixed results on online learning effectiveness indicate
“that the effectiveness of distance education appears to have more to do with who is teaching,
who is learning, and how that learning is accomplished, and less to do with the medium” (Rice,
2006, p. 440). For this reason, and as the technology used in online learning environments
becomes increasingly advanced and more user-friendly, attention is shifting from technology to
pedagogy (Rice, 2009). In 2009, Rice conducted a study using the Delphi Method of group
communication to identify priorities in online education in K-12 contexts. He found that
according to researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, the top three priorities for the next five
years were: (1) evaluation of course design and delivery; (2) best practices; and (3)
accountability. Despite this anticipated focus on teaching practice and accountability in online
environments, however, little empirical research exists that examines these important topics in
K-12 contexts. In fact, much of what has been written about online teaching practices has been
anecdotal and comes from stories shared by online teachers themselves (e.g. Connections
Academy; Edublogs). Additionally, though it has been suggested that online learning may be
well-suited to the needs of traditionally under-served students and students at-risk for dropping
out (Rose & Blomeyer, 2007), studies of successful online teaching practices for these students
are also lacking. In one study, researchers examined teaching practices that may better serve
traditionally-underserved students (Archambault et al., 2010), finding that schools that reported
success with this population of students assigned faculty and staff to help students progress
36
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
through classes, individualized instruction using technology, and developed specific instructional
strategies, including mastery learning (focusing on learning, rather than performance indicators)
and assessing for understanding (rather than for simple correct or incorrect answers), to support
achievement.
In summary, it appears that current studies on online learning suggest that a combination
of online and face-to-face instruction, or blended learning, may be more effective in improving
student outcomes than online-only models (Means et al., 2010; 2103; Zhao et al., 2005), pointing
to several practices to which they attributed this finding: (1) online curricula and instructional
practices that differ from those in the face-to-face component; (2) online learning that is
collaborative, rather than independent; (3) and instruction that provides collaboration and
increased learning time.
The promises and potential of blended learning. Blended learning programs are
quickly eclipsing fully-online education (Barbour et al., 2011; Staker & Horn, 2012; Watson et
al., 2011). Although district online learning programs are the fastest growing digital education
programs, within these programs, most options are blended rather than fully-online. Further, as
indicated above, research has suggested that a blend of online and face-to-face instruction may
be more effective in improving student outcomes than online-only models (e.g. Means et al.,
2010; 2103; Zhao et al., 2005). Finally, policymakers and educators alike have identified blended
learning models as being one possibility for providing the type of personalized learning
encouraged by the current reform climate. However, as I discuss in the next section, little
research exists that specifically examines the effects of blended learning, and that which does
exist has reported mixed results.
37
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Blended learning: Uncertain effects. Rigorous research on blended learning is emerging
in K-12 contexts, but is still limited and reports mixed results. Further, although blended learning
is seen by many policymakers, administrators, and educators as a way to improve upon online
learning and to provide more effective instruction for traditionally under-served students, little
research specifically focuses on these subgroups. As previously mentioned, Means and
colleagues (2010; 2013) found that blended learning, as a subset of online models, was more
effective than online learning. The teaching practices that the researchers emphasized as being
responsible for positive outcomes included allowing students to control their interactions with
the online interface, using an interface that prompts learner reflections, and utilizing curriculum
and instructional methods in the online component that differ from those in the face-to-face
learning component. Blended learning was also more effective when the online component was
collaborative, rather than independent. However, the researchers acknowledge that the available
research on K-12 blended learning is scant and that increased learning time may be the reason for
the positive outcomes (Means et al., 2010; 2013).
Other researchers have found that blended learning models have had a neutral or negative
effect on student outcomes (Cole et al., 2012; Margolin et al., 2011). For example, in a recent
study of School of One, a math-only blended program that uses several types of online activities
interwoven with classroom instruction, researchers examined the unique effects of the School of
One model (Cole, et al, 2012). School of One student achievement was compared with the
achievement of previous students in the same schools and with the achievement of students in
other comparable New York City schools. Controlling for prior achievement, student
demographics, and city and statewide factors that may have impacted all schools, the researchers
found that, on average, the School of One blended model did not affect sixth graders' math
38
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
achievement. Further, students who were exposed to more grade-level skills grew more in terms
of their achievement on the New York state math test. Developers of the School of One program
postulated that student progress during the initial implementation might be impeded by a "gap
dip," where students were filling in gaps in their knowledge instead of working on grade-level
skills (the School of One study did not measure growth on skills that are not grade-level). In
addition, the analysis includes some students who were not exposed to the School of One model
for the entire year.
Though researchers have indicated both positive and negative results for blended models,
the variation among models makes it difficult to make any conclusive claims. For example,
blended models vary in the amount of online and face-to-face teaching and in the providers of
online curricula (Staker, 2011; Staker & Horn, 2012; Zhao et al., 2005). The most pertinent
theme across studies, however, seems to be that research is limited, particularly in K-12 contexts,
and thus definite conclusions are difficult to make.
Some studies detail the use of blended learning, but there are far fewer rigorous,
empirical studies of the practices in blended schools, and even fewer that study blended learning
models through the lens of personalized learning – the theory of action undergirding blended
learning as a school model (Means et al., 2010). Further, few studies deal with issues of process
and implementation, teacher instruction in these contexts, or the role of the teacher in a
technology-driven environment. In existing studies, which often rely only on teacher reports,
instructional issues have arisen as blended learning models are implemented. For example, in
one blended learning program, teachers had trouble adjusting to coaching students through
individualized learning plans, rather than instructing the whole class (Cole et al., 2012). In
another study, teachers reported that classroom structure became a problem in a blended school
39
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
(Margolin et al., 2011); the content and pacing of the work varied by student, but some students
had trouble working independently, and teachers had difficulties structuring the classroom in a
way that allowed for individualized learning experiences. These types of difficulties are mirrored
in some of the research on the elements of PL mentioned earlier in this chapter (e.g. learner
autonomy) and can have implications for the implementation and effectiveness of blended
models.
Assumptions of teacher practice. Though much of the literature defines blended learning
as simply a combination of online and traditional content delivery, differences exist in how
material is delivered and learning is divided between online and face-to-face instruction (Staker
& Horn, 2012). In a commonly used typology developed by the Clayton Christensen Institute for
Disruptive Innovation (Staker & Horn, 2012), blended learning models are divided into four
categories: rotation, flex, à la carte, and enriched virtual. In a rotation model of blended learning,
students rotate through different learning modalities, including online learning, group projects,
whole-class instruction, and tutoring. Rotation models are further sub-divided into station
rotation (in-class rotations through different learning modalities), lab rotation (rotations through
different locations in the school), flipped classrooms (rotations through on-campus projects
during the day and online content delivery at home), and individual rotation (student rotations on
an individualized, fixed schedule). In a flex blended learning model, instruction is primarily
online and students move on an individualized schedule. An à la carte (formerly “self-blend”)
model has students take some courses entirely online, while also taking courses at a brick-and-
mortar location. Finally, an enriched-virtual school model divides student time between remote
learning and a traditional campus experience.
40
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
As evidenced by the aforementioned typology, blended learning environments in which
teachers aim to personalize instruction through the use of technology are intended to alter
teachers’ roles in the classroom. Thus, the design of blended learning models, the use of
technology therein, and the goal of personalization may have implications for teaching practice
and teachers’ roles in the classroom (Ertmer, 2005; Oliver & Trigwell, 2005; Windschitl & Sahl,
2002). For example, in the high-tech environment of a blended school, teachers have to learn to
teach in a new way (e.g. coach or tutor, rather than lecture), with new tools (e.g. computers or
online curricula), in a presumably restructured setting (e.g. open classrooms or the elimination of
class periods) (Staker, 2011; Staker & Horn, 2012). In pursuit of personalized learning, teachers
may also have to learn to manage a wide array of courses, assignments, and learning activities.
However, how teachers enact these changes and how their practices evolve over time may be
influenced by the type of blended model they are implementing, as well as by the organizational
context of the school in which they teach (Coburn, 2004; Diamond, 2012; Spillane, Reiser, &
Reimer, 2002). It is thus important to keep this context in mind; teachers’ practices in a blended
PL school may also be driven by and linked to the type of school in which blended learning or
PL is being implemented.
Charter schools are often the sites for innovative school models (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003;
Goldring & Cravens, 2008), thus, in many cases, teachers implementing blended or PL models
will be working in a charter school (Horn & Maas, 2013). Further, charter schools often serve
greater numbers of marginalized students (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003; Goldring & Cravens, 2008) –
the very students that are often meant to be served by blended PL models. However, teachers in
charter schools are subject to and influenced by a particular set of circumstances – charters are
firmly situated in market-based, accountability-driven reforms, and are often organizationally
41
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
distinct from traditional public schools (Henig, Holyoke, Brown, & Lacireno‐ Paquet, 2005).
Further, researchers have noted differences in teachers’ characteristics, experiences, and
practices in charter schools (e.g. Baker & Dickerson, 2006; Cannata & Peñaloza, 2012) that may
be reflective of charter schools’ situatedness in market-based and accountability-driven reform,
and which may be relevant to teachers’ experiences and practices in a blended PL charter school.
Thus, the research on charter schools offers some context for the teaching environment of PL
models. In the next section, I discuss some of the characteristics of charter schools, especially as
they pertain to teachers and their practices. In particular, I examine how charter schools are
bound by certain accountability standards that could have some implications for how PL models
would be implemented in that context. I also examine teachers’ experiences in charters to shed
some light on how the teaching context may differ from that of a traditional public school.
Finally, I examine one particular school model – the “No Excuses” model – that emerges from
charter schools and has particular bearing on this study.
The charter school environment. As noted above, it is important to situate an analysis
of teachers’ practices in the context in which they occur because organizational context has
implications for teacher sensemaking, instructional reform, and instructional practice (Spillane et
al, 2002). Charter schools, specifically, may influence how teachers make sense of and enact
reforms because: (1) the organizational context of a charter school is situated in and founded on
principles of market-based and accountability-driven reform; (2) teachers’ experiences in charter
schools may differ from teachers’ experiences in traditional public schools and may reflect an
organizational context situated in and founded on market-based reform.
The organizational environment of a charter school is couched in market-based reform
and an emphasis on accountability. In terms of competition and market-based reform, charter
42
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
schools are accountable to the government, the entity that approves their charter, and to their
consumers – students and parents (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003). If a charter school is not performing
well, it is expected that students and parents will move to a school that is. In terms of
accountability, the charter school must then prove that their school is achieving its goals
(Bulkley & Fisler, 2003; National Education Association, 2004). A school’s charter, which
typically lasts three to five years, is reviewed periodically and can be revoked and the school
shut down if the accountability standards outlined in the charter are not met. Though some
researchers argue that very few schools are subject to this fate (e.g. Bulkley, 2001), this
accountability measure is nonetheless part of charter school legislation. Charter schools are
exempt from many state and local regulatory practices, which are meant to decentralize the
governance structure and inspire competition, autonomy, innovative practices, and diverse
school models (Bulkley & Fisler, 2002). Thus, charter schools are often intended to be the sites
of innovative school models and instructional practices. However, offsetting this autonomy is the
idea that charter schools are intended to be held to different accountability standards than
traditional schools (Bulkley & Fisler, 2002; Miron, 2008). Teachers in charter schools may thus
be encouraged to innovate, but would also be subject to high levels of accountability.
The organizational context of charter schools, outlined above, is also reflected in charter
school teachers’ characteristics and experiences. Specifically, teaching in charter schools may
differ from teaching in traditional public schools in ways that may influence teachers’
understanding and enactment of instructional reform, including differences in: (1) the
composition of the teaching staff, in terms of experience, certification, and education; (2)
employment practices, including hiring and firing practices; and (3) educational mission or
vision.
43
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Teaching in charter schools. Existing studies on teaching in charter schools have
identified several aspects of charter school teachers’ characteristics, experiences, perceptions,
and practices that may differ from those of traditional public school teachers. For example, the
composition of the teaching staff at a school may differ from that of a traditional public school.
Indeed, on average, charter school teachers differ from traditional public school teachers in terms
of certification, education, and experience. They are more likely to be uncertified or under-
certified, and to be younger and have fewer years of experience (Baker & Dickerson, 2006;
Burian-Fitzgerald, Luekens, & Strizek, 2004; Guarino, 2003; Hoxby, 2002; Podgursky, 2008).
Charter schools are also more likely to hire teachers who have better academic credentials, such
as Teach for America corps members, or teachers who attended elite universities (Brewer &
Ahn, 2010; Hoxby, 2002; Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). This could have implications for how
teachers in charters conceive of and enact a PL model; for example, a staff that consists primarily
of inexperienced teachers may be more likely to get on board with a given instructional reform,
but may not have the pedagogical skills to implement it.
The charter school context also differs from a traditional public school in terms of
employment practices, which tend to reflect the principles of competition and accountability. For
example, in aggregate, charter teachers have less job security, and work longer hours (Brewer &
Ahn, 2010; Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). School leaders have more flexibility in hiring and
firing than do traditional public school leaders (Gawlik, 2007; Gill et al., 2001; Malloy &
Wohlstetter, 2003; Podgursky, 2008; Wohlstetter & Chau, 2004). Hiring practices in charter
schools, including limited union involvement, short-term contracts, and limited opportunity for
tenure, can lead to less job security (Brewer & Ahn, 2010; Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). Further,
charter schools can often develop one-year contracts and eschew the tenure process in favor of
44
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
yearly evaluations and contract renewals (Brewer & Ahn, 2010; Podgursky & Ballou, 2001).
Charter school teachers also report working more hours than traditional public school teachers,
and having more responsibilities in terms of administrative and governance tasks (Moore
Johnson & Landman, 2000), which can lead to an increased risk for teacher burnout. Indeed,
charter schools often have higher teacher turnover than other public schools (Podgursky &
Ballou, 2001). These charter school characteristics can lead to teacher dissatisfaction and
attrition (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). Here again, the context of the charter school could have
implications for whether and how teachers’ implement PL. For example, teachers in a charter
that employs short term contracts might be less likely to push back against reform they did not
agree with, for fear of losing their positions.
Finally, charter schools often espouse a particular mission or educational goal, which
appears to play a crucial role in teachers’ experiences in charter schools (Hassel, 1999; Manno,
Finn, Bierlein, & Vanourek, 1998; Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1997). Teachers cite philosophical and
pedagogical alignment with that mission, and the opportunity to work with like-minded
colleagues who are more willing to question established practices, as being primary drivers for
choosing to teach in a charter (Hill et al., 2001; Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003; Moore Johnson &
Landman, 2000; Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1997). Similarly, charter teachers have reported being
attracted to a more decentralized governance structure in which their opinions are taken into
consideration, and school decisions are more bottom-up than top-down (Malloy & Wohlstetter,
2003). Charter school teachers report that more autonomy leads to more teacher empowerment in
terms of making curricular and instructional choices and other decisions related to the school as a
whole (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003); charter teachers feel as if they receive more trust and are
treated as professionals and experts in their fields (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003; Vasudeva &
45
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Grutzik, 2000). However, teachers see this as both a boon and a burden; decision-making in this
way is empowering, but time-consuming (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). Again, these charter
school characteristics could have implications for teachers’ practices toward implementing PL.
For example, as noted earlier in this chapter, teachers’ beliefs influence whether and how they
integrate technology into their classrooms (Ertmer, 2005; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002; Zhao, Pugh,
Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). A charter school that specifically embraces high-tech PL as its school
vision may attract and hire technologically-savvy teachers that are committed to implementing
PL – this could mean that teacher’s beliefs were all aligned to the goal of high-tech PL, which
could mediate whether and how teachers enact that goal.
Overall, the characteristics of the charter school environment could have implications for
the implementation of a PL model and for how teachers make sense of and enact PL strategies.
Still, there are specific school models, even within the context of charter school, that could
further influence and shape teachers’ practices.
The “No Excuses” charter school. Of particular significance to this study is the so-
called “No Excuses” charter school. This model is a paragon of the current policy emphasis on
accountability and market-based educational reforms, and is also the type of model implemented
at Blended Academy – the school under study in this dissertation – in its second year, to serve as
a basis for PL. “No Excuses” models are prominent school models primarily associated with
charter schools (Golann, 2015). This model emerged from the Knowledge is Power Program
(KIPP) charter schools in the 1990’s (Angrist, Pathak, & Walters, 2012). A “No Excuses” school
model emphasizes student and teacher accountability, instructional time, a strict system of
discipline, school culture, selective teacher and administrator hiring, and core instructional
subjects (Angrist, Pathak, & Walters, 2012; Lack, 2009). The disciplinary system in particular is
46
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
a hallmark of these schools, emphasizing school-wide consistency in delivering disciplinary
consequences, and relying on a detailed and extensive system of rewards and consequences
(often merits and demerits) (Goodman, 2013; Lake et al., 2012).
“No Excuses” charter schools, more so than other charters, have shown positive results
for traditionally-underserved students (Abdulkadiroglu et al. 2009; Angrist, Pathak, & Walters,
2012; Dobbie & Fryer 2011a, 2011b). This may be why “No Excuses” models, more than any
other charter school model, have enjoyed much attention in popular media (e.g. Carr, 2014;
Strauss, 2014). Additionally, these models have been the focus of several evaluative studies
aimed at understanding the effects of a “No Excuses” school on student achievement. A large
portion of these studies, comparing students selected by these schools and not selected by these
schools in lottery processes, have found that “No Excuses” schools significantly improve
traditionally-underserved students’ academic achievement (as measured by standardized tests)
(Abdulkadiroglu et al. 2009; Angrist, Pathak, & Walters 2011; Dobbie & Fryer 2011a, 2011b).
Indeed, in some studies of charter school effectiveness, charters that embrace a “No Excuses”
model have been shown to be more effective than those that do not (Angrist, Pathak, & Walters,
2013). However, other scholars and educators have voiced concerns that because “No Excuses”
models use a “broken windows” approach (addressing any and all infractions with immediacy
and consistency to avoid a breakdown of discipline and school “culture”), they may undermine
students’ creativity, decision-making skills, self-confidence, and self-reliance, and erode cultural
identity (Ellison, 2012; Goodman, 2013; Lack, 2009). Still, “No Excuses” charter schools are
popular, and are often championed by researchers, policymakers, and educational reformers.
In essence, the specific school type in which teachers teach may influence teachers’
practices toward implementing a specific instructional reform – in this case, PL. Utilizing theory
47
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
– particularly a combined theoretical framework of CHAT and sensemaking theory – may
provide better understanding of how the characteristics of the school in which teachers teach (in
this case, a blended PL charter school that becomes a “No Excuses” blended PL charter school)
interacts with and mediates teachers’ practices toward personalizing students’ learning.
Specifically, using CHAT and sensemaking can attend to the interactions between organizational
and individual factors, while also attending to societal context (e.g. an educational climate that
reflects an emphasis on market-based reforms and accountability).
Summary of the Current Research
The above research review reveals several important points in the literature that are
relevant to an examination of teachers’ implementation of and practices in a PL model. First,
teachers’ practices in a PL model are situated in a complex educational climate that prioritizes
personalization alongside competition and accountability. Second, the current literature base
indicates that teachers may lack the knowledge, experience, or tools to engage in some of the
strategies and components of PL models – including designing and implementing personal
learning paths, developing learner autonomy, and creating alternative grading systems – which
could influence teachers’ capacities to implement a PL model or, indeed, to teach effectively in a
PL model. Third, research on online and blended learning models indicates that teachers may
have to learn to teach in new ways (e.g. tutor or coach, facilitate students’ self-pacing in an
online curriculum), in restructured classrooms (e.g. open learning spaces and flexible classroom
schedules), with new tools (e.g. high-tech devices and digital content and curricula). Yet,
research on technology implementation has indicated that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward
technology in the classroom may play a role in how teachers’ understand and enact high-tech
models and teaching practices (e.g. Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). Further, researchers
48
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
have suggested that any school model that challenges teachers’ existing understandings about
teaching may require a departure from teachers’ existing norms of practice, from their existing
beliefs and understandings of teaching as a profession, or may present a challenge to teachers’
teaching identities (Cuban, 2012; Ertmer et al., 2012; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010). Finally,
research on teaching in charter schools – and, in particular, “No Excuses” models – indicates that
the implementation of and teachers’ practices in a PL model may be further mediated by the
specific organizational characteristics of charters, including hiring practices, accountability,
school vision alignment, school culture, and disciplinary practices. In other words, the
characteristics of a “No Excuses” charter school could have implications for teachers
implementing PL within that context. For example, because charter schools employ different
hiring practices than traditional public schools – including limited union involvement, short-term
contracts, and limited opportunity for tenure – school leaders in charters can essentially cultivate
a teaching staff that is in alignment with school goals and processes (e.g. implementing a “No
Excuses” disciplinary system). In synthesizing these points, teachers’ understanding and
implementation of PL may be complicated by: the larger educational climate; teachers’
knowledge gaps, existing beliefs about technology, and teaching identities; and school context.
Research is needed that examines PL through lenses that can attend to the myriad factors that
may mediate teachers’ understanding and implementation of PL. In the next section, I further
discuss the limitations of the current body of research, and explore how a study that is
theoretically-grounded in CHAT and sensemaking theory can help to attend to various gaps in
the literature.
Limitations of the current research. Together, the above themes in the research suggest
that how teachers make sense of and implement PL is shaped by factors at the individual,
49
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
organizational, and societal levels. For example, some of the reviewed research indicates that
teachers’ individual knowledge and beliefs may have implications for their understanding and
enactment of technology-mediated PL (e.g. (Ertmer, 2005; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002; Zhao,
Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). Other relevant research, including that on charter schools and,
specifically, “No Excuses” charter schools, suggests that the type of school in which a PL model
is implemented may also have some implications for teachers’ practices in that setting. Because
the existing research indicates that interactions within and among various individual and
contextual factors may shape teachers’ practices, particularly in a blended, PL charter school,
engaging CHAT and sensemaking theory together may be especially beneficial to a study of
these issues. Overall, existing research on PL models is almost non-existent. As I discuss in this
section, the research on PL models is scant, has not yet engaged theory to understand teachers’
practices in these models, and thus demonstrates several distinct gaps in the knowledge about
teaching in high-tech PL models. These gaps include lack of attention to teachers’ instruction in
PL models, limited research in the K-12 context, few studies focusing specifically on
personalization as the theory of action of these models, and a dearth of research grounded in
theory.
Teacher instruction and personalization. Few studies of digital learning school models
investigate instructional practices, particularly as those practices pertain to the goal of
personalization (Burch & Good, 2014). Existing research on PL models generally involves
simple description of possible mechanisms of personalization, including blended learning,
mastery- or competency-based grading, and individualized learning plans (Tanenbaum, Le
Floch, & Boyle, 2013), but not on whether or how these mechanisms are operationalized in
practice. There has yet to be any published research that examines how teachers interpret and act
50
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
on a theory of personalization in the day-to-day realities of their classrooms over time. Further,
no studies to date have examined teachers’ attempts to personalize their instruction utilizing a
theoretical lens that prioritizes an investigation of the artifacts that mediate personalization (e.g.
technological devices). Finally, researchers have yet to explore how teachers as individuals and
as members of their larger school communities understand, manage, and respond to tensions that
arise as they implement a new school model like PL. An analysis that attends to systemic
contradictions and whether and how those contradictions create opportunities for individual and
organizational change may shed some light on these issues.
In this dissertation study, I attend to the above gaps in the literature in several ways. First,
I focus on teachers’ instructional practice in a blended PL school model as it relates to
personalization. More specifically, I examine how teachers’ interpret and enact school-level
goals and priorities around personalization and how teachers’ interpretations of PL interact with
and feed back into the school as an organization to prompt school-level changes. Second, I
investigate the evolution of the school model and teachers’ practices over time and in relation to
key analytic moments – turning points in the construction of school-level goals and classroom
practices, including the introduction of new technologies, the integration of new staff, and
specific changes in the school model. Third, I utilize an integrated theoretical framework to
understand the mediators through which teachers understand and enact PL in a blended learning
school. In particular, I use CHAT to direct me to and help me understand specific components of
the school as an organization that influence how teachers interpret and enact PL. Integrating
sensemaking theory into my analysis supports me in zooming in on teachers’ interpretations to
understand how they make sense of and respond to school-level goals and systemic
contradictions. In sum, I use CHAT informed by sensemaking theory to explore contradictions
51
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
faced by teachers, to examine how teachers respond to these tensions and contradictions, to
identify particular sources of contradiction, and to understand how this process influences the
school as a system. In using CHAT and sensemaking theory together, I am able to look not only
at interactions among individual teacher understanding and organizational goals and priorities,
but also at unidirectional influences (e.g. how the types of technological tools available to
teachers influence classroom practice).
Level of schooling. Although current policy initiatives emphasize personalized learning
models in the K-12 context, and increasing numbers of K-12 students are enrolling in blended
and online school models, most of the existing research on online and blended models focuses on
higher education, rather than K-12 education. For example, one of the more prominent and most
cited studies on online and blended learning – a meta-analysis commissioned by the U.S.
Department of Education – includes only five studies (out of 48) that concern K-12 students
(Means at al., 2010; 2013). This lack of research on K-12 school models limits the applicability
of many current studies to teachers in K-12 contexts, highlighting the need for more research into
PL models that incorporate technology. In my research, I intend to provide a much needed
glimpse into a high-tech blended learning PL school serving secondary school students – a group
largely neglected by the research base.
Level of analysis. Studies of digital education and personalized learning have been
under-theorized and primarily limited to one level of analysis, often focusing on either the
individual teacher level, or the school level. Further, these studies have not attended to the
cultural-historical antecedents and factors influencing implementation and individual and
organizational change in these contexts. Teachers’ practice and implementation of instructional
reform is influenced by multiple factors, including teachers’ backgrounds and experiences (e.g.
52
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997), pedagogical beliefs and practices (e.g. Ertmer, 2005; 2010; Nespor,
1987; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002), and how teachers interpret and filter messages of reform (e.g.
Cohen, 1990; Spillane et al., 2002). However, as numerous scholars have noted, the complexities
inherent in implementation do not end at the individual level (Coburn, 2001; Spillane et al.,
2002). Reforms must also reckon with the embedded knowledge of the communities of practice
within the school (e.g. Coburn & Russell, 2008; Gallucci, 2003), teachers’ collegial relationships
and social networks (e.g. Coburn, Russell, Kaufman, & Stein, 2012; Daly, Moolenaar, Bolivar,
& Burke, 2010), and the multiple organizational and institutional structures in which teachers are
nested, including the state, district, and school in which the teacher operates (McLaughlin &
Talbert, 1993). By limiting the analysis to one level, there is correspondingly limited opportunity
for examining the interactions among levels that may have some bearing on teachers’
interpretations and actions around personalizing their instruction, the challenges they face in
doing so, and how school program design develops in response.
I intend to address this gap by employing an integrative theoretical frame that can attend
to multiple levels of analysis. Sensemaking theory provides a lens through which to analyze the
dynamic process of teachers’ individual and collective interpretations of program goals and how
those interpretations shape practice. CHAT offers a lens through which to attend to cultural-
historical factors, identify mediating components, and examine how the interactions among these
factors shape both individual practice and the school as a whole. The integration of these two
frames of analysis provides a mechanism for moving between levels of analysis to identify
contradictions faced at both the school- and individual-level, to analyze how teachers respond to
these contradictions, and how those responses construct and reconstruct the school as an activity
system. In incorporating sensemaking theory into CHAT, I can develop a much clearer picture of
53
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
teachers’ instructional practices and how those practices develop, evolve, and feed into the
development and possible transformation of the school. Moving between levels of analysis
allows me to better understand not only how the interactions of mediating factors at the school-
level influence individual practice, but also how the dynamic interactions at the individual-level
shape individual interpretations and the practices of the school as a whole. In so doing, I can
contribute to the research base both empirically and theoretically.
Theoretically-informed research. Finally, as indicated in each of the limitations noted
above, research on PL and on high-tech school models has typically been under-theorized
(Bingham, in press). This is a particularly critical limitation. Utilizing theory, particularly in
studies examining educational change and implementation, can help researchers more fully
attend to context and complexity (Lee, 2011). Theoretically-informed analyses can help to
explain decisions, events, or situations in a study (Kezar, 2006; Smith, 1999). For example, in
studying PL in context, utilizing theory can help me to understand the how and why behind
changes in organizational practices as well as how and why teachers’ practices develop as they
do, in relation to changes in organizational practices. Theoretically-rich research can thus
increase the transferability of a study to similar contexts. Theoretically-informed research can
also support researchers in looking at relationships, patterns, and interactions among individuals
and between individuals and the organization in which they operate. Further, theories like CHAT
and sensemaking offer a built-in language and rhetoric that presents researchers with the tools to
analyze phenomena. In this dissertation study, I attend to this critical gap in the research by
integrating and applying CHAT and sensemaking theory. Utilizing these two theories in tandem
pushes me past simple description of teachers’ practices, and helps me to understand how and
why practices develop as they do, probe the relationship between organizational and instructional
54
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
practices, and focus on the interactions between teacher’s individual sensemaking and belief
structures, and any changes in organizational practices.
Conclusion
Ultimately, there is a dearth of research around how teachers interpret and respond to the
goal of digitally-mediated PL in context and through a theoretically-grounded analysis. How
teachers interpret and apply a school’s vision for personalization, and the challenges they face in
doing so, will inevitably affect whether and how much students learn. It is not enough, however,
to examine teachers’ practices in isolation; rather, it is useful to frame teachers’ work in context
and with an eye on possible mediators (e.g. individual meaning-making processes, organizational
context, school vision and norms, school community, teachers’ backgrounds). To do so, I engage
CHAT and sensemaking theory, which I discuss in further detail in chapter three.

55
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL FRAMING
The purpose of this dissertation is to provide a better understanding of teachers’
instruction in a blended PL model. As mentioned in chapter two, a secondary aim of this
dissertation study is to apply theory to what is otherwise a theoretically-impoverished area of
study – high-tech PL. Scholars have indicated that in research on educational change and
implementation more generally, there are several difficulties or challenges to conducting
research in these contexts (schools where changes are being implemented). These difficulties
include: (1) a failure to fully understand the context in which the change is taking place; (2) the
tendency to shy away from complexity; (3) a tendency toward neutral analysis, rather than
sensitivity to how power and politics play a role in educational change; (4) inattention to emotion
and identity issues; and (5) inadequate monitoring of rapid innovation (Hargreaves, 2005; Lee,
2011; McLaughlin, 2008). Utilizing an integrated framework of cultural historical activity
theory
13
(CHAT) and sensemaking theory helps me to attend to these challenges and contribute
to the understanding of teachers’ instructional practices in a blended PL school.
In this study, I apply aspects of CHAT and sensemaking theory. From CHAT, I utilize
the concepts of the mediational triangle and the activity system, tensions and contradictions, and
expansive learning, focusing on how interactions among the factors in the activity system
influence practice, identifying contradictions and the sources of those contradictions in the
system, and examining how teachers’ responses to those tensions and contradictions drive
learning and changes in practice at both the individual- and school-level. From sensemaking
theory, I focus on aspects of both individual and collective sensemaking, including the concept

13
As cultural historical activity theory, or CHAT, and activity theory are used interchangeably in much of the
literature, I use both throughout this paper.
56
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
of schema and how existing schemas influence interpretation of program design and action
around instructional reform. In this chapter, I discuss key components of CHAT and
sensemaking, concluding with an explanation of how the use of CHAT informed by sensemaking
theory contributes to a highly-contextualized study of the development and evolution of teachers’
instructional practices in a blended PL school, and their sensemaking around the school’s vision
of personalized learning.
Cultural Historical Activity Theory
CHAT is grounded in the work of Vygotsky, Leont’ev, and Luria, founders of the
cultural historical school of Russian psychology (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999; Sannino,
Daniels, & Gutierrez, 2009a); Vygotsky’s ideas, in particular, undergird many of the current
variations of activity theory, though he did not specifically name it in his work (Lektorsky, 2009;
Vygotsky, 1978). Several contemporary scholars (See Engeström, 1987; 1999a; Cole &
Engeström, 1993; Sannino, Daniels, & Gutierrez, 2009a) built upon the work of these early
theorists to develop more contemporary versions of activity theory. At first, activity theorists
mainly attended to issues of learning, cognition, and child development. Vygotsky, in particular,
studied how children learn in and through social interactions (Vygotsky, 1978). This attention to
interactions became foundational to CHAT. As activity theory has grown in popularity, it is
increasingly being applied to issues of innovative organizational change (e.g. Engeström, Y.,
Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, 1995; Engeström, 1999; Engeström, 2009), organizational studies
(e.g. Blackler, 2009), and institutional practices (e.g. Makitalo & Saljo, 2009).
Philosophically, activity theory is rooted in the work of Marx (Engeström, 1999a;
Lektorsky, 2009). In Theses on Feuerbach, Marx demonstrates that “neither mechanical
materialism nor idealism will do” (1978[1845], p. 3), as materialism neglects human agency and
57
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
idealism places it all on the individual (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999). According to Marx
(1978[1845]), “[w]hat both [perspectives] are missing is the concept of activity that overcomes
and transcends the dualism between the individual subject and objective societal circumstances”
(p. 3). Activity theory thus developed as an attempt to focus analysis on human activity,
overcome the dichotomy between individual and structure, and encourage a dialectical
relationship between levels in order to offer a more complete analysis of individual and
organizational learning (Engeström, Miettinen, & Punamäki, 1999).
Basic Tenets of CHAT
CHAT is concerned with the learning processes of individuals; however, activity theorists
do not consider the individual to be the most generative unit of analysis (Bertelsen & Bødker,
2003). Rather, the organization within which the individual learns and operates, or the activity
system, is the unit of analysis (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999). With the activity system as the
unit of analysis, the researcher can analyze individual learning and understanding, while also
paying attention to actors and community members in the system, other salient organizational
factors, the history of localized practices in the system, and how these practices evolve over time
(Engeström, 1999a), all of which makes CHAT well-suited to analyses of teachers’ practices and
development, and organizational change, in context.
Engeström (2001) identifies five principles that undergird activity theory: (1) the activity
system – an object-oriented, artifact-mediated, collective system – is the unit of analysis; (2) the
activity system is multi-voiced – “the division of labour in an activity creates different positions
for participants, the participants carry their own diverse histories, and the activity system itself
carries multiple layers and strands of history engraven in its artefacts, rules and conventions” (p.
136); (3) the activity system is shaped and transformed over time; (4) contradictions and tensions
58
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
are central in development and transformation; (5) transformation in the system is possible over
time. Below, I discuss each of these principles in further detail.
Activity. The concept of activity is particularly important in CHAT. Human activity
within the system is object-oriented; the object is created by the subjects based on human needs
(Engeström, 1999a). Activity itself is the primary unit of human action and is
a specific form of the societal existence of humans consisting of purposeful changing of
natural and social reality…Any activity carried out by a subject includes goals, means,
the process of molding the object, and the results. In fulfilling the activity, the subjects
also change and develop themselves. (Davydov, 1999, p. 39)

In other words, activity is not the equivalent of action; rather, it is an attempt to change current
reality that is mediated by interacting factors in the activity system.
The activity system. The activity system is conceived of as “an evolving complex
structure of mediated and collective human agency” (Roth & Lee, 2007, p. 198). CHAT theorists
assume that learning and the development of practice is shaped by cultural, historical, and social
contexts, and that within these contexts, practice is mediated by the interactions and relationships
among the factors of the activity system in which the actor operates (Roth & Lee, 2007; Sannino,
Daniels, & Gutiérrez, 2009). These mediating factors, at minimum, include the Subjects
14
(the
participants engaged in the activity, whose point-of-view is chosen as the perspective of the
analysis), Tools or mediating artifacts
15
(tools, signs, and language that facilitate achieving
specific goals and are a product of history), Rules (conventions or norms), Community (others in
the system), Division of Labor (continuously negotiated division of responsibilities), and the
Object (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999; Engeström & Sannino, 2010). The Subjects create the
Object, which shifts continuously. The Object is not a goal, which implies specific actions.

14
I capitalize the components of the activity system to differentiate from when I am discussing “subjects,” “rules,”
or “tools” as more general concepts.
15
A consequence of mediating artifacts is that because they are simultaneously being shaped and shaping, being
used and being formed, they are simultaneously conceptual and material (Cole & Gajdamashiko, 2009).
59
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Rather, the Object “determines the horizon of possible actions” (Engeström, 1999b, p.381). The
Object of the activity is constructed and reconstructed as a result of the activity in the system, but
is never fully achieved as “innovation is best seen as a continuous process, with particular
product embodiments simply being arbitrary points along the way” (Von Hippel & Tyre, 1995,
p.12). The generalized Object of activity is connected to societal meaning, while the more
specific Object is connected to personal sensemaking and meaning-making (Engeström &
Sannino, 2010). The Outcome, rather than being the goal, is the result of the Object-oriented
activity. In conceiving of a blended learning PL school as the activity system, for example, the
Object of the activity in the system could be personalized learning and instruction, while the
Outcome would be the actual result of the activity toward that Object. The interacting
components of the activity system are typically conceptualized in the form of a triangular
heuristic (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 3.1. CHAT Mediational Triangle
60
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 3.2. Blended Academy as an Activity System
Tensions, contradictions, and expansive learning. Tensions and contradictions, created
by the interacting factors in the activity system, drive individual and organizational development
and change over time (Engeström, 1999). Tensions, or disturbances in the system, are defined as
“deviations from the normal scripted course of events in the work process, interpreted as
symptoms or manifestations of inner contradictions of the activity system in question.”
(Engeström & Sannino, 2011, p. 372). The contradictions in the activity system then are not
simply problems or conflicts (Engeström, 2001), they are “historically accumulating structural
tensions within and between activity systems” (p.137).
Activity theorists maintain that these tensions and contradictions are normal – in fact,
disequilibrium is fundamental in creating change and innovation (Cole & Engeström, 1993).
Tensions in the system may generate conflict or disturbances, but these tensions and any
resultant contradictions can ultimately lead to innovative attempts to change (Engeström, 2001).
61
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Tensions and contradictions are “accentuated by continuous transitions and transformations
between these components of an activity system, and between the embedded hierarchical levels
of collective motive-driven activity, individual goal-driven action, and automatic operations
driven by tools and conditions of action” (Engeström, & Miettinen, 1999, p.9).
CHAT organizes the interacting components of an activity system and its actors and, in
the context of school reform, provides a conceptual frame for analyzing teachers’ sensemaking
around the conflicting nature of these components and how they produce systemic changes or
evolutions in practice (Sannino et al., 2009a; 2009b). Changes in the activity system and in the
individuals therein occur via mediation through the process of externalization and internalization.
Internalization is the reproduction of culture within the system, which becomes critical self-
reflection as tensions increase in the system (Engeström, 1999b; Lektorsky, 2009).
Externalization is the process whereby solutions to problems in the system are sought.
Internalization and externalization are the two sides of activity (Lektorsky, 2009), and the drivers
of activity system transformation. In this dissertation study, I discuss this concept as expansive
learning (discussed in further detail below) or as organizational change – concrete changes in
how the school as an organization operates, including organizational structure, systemic goals,
and/or program design (Engeström, 1999b). This process is also known as the expansive learning
cycle.
The expansive learning cycle. The expansive learning cycle is the process through
which the activity system develops and transforms over time – the process of organizational
change. The object of expansive learning is the entire activity system in which the learners are
involved (Engeström, 2001) and this process is a developmental one, in which actors engage in
iterative internalization and externalization in an attempt to move toward an improved activity
62
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
system. The expansive cycle begins with internalization, in which actors in the system socialize
neophytes to become competent members of the current system (Engeström, 1999b). Then, as
individuals notice contradictions in the system, they attempt to innovate – the process of
externalization. As more discordances in the system arise, internalization becomes critical self-
reflection, and externalization becomes a search for solutions through which a (re)constructed
activity system can emerge (Engeström, 1999b, p. 35). The multivoicedness of the activity
system facilitates the expansive cycle through attention to and integration of the varying
perspectives and viewpoints of the actors in the system. If the contradictions are not resolved,
expansion does not occur.
Expansive learning can be understood as the “construction and resolution of successively
evolving contradictions” (Engeström & Sannino, 2010). According to Engeström (1999b), the
expansive learning cycle involves a process of identifying tensions and contradictions in the
system, and developing solutions as they arise and evolve, in order to push the system toward
transformation. The expansive cycle is marked by contradictions in the system that result in
learning and change, the development of solutions, and further contradictions (Engeström, 1987;
Virkkunen, 2009). These contradictions prompt cycles of questioning, individual and collective
learning, the development of new mediators and organizational arrangements,
reconceptualization of the Object of activity, and reflections that feed back into the system to
create new knowledge (Virkkunen, 2009). This is a process on which I focus in this dissertation
study.
63
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
There are four primary sources of contradiction in any given activity system. The
pervasive Primary
16
contradiction in a capitalist society is the contradiction between use-value
and exchange-value, inherent in commoditization, to which all parts of life are subject
(Engeström & Sannino, 2010). A primary contradiction can also occur within any component of
the activity system (e.g. the Object). Secondary contradictions similarly occur among elements in
the system. Tertiary contradictions develop from tensions between new and old elements of
activity. Finally, quaternary contradictions occur between central and ancillary activities or
between a transformed activity system and other activity systems (Engeström & Sannino, 2010).
This cycle of contradictions represents the dynamic nature of knowledge creation, and the
production and reproduction of activity systems. Throughout this process, solutions are identified
and enacted, more contradictions emerge, and Objects of activity change.
Engeström’s (1987; 1999b) concept of knowledge, based on Vygotskian ideas (1978), is
that the development of knowledge is based on the interplay between theory and praxis, or the
abstract and the concrete (Virkkunen, 2009). For Engeström (1999b), “[a]scending from the
abstract to the concrete is achieved through specific epistemic or learning actions. Together these
actions form an expansive cycle” (p. 383). The process of expansion provides a roadmap for the
analysis of organizational change and evolution in a given activity system. In the context of a
blended learning charter school with a theory of action of personalization, this process attends to
individual and systemic change, how practice evolves over time, and to the expansive learning
that may or may not occur. Finally, in pursuit of informing practice, an analysis of expansive

16
Throughout this dissertation study, I distinguish between a Primary contradiction (between use-value and
exchange-value) and a primary contradiction (a contradiction located within a specific component of an activity
system). When Primary is capitalized, it indicates the foundational Primary contradiction in a capitalist society.

64
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
learning can identify learning actions that allow actors to move from abstract ideas to concrete
actions.
CHAT in Educational Research
Embracing the idea that the individual and the structure in which the individual is situated
are inextricably intertwined, several education scholars have turned to CHAT to study teachers
and teacher learning in context (e.g. Anderson & Stillman, 2013; Cook, Smagorinsky, Fry,
Konopak, & Moore, 2002; Stillman, 2011). For example, Stillman (2011) uses concepts from
CHAT to examine how teachers learn in the context of policy change, and how they respond to
and represent standards-based reforms in their practice. Stillman demonstrates, via an expanded
mediational model of teacher learning, the tensions each teacher experienced in response to
accountability demands, and how different mediators (e.g. Division of Labor, Community,
Rules) influenced variations in teacher learning. According to Stillman, key among these
mediators was the principal of each teacher’s school, who influenced how much tension teachers
experienced, and how productive the tensions were in improving instruction (p. 167).
Few researchers have utilized CHAT to analyze educational technology and teacher
change as they relate to each other in K-12 settings. In one example, the researcher used CHAT
to analyze how contradictions impeded or facilitated teachers’ technology use in the classroom
(Karasavvidis, 2009). The author found that there were several contradictions that influenced
teachers’ technology use: (1) contradictions in the Object of activity – teachers were more
concerned with teaching the curriculum than with student learning; (2) contradictions between
the Object of activity (curriculum delivery) and the Tools (technology) – the virtual learning
environment was not set up in such a way so as to pursue the Object of their activity; (3) and
contradictions between the current Object of activity (curriculum delivery) and the proposed
65
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Object of activity (facilitating learning through a virtual environment). This could also be
conceived of as a contradiction within the Object of activity.
Each of the aforementioned studies demonstrate how CHAT can be used as a frame of
analysis in investigating teacher practice and how that practice varies based on contextual factors
and individual experiences, as well as the usefulness of CHAT in investigating issues of
implementation. In chapter four, I further discuss how CHAT informs my chosen methodology.
Strengths of a CHAT Framework
There are several advantages to using CHAT as a theoretical frame in investigating
teacher practice and implementation in a blended PL school model. First, activity theory attends
to individual- and school-level mediating factors as well as to cultural-historical context. Given
the complex nature of instructional reform, implementation, and teacher practice, this makes
CHAT a generative frame of analysis. CHAT also attends to disruptions, innovations, and other
unexpected developments – a strength that is especially beneficial when examining the process
of implementation and the development of teacher practice, particularly in the context of
innovative reforms. As Engeström (1999a) notes,
Actions are not fully predictable, rational, and machine-like. The most well-planned and
streamlined actions involve failures, disruptions, and unexpected innovations. These are
very difficult to explain if one stays at the level of actions. The analysis of the activity
system may illuminate the underlying contradictions that give rise to those failures and
innovations as if ‘behind the backs’ of the conscious actors. (p.32)

Second, CHAT is well-suited to investigating how innovative teaching practices evolve
over time. In attending to the construction and reconstruction of the Object of the activity system
through the expansive learning cycle, as well as the interactions among the components of the
activity system, CHAT bounds a study to the activity system, but still allows for analysis of the
continuous negotiations in the system that may transform it. CHAT also reframes tensions and
66
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
contradictions in practice as the impetus for school change and instructional reform, rather than
framing tensions and contradictions as negative occurrences to be avoided (Lee, 2010, p. 406). In
conceptualizing individual, collective, and organizational change as expansive learning, CHAT
is ideal for investigating phenomena longitudinally. In the same vein, using CHAT as a
theoretical frame in conjunction with case study contributes to the transferability (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985) of a study; analyses of the contradictions in one study or setting “not only supplies a
blueprint for a local solution, but contributes to a wider understanding of the contradictions in the
social sector and possible ways of solving them” (Miettinen, 2009, p. 166).
Finally, CHAT can re-frame teacher learning as both influencing and being influenced by
the collective activity system in which teachers are situated. As Engeström and Sannino (2010)
note,
When whole collective activity systems…need to redefine themselves, traditional modes
of learning are not enough. Nobody knows exactly what needs to be learned. The design
of the new activity and the acquisition of knowledge and skills it requires are intertwined.
In expansive learning theory, they merge. (p. 3)

Limitations of a CHAT Framework
CHAT also has demonstrable limitations. For example, Roth (2009) asserts that CHAT
scholars have yet to take into account the “agentive dimensions of activity, including identity,
emotion, ethics, and morality, or derivative concepts, such as motivation, identification,
responsibility, and solidarity – all of which are integral to concrete praxis and its singular nature”
(p. 53). These dimensions of activity may influence teachers’ classroom practices, as well as
their interpretations of instructional reform. As I discuss in further detail later in this chapter and
in chapter six, using sensemaking theory in conjunction with CHAT helps to address this
limitation by specifically attending to the influence of expectations, emotions, and identity on the
sensemaking process.
67
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Given the complexity of learning to teach in a new way (using a blend of technology and
face-to-face instruction), with new tools (a digital curriculum, computers, and other
technological devices), toward a new theory of action (personalized learning), in a new
environment (a blended PL charter high school), I intend to use CHAT to provide an overarching
framework for examining teachers’ understanding and enactment of PL in context. However, as
noted above, there are limitations to the CHAT framework. In light of these limitations, I turn to
sensemaking theory to strengthen activity theory as a framework.
Sensemaking Theory
In conjunction with CHAT, I apply sensemaking theory to analyze micro-processes of
individual and collective interpretation and understanding. More specifically, the addition of
sensemaking theory to CHAT is critical to attending to the roles of emotion and identity, and to
multiple levels of change over time, as it allows the researcher to zoom in on individual
processes, while also keeping an eye on shifting context.
Basic Tenets of Sensemaking Theory
Sensemaking theorists aim to understand individuals’ processes of generating
interpretations – specifically, how individuals interpret messages from their environment, why
and through what processes they make those interpretations, and how those interpretations shape
and reshape the environment in which those individuals interact (Weick, 1995). In policy
implementation research, sensemaking theory is an attempt to understand how actors interpret
the pressures they receive and how they act on those pressures in the context of reform (Spillane
et al., 2002). As with CHAT, according to sensemaking theorists, the process of sensemaking is
triggered by situations, such as the process of reform, in which individuals experience tensions,
discordances, ambiguities, environmental uncertainties, or turbulence in their environments
68
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
(Duncan, 1972; Starbuck & Milliken, 1988; Weick, 1988; Weick, 1995). Actions taken in
response to these situations are connected to an individual’s understanding and interpretation,
which is influenced by the organizational context in which the individual operates and the other
people in that context with whom the individual interacts (Weick, 1995). Through the
sensemaking process, individual and collective interpretations within an organization feed back
into the organization to promote or hinder changes. The process of sensemaking is thus
simultaneously anticipatory and restrospective – an attempt to reconcile what is happening, with
what has happened, and with what will happen in the future (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstelt, 2005).
Factors Affecting Sensemaking
As indicated above, when and how people interpret, filter, and understand any reform is
dependent on the situation that prompted the sensemaking. However, sensemaking is also
influenced by individuals’ cognitive schemas and other salient individual and organizational
factors.
Schemas. Individuals’ existing knowledge structures, or schemas, are the mechanisms
through which individuals connect abstract ideas with concrete everyday actions (Weick et al.,
2005). These schemas are more than just a collection of prior experiences and associations;
rather, schemas encode causal explanations for how the world operates (Markus & Zajonc, 1985;
Keil, 1989). Accessing schemas allow individuals to encode and categorize information that they
receive, and essentially “fill in the blanks” through a process of top-down comprehension
(Brewer & Nakamura; Spillane et al., 2002). Schemas are integral to sensemaking in that
accessing schemas allows individuals to make predictions about the world, anticipate future
events, and interpret information that may be ambiguous or unclear (Brewer & Nakamura, 1984;
Higgens, 1996; Rumelhart, 1980). Schemas also lead people to have certain expectations about
69
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
reforms that may lead them to attend to information that confirms, rather than challenges their
expectations (Olson, Roese, & Zanna, 1996; Spillane, Reiser, & Gomez, 2006). Schemas are
heavily influenced by that individual’s prior experiences, beliefs, practices, and attitudes
(Spillane et al., 2002; Yanow, 1996). These extant understandings, experiences, beliefs, and
attitudes can hinder or facilitate the implementation of a reform.
Emotion and identity. Sensemaking is an inherently emotional process, especially in
education, as educational reforms are often (or always) value-laden (Schmidt & Datnow, 2005;
Spillane, et. al., 2002). For teachers, some reform initiatives can produce positive emotions,
while reforms that engender conflict or ambiguity can produce negative emotions (Schmidt,
2000). How teachers feel about the reforms infuses the sensemaking process with emotion and
thereby influences how teachers implement the reform (Weick, 1995).
Sensemaking is also where meaning informs or constrains identity (Weick et al., 2005).
An individual’s identity as a member of an organization can shape what is enacted, and how
reforms are interpreted. This process influences what outsiders think of and how they treat the
actors in the organization, stabilizing or destabilizing organizational identity, which in turn
shapes the actors’ identities (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991;Weick et al., 2005). In policy research,
for example, a reform or policy initiative can lead to individual identity (re)construction within
an organization and to the (re)construction of the identity of the oganization as a whole. The
influence of emotion and identity is key to the sensemaking process – integrating sensemaking
theory into my theoretical framing adds a key dimension missing from CHAT.
Social interaction and organizational context. Social interaction is also a critical
component of sensemaking (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Weick, 1995). The embedded knowledge
of an organization manifests in common beliefs and practices that have a distinct influence on
70
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
sensemaking, activity, and implementation (Coburn & Russell, 2008; Spillane et al., 2002).
Sensemaking in situ is particularly complex as context can involve professional identities,
communities, and organizational structure, as well as traditions and organizational history
(Spillane et al., 2002). For example, existing structures that facilitate interactions among staff
can facilitate instructional innovations and restructuring (Little, 1993; Louis, Marks, & Kruse,
1996).
External representations and policy signals. Any meaning-making that occurs is also a
function of the policy signals and external representations used by policymakers to communicate
the intentions of the reform (Spillane et al., 2002; Spillane et al., 2006). These external
representations add another layer of complexity to sensemaking, as they also reflect the
interpretations of those who designed the reform (Bannon, 1995; Becker, 1986). A sensemaking
frame suggests that reconstructing practice does not simply rely on receiving information, as
individuals may see abstract policy ideas as only requiring small changes (Cohen, 1990; Cohen
& Ball, 1990). Here again, the addition of sensemaking adds a key dimension to CHAT –
organizational messaging and external representations are not explicitly part of a CHAT
framework, but are indelibly connected to implementation.
Assimilation, Accommodation, and Schema Reconstruction
Sensemaking theorists argue that agents respond to attempts to restructure practice
through assimilation, accommodation, and schema reconstruction (Spillane et al., 2002).
Assimilation is a process by which actors attempt to fit reforms into their existing frameworks –
to make the unfamiliar, familiar (Spillane et al., 2002), while accommodation requires a
restructuring of existing knowledge frames (Piaget, 1972). Substantively changing teacher
beliefs or practices, as may be required in a blended PL school, might require accommodation
71
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
leading to schema reconstruction. Any change that results from these possible responses to
reform lies on a continuum of change that both influences and is influenced by actors’
sensemaking. Incremental change requires almost no restructuring of current knowledge frames,
while change that requires growth leaves extant purposes and expectations intact. Finally, there
may be change that represents loss for the implementing agent because it necessitates
discrediting existing frames and schemas (Marris, 1975; Spillane et al., 2002). Substantive
change requiring schema reconstruction is difficult to achieve. The concepts of assimilation,
accommodation, and schema reconstruction are integral to this dissertation study, adding yet
another dimension to CHAT that allows me to zoom in on individual-level processes to explore
how individual practices and organizational changes interact.
Sensemaking in Educational Research
Sensemaking in educational research has been used extensively to examine policy
implementation in schools and classrooms. For example, in a study examining how teachers
make sense of a new reform, and what factors influence that sensemaking, Coburn (2005) found
that principals play a pivotal role in teacher sensemaking around and implementation of reading
policy. Specifically, principals influenced teacher sensemaking by shaping access to the policy
ideas, participating in the social process of sensemaking, and creating the conditions for teacher
learning. This study demonstrates how sensemaking can help researchers to identify the factors
that influence sensemaking, and thus how sensemaking influences implementation and practice.
Strengths of a Sensemaking Framework
A strength of sensemaking theory is that it adds the process of individual interpretation
and filtering to more traditional views of implementation. Implementation scholars have offered
many different explanations for how individuals implement policy, including unclear policy
72
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
goals, lack of supervision or procedures, or unwillingness to change (Spillane et al., 2002).
However, as Spillane and colleagues note, the conventional explanations for failed policy
implementation neglect to fully acknowledge the complexity of human sensemaking; instead
these explanations place much of the onus of implementation failure on individuals willfully
misinterpreting policy to fit their own aims. Thus, Spillane and colleagues argue for using a
sensemaking framework that takes into account that
Policy messages are not inert, static ideas that are transmitted unaltered into local actors'
minds to be accepted, rejected, or modified to fit local needs and conditions. Rather, the
agents must first notice, then frame, interpret, and construct meaning for policy messages.
Conceptualizing the problem of implementation in this way focuses attention on how
implementing agents construct the meaning of a policy message and their own behavior,
and how this process leads or does not lead to a change in how they view their own
practice, potentially leading to changes in both understanding and behavior. (p. 392)

Another strength of sensemaking theory is that it can offer a multi-pronged approach to
understanding implementation and changes in practice. A sensemaking analysis takes into
account issues of emotion and identity, and provides a “micro-mechanism” that may produce
“macro-change” over time (Weick et al., 2005, p.419). Using sensemaking theory as a frame of
analysis can provide a “description of one means by which agency alters institutions and
environments (enactment) [and] opportunities to incorporate meaning and mind into
organizational theory” (Weick et al., 2005, p.419). These are primary goals in choosing a
theoretical frame for my work – understanding the nature of individual sensemaking and how
that sensemaking shapes practice individually and organizationally, and integrating issues of
meaning-making and mind (particularly beliefs, identity, and emotion) into the study of a school
as an organization in flux. As CHAT stops short of truly integrating the sensemaking process
into the analysis of how individuals shape and reshape the activity system, sensemaking provides
greater analytic power.
73
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Limitations of a Sensemaking Framework
A significant limitation of sensemaking theory is that it may exaggerate individual
agency, and as a result, may do little to address the influence of the institution or the wider
societal context (Spillane et al., 2002). Sensemaking theorists often discuss the process of
sensemaking, using words like “construct,” “enact,” and “generate,” but rarely discuss the
sensemaking process in terms such as “react,” or “comply with,” which suggests that
sensemaking may not consider that individuals internalize or adopt what is communicated to
them in a larger context (Weick et al., 2005). Conceiving of sensemaking this way
neglects evidence showing that organizational members are socialized (indoctrinated)
into expected sensemaking activities and that firm behavior is shaped by broad cognitive,
normative, and regulatory forces that derive from and are enforced by powerful actors
such as mass media, governmental agencies, professions, and interest groups. (p. 417)

However, integrating sensemaking and CHAT provides an inclusive frame that attends to the
limitations and draws on the strengths of each theory.
From Meaning-Making to Expansive Learning: An Inclusive Frame of Analysis
CHAT and sensemaking each complement the other as frames of analysis. Examining teachers’
instructional practices in context requires moving the analysis from individual actions and
mediating factors to the broader activity system and back again – a process emphasized in a
CHAT analysis (Engeström, 1999a). Using activity theory informed by sensemaking facilitates
this process by providing an additional lens with which to zoom in on particular aspects of the
activity system; namely, the inner workings of the “Subjects” and the process of meaning-
making that takes place as individuals within the activity system shape and reshape the “Object”
to impact the “Outcome” and change the system. Together these theoretical lenses draw out the
individual, collective, organizational, institutional, and societal elements that interact to influence
practice and shape the school as a system. See Figure 3.3 for a visual representation of how I
74
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
integrate CHAT and sensemaking theory. Double-headed arrows indicate areas of tension that
could serve as sources of contradiction. Contradiction can also arise from tensions within any
node of the activity system.

Figure 3.3. Integrating Sensemaking Theory and CHAT
In this dissertation study, there are several aspects of each theory that will play especially
important roles in my research. Sensemaking is grounded in both the individual and the social
activity in which that individual participates (Weick, 1995), making it ideal for an analysis of
how teachers interpret and enact personalized learning in their classrooms. In particular, the
concept of schemas allows me to look at how teachers’ prior experiences and beliefs appear to
shape how they respond to the school model and how they attempt to personalize their
instruction. Further, an understanding of teachers’ schemas may offer some insight into how and
why the subjects shape and reshape the Object of their activity, both individually and
collectively. Conceiving of schools as activity systems represented by the mediational triangle,
75
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
as is common in activity theoretical approaches, not only takes this sensemaking process into
account, but also considers the role of technology as a mediating Tool or artifact, the tensions
and discordances in system, the interacting factors that lead to tensions and disruptions, how
actors in the system respond to and resolve contradictions that manifest in these tensions and
disruptions, and whether and how those responses lead to changes through the expansive
learning cycle. Identifying the sources of and responses to contradictions also allows for me to
identify key turning points in the development of both individual understanding and
organizational change.
Activity theory frames tensions and contradictions as sensemaking triggers that allow for
change to happen and progress to be made (Engeström, 1999, 2001; Sannino et al., 2009). The
expansive learning cycle as described by activity theorists, further parses out how both individual
and collective change occurs in the system and how tensions and contradictions spark cycles of
re-conceptualization and reflection that can resolve contradictions and lead to an evolution of
practice and (re)production of the system. The combination of sensemaking theory and activity
theory thus forces the researcher to “grapple with shifts in the enactments of curricular reforms
over time in particular classrooms rather than averaging the differences” (Spillane, Reiser, and
Reimer, 2002, p. 412). Using these theories in tandem pushes me past simple description of the
goings-on in the classroom and allows me to: (1) analyze how technology mediates instruction
and understand how technology as a mediator might act as a disturbance that creates or hinders
opportunities for change; (2) identify key turning points in the development of teachers’
instructional practices and the PL model; and (3) develop explanations for how and why school
design and instructional practices develop as the do. In pursuit of a multi-level, in-depth analysis
76
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
such as that encouraged by CHAT and sensemaking, as well as by my particular interests, I turn
to a research design that can meet these multi-dimensional demands: qualitative case study.

77
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
As discussed in chapter two, research lags behind the growth and implementation of
high-tech PL models. Though PL, and blended learning as a mechanism of personalization,
implies certain changes in teachers’ roles and practices in the classroom, how teachers conceive
of and act on a school vision of PL in these schools is still not understood. Further, there has yet
to be any theoretically-grounded research that investigates how the interactions among various
mediating factors, at multiple levels, influence teachers’ practices and school design. Researchers
have yet to examine teachers’ instructional practices aimed at technology-mediated PL through
lenses which consider larger context and mediating contextual factors in conjunction with the
individual sensemaking processes around issues of instruction in these settings. Of particular
consequence are the tensions and contradictions faced by teachers and how they respond to those
tensions and contradictions in the process of interpreting program goals and developing their
instructional practices in response to those goals.
Study Overview
Rigorous, longitudinal examination of the execution and evolution of PL models and
teachers’ roles and practices in high-tech PL environments can be a critical step toward
identifying how blended schools and PL models differ from traditional public schools, and how,
if at all, they impact student outcomes. As Miettinen (1999) notes, “[i]f we want to transcend the
limitations of traditional school learning, it is important to analyze the nature and conditions of
school learning and the germs of qualitatively new kinds of teaching and learning within the
school” (p. 325). As this is the primary goal of PL, particularly in the context of a blended
78
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
learning school model, it is critical to investigate this phenomenon in-depth and over time.
Consequently, this study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What is the nature of teacher practice in a blended learning charter high school with a
theory of action of personalized learning?
2. How do teachers interpret the school’s program goals and underlying theory of action?
3. What, if any, are the systemic contradictions that develop around technology-mediated
personalization?
4. How, if at all, do systemic contradictions and teachers’ interpretations of those
contradictions interact to shape school design and teachers’ practices over time?
As my research questions required a longitudinal, in-depth analysis of teachers’ lived
experiences in a particular setting – a blended PL charter school – I employed qualitative case
study, which supports explorations of issues of process and meaning (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992;
Merriam, 1988), and of participants’ situated experience (Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002).
Specifically, I conducted a qualitative, single institution, embedded case study of Blended
Academy,
17
a blended charter high school in a large urban area that primarily serves
traditionally-underserved students – low-income students, students of color, and in particular,
students at the intersection of these two often marginalized groups. By choosing a single
institution as the primary case, and looking at this case in-depth and over time, I was able to
conduct a rich examination of the design of the school, the designed theory of action
(personalized learning), and the introduction of new technologies and practices at the school
level. Viewing the school in its entirety as an activity system – the bounded unit of analysis in
CHAT, described as “an evolving complex structure of mediated and collective human agency”
(Roth & Lee, 2007, p. 198) – provided me with the tools necessary to identify disturbances and

17
Pseudonym
79
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
contradictions that created both opportunities for and hindrances to school and instructional
change. In this case, the activity system is bounded at the school level, and includes all mediating
components dictated by the tenets of CHAT (Rules, Community, Division of Labor, Subjects,
Tools, Object, and Outcome). However, I also include embedded cases to facilitate further
analysis of individual meaning-making and to zoom in on how teachers translate school design to
practice.
The embedded cases in this study consist of two English language arts teachers and two
social studies teachers at various grade levels. These embedded case teachers were chosen
through a process of purposeful sampling (Creswell, 1998), in which I selected individual
teachers who: (1) had considerable knowledge and experience about the phenomenon under
investigation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011); (2) represented a cross-section of experience; and
(3) were willing and able to fully participate in this dissertation study (Bernard, 2002; Spradley,
1979). I specifically chose the English and social studies teachers for several reasons. First,
these teachers exemplified varying levels of teaching experience (both within and beyond BA),
which allowed me to examine how teachers’ interpretations of PL and classroom practices
toward that aim varied across teachers of different backgrounds and experiences. Second, the
English and humanities teachers at BA were responsible for teaching reading, writing, and
analysis in this school, which translates into all subject areas. Third, English comprised a
majority of the school’s Academic Performance Index (API), making English scores a key
measure of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under No Child Left Behind. This was particularly
important in this school context because BA is a charter school and is held to specific
accountability requirements around API and AYP. Finally, in this study, teachers’ availability
and willingness to participate in an in-depth study of their experiences and practices was critical
80
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
to collecting adequate meaningful data (Bernard, 2002; Spradley, 1979). I thus chose these
particular teachers because they my key informants and I was able to develop particularly close
relationships with them, which made them willing and able to share their experiences.
In sum, using single institution, embedded case study and conducting a longitudinal
investigation allows me to gain a nuanced understanding of teachers’ instructional practices at
the intersection of accountability, technology, and personalization. Using CHAT and
sensemaking theory to inform my analysis, I sought to conduct a highly-contextualized, richly
theorized study that can contribute a better understanding of the multi-level factors influencing
teachers’ meaning-making, instructional practice, and organizational change in a high-tech PL
school environment. Additionally, I aimed to gain a better understanding of the possible linkages
between individual sensemaking, systemic contradictions, and changes in organizational
practices in order to generate future lines of analysis and inform future research. In what follows,
I further discuss and provide rationale for conducting a qualitative case study (Stake, 1995; 2000;
Yin, 2014). I first give a brief description of qualitative methodology, followed by a general
overview of case study design. Next, I describe how case study was applied, paying particular
attention to research setting, units of analysis, data collection, and data analysis. Finally, I
examine issues of transferability and trustworthiness, as well as discuss limitations to the case
study method.
Qualitative Methodology
Qualitative studies are appropriate for researchers who are interested in issues of process
and meaning (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Merriam, 1988), and in participants’ situated experiences
(Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002). In addition, qualitative methodology allows for fluidity in the
research design; as data is collected and analyzed and as the researcher spends time in the field,
81
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
data needs, study foci, and research questions may evolve (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Hatch, 2002;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Qualitative methods are naturalistic, and focus on understanding
participants’ experiences in their natural setting (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Denzin & Lincoln,
2011; Eisner, 1991; Hatch, 2002; Lincoln & Guba; 1985). Qualitative inquiry often encourages
researchers to collect a wide variety of data, and spend extensive time in the field (Erickson,
1986; Merriam, 1988), which may garner a deeper, more descriptive understanding of the
research site and the participants therein (Erickson, 1986; Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995). Because
I was interested in how participants make meaning of their experiences, and in the process of
developing high-tech teaching practices in context and over time, qualitative methods were most
appropriate for this study (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Hatch, 2002).
Case Study
Case study is a detailed, in-depth, contextualized exploration of a given event or issue of
interest (Stake, 2000). In case study research, the dialectical nature of interviewing, naturalistic
observation, and in-depth document analysis is used to illuminate the experiential knowledge of
the participants (Stake, 1995). As I situated my analysis in sensemaking and activity theories,
case study is an especially useful research method, as it is highly contextualized, encourages the
collection of a variety of data, and approaches problems of practice from a holistic perspective
(Merriam, 1988). Further, a single, embedded case study design facilitates shifting the level of
analysis from the organizational to the individual level and back again by providing multiple
units of analysis – the case as a whole (easily translatable to the activity system), and embedded
units of analysis within the case (which can facilitate analysis of individual sensemaking
processes). Finally, case study design encourages analysis of external environmental factors that
82
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
may impact the case (Stake, 1978; Yin, 2003). These characteristics allow for an examination of
the whole case, and the actors within the case.
A case study design is characterized by several features. First, case study research is “not
a methodological choice but a choice of what is to be studied” (Stake, 2000, p. 443); case study
scholars place great importance on purposefully choosing and bounding the case by both time
and place (e.g. Stake 1995; Merriam, 1988). Second, case study design encourages collecting
extensive, multiple sources of data in order to develop an in-depth, contextualized understanding
of the case and of the participants’ experiences (Stake 1995; Stake, 2000; Merriam, 1988). Third,
case study researchers often spend considerable time in the field, so as to better situate the case,
and further contextualize participant experience (Yin, 1984; Merriam, 1988). Finally, case study
reports involve rich, thick description (Geertz, 1973), so that readers better understand the
context of the case, and can determine the applicability of the case to other contexts (Stake,
2000). In case study design, the focus on experiential knowledge and contextualized
understanding provides vicarious experience for readers of the research, which allows for the co-
construction of knowledge both between researchers and participants and researchers and readers
(Stake, 2000).
Types of case study. Case study scholars differ in how they categorize types of case
study. Yin (1984, 2003) breaks case studies into three categories: exploratory, explanatory, and
descriptive; differentiating between single and multiple case studies, and segmenting these into
two categories: holistic (single unit of analysis) and embedded (multiple units of analysis). Stake
(1995, 2000) also posits that there are three categories of case study: intrinsic, in which the case
itself is of primary interest; instrumental, in which the case is meant to glean a more general
understanding of a particular issue; and collective, in which the researcher studies several cases
83
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
within a project. For this dissertation study, I situate my case study description in the work of
Stake (1978; 1995; 2000) and Yin (1984; 2009).
Reflected in my research design is my desire to capture the understanding and enactment
of PL, both in individual- and school-level practices. As such, I conducted a single, instrumental
case study (Stake, 1995; 2000), with embedded units of analysis (Yin, 2014). Instrumental case
study is utilized to examine a case which the researcher has deemed to be illustrative of a
particular phenomenon and which may be used to provide insight into a particular issue (Stake,
1995; 2000). The case is chosen because of its representativeness and then bounded according to
the parameters of the issue in the particular case. For this study then, PL as enacted by teachers
in practice is the issue of interest. Teachers’ practices in their classrooms and the goings-on in
the school itself represent the boundaries of the case study as a whole. Embedded units of
analysis – four teachers selected as cases within the case – are bounded to the experiences and
actions of those particular teachers. This case is also bounded by my time in the field – data
collection took place over the course of five semesters, from the fall of the 2012-2013 school
year through the fall semester of the 2014-2015 school year. My time in the field was both
purposeful and convenient – I collected data over the course of two and a half years, which
allowed me to garner a longitudinal view of the school and its teachers, but I was bound by time
constraints around completing this dissertation study, which led me to complete my data
collection after five semesters.
Research Setting and History
The setting for this study is Blended Academy (BA) – a blended, charter high school
located in a large, urban area. See Table 4.1 for a summary of school demographics.

84
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Table 4.1.

Summary of School Demographics

Year Enrollment Demographics API
2012-2013 124 African American: 26%
Latino: 64%
Socioeconomically disadvantaged: 86%
English learners: 35%
Students with disabilities: 12%
N/A
2013-2014 225 African American: 24%
Latino: 68%
Socioeconomically disadvantaged: 80%
English learners: 13%
Students with disabilities: 12%
778
2014-2015 300 African American: 34%
Latino: 60%
Socioeconomically disadvantaged: 78%
English learners: 13%
Students with disabilities: 12%
TBD

Blended Academy was run by a Charter Management Organization (CMO). BA’s CMO
was a new CMO whose focus was on innovation in education via educational technology. The
CMO planned to replicate the BA model, opening additional schools in the 2015-2016 school
year. As historicity and background are important aspects of both CHAT and sensemaking, in
this section, I discuss why I chose BA as my case and provide some further information on my
participants – in particular, I focus on the personal backgrounds of my embedded case teachers,
in order to provide an understanding of who they are as teachers, and of their personal beliefs
about teaching and learning. I provide further detail about the background, history, and relevant
aspects of the school in chapter five.
Sampling
My sampling strategy for this study was a combination of purposive sampling (choosing
a site because it exemplifies a desired characteristic – this case, BA was a blended PL school);
critical case sampling (choosing a site because it may permit logical generalizations to
85
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
comparable sites); and opportunistic sampling (taking advantage of unexpected opportunities)
(Creswell, 1998; Patton, 1990). I ultimately selected BA as a research site for several reasons.
First, I was originally part of a research team commissioned to evaluate the first year of BA.
Ultimately, this allowed me to spend almost three years in the school and build rapport with the
teachers, administrators, and staff. Second, during the evaluation study, interesting themes began
to emerge, which led me to formulate research questions around the roles and practices of
teachers in the school, as well as the changes that occurred throughout the implementation of the
school model. Third, BA is a charter school primarily serving traditionally-underserved students
that is attempting to implement a blended learning model based on a theory of action of
personalization. As there are few extant studies investigating PL models that focus on serving
these students, conducting research at BA offered an important perspective – charter schools are
often the sights of such innovation, and often serve greater numbers of marginalized students
(Bulkley & Fisler, 2003; Goldring & Cravens, 2008), making this study more transferable to
other similar contexts. Finally, because the school was opening its doors for the first time, I was
able to trace the development of teachers’ practices, and changes in the school model throughout
the first, second, and third years of implementation, allowing for a longitudinal, situated, and
deeply contextual look at the school’s and the teachers’ development over time.
Participants
The primary participants in the study are BA’s teachers
18
though I also draw on data from
administrators, the CEO, students, and CMO board members. The school had five original
teachers. In the second year (2013-2014), the school grew to 13 teachers. BA also added a data
and compliance coordinator, a director of information technology, and a chief operating officer.

18
The teachers taught ninth graders in the first year, as this was the first year of the school; however, the content
taught ranged from third-grade to twelfth-grade standards. In the second year, teachers taught ninth and tenth grade.
In the third year, teachers taught grades nine through eleven.
86
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
In the third year of data collection (2014-2015), the staff at BA grew again to include four
additional content teachers at the eleventh grade level. Of the participants in the study, I
developed especially close relationships with several teachers – Ms. H, Ms. A, Ms. L, and Ms. Z
– who have become my key informants and ultimately served as my embedded cases (Yin, 1984;
2009). My analysis maintains a holistic focus on the school as a case; however, zooming in on
these teachers offered a deeper understanding of teacher practice and experiences in the school.
Thus, in later chapters, I focus on their practices and sensemaking processes to illustrate the
nature of teacher practice at BA, discuss how they made sense of the school’s theory of action,
and explore how these teachers encountered and responded to systemic contradictions. In this
way, BA, as a case of a blended PL charter school, served as the primary unit of analysis as the
activity system, but these few teachers served as nested cases to further narrow the analysis (Yin,
2009). See Table 4.2 for summary information on embedded case study teachers and Table 4.3
for summary information of other key participants.

87
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Table 4.2

Embedded Case Teachers

Teacher Content Area and Grade
Level
Education Teaching Experience
Ms. H Master Literacy (Year 1)
English 9 (Year 2)
Assistant Principal (Year 3)
Ed.D. Twelve years of teaching experience
Taught online education courses at UCLA
Extension
Ms. A English 10 (Years 2 and 3) M.A. Current head of grade level team
Five years of teaching experience
Former Teach For America Corps
Member
Ms. L Humanities 9 (Year 2)
U.S. History 11 (Year 3)
B.A. Teach For America Corps Member
First year teacher in year two
Ms. Z Social Studies 10 (Years 1
and 2)
Left school after year 2
Ed.D. Five years of teaching experience

Table 4.3

Other Key Participants

Name Role (Year 1) Role (Year 2) Role (Year 3)
Mr. O N/A Acting principal
CEO of BA’s CMO
CEO of BA’s CMO
Mr. W Founder N/A N/A
Mrs. P Founding Principal N/A N/A
Ms. U Founding Assistant Principal N/A N/A
Ms. E N/A Assistant Principal Assistant Principal
Mr. F 9
th
Grade Science Teacher Assistant Principal Principal
Mr. J 9
th
grade English Teacher N/A N/A
Ms. T 9
th
Grade Math Teacher 10
th
Grade Math Teacher N/A

88
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Embedded case teachers. The teachers on which I focused are the English and social
studies teachers. As noted earlier in this chapter, I chose these particular teachers for several
reasons. First, these teachers offered a unique cross-section of teaching experience. This group
included a first-year Teach For America teacher and a fifth-year teacher who is the grade-level
leader and head of English department (both were their first year of teaching during BA’s second
year). This group also included two teachers who had taught at Blended Academy since its
inception – one with five years of experience, and another with several years of online teaching
experience. Second, in the context of the school, English and social studies teachers are all
responsible for teaching reading, writing, and analysis in a personalized way. This is important
as literacy translates into all content areas. Further, English also comprised a majority of the
school’s Academic Performance Index (API), which is a key measure of Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) under No Child Left Behind. Reading and writing is also important in the
context of accessing any digital curriculum. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, these are the
teachers with whom I developed the most rapport – they are my key informants.
Ms. H. Ms. H is one of the most experienced staff members at BA, with more than 12
years of teaching experience, and several years of experience as a teacher educator. Ms. H also
has several years of experience teaching online courses. In her words, she “stalked” the founder
of BA from the moment she heard about the school until she got a job there. When she first came
to BA, she was hired as the master literacy teacher. In the second year of the school she taught
ninth grade English. In the school’s third year, she was promoted to assistant principal. Ms. H
89
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
has her Ed.D. (education doctorate) and National Board Certification
19
and she feels that this
makes her seem more credible to teachers with whom she works.
Ms. H described BA as “an amalgamation of everything I wanted.” In describing her
teaching philosophy, she expressed a desire to “marry” her love of online teaching with her love
of classroom teaching. Ms. H, along with the other teachers at BA, expressed a frustration with
“traditional” modes of teaching. Ms. H described traditional teaching as “transferring
information” and wanted to move away from that in her own classroom; she was thus drawn to
teaching at BA.
Ms. H was one of the few teachers who chose to stay at BA beyond years one and two;
indeed, she was one of two founding teachers who remained in BA’s third year, though both she
and the other teacher became administrators. Ms. H was drawn to the PL portion of BA’s school
model as well, explaining that she loved to “pull kids out to help them with their work” and
reporting that the way she approached “each kid is completely different.” In other words, Ms.
H’s beliefs about teaching were in sync with BA’s stated emphasis on PL.
Ms. A. Ms. A is a former Teach For America teacher who had been teaching for five
years when she joined the BA staff. She joined TFA, “not for ideological reasons,” but because
“honestly, it was the cheapest way to get into teaching.” Ms. A had always wanted to be a
teacher, and she was brought on board at BA in its second year to lead the English department.
She has experience teaching in both public and charter schools, and liked her former job.
However, she felt like BA was “doing some exciting things,” so she decided to make the change.
She was one of the few teachers who were directly recruited by the CEO. He had contacted TFA

19
National Board Certified teachers are certified in the National Board Standards, which outline what
“accomplished teachers should know and be able to do” (See http://www.nbpts.org/national-board-standards for
more information).
90
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
looking for resumes, and had hand-picked her as being someone he thought would fit in well at
the school.
Part of the reason Ms. A was interested in joining the staff at BA was the emphasis on
accountability. According to her,
[My previous school] has a lot of older teachers that have been in their positions for a
while and don’t really want to leave them, but additionally the leadership was really weak
and a lot of things would be said and nothing would be done. So, it’s a constant stream of
empty promises about what was going to happen and there were several teachers at our
school who consistently had very poor results and said some really terrible things to
students so both professionally and in terms of the school culture, things were just very
negative and unfortunately they were suing the school for wrongful termination. I was in
the middle of that watching this whole mess unfold and then [the CEO of BA] started
talking in the interview about the merit and demerit system and about teacher
accountability and that was really exciting for me because it was really frustrating to be at
a school where the accountability was so low so that was part of it.

-BA Interview, Ms. A, Fall 2013

Ms. A was also excited, and nervous, about the prospect of teaching with technology. By
her admission, she had never really used technology in the classroom before. Nevertheless, she
saw the high-tech vision of the school as a way to support her teaching and teach students critical
life skills.
Ms. L. Ms. L is a Harvard-educated Teach For America (TFA) teacher, who speaks very
quickly. She was one of the youngest teachers on staff at BA. She was hired during the summer
before BA’s second year. In year two, she was a first year TFA teacher, who at the time when we
first spoke (November 2013), had recently completed TFA’s abbreviated teacher training
program (“Institute”) and had been teaching for about four months. According to her, TFA’s
training left something to be desired. As she put it, “I felt over overwhelmed and also
underserved. I came into the school year not feeling confident as a teacher.”
91
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Ms. L joined Teach For America because she believed public schools should be excellent
and because she had an important mentor in her life who encouraged her to teach. As she put it:
I went to public school my entire life. I went to a really phenomenal public high school
that was only about nine years old. It was nine years old when I graduated. When I
entered, it was only about five, six years old. A regular public high school, it just
attracted a lot of talent and so our high school quickly became within the top 200 public
elite within its first five years. That’s the education that I always grew up with and never
experienced private education. I worked at a homeless shelter growing up, and the
director of the homeless shelter was the mother of my high school principal and who is
also my teacher advisor all four years at high school. When I was in eighth grade, this
director of the shelter had told me that she wanted me to do Teach For America. She was
like ‘you don’t know what it is, you’re eight years away from that time in your life you
have to decide. Like when you graduate college, I want you to consider doing this
program.’ Since I was 8 years old, I was like okay, I don’t know what it is, but I’m doing
it because one of my idols told me to do it.

-BA Interview, Ms. L, November 2013

Ms. L did not plan to work at BA. As is typical with TFA hires, she was set up with a
series of interviews, one of which was with BA’s CEO. She described the interview as being less
about teaching than it was about philosophy, and when she talked about her interview and her
interactions with the CEO, she seemed impressed with him. As she described it,
[The interview] shows three questions that [the CEO] asks every single person and this is
how he determines whether he wants you to be part of the team or not. The first one is
you might be teaching a class and you’re working with a department chair or something
and you agree on an action plan and they don’t fulfill their part of the plan. That leads to
your lesson getting messed up, so what do you do? So you go, okay, I’ll talk to them.
We’ll figure it out. He says okay, great. If it happens again, what do you do? And so it
just keeps building. He wants to see at what point you feel the need to have an
administrator intervene or to go look above and beyond your coworker and have someone
else come. His philosophy is that you should solve what you can solve with each other.
Be your own problem solver, be your own creative thinker. Don’t look for excuses from
someone else. Solve it yourself. That was the first one.

The second one was like you have this plan for your class and they are currently
achieving at a 32% level. What do you do? So, you’re like “change the plan.” Okay, so
you change the plan. Now they are at a 24% level. What do you do? Change the plan.
Okay, you change the plan. Now they are at a 15% level, but you’re still not happy. What
do you do? Change the plan. Every single time, he’ll give you a worst situation because
you’re now at 12%. What do you do? Change the plan. Show that you’re willing to
92
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
change and be iterative and figure out what’s working, what’s not working. You just
always be flexible and malleable. That’s another question.

Then the third one was, you have a student – he has 11 detentions. Having 12 detentions
means he has to repeat the school year. He’s a junior. He’s already applying to colleges
and you hear him say ‘shit’ under his breath. What do you do? He wanted you to say, you
give the detention and he has to repeat the grade.

He wants you to stick to the rules – culture strong, team strong, united front – those big
issues.

-BA, Interview with Ms. L, November 2013

Ms. L appreciated the CEO’s emphasis on discipline and measurable results, and
mentioned it as a key reason she was able to use more PL strategies in her second year. Ms. L
saw herself as a coach in the classroom, whose goal was to develop the “whole student.” She
also coached volleyball at BA, and says she sought to instill “ability, compassion, patience, and
purpose” in her students.
Ms. Z. Ms. Z is a short Latina with a kind of nervous energy. For Ms. Z, coming to
Blended Academy was a “no-brainer.” Ms. Z articulated her teaching philosophy as being
“student-centered.” According to her, BA was a perfect fit (as it was originally envisioned)
because it emphasized student-centeredness and social-emotional support. In her own words,
What’s most important to me is getting to know the student. You have to get to know
who they are and what their likes and dislikes are, because sometimes you may have the
student cooperating with you 100% or there may be days when things are difficult and if
you don’t know who your students are or what they’re going through it might be difficult
to interact with that student. I can’t do, what works with one student might work with 10
more, but not with another 3. This one-on-one or small group approach is really going to
continue to shape my philosophy. One size doesn’t always fit all. Sometimes, with a
group of 35 students, I have to teach to the middle. Or when I would break them into 2
groups and run around trying to figure out who is where. As a teacher, you just have to
figure out how to make it work for your class. Now, I can really “teach what I preach.” I
can do that individualized attention.

-BA, Interview with Ms. Z, October 2012

93
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Initially, Ms. Z was excited about the possibilities that BA opened up for her teaching.
She was eager to give students more personalized attention aligned to their needs. However, by
the end of her second year teaching at BA, she was ready for a new position. In her words, “I
have a lot to offer. I know a lot, but I feel like no one cares about that…I feel like I'm not being
useful, and that's why I have to do what I have to do [leave the school].” She further explained
that she did not think her teaching philosophy fit in with the philosophy of the leadership at the
school – specifically, the leadership’s emphasis on “No Excuses” and accountability. She
described an interaction with the CEO as having a negative impact on her:
He said something that really stabbed me in the heart. I think about it and it really makes
me...My heart raced because it bothers me. He said, I don't care about motivation, as long
as you're producing the numbers.’

-BA Interview, Ms. Z, Spring 2014
Ms. Z did not want to align herself with such a pronounced emphasis on discipline,
accountability, and measurable results. She felt that her job was to teach “the whole student” and
ultimately, she did not feel she could do that at BA.
Data Collection
In case study, interviewing, naturalistic observation, and in-depth document analysis are
used to illustrate the context of the case and the nature of participants’ experiences (Stake, 1995).
I describe each of these in the context of this study in more detail below. Table 4.4 presents a
summary of collected data and time collected.

94
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Table 4.4
Summary of Collected Data and Timeline
Data Sources

Timeline Interviews Observations Documents and Artifacts
Fall
2012
Participant Interviews:
Content Teachers
Master Literacy Teacher
Assistant Principal
Counselor
Student Focus Groups
Content Teacher Classrooms
Master Literacy Teacher
Classroom Practice
Professional Development
Tuesday Staff Meetings
School Charter
Parent/Student Handbook
Recruiting and Hiring
Documents
Grant Documents
Digital X Curricula
School Email
Communications
Spring
2013
Participant Interviews:
Founder
Principal
Assistant Principal
Content Teachers
Master Literacy Teacher
Content Teacher Classrooms
Master Literacy Teacher
Classroom Practice
Professional Development
Tuesday Staff Meetings
School Email
Communications
Class Websites
Summer
2013
Participant Interviews:
Exiting Teachers
Master Literacy Teacher
Assistant Principal

Fall
2013
Participant Interviews:
CEO/Principal
Assistant Principal
Content Teachers
Content Teacher Classrooms
Friday Staff Meetings
Parent/Student Handbook
Class Websites
Strategic Plan
Recruiting and Hiring
Documents

Spring
2014
Participant Interviews:
Embedded Case Teachers
Embedded Case Teacher
Classrooms
Friday Staff Meetings
Class Documents
Class Websites
Instructional Learning
Matrix

Fall
2014
Participant Interviews:
CEO
Assistant Principal
Embedded Case Teachers
Embedded Case Teacher
Classrooms
Friday Staff Meetings
Parent/Student Handbook
Student Recruiting
Documents
Class Documents
Class Websites
Strategic Plan
Instructional Learning
Matrix

95
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Interviews
In this study, interviews were conducted in each year of data collection (2012-2013,
2013-2014, 2014-2015). In sum, I conducted a total of 37 interviews. In year one, there were two
rounds of interviews – one round in October and one round in April. In each round, interviewees
included the five founding teachers, the student services coordinator, the school counselor, the
principal, and the founder. Informal interviews throughout the year were also conducted and
recorded in field notes. The first round of semi-structured formal interviews focused primarily on
background, expectations for the coming year, and perceptions of the school model. The second
round focused primarily on participants’ reflections on the first year of the school, thoughts on
each participant’s own practices and opinions, challenges encountered, as well as discussion of
expectations for the upcoming school year. I also conducted more informal interviews with
exiting staff members and with Ms. H in the summer of 2013.
In the second year of data collection, I again conducted two rounds of semi-structured
interviews. The first round occurred in November and the second round occurred in June. The
first round participants included most of the teachers (ninth and tenth grade English, ninth and
tenth grade humanities, ninth and tenth grade math, ninth grade science, physical education,
English and math special education teachers), as well as the Chief Executive Officer, and the
assistant principal. The first round of interviews focused again on background and experience
(for the new staff), and on expectations for the school year, theories of teaching and learning, and
the role of technology in the classroom. The interviews with the CEO and the returning teachers
also focused on changes occurring in the school’s second year. The second round interviews
focused on changes throughout the year, reflections on practice, and discussion of teachers’
roles, the role of technology in the classroom, and PL as a theory of action. I also asked teachers
96
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
about how they personalized their instruction in the classroom and what they believed was
imperative for a teacher to know and do to be successful at Blended Academy. In the third year
of data collection, I conducted another round of interviews with embedded case teachers, the
school administrators, and the CEO. See Appendix A for Topic Guide.
Focus Groups
In year one of the study, I conducted focus groups with four groups of students in
October of 2012. These focus groups were concerned with students’ perception of the school, as
well as student goals, understanding of the school model, and view of technology in the
classroom. Student focus groups provided a valuable perspective of the school model – students
were able to articulate how BA was intended to be different from more traditional schools by
contrasting their nascent impressions of BA with their experiences in their prior schools. This
data presented a point of triangulation or comparison with school documents, and interviews
with teachers and the school leaders in terms of how the school was presented or envisioned and
how it was enacted. See Appendix A for Topic Guide.
Participant and Digital Observations
In each year of data collection, I spent time in all classrooms, conducting both participant
observation, in which I worked with the teacher and students throughout the day, and direct
observation, in which I observed more passively, examining instructional practices, collecting
classroom documents, and watching students as they worked. I also had the opportunity to
observe students as they worked on online assignments, through a school program that allows
teachers and staff to observe students’ computer screens as they work and to observe teacher and
student interactions through teachers’ digital dashboards. Further, I observed multiple board
meetings, parent meetings, staff meetings, administration meetings, and professional
97
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
developments. In year three of data collection, I worked with the data compliance coordinator to
sit in on her analysis of the weekly student and teacher data in order to understand how data is
viewed, analyzed, interpreted, and presented throughout the year. Each of these opportunities for
observation provided me with another source of data, with which I could compare interviewees’
interpretations and understandings with the actions that occur in classrooms and meetings. This
allowed me to better understand school-level goals and priorities and how those interacted with
teachers’ interpretations and classroom practices over time. In sum, I conducted a total of 76
observations. See Appendix B for Observation Protocol.
Documents
Document collection was both physical and digital. I collected classroom documents
during observations and relevant documents from staff meetings. I also accessed the school’s
charter, recruitment documents, and board meeting notes, which was helpful in attending to the
cultural-historical aspects of the school. Further, as a primary focus of BA is learning through a
blend of online curricula, technology, and direct instruction, I analyzed class websites, the online
curriculum, and other computer-based instructional documents. These online documents served
as a living record of the teachers’ work and the schools’ design. In addition to these documents, I
had access to all emails among staff from the first year of BA. These emails served as a record of
meetings, changes to the school, issues and challenges with which teachers, administrators, and
teachers were grappling, and solutions that were developed. These emails also provide a detailed
timeline of first year concerns and changes. Finally, I took pictures periodically as the school
developed, keeping a visual record of classrooms and hallways. In total, collected documents
number in the hundreds.

98
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Data Collection Limitations
Overall, I was able to collect a vibrant cross-section of data that illustrated teachers’
experiences and instructional practices at BA. Interviews with teachers and school leaders
provided critical perspective on school vision, teacher perceptions and instruction, and how the
school and teachers’ practices evolved over time and in relation to each other. The addition of
observation data helped me to further understand how the vision was enacted, and how teachers’
understandings were translated to their classroom practice. Collecting physical and digital
documents provided an additional layer of understanding and triangulation. Still, there are
several data sources that I was unable to access. First, I was unable to secure additional
interviews with Mr. F, beyond BA’s first year. This was disappointing, as Mr. F played a critical
role at BA – he was initially the ninth grade science teacher, but became the assistant principal in
year two and then the principal in year three. Because of difficulties communicating with Mr. F,
I was also unable to schedule a second student focus group. Further, though I was able to have
informal conversations with groups of teachers, I was unable to schedule a full teacher focus
group, due to teacher time limitations and their obligations to other researchers in the school. I
should also note that between the school’s first and second years, I had to renegotiate my
research terms with the new CEO, so I was not able to conduct observations from July of 2013 to
November of 2013. Finally, though I was eventually able to access student survey data, this
access came too late to analyze that data and utilize it in a meaningful way. Nevertheless, I
believe that the array of collected data was sufficient to illustrate the context of the case and the
nature of participants’ experiences.

99
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Data Analysis
As is typical in case study and in qualitative research as a whole, I collected and analyzed
data simultaneously (Hatch, 2002; Stake, 1995). Analysis of collected data informed subsequent
data collection strategies and areas of focus. I kept track of the extensive amount of data through
field journals, and interview and observation protocols (Creswell, 1998). Further, during data
collection, I memoed extensively, in order to keep a running log of thoughts and lines of
analysis, and to maintain a detailed evolving description of the case, a continuing analysis of
emerging themes, and possible interpretations of findings as they developed (Creswell, 1998;
Stake, 1995; Strauss, 1987). To better enable organization, all transcripts, observational field
notes, and memos were entered into NVivo qualitative analysis software. Additionally, after each
site visit, I summarized the collected data in a data collection table.
Because case study research often results in a large amount of data, it was critical to have
a basic plan in place to organize the data, identify data that was relevant to the research
questions, and analyze data for emergent categories, themes, and findings. For this study, I
utilized data analysis strategies advocated by Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2013), Stake
(1995), and Bloomberg and Volpe (2012), along with a few other augmentative strategies
(discussed in further detail below). Broadly, my analytic process included coding the data – first
to organize the data and bound the inquiry, then to allow categories and themes to emerge from
the data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña) – supplemented by a process of analytic questioning
(Neumann, 2006) that allowed me to identify pertinent data, make statements about discrete
instances, aggregate discrete instances to identify categories and themes, and distill categories
and themes into claims or findings (Bingham, in press; Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012).

100
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Data Coding
This qualitative case study contained a large amount of data, in various forms, including
interviews, focus groups, observations, documents, and digital artifacts (e.g. class websites). As I
was particularly interested in meaning-making and in the lived experience of individuals in the
system, I began by coding interviews. I believe that beginning here offered a foundational
understanding of teachers’ thought processes, interpretations, and opportunities for sensemaking.
After coding interviews, I coded observations and then documents and other artifacts (including
digital resources and class websites) in that order. This offered the opportunity for comparison
among data types and helped me to code more productively. See Appendix C for coding guide.
In this study, I drew on Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2013) for coding strategies. I
conducted both inductive and deductive analysis throughout data collection and analysis, coding
in cycles, and conducting frequent memoing and code revision. In the first coding cycle, I
conducted an initial read-through of the data and memoed concurrently in order to (re)familiarize
myself with the data and form some initial reactions to help shape the coding process. In this first
cycle of coding, I utilized attribute coding to organize the data by type and source (Miles,
Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013). In this same cycle, I also utilized provisional macro-coding, using
my research questions and theoretical framing as a guide to identify pertinent data points, and to
bound the inquiry. I then developed inductive sub-codes as I read through the data in a second
cycle, coding chunks of data, then identifying categories and properties, and looking for patterns
and themes. Here I used the constant comparative method (Glaser, 1965), combing through the
data, comparing data points, and coding until all data fit into a category. During this cycle, I
memoed in order to develop analytic summaries of the data, which allowed me to identify
101
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
patterns and categories, condense codes, and to synthesize what I learned into themes and then
assertions or findings.
Finally, I coded using my theoretical framework in order to identify explanations for
categories, themes, and assertions or findings. Here, I focused in on mediating factors in the
activity system, and on tensions and contradictions, as these are the key sensemaking triggers
that facilitate change and innovation in an activity system (Engeström, 1999). Utilizing my
theoretical framing in this way allowed me to identify instances of tension and sources of
contradiction and to explore whether and how discordances led to changes or evolutions in
practice. Because change and innovation are primary goals in high-tech PL models, these
discordances are particularly relevant. I also utilized concepts from sensemaking in this cycle of
coding, looking for instances where individual schemas were at play. In this third cycle coding, I
continued to memo, focusing on categorizations, themes, and findings.
Throughout coding, I used a process of analytic questioning to develop categories,
themes, and then assertions or findings (Bingham, in press; Neumann, 2006; Neumann, personal
communication, 2013). I used three levels of analytic questions based on my research questions.
The first level was meant to pull data from an individual transcript, observation, or document
(e.g. What does this teacher say about his/her instructional practices in the classroom?). The
second level was intended to build categories (e.g. What types of teaching practices do these
teachers exhibit in their classrooms?). The final level allowed for the development of claims or
findings (e.g. What do teachers’ practices look like in a blended learning school with a theory of
action of personalized learning? Why do teachers’ instructional practices develop as they do?). I
kept these questions in mind as I read through the data and as I coded, to help focus my analysis.

102
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Strengths and Limitations of Case Study Design
I chose to use case study methodology because the tenets of case study align well with
my research questions, and with the literature that informed them. For example, my proposed
research questions are aimed at issues of meaning and process around teacher instruction and
organizational change. Additionally, though I do take into account historical facets of the
teachers and the school, I am focused on contemporary, rather than historical events, in that my
research aimed to understand the process of innovation in a school (Yin, 1984). Finally, case
study research is highly contextualized, encourages the collection of a variety of data,
approaches problems of practice from a holistic perspective, and allows the researcher to trace
development over time (Merriam, 1988; Yin, 1984), all of which were instrumental in my study.
Case study is also an appropriate methodology for research that is theoretically informed
by CHAT and sensemaking. As noted by Yin (2009), case study is desirable when “the
boundaries between [the investigated] phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p. 18).
Using CHAT informed by sensemaking presupposes that practice and context are integrally
connected and one cannot be extricated from the other. Activity theory, in particular, requires
that a researcher take a “system view and the subject’s view”
20
(Engeström, Y. & Miettinen,
1999, p. 10). Further, the use of the activity system as a unit of analysis bounds the case and
facilitates the use of embedded cases in the system. Finally, theoretically grounding my study in
CHAT and sensemaking allowed me to attend to certain aspects of practice and specific
components of the organizational context during coding and analysis. As data collection and
analysis are conducted simultaneously in qualitative research (Hatch, 2002; Stake, 1995), my

20
As stated by Engeström (1999), the analyst constructs the activity system [which can be considered the case] as if
looking at it from above. “At the same time, the analyst must select a subject, a member (or better yet, multiple
different members) of the local activity, through whose eyes and interpretations the activity is constructed” (p. 10).
103
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
analysis continually informed my data collection as well (See Appendix D for a research matrix
linking my research questions, theoretical framing, and data collection).
Case Study Research and Transferability
The transferability of case study research is also one of its strengths. In qualitative
research, transferability is analogous to the quantitative concept of external validity, or
generalizability (Guba, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tierney & Clemens, 2011). As I aim for
my research to inform policy and practice, this concept of transferability is particularly
important. The concept of transferability shifts the responsibility for transferring findings to
other contexts to the reader, who then determines the level of applicability to other contexts
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tierney & Clemens, 2011). Because a case study report is rich in detail,
highly contextualized, and relies on extensive data, case study research allows for readers to co-
construct knowledge with the case study researchers, and apply that knowledge to similar
contexts (Stake, 1995). Eisner (1991) develops this point by arguing that although case studies
typically have small sample sizes and attend to particular instances rather than general
phenomena, “particulars exemplify more than they describe directly,” and that “in the particular
is located a general theme” (p. 39).
Limitations of Case Study Research
As noted above, case study as a methodology has multiple strengths, including in-depth
data collection, a close relation to my theoretical framework, and attention to issues of
transferability. However, case study also has several inherent weaknesses. For example, the
amount of data involved in case study can be overwhelming if the researcher is not careful.
However, there are several strategies that can be employed to lessen the burden of too much data,
and to increase the usefulness of the collected data, including using qualitative data analysis
104
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
software to organize the data, and to analyze and code the multiple sources of collected data.
Further, developing protocols designed to organize individual data points, and memoing
frequently, as I did in this case, can help the researcher to keep track of data and analysis.
Another limitation of case study is the possibility of bias introduced by a researcher’s
subjectivity (Yin, 1984). Because case study involves extensive amounts of data, and is often
characterized by extensive time in the field, case study could be subject to a researcher picking
and choosing which data to include and which to ignore (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). This could
result in incorrect assumptions or biased interpretations. However, as discussed below, a
researcher can attend to this as well by considering issues of trustworthiness and researcher
positionality. Ultimately, I maintain that case study is the most appropriate methodology for my
research.
Trustworthiness
In qualitative research, trustworthiness is a way to demonstrate rigor (Guba, 1981;
Lincoln, 1995; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), to ensure
trustworthiness, the researcher determines that her or his research meets the following criteria:
credibility, or confidence in the findings of the research; transferability, or how well the research
transfers to other, similar contexts; dependability, or the consistency of the findings; and
confirmability, the extent to which the findings are free from researchers’ biases (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985).
Case study design attends to each of these components of trustworthiness. First, case
study facilitates a process of triangulation by requiring that researchers collect and analyze
multiple sources of data (Stake, 1995), allowing researchers to draw attention to the multiple data
points that support his or her assertions. This process increases credibility, dependability, and
105
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
confirmability. Second, member-checking helps to ensure trustworthiness. Throughout my study,
I shared patterns, claims, and written reports with participants, particularly key informants, as
this not only engenders trust between researcher and participant, but can also increase both
credibility and confirmability (Stake, 1995). Third, transferability and dependability can be
increased by extensive data collection and multiple data sources that can be transferred to similar
situations. Finally, prolonged engagement with the participants and extensive time in the field
can increase the transferability and credibility of the research, as patterns can be checked and re-
checked against the data throughout data collection.
Researcher Positionality
In the interest of trustworthiness, it is also important for me to note that my interest in
teachers’ instructional practices goes beyond academic interest. For me, the school site is very
familiar; I have been there many times, I have spent virtually my entire life in schools as both a
teacher and a student, and I have taught students very similar to the ones at BA. Before entering
graduate school, I taught tenth grade English at a charter school in downtown Los Angeles for
three years. The students in the school were ninety-eight percent Latino and more than ninety
percent were from low-income households. Our standardized test scores were below average and
the graduation rate was usually between fifty and sixty percent. These numerical representations,
which were similar across the many schools in the charter management organization, were
mirrored by the student population at BA. All of this means that I struggled with “the invisibility
of everyday life” each time I was at the school site (Erickson, 1986, p. 121).
Any time I entered BA, I felt comfortable with the people there, and I felt at home
interacting with the teachers and the students. There were benefits to this feeling of comfort.
Building rapport with teachers, students, and staff came very naturally. My connections and
106
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
understanding of the world of teaching opened doors and sparked conversations. Being a
credentialed teacher allowed me to participate in the daily activities of the school, rather than
simply observing them. I rarely felt like an outsider at BA. However, there were negative aspects
to this as well. Feeling at home in the school setting could mean that I missed crucial aspects of
the school, and the teaching and learning therein, because of how normal and familiar it all
seemed to me. BA and the goings-on there are reminiscent of what used to be my everyday life,
which could have caused me to overlook valuable data about the school and my participants. As
such, I aimed to find new ways to engage myself in my fieldwork in order to make a very
familiar site, strange, and in order to enter the field and record my impressions as if it were my
first day there.
In pursuit of the aforementioned goal, I reviewed “Qualitative Methods in Research on
Teaching,” a chapter from The Handbook of Research on Teaching (Erickson, 1986). In this
chapter, Erickson provides some guidelines for doing fieldwork that can help the researcher
“make the familiar strange and interesting again” (p. 121). Paraphrasing Florio and Bushman (as
cited in Erickson, 1986, p. 121), Erickson examines five questions that fieldwork should answer
in order to make familiar (or “invisible”) situations, strange and visible once again. These five
questions are:
1. What is happening, specifically, in social action that takes place in this particular
setting?
2. What do these actions mean to the actor involved in them, at the moment the actions
took place?
3. How are the happenings organized in patterns of social organization and learned
cultural principles for the conduct of everyday life – how, in other words, are people
107
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
in the immediate setting consistently present to each other as environments for one
another’s meaningful actions?
4. What is happening in this setting as a whole (i.e. the classroom) related to happenings
at other system levels outside and inside the setting (e.g. the school building, a child’s
family, federal government mandates regarding mainstreaming)?
5. How do the ways everyday life in this setting is organized compare with other ways
of organizing social life in a wide range of settings in other places and at other times?
(as cited in Erickson, 1986, p. 121)
Attending to these questions, and being reflective as I did so, helped me to deal with the
issue of “the fish [being] the last creature to discover water” (as cited in Erickson, 1986, p. 121).
Though I did not explicitly answer these questions with every visit I made to the field, I kept in
mind that I was looking for how the setting was organized, how the participants interacted, and
how the happenings in the classroom were related to other actors and environments within the
school. This helped to remind me of my research purpose, focus my observations, and remind me
to look at the action in the school, not just as a teacher (the fish), but as a researcher as well.
Summary
As PL becomes an important issue in education, undergirding instructional practices and
school design, it is critical to study the process of developing program design and teacher
practice in these environments, including teachers’ understanding and enactment of PL in a high-
tech setting, as well as tensions and contradictions teachers face in personalizing their instruction
and the strategies they develop in response to these tensions and contradictions. To inform my
investigation of these issues, I utilized CHAT informed by sensemaking theory in order to
theoretically ground my analysis and guide my inquiry. I utilized qualitative single institution
108
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
instrumental case study design, with embedded cases, as case study facilitates a multi-
dimensional, multi-level analysis that can attend to individual and school-level factors that may
influence teacher sensemaking and instructional practice. Armed with a comprehensive
theoretical framework, and guided by the methodological process of case study, I hope to
contribute to the literature a more nuanced, grounded understanding of teachers’ practices and
school design toward personalization and how those practices and the school model evolve over
time.

109
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 5
THE CASE OF BLENDED ACADEMY
The purpose of this single institution case study was: (1) to examine teachers’ instruction
in a high-tech personalized learning school model, focusing on how teachers make sense of and
respond to the school’s vision of personalization in their instructional practice; (2) to illustrate
how both the school’s program design and teachers’ practices evolve over time and; (3) explore
why design and practice develop as they do. In so doing, I utilized an integrated theoretical
framework of CHAT and sensemaking theory to analyze the interactions and relations among
salient organizational and individual factors influencing school design and instructional practice.
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What is the nature of teacher practice in a blended learning charter high school with a
theory of action of personalized learning?
2. How do teachers interpret the school’s program goals and underlying theory of action?
3. What, if any, are the systemic contradictions that develop around technology-mediated
personalization?
4. How, if at all, do systemic contradictions and teachers’ interpretations of those
contradictions shape school design and teachers’ practices over time?
To answer these research questions, I analyzed two and a half years’ (or five semesters’) worth
of interviews, observations, and documents (fall semester of the 2012-2013 school year through
fall semester of the 2014-2015 school year). In this chapter, I primarily focus on my first
research question, presenting a detailed description of teachers’ practices and school design as
they were conceived, and as they evolved over time. In so doing, I also set the stage for an
analysis and discussion in chapter six of how and why school design, teachers’ interpretations of
110
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
PL, and teachers’ instructional practices developed as they did.
In this chapter, I demonstrate that instructional practice at BA was characterized by
several waves of organizational change at the school-level. I discuss these waves of change
chronologically, demonstrating that teachers’ work at BA was characterized first by a disconnect
between school vision and classroom practice, then by the implementation of a “No Excuses”
school model and the school-level prioritization of accountability measures, and, finally, by the
reprioritization of PL. By discussing the narrative of the school and the people therein, I tell the
story of BA as it played out in the day-to-day activities of the school. I describe the key
characteristics of the school and the changes in school design and instructional practice that
occurred as the school grew and evolved – specifically, how these key characteristics and
changes were experienced or exemplified by the teachers at BA. My core unit of analysis is BA’s
teachers (I use the experiences of my embedded case teachers to demonstrate trends across
teachers), though I draw on the stated experiences of other stakeholders as well, particularly
school leaders, as an additional source of information. Throughout this chapter, I describe the
elements of BA’s design and the nature of teachers’ instructional practice at the school by tracing
how each evolved from the inception of the school in 2012 through the fall semester of the 2014-
2015 school year. In so doing, I illustrate how the disconnect between school vision and
classroom practice, the implementation of a “No Excuses” model and the emphasis on
accountability, and the reprioritization of PL shaped teachers’ classrooms practices.
In the chapter six, I look back at this account through the lenses of CHAT and
sensemaking theory to examine how and why the school and its teachers developed as they did.
Ultimately, I argue that BA exhibited substantive changes in organizational practices rooted in
systemic tensions and contradictions. Organizational priorities mediated teachers’ classroom
111
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
practices – the introduction of the “No Excuses” model, in particular, was a key mediator in how
teachers understood and implemented PL. Still, on the whole, teachers did not seem to
experience substantive changes in their existing beliefs about teaching and learning.
From Vision to Implementation to Adjustment: Blended Academy, Years 1-3
Prior to year one, Blended Academy was envisioned as a bastion for choice, flexibility,
and personalization. In the day-to-day realities of year one, BA was characterized by instability
stemming from a disconnect between the original vision and the daily realities of the classroom.
Teachers’ practices reflected this; their work was characterized by a “survival mode” –
responding to constant challenges and changes in the model by reverting to instructional
practices that were more comfortable. In most cases, this meant a return to more traditional
forms of instruction.
21
In year two, BA was characterized by the implementation of a “No
Excuses” school model and an accountability mindset toward improving student outcomes and
establishing a foundation on which to reinstate more PL practices in the future. Teachers’
instructional practices in the classroom reflected these school-level characteristics. Both program
design and teachers’ instruction was focused on “fixing” the problems of the previous year,
followed by some exploration of possible PL practices. In year three, a school-level commitment
to PL practices resurfaced, but teacher’s practices toward enacting PL were mediated by
increased accountability and adherence to the “No Excuses” vision of the school. In other words,
teachers were encouraged to engage in PL instructional strategies, but within the parameters of
these organizational priorities. Across years, a struggle to reconcile the ideals of PL and student-

21
Throughout this dissertation study, I refer to “traditional” forms of instruction as a foil to the so-called
“innovative” school models dominating current discourse (blended models, virtual schools, PL models). In general,
when referring to traditional teaching practices, I am referring to aspects of traditional teaching that contrast
specifically with aspects of PL models. For example, lecture-based, teacher-centric classrooms contrast with the
ideal PL classroom, in which students are working through personal learning paths. Similarly, assessing students as
a group at the end of each unit contrasts with mastery-based grading, in which students would be assessed
individually. In this study, I am not commenting on the efficacy of either traditional or PL practices, as that is
beyond the purview of both my research questions and my data.
112
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
centeredness with the demands of “No Excuses” and accountability, teachers’ capabilities, and
existing resources was evident.
I begin this section by discussing the history of Blended Academy – the vision for the
school, the research behind that vision, and how the school came to be. I explore key
characteristics of school design and instruction in the following broad categories: (1) school
mission; (2) instructional strategies and teachers’ roles; (3) technology; (4) assessment and
grading; (5) curriculum; (6) staffing; (7) scheduling; (8) classroom structure; and (9)
organizational structure and environment. These categories emerged from my analysis of
interviews and school documents as being key areas of school design. These categories also
represented key areas where changes occurred in subsequent school years. These categories
guide my discussion of the vision for the school. I then trace the evolution of teachers’ practice
and school design from the 2012-2013 school year through January of the 2014-2015 school
year. In my discussion of each school year, I examine key themes that emerged in that year. I
conclude this chapter with a summary that examines key ideas that emerged across years.
Year 0: Background, History, and the Vision for Blended Academy
Every day at Blended Academy contrasts with Steven’s and Maria’s experiences at their
other high school. Maria remembers too few chairs and standing at the back of crowded
classrooms if she didn’t arrive early. Steven says it was difficult even getting to the
classroom through chaotic hallways. What Steven hated most was that no one knew his
name. [Blended Academy] is different. School happens in an open-space office building
abuzz with soft chatter and laughter. Steven and Maria are both in the math lab working
with several other students. While they work together, proceeding at their own pace
through online lessons, they know that they’ll be tested individually.

Today is Tuesday and their online Master Teacher has scheduled a conference to
introduce a new unit. The students gather around one computer, click an icon, and
instantly create a video-conference link to their Master Teacher. A local learning coach
stands ready to assist the students after the online conference is over.

While Steven and Maria work together in math, they have personal learning plans that
they developed with their counselor. Progress is reviewed bi-monthly when they meet to
113
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
set up their work calendars. Student hours are flexible at [Blended Academy]. They must
complete a standard minimum schedule but can extend hours on days when they are not
working, or, in Steven’s case, taking care of an infant brother at home. The school is open
weekends and year-round.

Steven wraps up his algebra for the day and shifts mental gears to the three-hour block
coming up. He has organized three other students and under the guidance of an artist in
residence, they are working to produce a rap album. Maria heads off to work at a nearby
office. When she returns, she’ll meet with her project teacher and a dozen other students
who are finishing up a “Healthy Eating” workshop that they’ll run for young parents in
the community on Saturday.

Tuesday is Steven’s long day. After winding up his music session, he meets with his
English Language teacher. He began his year at [Blended Academy] reading at a 5th-
grade level. In six months, he’s progressed substantially. No one laughs at him here. His
friends, his teachers and coaches, the curriculum itself — they all just help. And everyone
knows his name.

-excepted from Blended Academy founding documents
School mission. As can be seen from the above excerpt, Blended Academy was born
from a desire to offer an alternative to traditional high schools that were, in BA’s founder’s
opinion, failing traditionally-underserved students. Specifically, the founder felt that traditional
schools were failing to serve low-income, students of color because schools did not offer enough
social-emotional support, flexibility in scheduling, or personalized attention. His assumption was
that offering high-levels of personal attention and social-emotional support, along with a flexible
schedule, open classrooms, and the ability to get instruction from a variety of online and face-to-
face sources would curb dropout in “at-risk” student populations (defined by the founder as
students from low-income households, and students of color). More specifically, the founder of
Blended Academy – a research professor at a private university – envisioned a school that was

114
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
designed to increase students’ sense of school connectedness and their opportunity to
learn through a blended program of online college-preparatory courses supported by
virtual master teachers AND a local program of integrated social and academic support
provided by a student-focused team of principals, counselors, social workers, remediation
specialists, ELL teachers, project teachers, and learning coaches.

-excepted from Blended Academy founding documents
In other words, BA’s founder wanted to create a school that would embody collective
responsibility for student learning and targeted, personalized intervention, facilitated by a
technology-rich environment.
In BA’s charter petition, the charter management organization (CMO) under which BA
would operate listed seven characteristics that illustrated what it means to be an educated person
in the 21
st
century. These characteristics included (1) the ability to think critically and analyze
information; (2) the capacity to understand processes of science and engineering (an emphasis on
STEM); (3) an understanding of the basics of human health that could be the foundation for
better eating habits and healthier lifestyles; (4) emotional health and positive social-emotional
skills; (5) a civic-minded orientation that is the foundation for democratic participation; (6) an
appreciation for the arts; and (7) autonomy and the ability to self-regulate. These characteristics
formed the foundation for BA’s design – particularly, the idea of promoting student autonomy
and self-regulation would be fundamental to BA’s success. By providing personalized learning
paths and experiences, and social-emotional support, BA would prevent dropout and ensure that
each student graduated with these characteristics, so that students would be “college- and career-
ready.” Additionally, a key component of the school’s mission was replicability – specifically,
“the future potential of the school as a model alternative—credibility, replicability, scalability,
and sustainability.” The founder planned to achieve these goals by implementing a rotational
blended model, in which students would move on a personalized self-paced schedule through
115
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
their online courses, with varying degrees of face-to-face support, and in which a majority of
learning would take place in a brick-and-mortar school location.
Organizational structure and school environment. The founder of Blended Academy
intended the school to be “blended” in three ways: (1) academic and social-emotional supports;
(2) online course delivery and face-to-face instructional supports; and (3) instructional support
from virtual instructors, onsite teachers, teaching assistants, and counselors. This blended model
would be a mechanism of PL that could supply differentiated pacing and content to close gaps in
student knowledge, allow for accelerated learning, provide comprehensive social-emotional
supports, and deliver face-to-face supplemental instruction. School environment and culture
would be built on high levels of technology use and digital literacy, with teachers emphasizing
the idea of digital citizenship.
Social-emotional learning and health was also intended to be a large portion of the culture
of BA. There would be a comprehensive social-emotional support program, with several
counselors and counseling interns on campus, as well as readily available social workers. The
founder and the founding administrators emphasized the advisory program – a program in which
all students would belong to one teacher’s advisory with a group of other students that would
become like a school “family.” This advisory program would also support academic goals by
allowing teachers the opportunity to create “personalized and individualized learning plans based
on each student’s strengths and needs” that would be reviewed by advisors and students each
week and would be informed by “real-time data from online digital courses, project progress, and
attendance and observational data.” The advisory program would thus be a fundamental support
for the design and delivery of a key PL component – personal learning paths.
Despite the school model’s reliance on student autonomy and self-regulation, very little is
116
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
mentioned in the school’s design documents about developing students’ capacities for self-
regulation. Further, nothing specific is mentioned about discipline or classroom management,
other than legal speak around the parameters for expulsion. Rather, it was assumed that with the
planned model in place, the supports for social-emotional health, and the flexibility inherent in
the model, students would have no reason to misbehave and would quickly adjust to the freedom
and self-paced nature of PL.
Instructional strategies. In the original vision for BA’s rotational blended model,
students were to rotate through a variety of learning modalities, including online learning, small
group instruction, whole class instruction, and project-based learning. BA’s original design
called for a more collective responsibility for student learning through open classrooms, shared
data, and cross-curricular projects. The founder’s vision included an emphasis on comprehensive
social-emotional supports, including an extensive counseling program and advisory classes, and
project-based learning that would provide students with the opportunity to explore real-world
problems and situations. In the BA model, teachers were to be instrumental in each of those
components, designing projects, creating supplemental resources, and helping students with their
online work. Teachers were expected to be experts in “student-centered” and “care-based”
instruction; it was anticipated that teachers would use continuously-generated, accurate data to
help students craft ambitious but realistic personalized learning plans. In this respect, teachers
would act more as tutors and guidance counselors than traditional instructors.
Project-based learning (PBL) was also intended to be a large part of the instruction at BA.
As outlined in the parent-student handbook:
Instructional design also requires participation in both individual and collaborative
inquiry projects and internships to build important skills [students] will need to be
successful in college and careers. [BA] students will be required to complete challenging,
interdisciplinary projects with the goals of deepening understanding and learning to apply
117
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
skills like research and analysis, critical dialogue, argument, persuasion, and
collaboration. These projects will also provide opportunity for the development of
technical and digital skills in all project phases. Student projects will all culminate in the
creation/construction of products, presentations, or performances and will be presented to
online and onsite critical audiences as culminating activities and celebrations of learning.

These projects were to be part of graduation requirements and were slated to begin within the
first several weeks of school. They would include school-wide projects (including community-
based and service projects), core course projects, and student interest projects.
Technology. Technology was arguably the most critical component of BA’s original
model. The vision for technology at BA relied heavily on the assumption that students would be
“digital natives” for whom technology would provide both the motivation and the means to
learn. According to BA’s charter petition,
The [BA] program makes extensive use of technology to: a) engage its technology-
oriented students (digital natives); b) bridge students to highly qualified teachers in all
subjects; c) provide means to collect and analyze student performance and progress data
in real-time; and d) increase the overall efficiency and cost effectiveness of the school.

Technology would then be not only a way to provide instruction to students, but also a means of
motivating students to regulate their own learning, individualizing instruction, and providing
usable and immediate student data. Technology use would also be a way to decrease costs.
Indeed, the founder and the CMO justified higher startup costs with the idea that eventually the
school would cost less to run than a traditional school (BA field notes, CMO board meeting,
November 2012).
In the original vision for instruction at BA, technology was to be an integral part of
students’ learning, meant to allow students to find their own answers to their questions, to
explore their personal interests, and to provide multiple opportunities or access points for
learning. The founder, who had a previous relationship with Apple Computers, set the school up
with Apple Macbook laptops and Apple iPods for each student, and Macbooks and iPads for
118
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
each teacher. The Macbooks were equipped with Digital X
22
– an online curriculum that
included adaptive formative and summative assessments.
In the school’s first year, PL was meant to be accomplished through extensive use of
technology, not only through a digital curriculum (Digital X), but also through students’ use of
computers to access related content, communicate with their onsite teachers as well as virtual
teachers, and deliver a variety of high-tech assignments. Students would also have access to
iPods and other devices, so that they could listen to music or access other activities that would
allow them to take a break from schoolwork when needed. The use of iPods in the classroom was
partially intended to serve the social-emotional component of the model, allowing students to
enjoy music and to “tune out” from other classroom activities when working on Digital X.
Further, the iPods would allow students to listen to Podcasts or teacher-created content at any
time, in any location.
Assessment and grading. In the initial design for classroom practice at BA, there was a
distinct emphasis on the collection and use of student data to improve student achievement.
Teachers would have access to real-time data produced by Digital X that would allow them to
respond to students’ needs on an immediate case-by-case basis. Digital X would bear most of the
responsibility for assessment and grading, as students would be taking adaptive formative and
summative quizzes and unit tests within the Digital X interface. However, teachers would also
have input, as they would be assigning and grading supplementary assignments and writing
assignments.
In the founder’s words, the “school design follows a mastery-based system of progression
that requires students to stop and check in with their teacher before moving on to new material.
Students must achieve 80% mastery” (Interview with BA’s Founder, November 2012). Thus,

22
Pseudonym
119
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
part of the allure of Digital X for the founder, and for administrators and teachers was that
students would be held to a higher standard for “passing” quizzes and tests.
23
Specifically,
students would be required to score at least an 80 percent (equivalent to a B letter grade) in order
to pass the quiz or test. The founder and the Digital X trainers framed this as holding students to
“mastery” levels. In order for students to progress through courses, they had to score at least a B
on all courses. Teachers would be able to keep track of student progress through the Digital X
dashboard, which color-coded all students as red (“not on track”), yellow (in danger of not being
“on track”), or green (“on track”).
Curriculum. In the plan for the school, there was an emphasis on online learning and
progression through the digital curriculum, Digital X. Digital X provided prepackaged units in
all of its courses that teachers could augment as needed. Digital X also included adaptive
formative and summative assessments that students could take on their own time. Teachers
would be able to unlock the summative assessments for students who felt they were ready to take
the test for whatever unit/course they were working through.
The school’s extensive use of the digital curriculum would provide a wide array of
courses as well as flexibility in time, place, path, and pace of student learning – key components
of any blended learning model (Staker & Horn, 2012). In pursuit of PL, students were to be able
to progress through each of their courses in Digital X at their own paces, asking for teachers’
help and guidance as needed. In addition, some Digital X courses were designed to help low-
achieving students close gaps and catch up to their peers, while others offered accelerated
content for higher-achieving students. Digital X provided a similarly wide range of courses in
each core content (English, math, social studies, and science), as well as elective courses (art,
foreign language, sociology, creative writing, and multi-cultural studies). Further, to provide

23
In a typical grading system, 70 percent would be a passing grade.
120
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
flexibility in where and when students are learning, Digital X could be accessed from any
computer, anywhere at any time. See Table 5.1 for available Digital X courses.
Table 5.1
Digital X Curriculum

Domain Core Honors Advanced Placement
M ath Algebra Algebra AP Calculus
Algebra 2 Algebra 2 AP S tatistics
Geometry Geometry
Pre-Calculus Pre-Calculus
Consumer Math
Science Earth S cience Earth S cience AP Biology
Physical S cience Physical S cience AP Chemistry
Biology Biology AP Physics
Chemistry Chemistry AP Psychology
Psychology
English English I: Introduction to
Literature and
Composition
English I: Introduction to
Literature and
Composition
AP English Language
and Composition
English II: Critical
Reading and Effective
Writing
English II: Critical Reading
and Effective Writing
AP English Literature
and Composition
English III: American
Literature
English III: American
Literature

English IV: British and
World Literature
English IV: British and
World Literature

Social Studies Geography and World
Cultures
Geography and World
Cultures
AP
Macroeconomics
World History World History AP Microeconomics
U.S . History U.S . History AP U.S . Government
and Politics
U.S . and Global
Economics
U.S . and Global Economics
World Languages French 1 & 2 French 1 & 2 AP French Language
and Composition
S panish 1 & 2 S panish 1 & 2 AP S panish Language
and Composition
Electives Music Appreciation
Art Appreciation
Physical Education
S kills for Health

121
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Teacher professional development. Prior to the start of the school year, teachers
participated in a series of professional development days aimed at creating a unified vision for
practice and educating teachers about Digital X. During the first week of professional
development, teachers participated in team-building activities and were given the opportunity to
familiarize themselves with the vision for the school’s blended PL model. After getting to know
each other and the vision, the teachers spent a week with a Digital X trainer, who showed
teachers how to navigate the Digital X interface, how to create supplemental assignments, and
how to determine student progress through the curriculum. Notably, very little time was spent
discussing what “mastery” meant, how students would be held accountable for their progress,
how students would be taught to self-pace, or how to manage students’ use of technology in the
classroom. Though some teachers expressed concerns about these areas, the founder and the
administrators referred teachers to the plan for the school model, suggesting that if students are
able to progress at their own paces, and are able to use technology without boundaries in the
classroom, they will be more invested in their own learning.
Staffing. The founder of BA and the CMO board also placed a great emphasis on who
the administrators and teachers at BA would be, what principles and educational philosophies
they would have, and how they would be hired. According to the school’s charter petition,
BA will use a hiring process that reveals the alignment of candidates’ educational
philosophy and skills with BA’s instructional approach…Ideal candidates will value an
emphasis on the whole student, including career and college planning, personal growth
and social-emotional skill development. They will have interest and experience in
forming supportive relationships with students and problem-solving individually to
ensure each student’s success. They will know academic content well and be effective at
making concepts comprehensible to students working one-on-one…BA’s design
promotes teachers’ abilities to focus on individual student learning by shifting the focus
away from classroom management and whole-group direct instruction common in
traditional schools. Teachers who thrive on forming close, supportive relationships with
students and problem-solving to help each student succeed will be attracted to this
program. Also, teachers who excel at and enjoy projects will be unfettered at BA.
122
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Essentially, alignment with the school model, experience with technology, and a desire to effect
change by teaching the “whole student” would be the most highly prized qualities among new
staff members. Additionally, the founder felt that teachers would be attracted to a school in
which classroom management and whole-group instruction were deemphasized.
The teachers who were ultimately hired to implement the founder’s vision for a blended
PL school each had experience teaching with technology in various online programs and in using
technology in the classroom. Several teachers had taught for a variety of universities with online
programs. Other teachers had used various PL strategies, or had taught using technology or
digital curricula. Several teachers working at BA during its first year explained that they were
initially drawn to the school because of the opportunity to teach in a different way and to teach
with technology. Teachers with experience ranging from four to 17 years spoke passionately
about the promise of personalizing learning in a way that, from their perspective, was simply not
possible in a traditional classroom. In particular, teachers were drawn to the opportunity to
provide the kind of differentiation to which many teachers aspire, but cannot always attain
because of the structural constraints of a traditional school. For example, in more traditional high
school classrooms, teachers may have 30 or 40 (or more) students and teachers have to plan a
lesson that is directed toward most students’ levels. It would be more or less impossible for a
teacher to individualize her lesson and curriculum for each student. At BA, the idea was that with
the addition of technology – specifically, the digital curriculum, and the addition of virtual
instructors – teachers would have more time to attend to students’ individual needs because
students would be working through the digital curriculum (which would adapt to their specific
needs). One teacher described her expectations for teaching at BA, saying,
I think in terms of [BA’s] intentions, it’s this idea of personalized learning. So, in a
typical school, students are taught by one teacher, it’s a class of 30, and you’re just sort of
123
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
blanketing strategies and I know we talk about differentiation, but it’s not usually done
well because you have 30 kids in your classroom and you are trying to manage different
groups. And you are sort of just teaching to the middle.

-BA Teacher Interview, Fall 2012
The teachers who were ultimately hired by the founder were enthusiastic about the possibilities
of personalizing their instruction and using technology to do so.
Scheduling. Initially, the founder wanted to provide extended school hours to
accommodate student work schedules and other possible extenuating circumstances that may
affect students’ opportunities to attend school regularly (thus preventing dropout). The school
was eventually expected to be open seven days a week, from seven am to five pm, year-round.
The school would be open for 12 hours each day, except for Sunday, on which the school would
be open for eight hours. Each day, BA would provide teachers and teaching assistants (TAs) to
help students work through the digital curriculum at their own paces and on their own schedule.
Class periods were also intended to be flexible. In the school planning documents, it was
outlined that the first few weeks of school would have regular class periods, but the school
would soon transition to a more open format, where students could have access to any teacher
and any subject at any time. As long as students completed a standard minimum schedule (at
least 35 hours per week), they would be almost unfettered in when they worked on individual
subjects.
Classroom structure. The founder’s vision for the structure of BA’s classroom can be
summed up in one word: flexible. The school design called for open classrooms that were more
like high-tech cafes than classrooms. Students would be able to sit where they wanted and float
from classroom to classroom as needed because there would be no strict demarcation of where
one classroom ended and another one began. There were no walls between classrooms and high-
124
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
top tables, couches, bean bags, and large tables for group work were all part of the plans for the
school’s classrooms. This plan was meant to emphasize an “anti-classroom” classroom where
there was no front of the room from which teachers could lecture. Rather, there would be
learning stations designed to facilitate one-on-one work, online work, test-taking, group work,
and project work.
Summary. Blended Academy was designed to be a flexible, open school that relied
heavily on technology for content delivery and on face-to-face instruction for project-based
learning and social-emotional support. PL was to be the object of instructional activity in the
school, and student autonomy and self-pacing would be paramount to enacting the PL blended
model. As demonstrated in the next section, however, the founder’s original vision for a PL
blended school was not able to be fully operationalized in practice; rather, a disconnect between
the school vision and teachers’ classroom realities prompted changes in organizational practices
(e.g. eliminating flexible scheduling) and in teachers’ classroom practices (e.g. reverting to more
comfortable practices like lecturing).
Year 1: Navigating the Disconnect between Vision and Practice
Walking into the large classroom space shared by Ms. Z and Ms. H, it is not immediately
evident that these are blended or PL classrooms. At first, there are no laptops out in either
class. Both Ms. Z’s and Ms. H’s students are completing warm-up activities that are
projected on each teacher’s white board. After a few minutes, Ms. Z’s students get up and
get their laptops. Ms. Z walks around to students and asks them what lesson from Digital
X they will be working on today. As Ms. Z speaks to a table of students, other students in
the room listen to their iPods, sometimes singing loudly. Some students are on YouTube,
watching music videos; others are messaging friends on GChat or Facebook. As Ms. Z
makes her way around, students toggle back to the screen devoted to [Digital X].
Sometimes, Ms. Z notices that students are off-task and she redirects them. Other times,
she is too busy unlocking an online quiz for a student, or confiscating another student’s
iPod.

On the other side of the classroom, Ms. H is in the midst of what she refers to as a
“Technology-Free” lecture. She draws attention to this several times throughout the
course of the lecture, as students get out their iPods, asking to send emails or check on
125
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
other work. Ms. H eventually has to confiscate several iPods. After a short lecture, she
allows students to get out their laptops, and spends the rest of the period visiting students
and prodding them to finish the current unit by Friday. Throughout the class period,
students call the teachers’ names constantly, with various requests to “unlock my quiz!”
or “Help me! My screen keeps freezing!” or “The printer isn’t working! Fix it!”

-BA Field Notes, Classroom Observation, Spring 2012
The first full year of operation at BA was characterized by a disconnect between the
school vision and teachers’ classroom realities. This disconnect spurred a constant series of
changes to almost all aspects of the school model to which teachers had to adjust. This might be
expected in any new school; however, as indicated by the above vignette, the high levels of
technology use and the reliance on digital devices and an online curriculum to serve social
emotional needs and deliver instruction exacerbated the difficulties teachers faced. Teachers had
difficulty managing students’ use of technology or enabling student autonomy, and were beset by
overwhelming workloads as they tried to reconcile the school’s vision for practice with their
daily realities. As discussed later in this section, most teachers responded to challenges by
relying on low-tech practices and more traditional forms of teaching like lecturing, or whole-
class discussion. Teachers also created more highly-structured classrooms. Teachers engaged in
these practices to make sense of the disconnect between the expectations for their instructional
practices at BA, and the daily realities of their classrooms.
The blended school model as envisioned (a seamless combination of online learning and
face-to-face instruction, student self-pacing and autonomy, the opportunity for students to learn
“any place, anytime,” and a variety of learning modalities and instructional supports) did not
match up to the school model that was enacted over the course of the first year. The flexible open
schedule became regular class periods, with one hour of “focus time” (initially termed “flex
time”), during which students could work on the digital curriculum. Eventually, focus time was
126
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
eliminated entirely. TAs, virtual instructors, conference periods, and other promised resources
and supports that were meant to ease teachers’ workloads and make it easier for them to deliver
personalized instruction came late or not at all. What was initially a unified vision for how
teaching and learning would occur in the classroom fractured.
In practice, teachers had to navigate the competing visions of the founder, the board, the
administrators, and their fellow staff members. For example, the AP wanted to emphasize
advisory, while most teachers felt that content instruction needed to come first. Additionally, the
principal and several of the more experienced teachers advocated for highly-structured
classrooms in order to promote classroom management, while other teachers and the founder
wanted to continue to emphasize the flexibility upon which the school’s initial mission rested.
Teachers also had to work within the limits of the digital curriculum and the available, but often
inaccurate data. Teachers were required to use Digital X, but often felt that some units were not
rigorous enough, and some were not accessible to lower-level students. Additionally, the
principal and some teachers reported that Digital X did not provide accurate data, or did not
accurately assess students’ mastery of content knowledge. The instructional roles and practices
that developed out of this environment differed from teacher to teacher; some teachers enacted
highly-structured classrooms (Ms. H, Mr. F, Ms. T), while others maintained more loosely-
structured practice (Mr. J and, to a lesser extent, Ms. Z). Still, there were underlying tensions
between the vision for practice and the realities of teachers’ classrooms.
Teachers responded differentially to the tensions between vision and practice, employing
strategies and teaching roles commensurate with their own backgrounds and experiences. Some
teachers responded with highly-structured, more extreme modifications to the model (Ms. H, Mr.
F, and Ms. T); others floundered, attempting to make modifications, but on a smaller scale – only
127
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
dealing with immediate classroom problems, like missing data and technology management (Ms.
Z). Only one teacher believed that if the model was given the chance to work, it would (Mr. J).
He modified only in relation to his perception that the online curriculum was not rigorous
enough by providing students with extra after-school activities and writing assignments.
However, there were common themes: there was a disconnect between the vision for practice in
the school and day-to-day classroom realities and teachers drew on their prior experiences and
core teaching beliefs to help reconcile this disconnect. This disconnect manifested in several
categories: (1) school environment and classroom management; (2) classroom technology use;
and (3) teachers’ practices, roles, and responsibilities. Though a key assumption of blended PL is
that it would initiate fundamental changes in how teachers teach and how students learn, in the
end, teachers exhibited a return to the instructional practices with which they were most
comfortable – for most teachers, this meant a more teacher-centered classroom environment.
School environment and classroom management. The vision for the schools’
environment and for how teachers would manage their classrooms became a key manifestation
of tensions and a key area of change in year one. In BA’s first year, the school mission was built
on three interrelated pillars: (1) offering flexible learning environments; (2) providing social-
emotional support; and (3) utilizing online curriculum and high-tech teaching strategies. All
three of these pillars relied on high levels of technology use and on a collective responsibility for
student learning that included high levels of student autonomy. Each of these strategies was
aimed at personalizing students’ learning experiences in order to prevent dropout, and both close
gaps in student skills and knowledge and offer the opportunity for accelerated content. In its
essence, the school mission was constant throughout BA’s first year – the founder, the
administrators, and the teachers wanted students to have a safe and supportive place to learn.
128
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
However, as challenges arose throughout the year, the emphasis on providing social-emotional
support, flexibility, and high-tech teaching fell away, replaced by a simpler mission – to make
sure students were learning something and that teachers’ could manage their classrooms and
their workloads.
The first challenge that arose around classroom management was the scheduling. The
concept of an extended, flexible schedule was a foundational principle in the founder’s vision.
The idea was that in the first few weeks of school, there would be traditional periods, so that
students and teachers could more easily transition to a schedule that would undoubtedly be new
and different for them. However, the flexible schedule and extended school hours never took
root. In the first semester, the school moved to a “staggered start” schedule, where students could
come in at 7:30 am, 8:00 am, or 8:30 am and could stay until 2:30 pm, 3:00 pm, or 3:30 pm
respectively. Teachers would be present for the whole day. This “staggered start” proved to be
difficult for both teachers and students to manage. Teachers had a difficult time keeping track of
which students were supposed to be where and when. Further, because students were coming and
going at different times and were supposed to be working on different things, teachers had no
clear way to ensure students were using the time productively. Indeed, many students would
come in and spend the first hour of the morning socializing or browsing the internet. Traditional
class periods were soon reinstituted and the staggered start was turned into “flex” time, where
students could work independently for an hour in the morning. This eventually became “focus”
time when teachers again expressed that students were not focusing or getting any work done
during “flex” time. Eventually, “focus” time was done away with as well because students were
off-task
24
much of the time and teachers had no way to monitor all students’ activities

24
By off-task, I am referring to the teachers’ definition of off-task – students not working on schoolwork. Off-task
behavior, as it was defined by teachers and administrators, often included students using their technological devices
129
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
simultaneously.
As noted earlier, discipline and classroom management strategies were not discussed
until they became a problem. In other words, classroom management was not discussed as part
of the original school vision. BA’s founder emphasized student autonomy and students’ abilities
to self-regulate as being key to the success of the model, but there was no plan in place to “train”
students or teachers to develop student autonomy or self-regulation skills. However, once
teachers and administrators began to see discipline problems disrupting almost every single class
on a near-constant basis, many of the professional development sessions and staff meetings
began to center on this issue. Teachers and administrators also began to see pressure from
parents who were hearing stories of fighting and vandalism from their children. For example, an
exchange between teachers and parents at one parent meeting became heated and exemplified
how the school dealt with discipline for much of the year:
Parent 1: I’m worried about safety though, fighting?

Teacher 1: Here we really want to provide students with the tools to deal with their
feelings.

Parent 1: I find the frequency of incidents that I’m hearing about alarming. It seems like
there are a lot of fights. What is the staff doing to address that?

Teacher 1: There have been a lot of fights.

Parent 1: I’ve heard about incidents on the bus, people smoking pot in the bathroom,
locking the bathrooms, having to close the bathrooms.

Teacher 1: We’re trying to empower the entire student body to identify these few students
that are causing all of the problems. We locked the bathroom to identify who is in there
when. They just need to let the teacher know if they want to go during class.

Parent 2: He doesn’t want to get to involved. He doesn’t want teachers to think he’s
doing something wrong. No kid wants to feel like he’s being a snitch.

for other tasks that did not include schoolwork (watching music videos; playing music; looking at Instagram,
Twitter, or Facebook; checking personal email, etc.)
130
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Administrator: They can email if they want.

Parent 2: If they know my kid was the last one in there, it makes it hard because then they
don’t want to say anything.

Parent 3: Information travels fast. Next year this class is going to get bigger and bigger. I
don’t know if the kids feel like everything is good in terms of how the school is being
managed. They’re going to have half as much access to the bathroom next year. I hope
the school is implementing some sort of action plan that works and is scalable.

Teacher 1: We meet once a week to evaluate how things are going. We’re working on
new discipline problems. We’re trying to create a culture where everyone is accountable
and where they respect their school.

Parent 1: This year it feels like “incident happens, school reacts” instead of the kids
entering the school and knowing that there is structure.

Teacher 1: Yes, we walked in day one and thought that this is how things were going to
be and then we realized that kids aren’t ready for a lot of this. So maybe they’re not ready
for it all freshman year, maybe we need to build up to that.

-BA field notes, Parent meeting, February 2013

This exchange happened in February of year one. Teachers and administrators both seemed to
identify the importance of having discipline procedures in place, and often discussed ways to
improve school culture and pride; however, nothing formal was put into place. Rather, most
teachers implemented more highly-structured classroom procedures to lessen student
misbehavior and improve classroom management. Only one teacher resisted implementing
highly-structured practices. Mr. J, the English teacher, expressed that he felt that students’ would
learn to self-regulate, and would be able to learn in the original model, as it was envisioned, if
only the model was given time to work and students and teachers did not have to deal with
constant design changes. He maintained a loosely-structured classroom built around the use of
Digital X and student autonomy. However, as the year went on, the principal and many of the
other teachers cited his classroom as being the most disruptive and in the most need of improved
classroom management.
131
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Classroom technology use. Classroom technology use was a particularly salient area of
tension and disruption for teachers in year one. For example, in the vignette at the beginning of
this section, students were using computers and iPods for all manner of off-task behavior,
including listening to music, watching videos, and chatting with friends. Teachers had trouble
monitoring students’ computer use because students were so easily able to toggle back and forth
between Digital X and other websites and activities. Technology use in the classroom was a
source of tension for teachers because the school model relied heavily on daily technology use,
yet there were no plans for how to monitor and manage students’ use of technology – it was
assumed they would be able to manage themselves. Indeed, BA relied heavily on the assumption
that students would be “digital natives” for whom technology would provide both the motivation
and the means to learn.
In the original vision for instruction at BA, technology was to be an integral part of
students’ learning, meant to allow students to find their own answers to their questions, to
explore their personal interests, and to provide multiple opportunities for learning. The use of
iPods in the classroom was partially intended to serve the social-emotional component of the
model, allowing students to enjoy music and to “tune out” from other classroom activities when
working on Digital X. Further, the iPods would allow students to listen to Podcasts or teacher-
created content at any time, in any location. However, prior to the school’s opening, little
attention was paid to the management of these devices, and their potential for misuse. As a
result, at BA, teachers spent much of their time managing students’ technology use,
troubleshooting, and developing classroom procedures to ensure that technology use was
relevant to learning. For example, in Ms. H’s classroom, she attempted to ensure student learning
by instituting “Technology-Free” periods in the classroom. When students had to be working on
132
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
their laptops in order to complete lessons or quizzes, the majority of her time was spent walking
from student to student, watching for off-task behavior, and calling out students for how long
they were “logged in” to the digital curriculum. In one typical interaction, Ms. H admonished
one student, saying “It says you only logged in for one minute…when are you going to finish
your English if you only logged in one minute today?” The difficulties around ensuring students
were using technology productively resulted in teachers “hovering” over students, making it
difficult to provide targeted instructional help. Teachers often responded to off-task
behavior/technology use by confiscating computers and devices or restricting their use, in order
to ensure that students were working. However, because the majority of tasks were meant to be
delivered online or through technological devices, this was not a productive or effective solution.
The problems with managing technology and the issues with the digital curriculum were
devastating for students’ progress as well. In one December staff meeting that included all of the
teachers, the principal, the AP, and the founder, frustrated teachers discussed students’ progress:
Teacher 1: We have kids who have only completed three assignments this semester so
far. How do we get our hands on the actual data, so we can show them exactly where
they are and explain why we’re assigning their seats, etc.?

Teacher 2: [Student 1] hasn’t accessed the course since Oct 1.

Teacher 3: Yeah, he just kind of goes where he wants when he gets here.

Teacher 1: Here’s another student [Student 2] who hasn’t completed anything since
November 4.

Teacher 3: I haven’t seen him.

Teacher 2: Sometimes he comes at 1.

Teacher 1: [Student 3] has yet to complete an activity in Mr. J’s class. The kid gets the
work, but doesn’t really complete anything.

-BA field notes, Staff meeting, December 2012

133
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
This exchange demonstrates just how untenable the personalized pacing and open scheduling
portions of the school model was for both students and teachers in year one. Teachers could not
keep track of what every student in each class was doing, making the sorts of scenarios
mentioned in the staff meeting more and more common as the year went on. Essentially, teachers
found that they could not rely on the technology, or on student autonomy, as they had initially
planned.
It can be argued that technology in any classroom can be a learning tool or a distraction.
Indeed, schools often struggle with how to limit student access to inappropriate or distracting
material without decreasing potential learning opportunities. Even in schools that attempt to
block websites, students may perform hacks that allow them to bypass restrictions, as
administrators in Los Angeles Unified School District recently discovered (Blume, 2013).
Further, many websites (e.g., YouTube or Facebook) can be used productively or
unproductively, and it can be difficult for teachers to tell which is which, especially with many
students on computers. Still, although this dilemma may emerge to some degree in any
classroom where technology is present (and in any classroom where students are working more
independently), it is especially problematic in blended/PL classrooms because computers and
devices are often central to content delivery and daily activities – there are far more options for
misuse when students are working on different subjects or units at different times while working
on computers, using iPods, and surfing the internet freely. Flexible scheduling, personalized
pacing, and ambiguous data exacerbated the issue, making it hard for teachers to keep track of
what students were supposed to be doing on a given day. Indeed, BA’s entire school model
hinged on the consistent use of technological devices, digital resources, and the digital
curriculum to promote personalized pacing and autonomy; thus, the potential for misuse of
134
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
technology at BA was high. Without supports in place, teachers could not simultaneously
monitor the online activities of every student.
In short, teachers at BA spent a considerable amount of time managing students’ use of
technology – how to use it, when to use it (i.e., when to have laptops open, when to use iPods,
when to use the digital curriculum), and for what (monitoring Facebook/YouTube use,
monitoring messaging, managing the volume of iPods, music, and computer activities). Despite
their best efforts, teachers reported that students were still off-task (i.e. watching music videos;
playing music; looking at Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook; checking personal email, etc.) much
of the time; classroom observations confirmed this. Though BA was built on the vision for a
high-tech school, throughout the year teachers seemed to rely less on technology for teaching in
order to discourage off-task behavior, and regain some control over students’ classroom
progress.
Teachers’ roles and responsibilities: The division of labor at BA. Part of the allure of
a blended model for teachers is that it is meant to ease teachers’ workloads so that they can
provide technology-driven, personalized instruction for students. As evidenced by teachers’ time
spent managing technology use, this was not always the case. The assumptions of practice in the
original vision for teaching and learning at BA indicated a very specific division of labor in the
school. As outlined by the school’s founder and by the expectations outlined at professional
development sessions prior to the start of the school year, teachers would act as facilitators,
guiding students through the online curriculum, and creating supplementary learning experiences
and projects. TAs would help manage the classroom and work with students on an individual and
group basis, as would teachers. Virtual instructors would help teachers by offering responses to
students’ questions about Digital X content and acting as tutors, both within and beyond regular
135
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
school hours. Students would self-direct, and classrooms would be open throughout the day for
students to float from class to class getting help in whatever subject they were working on at the
time, creating a more collective responsibility for student learning. The digital curriculum would
bear the responsibility of measuring progress and mastery, assessing student learning, aligning
content to standards, and providing multiple learning experiences per lesson or unit. In reality,
the division of labor did not occur as intended – most, if not all, of the responsibilities fell to the
teacher. In practice then, teachers ended up taking on much more than they had anticipated.
Indeed, all of the teachers reported working much more than they had in traditional schools. For
example, some teachers reported working 12 to 15 hours a day. One teacher was responsible for
teaching upwards of 12 courses. Further, teachers did not have planning periods and there was no
system in place for teachers to get substitutes if they were sick or if they had to be out for the
day. The disconnect between teachers’ expected roles and responsibilities and their actual roles
and responsibilities at BA was thus a considerable source of tension for teachers.
Many of the problems that teachers had to address were a result of the shortcomings of
Digital X. For example, Digital X often ended up creating more, rather than less work for
teachers. As one teacher explained,
[Digital X] comes with nothing. Thank God I came with my brain because I expected that
[Digital X] would do the trick and I expected the students would maintain their
motivation and do it on their own. I expected that the study sheets would work for them,
but now I know they’re horrible. And so it only took me two weeks to think ‘ugh this is
not working and now I have to change it fast.’ I didn’t expect that I would have to rewrite
the curriculum. I mean I knew that it was a possibility but I didn’t realize that I had to sit
down and rewrite entire classes.

Another teacher echoed this, saying that students would “get frustrated and shut down” because
what they were learning in Digital X was not being tested and vice versa. In response, she
“revamped everything within [Digital X]. It’s [the Digital X] handout, but I take stuff out, I add
136
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
stuff in.” This teacher felt that Digital X was a like a bad textbook – there were some good
resources in it, but it had to be heavily supplemented in order for it to be useful.
Teachers also had to rewrite the curriculum for several other reasons. For example,
sometimes the teachers felt that students were not ready to access the curriculum. In this case,
students could not read or comprehend what the curriculum was asking them to do. This issue
further pushed teachers to move away from the digital curriculum until they felt students could
access the material. According to Ms. H,
I feel as though some students don’t have the skill set to really make [Digital X] 100
percent fully accessible for them and truly independent, particularly that for some of them
they are dealing with a whole new content, and a whole new concept area, so you know,
just basic vocabulary skills, reading ability and things of that nature may be lacking. So
trying to find a good balance of where I am able to target those students and their
individual needs to make sure they’re still able to access the curriculum but now at the
same time still kind of work within the flexible framework that [BA] calls for.

To help students with issues of access or misunderstandings, Ms. H often created individualized
learning experiences for her students in the form of “playlists.” For instance, for some students,
Ms. H created a playlist wiki that offered several options for stories to read for irony, rather than
just one. It also allowed students to listen to the story as they read or watch a supplemental
video; the playlists also linked the students to other resources that could be helpful in furthering
their understanding of the concept. Though these playlists worked on a short-term basis, the
work Ms. H put into making them was not sustainable; indeed, she reported working 15 hours a
day to keep up with the workload. Further, this type of assignment would be nearly impossible
for other teachers to do. For example, the math teacher, Ms. T, was teaching 12 math courses at
the same time. This made it difficult for her to manage student pacing through the courses, while
also ensuring mastery and providing PL experiences.
Though it can be argued that teachers rewrite and supplement curricula in traditional
137
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
schools as well, the extent to which teachers had to change the digital curriculum at BA was
staggering. Student progress and mastery were measured through Digital X, yet teachers could
neither rely on Digital X to provide students with opportunities to learn the material nor expect
the information provided by the digital curriculum to be accurate. The school’s emphasis on
personalization added to teachers’ workloads as well; teachers had to rewrite the curriculum and
create learning experiences that were individualized for each student, depending on the class in
which the student was enrolled and that particular student’s skill level and learning style. Finally,
in a more traditional classroom environment, a teacher would not be responsible for the material
taught in more than a few classes. As mentioned above, at BA, teachers were rewriting curricula
and providing supplementary materials for upwards of 12 classes.
Increased workloads were rooted in staffing issues as well. In the initial vision for the BA
school model, teachers were to share responsibility for student learning with virtual instructors,
and TAs, as well as with the student services coordinator, who would run the advisory program.
This staffing model was meant to create a collective division of labor that provided teachers and
students with multiple sources of support and learning. This would allow teachers to focus in on
supplemental activities, projects, and students’ social-emotional health. In reality, the collective
responsibility for student learning was not enacted as envisioned. While the vision called for
more open classrooms, and shared responsibility, teachers took on almost all of the
responsibilities. Ultimately, students worked through Digital X, but did not interact with live
virtual instructors. TAs were few and far between – the math teacher had access to a couple;
other teachers had no TAs at all. Compounding the increased roles and responsibilities that
teachers were encountering was the fact that there were not enough staff members for teachers to
have a planning (conference) period. Additionally, there was no substitute system in place, so
138
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
teachers could not take a day off without one of the administrators or other teachers taking their
students for the day.
Ultimately, many of the challenges and the decisions teachers made in response to those
challenges stem from a tension between teachers’ expectations and their realities – a key trigger
for sensemaking that I discuss in further detail in chapter six. In general, the blended PL model at
BA created more, rather than less work for teachers. Indeed, whenever something went wrong
the teachers had to bear the burden. Teachers expected to share some of the responsibility for
planning, assessment, and instruction with Digital X, but when the online curriculum did not
deliver as expected, teachers did more. Teachers expected that technology would support their
instruction and facilitate student learning. Instead, technology became a distraction, and teachers
had to intervene. This led to teachers being overwhelmed by the daily demands of teaching, and
caught in the demands of the model, not to mention the demands of changing everything on an
almost weekly basis. As a result, as the year progressed, classrooms become more and more
traditional, and less and less technology-oriented. BA’s theory of action – blended PL – became
a source of tension and not a source of transformation as it was intended. In the words of BA’s
founding principal,
We’re testing all the assumptions that we made when we wrote the plan, and
unfortunately, more of them were wrong than we thought would be. You know,
you always expect a certain amount of misjudgment, or inappropriate
assumptions, but we had way – we had more. And in areas that were impactful.
The biggest is the kids’ ability to self-manage. So we’re going to try to figure that
out collectively. One of the challenges is always – you go back to what’s easy and
you go back to what’s comfortable. So, if we put everybody in a direct instruction
model tomorrow…we’d see progress. I think that we would. And not because
direct instruction is necessarily better, but because the kids know how to act. So
we’ll get more compliance. You know, will we get more proficiency? Those are
the questions to ask.

-BA Interview, Principal, Spring 2013
139
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Reestablishing teacher control and traditional practices. Over the course of the
inaugural year of BA, key pieces of the schools’ instructional plan– including the social-
emotional elements of the model; the plans for project-based and authentic learning experiences;
the flexibility in time, place, and pacing; and the embeddedness of the technology – began to fall
away. Administrators and teachers made several changes to the blended PL model, moving away
from pervasive technology use and toward more teacher-centered classrooms. Mr F, for example,
made the switch back to more highly-structured teacher-centric practice rather quickly. As he
explained it in mid-October, “A teacher is a teacher…and I was thinking it would be different [at
BA]. I was just going to roll with it and try this blended thing…I just needed 30 minutes to say
“No, that’s not going to work.” Other teachers took longer, but by the middle of the second
semester, most teachers had made the move to more traditional practices, and less technology
use. According to the 2012-2013 principal,
It has settled so much since the beginning, I mean I think that we’re doing a lot better
with keeping kids contained and on-track behaviorally. But academically, the kids who
are struggling continue to struggle. And I mean, academically, productivity-wise.

-BA Interview, Principal, Spring 2013
In other words, teachers began employing practices that would help them reestablish some
control in their classrooms, so that they could get students back on-track (get students to begin to
make more progress in their classes). This meant abandoning the more flexible elements of the
model (flexible scheduling, individualized pacing, high levels of technology use) in favor of
more highly-structured practices (regular class periods, lectures, whole-class discussions, whole-
class units and pacing, low-tech practices) – in other words, pulling back on certain elements of
the blended PL model so that teachers could manage their classrooms and establish a baseline for
student behavior. The thought was, once teachers had their classrooms under control, they might
140
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
be able to slowly re-introduce PL practices in the next year.
Administrators and teachers cited several compelling reasons for the aforementioned
changes. First and foremost, students were having significant difficulties adjusting to the blended
model. As reported by the teachers and the principal, students were never trained on how to
behave in this new model and neither were teachers. Students were not responding to the model
in the expected way – they were struggling with the idea of a classroom that was not teacher-led,
they did not know how to act in that environment, and they were not able to self-regulate or
manage their pacing. Initially, there were expectations that the blended model would be flexible
enough that it would work for everyone. In reality, teachers were essentially enacting a blended
PL model, and creating it at the same time. Further complicating matters, the staff, the
administration, the CMO, and the founder did not seem to be on the same page with what needed
to be happening in the school and in classrooms. Everyone seemed to believe that the model was
not working as planned, but all had different ideas for how to fix it. Eventually, a return to more
teacher-centered classrooms won out over the original vision for instruction at BA.
The move to more teacher-centric practices, such as lecturing and whole-class activities,
was championed by the principal and a few of the more experienced teachers – Mr. F, Ms. T, and
Ms. H. These teachers described their instruction at BA as similar to their prior teaching
experiences. Each identified challenges early on in the year and utilized strategies from past
teaching experiences to address those problems. The teachers remarked that they had taught in
“difficult” schools
25
prior to coming to BA and had decided early on to implement a more
structured classroom that veered from the intended blended learning model. Though these
teachers used certain aspects of the blended model, they resisted those aspects that they felt were

25
Both Mr. F and Ms. T used the words “difficult” and “challenging” to describe schools they had worked in prior
to coming to BA. To these two teachers, “difficult” and “challenging” schools meant high needs schools that
primarily served traditionally-underserved students.
141
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
not working, and did so quickly. When they perceived that the model as envisioned was failing
in some way, they relied on their prior experiences and pedagogical strategies to construct a
functioning learning environment. Unfortunately, as the principal noted in her interview, many
of these changes came toward the end of the year, when students were already so behind
academically that any lessons learned from the volatile first year would only benefit future
students, not those who had already lost valuable learning opportunities.
One teacher, Mr. F, in his first interview, expressed that he expected he would have to
pull back on some of the structure he usually used in his classrooms. Initially, he said that he did
not know what the student population would be, so he was willing to implement the blended PL
model as intended. However, halfway through the year, he expressed doubt that his role would
be different from that in other teaching environments. Mr. F had spent most of his career
teaching in what he described as “challenging” schools. By his own admission, he changed the
model to fit with his own views on what works best for the student population that he had –
traditionally under-served students. In practice, his classroom appeared to be highly structured,
and students appeared to understand their roles and responsibilities. Each day, the class began
with a Do Now (a quick opening activity connecting that day’s lesson with previous lessons),
after which a pre-determined group of students would walk the class through the answers. The
class would then proceed with a short lecture from Mr. F, followed by group activities, or a
period of time working in the digital curriculum. During the time that he was not in front of the
class teaching, Mr. F would circulate, helping individual students and pulling groups out to work
with them on various concepts.
Low-tech or no-tech. Paradoxically, in the high-tech environment of BA, teachers often
reverted to low-tech strategies to hold students accountable and to measure progress. This
142
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
included writing notes on Post-Its and putting them on students’ computers to remind them to
work on a specific lesson. Teachers’ strategies to cope with overwhelming workloads and
technology issues also included verbal, rather than digital management of student work. For
example, Ms. Z – the social studies teacher – held students accountable during roll call. In a
typical class period, she would call each student’s name and the student would tell Ms. Z which
page they were working on, rather than saying “Here.” Ms. Z would then have students sign up
for help, and would spend the class circulating, re-directing students who were off-task, and
helping students with their work.
Ms. Z, and other teachers, also relied heavily on non-digital strategies for keeping the
students organized. For example, the math teacher, Ms. T, instituted “Technology-Free” days, in
order to teach content that she felt was not available in Digital X or to teach content that she
thought students would need to even access Digital X lessons. Ms. Z had students create their
own non-digital notebooks so that they could organize themselves and have a study guide.
Though she used Digital X in her classroom often, Ms. Z did not want students to rely on it as
their study guide. She confided that she wanted to utilize the digital curriculum and enact the
blended PL model as envisioned; however, she felt that the structure was not in place to allow
teachers to cater to individual student needs or to keep students progressing through the
curriculum and mastering the content. The tension between wanting to enact the model as
intended and not having the necessary experience or resources to do so compelled Ms. Z to
constantly redefine her role and to rely more on traditional strategies than she would have liked.
By the end of the year, the return to more traditional, often low-tech practices was nearly
complete. Most teachers were regularly relying on high levels of structure, and low-tech teaching
practices to improve classroom management and student progression. The one teacher, Mr. J,
143
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
who did not return to more traditional practices was often cited as a source of disruption and was
eventually let go. As teachers and administrators re-envisioned the blended model, the closing
message to students mirrored their commitment to teacher-centered classroom instruction: “We
heard you loud and clear and will work to provide you with a traditional high school experience
next year. All we ask is that you come back ready to work hard.”
Year 1 summary. At its core, BA’s first year was characterized by an evident disconnect
between the school vision and the realities of the classroom – the digital curriculum did not
deliver as expected, students had difficulty self-managing, and teachers were forced to take on
unanticipated roles and responsibilities. In the end, although a blended PL model is intended to
substantively change teachers’ practices, most teachers at BA exhibited a return to traditional
practices to manage (and survive) the unanticipated difficulties of implementing high-tech PL.
Teachers’ expectations and their existing understandings of teaching and pedagogy
played a large role in how they interpreted and responded to the disconnect between the vision
and their daily realities. Based on prior experiences, and on the founder’s vision, teachers
expected that they would be facilitators, differentiating for the students based on their individual
levels, and using the digital curriculum and other technological resources to enable student
learning. Further, teachers expected that the blended PL model would facilitate more student
autonomy, thus requiring a less authoritarian role for the teacher. Teachers also anticipated
sharing responsibility for student learning with the digital curriculum, teaching assistants, virtual
instructors, and other teachers. In effect, teachers’ expectations reflected the idea that a blended
PL model would be the foundation for them to substantively change their practices. In reality,
however, teachers experienced a near-constant tension between the day-to-day activities of the
classroom and the vision for a blended school that prompted them to rely on teaching practices
144
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
with which they were already comfortable. As described above, and explored further in Chapter
six, these tensions led to increased roles and responsibilities for teachers, a continuously shifting
school vision for blended PL in practice, and ultimately, a return to more traditional, teacher-
centric practices in the classroom.
Teachers’ actions during this time can best be characterized as “survival mode” –
teachers had to rely on existing practices and conceptions of pedagogy to survive the constant
changes, challenges, and discrepancies in the model. One exchange in an end of the year staff
meeting exemplified the difficulties teachers had to face:
Assistant principal: I want to take a moment to acknowledge the level of overwhelmed
we are all feeling.

Teacher 1: We’re coming up on the eighth month of 12-hour days.

Teacher 2: Sometimes I feel like I’m barely afloat. I feel like I’m drowning most of the
time…I feel like I’m not doing my best work.

Teacher 3: We have very few breaks during the day.

Assistant principal: This year, we’re just trying to get through.

-Excerpted from BA Field Notes, May 2013
Teachers felt that they had spent the entire year being reactive, rather than proactive, which
resulted in a feeling of surviving, not thriving. Later in this same meeting, during which teachers
and administrators were giving each other “shout-outs” (praise), the principal exclaimed, “Shout
to all of you faculty and staff here – what you do, sometimes crazy, sometimes chaotic, still not
giving up, taking care of each other. I do genuinely thank you. We are surviving.”
Year 2: “No Excuses” and the Accountability Imperative
Students enter Ms. L’s class, sit down, and open their laptops. As the bell rings, Ms. L
counts down “5…4…3…2…1.” Students who were talking quiet down and Ms. L points
the students’ attention to the board. She says “There is a Do Now. When you are done
with the Do Now, close your computers, so I know you are finished.” Students work
145
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
quietly on their Do Now. After about three minutes, students start to close their laptops.
Those who finish early sit quietly. One student starts to say something to the student next
to her and Ms. L immediately says “Excuse me. You should be silent right now.” The
student stops talking.

At about five minutes in, Ms. L says “Okay, you should be done with your Do Now.
Your projects are due at the end of class. If it is not turned in at the end of class, it will
not be counted. You should now be working silently. Have a good class.” She does not
review the Do Now, but students open their laptops back up and begin working.

Some students are working on paper and Ms. L tells them that they can turn their project
in by hand, not over email. Throughout the class, however, most students are using their
laptops. They all appear to be working on different types of projects related to the
objective on the board: SWBAT (Students will be able to) explain the 7 Habits of Highly
Effective Teens.

Throughout class, Ms. L monitors students’ activities on her own laptop. She is using a
digital learning management system called Hapara that allows her to monitor students’
online work as they are working. Whenever she sees a student that is off-task (not
working or doing something they should not be doing, like talking, checking their email,
or looking at other websites beyond what Ms. L has allowed), she sends him/her a
message and issues them a demerit, which she then logs into Illuminate (a digital student
data management system).

At the end of class, Ms. L calls out a few students who have not turned in their projects.
She tells them to submit them now. She tells the other students to close their laptops.
When the bell rings, she dismisses them and they leave quietly.

-BA Field Notes, Classroom Observation, Fall 2013
During BA’s second year, teachers’ practices were indelibly shaped by significant
changes in organizational practice – particularly, a school-level emphasis on student discipline
and teacher accountability spurred by the implementation of a “No Excuses” school model.
As demonstrated by the above vignette, for example, classrooms were more highly regimented
and students were subject to a highly-structured discipline system. Indeed, classroom practice
during BA’s second year looked somewhat different from a typical class period during year one
– specifically, in year two, classrooms were characterized by a high degree of discipline and
oriented toward student compliance and performance on standardized assessments.
146
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
The second year of operation at Blended Academy began with an overhaul of school
design and classroom practices toward implementing a “No Excuses” model and emphasizing
accountability for student outcomes. Issues encountered in year one – namely, the conflicting
visions for school purpose, design, and classroom practice; lack of student progress; student
behavior and classroom management issues; problems with technology management and the
digital curriculum; and overwhelming and unanticipated roles and responsibilities for teachers –
led to organizational restructuring and instructional redesign. The blended school model and the
idea of PL as the basis for that model were still important aspects of the school’s stated mission;
however, in the second year of Blended Academy, there was first an emphasis on “fixing” the
school – improving student behavior and achievement, getting everyone involved in the school
“on the same page,” re-examining which technology was used, how, and for what purpose, and
eventually, re-visiting the notion of PL. Toward these aims, new school leaders emphasized
structure and alignment, discipline, accountability, and teacher professionalization. These
emphases were intended to provide the foundation for reinstating PL. Still, in BA’s second year,
substantive changes were, again, largely at the organizational-level. As further discussed in
chapter six, teachers’ practices in year two (including how teachers used technology, and how
they used data) were mediated by changes in organizational practices (in particular, the “No
Excuses” model and the emphasis on accountability), but teachers’ existing beliefs were not
altered; rather, teachers whose beliefs did not align with organizational changes left the school.
A key turning point for BA came when a new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) – Mr. O –
took over the school’s charter management organization (CMO), and became acting principal.
Mr. O described his responsibilities as being “quality control” – ensuring that BA had a system
of accountability in place to meet minimum standards of quality. As part of this quest for quality
147
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
control, the CEO implemented a new school-wide discipline policy, based in a “No Excuses”
framework that would become a crucial part of the school’s new model and a key mediator for
teachers’ practices. The new CEO also instituted a new schedule of “lecture days” (during which
teachers were to deliver new content via more traditional classroom practices, like lecture, and
with less reliance on technology) and “studio days” (during which students were supposed to
complete online work autonomously) that represented a distinct delineation between traditional
teacher-centered classroom time and online or project-based work. With regard to technology,
the school moved from Apple products and Digital X to Google Chromebooks and teacher-
compiled or curated digital resources. The new CEO emphasized accountability as a means of
holding teachers responsible for what students were doing with their time and how much they
were learning. The CEO and principal also wanted a structure in which teachers could make
instructional choices – like choosing curriculum – but would be held accountable for the results
of those choices (as identified by students’ scores on interim assessments) and for changing their
instruction as needed to improve their practice. In essence, changes in school organizational
practices toward implementing the “No Excuses” model and emphasizing accountability for
students and teachers mediated teachers’ instructional practices in three key ways: (1)
Administrators (the CEO and the AP) pressed for consistency and alignment in implementing the
“No Excuses” model and enforcing standards for student behavior; (2) Teachers were required
justify instructional choices with quantifiable results and hold students to a minimum standard of
progress – a “learning floor”; and (3) PL strategies were slowly integrated throughout the year
on the foundations of discipline and accountability.

148
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
“No Excuses:” Vision alignment, discipline, and accountability.
“We’re creating an environment where kids can succeed.”

-BA Interview, CEO, Fall 2013

“We need to win.”

- BA field notes, CEO, 2013

The implementation of the “No Excuses” Model and an emphasis on accountability were
the driving forces behind many organizational and instructional decisions during BA’s second
year. Teachers, school leadership, and parents all expressed to some extent that little was done to
hold teachers or students accountable for student behavior or academic progress. There was no
floor for self-pacing, so students were not held to any specific standard of progress. Neither
progress reports nor report cards went home with students before the end of the year. Several
teachers admitted that they were late to school sometimes because “no one [in the leadership]
really cared.” Disagreement on what changes to make and how to implement or modify the
model led to teachers and leaders doing whatever they wanted to do (relying on their existing
individual beliefs about teaching), without deciding on a set of school-level practices to address
problems. Though there was initially a unified vision for BA prior to its first full year of
implementation (i.e. the articulated design/vision of the school was clearly presented), this
unified vision slowly fractured in practice throughout the first year. Teachers were subject to
competing visions of the founder, the board, the administrators, and their fellow staff members.
As the school model began to fall apart, there was more and more tension among the community
of stakeholders (e.g. teachers vs. teachers, founder vs. administrators, parents vs. administrators),
as evidenced by the following exchange in an April 2013 staff meeting:

149
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Teacher 1: The follow-through on the things that we decide isn’t there…we leave this
room with tacit agreement, but then we look at the implementation, and it looks
completely different. We have lot of charts. [Indicates charts and posters on the wall of
the staff room] We can identify what the issues are, but what are we going to do?

[The Principal and Teacher 1 are guiding the discussion. Both seem frustrated.]

Counselor: What about if we worked in pairs to take one issue and make it a priority to
make recommendations?

Principal: But, when will people have time to do it? We’re good at saying we’re going to
do stuff. (Seems frustrated)

Teacher 1: We already know what the problems are.

Teacher 2: (Raises eyebrows incredulously) Do we?

Teacher 3: Maybe there are concerns with feeling safe in talking. We should just get to
put something out there. For example: we need to talk about vacation, sick day accrual.
(Shrugs anxiously) Maybe need to ask ourselves, ‘Is this the best model to use with some
of our kids?’

Teacher 4: (Looking at Teacher 5, who is not paying attention) You can’t not
[participate] in the conversation and just tacitly agree.

Principal: Maybe just create a form in google docs and put down one question that needs
to be talked about.

Teacher 2: (Raises voice) I’m tired of talking, we’re not all on the same page.

Teacher 3: We put something out here as a team, people decide if they’re going to do it or
not, we’re all grown.

Principal: The core issue is, if we say we’re going to do it, even if we don’t like it…then
let’s just do it that way.

Teacher 4: We’ve been talking about all these problems for 8 months…kids running in
the hall, etc.

Teacher 2: Part of why kids are running around in the hallway is because we’re not on the
same page.

Teacher 4: We need consensus. It’s easy to divide and conquer us.

[Teacher 5, who has not said anything yet, is looking bored, looking toward the wall, and
sometimes rolling his eyes]
150
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION

Principal: So what is the vision of this school? Because we have one written
down…college and career-ready…but what does that look like?

Teacher 3: We have to get on the same page with what we intend to provide students
with.

Principal: I would love for these Tuesdays to be best practices and not trying to get us to
follow through on things we talked about before.

-BA Field Notes, Staff Meeting, April 2013

As evidenced by this exchange, tensions were running high among the staff. Teachers and school
leaders (the principal and the AP) both felt that people came into staff meetings and just agreed
to do whatever was asked, but did not follow through. For the most part, teachers were simply
doing whatever they wanted in their classrooms regardless of what was discussed in staff
meetings, indicating that there had been no real shift in teachers’ existing beliefs about teaching.
Ms. T and Mr. F, two of the more experienced teachers were utilizing highly structured teaching
strategies that they had used previously in “challenging” schools.
26
Mr. J felt he was
implementing the model as it was intended and continued to do so, even as his colleagues
became frustrated with his lack of classroom management. Most teachers were questioning the
idea of PL, citing discipline problems that they could not manage while also implementing the
model. These issues contributed to generally high levels of frustration, both with the model, and
with their colleagues (other teachers and school leaders). The fundamental issue undergirding
many of the problems discussed at staff meetings like the one referenced above appeared to be
classroom management (or, rather, the lack thereof).
The CMO made several changes the school’s second year in order to rectify some of the
problems of the first year (focusing specifically on classroom management) and re-unify the

26
This is how both Mr. F and Ms. T described previous schools in which they had taught. Mr. F explained that he
thought that students in high needs, urban schools needed more structure.
151
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
vision for the school and for classroom practice. The CMO removed the founder, who is no
longer associated with BA, and hired a new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to replace him. The
new CEO was brought in to lead the school’s CMO, revamp the school model, and direct
changes in school vision and staffing. This CEO (who also acted as principal in year two) was
looked to as someone who would both fix and unify the vision. Thus, in BA’s second year, the
school design and instructional practices depended very much on the CEO’s vision. The new
model that he built for the school’s second year was founded on the ideas of “No Excuses” and
accountability for measurable student outcomes.
Staffing for “No Excuses”. First and foremost, the CEO enacted a “No Excuses” model
– a prominent school model primarily associated with charter schools that emerged from KIPP
charter schools in the 1990’s. As discussed in chapter two, a “No Excuses” school model
emphasizes student and teacher accountability, instructional time, a strict system of discipline,
school culture, selective teacher and administrator hiring, and core instructional subjects
(Angrist, Pathak, & Walters, 2012). BA became a “No Excuses” school in each of these areas. In
taking over the school, the CEO focused first on implementing a new disciplinary system that
relied heavily on a merit/demerit system, and included strict protocol around what constitutes a
demerit and what the punishments for demerits are (e.g. mandatory tutoring or detentions). The
CEO emphasized that this discipline system was non-negotiable. Teachers were expected to
implement it and be consistent in how demerits were delivered. This was priority number one in
aligning the staff and the students to a common vision and enacting a high degree of structure
and expectations for conduct.
The CEO was initially concerned with the school “culture” at BA and made it his priority
to enforce vision alignment across teachers. Thus, teachers’ implementation of and fidelity to the
152
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
“No Excuses” model was the CEO’s primary concern in his first several months at BA. He
started by interviewing existing teachers to decide whether or not they would be asked to return
for BA’s second year. The existing English teacher, Mr. J, was let go, with the new CEO citing
that he was not on board with the school’s new directions – specifically, the “No Excuses”
model. The assistant principal was asked to return to the classroom, and subsequently searched
for, and found, another administrative job elsewhere. The master literacy teacher – Ms. H – was
asked to return as the ninth grade English teacher – a request about which she had mixed
feelings. Though she looked for other jobs, ultimately, she decided to stay. On the administration
end, The CEO became acting principal and Mr. F, the science teacher, was promoted to assistant
principal.
The CEO then focused on new staff, wishing to curate a staff that would be invested in
the school’s new direction. The new CEO wanted a staff who would be engaged in and willing to
carry out the “No Excuses” model, and who would be engaged in the “Core Operating Values”
that he outlined as being part of the new school vision: Integrity (aligning actions to values),
Entrepreneurial (using autonomies to problem-solve), Mastery (constantly seeking to improve),
and Joy (finding joy in the work). When the CEO interviewed for new teachers, the interview
questions centered on teachers’ willingness and commitment to adhering to the “No Excuses”
model and the accompanying demerit system, and their commitment to consistently doling out
specific punishments, no matter how small the offense, or the students’ situation or reasons for
committing the offense. As one teacher put it, the CEO was not looking for “touchy-feely stuff;”
he wanted a staff that would be objective in their assessments of students’ academics and
behavior. He was more concerned with teachers’ abilities to manage students’ behavior and their
classrooms than with their teaching experience or abilities, as exemplified by the following
153
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
discussion he had with an incoming TFA teacher:
[Mr. O, the CEO] came for dinner one night and sat down with [some of the new
teachers]. He said ‘I don’t care what they’re teaching you or what philosophy they’re
giving you or what skills they are giving you. I want to know you can have effective
classroom management. Show me you can manage your classroom and I’ll teach you the
rest. I’ll teach you how to teach. I’ll teach you the rest. Show me you can do effective
classroom management.

-BA Interview, Ms. L, Fall 2013
Congruent with research on charter schools with strong organizational visions (Hill et al., 2001;
Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003; Moore Johnson & Landman, 2000; Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1997),
this strategy appeared to result in a more unified staff, at least on the surface. Across interviews,
teachers indicated feeling like the school community was united and aligned to the same goals.
As one teacher explained,
I’ve never had real conflict with [other staff] and I know there has been some, but again,
it goes back to that very first interview question we’re asked. What do you do when you
have conflict? You talk to that person you have conflict with. You don’t go above them,
you don’t go below them, you don’t go around them. You talk directly to them. Any
conflict I have, that I’ve witnessed, that’s been the immediate response. I haven’t run into
any conflict like that, but I never feel scared to ask for help and I never feel scared to be
like, “Can you come observe me and see what’s going on?” Like, “Can I come observe
you and see what’s going on?” It’s super open, super fluid. I feel like 99% of the time,
we’re all on the same page, which is nice.

-BA Teacher Interview, Fall 2013
The CEO wanted a strong organizational vision focused on “culture” that would shape
and direct teachers’ practices in the classroom. From his point of view, teachers that did not buy
into his vision belonged at other schools. The teachers that remained from BA’s first year – Ms.
T (Math 9), Ms. H (English 9), and Ms. Z (Social Studies 10) – expressed feeling like they would
have no part in designing or developing the school’s organizational practices (BA interview
notes, May 2013). For his part, the CEO made it clear that he would be changing quite a bit of
the model and school’s structure, and that there would be very little wiggle room for teachers – at
154
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
least in the beginning. Indeed, the CEO made vision alignment, and adherence to the “No
Excuses” model a priority in year two.
Strategic planning: School-level plans for accountability and success. Once the “No
Excuses” demerit system was in place, the CEO introduced a “strategic plan,” that included
school-level goals, expectations for teachers and students, plans for expansion and replication,
and the aforementioned core operational values. The overarching goals for the school became
“college completion” and “Positive Multi-generational Change” (PMC). To achieve these aims,
the leadership wanted to establish (1) a college-going culture; (2) “on-going key metrics” that
established quantifiable goals for both students and staff; (3) an environment where students
consistently used and traveled with laptops; (4) online lessons created and curated by teachers,
not a boxed curriculum; (5) a structured week in which each classroom engaged in both lecture-
based lessons and online (studio) lessons; (6) the foundations for future project-based learning;
and (7) the foundations of PL.
College-going culture. At both the school- and classroom-levels, administrators and
teachers at BA attempted to create a college-going culture by decorating the classes and halls
with college pennants and bulletin boards filled with information about prominent universities.
The school also utilized the ACT test (a standardized test used to measure college readiness) as
the interim assessments to measure student progress and growth throughout the year.
Additionally, the school retained the advisory program (20 minutes in the morning Monday
through Thursday and an hour on Friday), but utilized it to emphasize accountability and college-
going culture, rather than social-emotional health. For example, on Fridays, each teacher has her
advisory for an hour. Oftentimes, this advisory time is used to review students’ school activities
(merits and demerits, grades, attendance, study habits, etc.). Indeed, posted on bulletin boards
155
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
throughout the school is the following requirement for advisories: “My advisor helps me
understand where I stand and where I need to be.”
On-going key metrics. “On-going key metrics” represented a bevy of school-level goals
that were designed to measure school culture and instructional effectiveness. According to
school documents, “culture” was priority number one:
[BA is] a culture first school. We prioritize creating the right learning environment and
eradicating anything that gets in the way of the optimal learning moment…Scholars are
accountable for their behavior. We use a merit/demerit system to hold Scholars
accountable for minor and major misbehavior.

Under the category of “school culture” the goals were:
1. 4:1 ratio of demerits to merits given by staff.
2. 100% of discipline infractions are accounted for with less than 10% of students serving
detention each week.
3. 95% of students remain enrolled at the end of the school year.
These “culture goals” reflected what was deemed one of the most important changes in the
program design for year two – a school culture built on accountability and discipline that would
be the foundation for establishing PL. Indeed, the idea of “eradicating” anything that interrupted
the learning environment was a powerful one – as I discuss further in chapter six, the “No
Excuses” discipline system was a key mediator of teachers’ practices toward implementing PL in
their classrooms.
Accountability for linking student outcomes to instructional practice was also prioritized
and was intended to be a foundation for future personalization strategies. Instructional goals
(outcome goals) included:
1. 100% of students are on track to make a 6 point growth on the ACT (9
th
– 11
th
).
2. Average of 70% correct on quarterly interim assessments.
156
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
3. 95% of our students pass the California High School Exit Exam in the 10
th
grade.
These “on-going key metrics” influenced teachers’ practices both at the school-level and in their
classrooms by infusing a thread of accountability throughout school design and teacher practice.
For example, teachers embedded time in their classes for students to go into Canvas (the school’s
digital dashboard) and Illuminate to check their own progress. Teachers also referenced the goals
of the “on-going key metrics” consistently in class, directing students to the assessments to
which they were accountable (BA Filed Notes, Classroom Observation). This represented a key
change from the previous year, in that there were clear benchmarks (minimum standards) to
which both teachers and students were beholden. As one teacher put it, “last year, it didn't
matter. If you got a D or F, we were just going to keep you in school until you were 20 years old,
and make sure that you got it.” In year two, the “No Excuses” model and the accountability-
driven environment made it clear that students were expected to meet minimum pacing and
standards.
Teachers’ use of technology: Hardware, software, and the introduction of teacher
choice. In the BA’s first year, tensions between the available technology and what teachers
needed to implement PL seemed to result in teachers’ pulling back on their technology use. As
year one went on, for example, teachers had instituted more traditional, low-tech practices to
manage students’ use of technology and mitigate the problems with Digital X. In year two, the
CEO, the administrators, and the teaching team still wanted to emphasize the school’s high-tech
aspects, but the goal was to conceive of technology differently – as a tool for supporting students
and teachers, rather than as an aspect of a school model that needed to be implemented. As such,
technology was a key category of change in BA’s second year. Changes occurred in how
technology was used; in the types of hardware, software, and digital resources that were used;
157
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
and in how these choices were made. There were also changes in how teachers’ viewed
technology. These changes reflected organizational priorities around discipline and
accountability.
Enforcing minimum standards with technology: The learning “floor.” In order to move
toward using technology for increased personalization, teachers had to solve some of the
problems that emerged in the first year around student progress and accountability. Thus, one of
the major changes in how teachers used technology was in monitoring students’ progress and
enforcing a “floor” for learning. As mentioned earlier, in BA’s first year, there was no minimum
requirement for student progression in the plan for self-paced learning, or personalized pacing.
The CEO identified this as one of the key “lessons learned” from the foibles of the first year. In
the classroom, teachers in the second year were using technology to enforce some sort of floor
for personalized pacing. For example, Ms. L used Actively Learn (a free digital reading resource
that allows teachers to embed questions, notes, and videos directly into a text) to monitor
students’ progress through and mastery of content:
I upload text to [Actively Learn] and then as a teacher, I embed questions in the text and
kids cannot move forward in the text till they answer the question. I align questions to the
Common Core Standards and I insert my own notes and my own reactions and they can
write their own notes, their own reactions and then kids can see other peoples’ notes and
respond to them and have virtual discussions while they’re reading and that kind of stuff,
which is super awesome.

-BA Teacher Interview, Fall 2013

According to Ms. L, these practices allowed her to keep a close eye on her students’ progress,
even as they read independently.
Toward enforcing a learning floor and ensuring student progress, changes also occurred
in hardware, software, and curriculum. In terms of hardware, several changes were made toward
increasing student accountability and enforcing standards of behavior. For example, in the first
158
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
year of the school, students used Macbooks and iPods as the primary technology. In year two,
iPods were no longer a part of the model (students turned them in at the end of year one) and
students were given Google Chromebooks to use as their laptops. The iPods were abandoned
because they were deemed too distracting. The Chromebooks were adopted because they were
compatible with some of the new software (discussed below) that allowed teachers to digitally
keep track of student behavior. Google thus provided the school’s primary instructional system.
All students had Google email addresses, and classes used Google documents, forms, and
spreadsheets, which enabled all materials to be kept in the “cloud” (Google Drive).
As described earlier in this chapter, one of the major challenges teachers experienced in
year one was in managing students’ use of technology. Students were often off-task and teachers
had to resort to low-tech practices to ensure students were making progress. In the second year,
the school utilized several resources to help manage this problem, including Hapara, Illuminate,
and Canvas. Hapara is a teacher dashboard that allows teachers to organize Google applications
by class and by student. Teachers can interact directly with students through their browsers and
the dashboard keeps track of all student activity. Illuminate is a student data management system
in which teachers can enter student information. Canvas (which I will discuss in further detail
below) is a learning management system that is intended to integrate all of the digital resources
that teachers could use in the classroom. The following excerpt from observational field notes
exemplifies how Hapara and Illuminate were used to keep students on task when they were
working independently on their Chromebooks:
Ms. L’s class is in full swing when I enter. Each student is working on his or her
Chromebook and students are, for the most part, silent. One student tells me they are
working a project that requires them to create a Jeopardy game or write a song to review
study skills. Ms. L comes over to get me, so that she can show me Hapara and Illuminate.
She explains that the Hapara teacher dashboard allows her to monitor what every student
has open on their computers and what they’re working on.
159
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION

As we’re looking at Hapara, Ms. L sees that a student is listening to music that isn’t
instrumental (which isn’t allowed for the project they’re working on). She is able to
remotely close the tab he is using, and send a message to him saying that he has earned
one demerit for listening to music that isn’t instrumental (off-task behavior). We watch
his reaction (the student is not pleased, but is now on task). She then logs the demerit into
Illuminate, which is where teachers take attendance and log demerits, including how
many, what type, etc.

-BA Field Notes, Classroom Observation, October 2013

Essentially, both Hapara and Illuminate were used as accountability tools, which was consistent
with the school vision in year two. How teachers were using technology was reflective of both
organizational priorities (discipline and accountability) and teachers’ existing beliefs about how
to teach (using technology as a tool to extend their capacities to personalize, to monitor student
progress, and to enforce the “No Excuses” model). Teachers’ monitoring of students’ work in
Hapara allowed them to stop off-task behavior quickly. Illuminate was another form of data-
gathering for teachers, allowing them to see academic and non-academic outcomes in one place.
Another example of changes in how technology was used in year two was evidenced in
how online/digital curriculum was developed and chosen. Rather than relying on a particular
digital curriculum to deliver content (Digital X) as they did in year one, teachers would have the
freedom to create or find their own curricular resources – if they wanted. Despite the issues with
it in the previous year, teachers were still given access to Digital X. However, they would have
the choice to use Digital X or to find something else to use. The caveat from the CEO was
accountability-based – if teachers were not seeing positive student results on the interim
assessments in ten weeks, they would have to change their curriculum or practices. Thus,
teachers were given the freedom to choose which digital resources they would use in the
classroom and how they would use them, as long as their decisions held students to a minimum
standard and elicited demonstrably positive results.
160
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
One issue that teachers encountered as they curated a cache of digital resources was in
finding a way to integrate those resources. Ms. H, the ninth grade English teacher (formerly the
master literacy teacher), worked to solve this challenge, while also exemplifying the cycle of
choice and accountability. In the second year of the school – which was also her second year at
BA – she piloted both practices and resources that would later be used school-wide. For
example, she was the first teacher to use Canvas – a learning portal where teachers can create
their own curriculum and post it online. Canvas serves as a learning management system where a
variety of digital resources can be compiled. Ms. H used Canvas to provide a common place for
her digital resources and curricula to be housed. Ms. H found the freedom of creating her own
digital curriculum to be empowering. According to her,
[F]or me, to be able to build my own curriculum, from last year, is a huge transformation.
The fact that I have ownership over my curriculum and I have a say so in what students
will learn makes a big difference in how I feel about what's happening in the classroom.

BA Interview, Ms. H, Spring 2014

Ms. H thus enjoyed having the professional responsibility of finding and developing digital
classroom resources. However, other teachers – particularly newer, more inexperienced teachers
– struggled with this task. As Ms. H further explained,
A lot of teachers come to [BA] who have less than a year experience. When you build
curriculum there are multiple avenues you're looking at. Even in just a typical lesson plan
you’re trying to decide what components need to be in that lesson plan to make them
effective. When you don't have that coming in and you're asked to build your own lessons
out from scratch and pull your own resources from everywhere it's overwhelming. It's
hard for- I think it's a little easier for veterans although it can be a struggle as well. For
new teachers it's like you have the internet in front of you and you're trying to narrow
down the focus of how to create an effective lesson. The challenge for us is creating
effective lessons consistently and then including those components in a digital platform.

The newer, more inexperienced teacher echoed this point in staff meetings, consistently asking
for more built-in time to develop and find useful resources. Teaching experience, then, was a key
161
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
mediator of teachers’ practice, particularly toward using technology to facilitate PL – a mediator
that I discuss further in chapter six.
Teachers’ views of technology. Teachers in the second year of BA also viewed
technology in a manner that differed from how it was viewed in the first year. Technology use,
particularly toward PL, is often portrayed as a way to fundamentally change teachers’ practices
and assumptions about teaching. In BA’s second year, however, rather than looking at
technology as something that had to be implemented, teachers looked to it as a tool to help them
teach better – to engage in the type of teaching they had always wanted to engage in. That is,
teachers’ understanding of good teaching practices was not altered in order to implement
technology. Instead, teachers saw technology as a way to operationalize what they already
understood as being good teaching. As Ms. A, the tenth grade English teacher, explained,
I think technology is like a Swiss Army Knife in some ways. It basically can adapt to any
type of situation…I like studio [the online learning time] and that I think it’s really cool
to watch students working for 75 minutes straight, but I don’t necessarily believe that it
has to be 100% technology driven. So, for me, it’s this idea that the computer is there if
you need it and it’s a great tool to help you learn, but it’s not the only conduit. It’s not the
only tool and I think that’s one thing that I’ve seen more and more.
-BA Interview, Teacher, Fall 2013
The CEO reiterated this point, saying
[Technology] allows each kid, when used right, to get what they need, right when they
need it. You're not able to do that in a traditional school. That's the power of technology.
More than anything else, it's just an enabler. It's not an end to instruction.

The choices teachers were given in year two toward how they were going to use technology
enabled them to spend less time worrying about implementing a specific school model, and more
time integrating their existing practices with digital resources.
Some teachers, however, were struggling against using technology as an extension of
traditional teaching rather than as a way to truly personalize. Ms. L, for example, explained,
162
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
We think it’s super cool because it’s online, but it’s the same thing as the teacher giving
direct feedback on an essay. I want to veer away from just putting regular teaching on a
computer. Right now we’re using technology to meet our needs, but technology provides
so many more opportunities that we haven’t been able to explore yet. We’re making the
kids work with the technology rather than technology work for the kids.

-BA Interview, Fall 2013
In other words, some teachers wanted to use technology not just to extend good teaching, but to
fundamentally change their teaching by supporting the kind of instruction that was not typically
available in classes of 25 or 30 students – instruction that adapted and changed based on
individual student needs. In its current manifestation, however, teachers still saw technology as
an extension of themselves – a way to provide instruction and monitor students, even when the
teacher was otherwise occupied. This suggests that although teachers were invested in using
technology, they did not necessarily change their existing views about teaching. Rather, they saw
technology as an extension of their teaching selves or as a tool to enact their existing
understanding of good teaching.
Extrapolating from what Ms. L described, it appeared that teachers had not yet found
digital resources that could “work for the kids”, or did not yet have the knowledge or capacities
to use those resources toward that end. This makes sense – little is known about how teachers
can leverage technological resources to personalize their instruction. Thus, teachers ran into a
tension between what they wanted to do with technology, and what was actually available. As a
result, teachers were experimenting with a variety of digital resources toward increasing PL,
which meant a lot of extra work for them in compiling, designing, and testing digital content.
Accountability, data, and assessment. An essential component of any PL model is
teachers’ use of student data to inform instruction. At BA, however, teachers’ practices toward
realizing this component of the model were heavily mediated by the school-level emphasis on
163
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
accountability and discipline, which conflicts with some tenets of PL. For example, prioritizing
accountability in year two meant that teachers had to assess students at pre-determined intervals
(every 10 weeks), with specific types of assessment (the ACT), and use those results to justify
instructional decisions. Further, quantifiable results were emphasized, meaning that every
teacher had to have a measurable outcome for every objective and a plan for how those outcomes
would be used to shape their instruction. In essence, the school-level emphasis on consistent data
use and teacher accountability drove teachers to use data to inform their instruction (a key
component of PL), but also assess students on a specific timeline (which conflicts with
personalized pacing – another key component of a PL model) and with specific tests (which
conflicts with the concept of “mastery-based” grading, in which students can show mastery on a
variety of assessments, including projects). School-level priorities (which were undoubtedly
shaped by the larger education climate) thus mediated how teachers could utilize PL strategies.
In year two, teachers’ practice was characterized by a reliance on data from both
formative and summative assessments, and a consistent schedule of summative assessment. This
kept all students and teachers on the same assessment schedule. In terms of formative
assessment, teachers utilized what were called “performance tasks.” These performance tasks
varied by teacher and by subject and were often digital or non-digital exit tickets (quick end-of-
class assessments) or other assignments. The expectation was that regardless of whether the
student engaged in digital or non-digital work, the teachers were to retain a measureable
objective for assessment. For this reason, teachers did a number of things to monitor student
progress. Some examples include passing out an exit ticket to students at the end of math class
on their way out of the door or completing answers on a Google forum, both of which took place
in every period, every day. In this day-to-day sense, teachers had a lot of choice and autonomy
164
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
over how they wanted to assess and track progress among students.
There was not a lot of teacher choice, however, in which standards to use or in what
summative assessments students would take or when. In other words, teachers could decide how
students were going to learn material and through what means, but not how students were
summatively assessed. BA administered interim assessments every 10 weeks to gauge student
progress. All objectives and assessments were aligned to the ACT College and Career Readiness
Standards (CCRS), which the CEO said were closest to the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS). Teachers used these standards to design instruction and formative assessments. School-
wide, the ACT itself was used as a measure of student growth and teacher effectiveness. Indeed,
as mentioned earlier, one of the school-level goals for student achievement was that 100 percent
of students would be on track to make a six-point growth on the ACT. Pre- and Post-test ACTs
and interim assessments drove much of teachers work in year two. According to the principal,
“we gave a pre-test and we are going to give a post-test for the ACT. Our school goals are
aligned to them. Our teachers are given time to plan for each quarter to the Common Core
Standards and align to the ACT.” Students’ results on interim assessments were used as
indicators of teacher effectiveness, and to inform instruction on a day-to-day basis.
Teachers consistently used data to inform instruction, including daily exit tickets, daily
mastery-oriented questions, and a weekly scorecard to track the promotion requirement areas.
This scorecard is not focused only on standards or content, but is aimed at developing a “learner
profile” that includes the student’s GPA, attendance records, and so on, in order to figure out
whether they are on-track for promotion. Teachers also used data to inform their teaching in a
more direct way, creating assignments at several different levels and scaffolding students’
learning in response to student data. For example, Ms. H explained her data use as follows:
165
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
I create an assignment at an A-level, a B-level or a C-level. [At C-level, for example,]
they’ll do ninth grade reading skills at a lower than grade level text, so they’ll submit it
and they’ll get proficient so then they can move on to the B-level. At the B level, I’ll get
their live feedback, so they’ve mastered main idea, they’ve mastered support details and
they’ve mastered inferences but they sell short, in general, conclusions. In that moment, I
can pull the student aside, figure out was it the thinking skill that’s causing the problem
in that reading or was it the complexity of the text that’s causing the problem? Then make
that quick change and send them forward, whereas before, I have to wait a full class
period for you to get your entire class aggregate data back or all the classwork back. On
my screen, I could see…exactly what’s happening.

Ms. H’s system of data use allowed her to make instantaneous decisions about her instruction
and about students’ needs. She would adjust as needed throughout the quarter; however, student
performance at each of the levels was used to indicate their grades at the end of the semester,
which were final. This was another key difference from year one; students were expected to
finish courses on a traditional timeline.
School-level practices also mandated that students be assessed on a more traditional
timeline. After each interim assessment (every 10 weeks), all teachers were required to work
with administrators to analyze their students’ data, by reflecting “on both the student
performance and instructional support.” This differed from data use in the first year, which was
less regimented. In the first year, individual teachers attempted to make sense of their classroom
data on their own. This stemmed from first year priorities around personalized pacing, self-
pacing, and student autonomy. In the second year, weekly data analysis and scheduled data
analysis days after interim assessments made data use a school-level activity. Weekly
“scorecards” were produced for each teacher that provided the evidence for effective teaching
outlined by the CEO: non-cognitive outcomes like attendance, merits and demerits, and
detentions as well as academic outcomes. Teachers were required to outline how they would
respond to any numbers that indicated less-than-stellar student results. This again suggests that
teachers’ instructional practices at Blended Academy were inexorably shaped by the school’s
166
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
emphasis on accountability and data.
The school’s emphasis on data and accountability also played a role in determining which
teachers taught at BA. Ms. Z, for example, left the school at the end of the year. In describing the
process that led her to leave BA, she said
I went from being completely frustrated and hating the job, to trying to adjust and give
them what they want, to, "Hey, this is me, and I'm not changing it.” This is what I'm
going to do because my students represent more than just numbers on a graph.

-BA Interview, Ms. Z, Spring 2014
Other teachers, however, found the consistent analysis of data to be exciting. Ms. H, for
example, enjoyed doing “gap analyses” to figure out why students were not doing as well as she
wanted. She said that the emphasis on accountability and data analysis was refreshing after a
year of being so overwhelmed and scattered and not having a real idea of where each student was
and needed to be. In essence, how teachers made sense of the school’s organizational priorities
around accountability, data, and assessment suggested that teachers whose existing beliefs about
teaching already aligned with school-level priorities were able stay at BA and enact PL as
outlined by the school vision, while teachers whose beliefs did not align with school-level
priorities left the school. This further indicates that teachers’ core beliefs about teaching were not
changed; rather, teachers assimilated the school-level priorities into their existing frameworks (a
concept I further discuss in chapter six).
“There’s no one right way to teach”: Moving toward personalized learning.
Throughout BA’s second year, instruction seemed to balance precariously between a desire to
attend to students’ individual needs and a desire to avoid the off-task student behavior and
classroom management problems that typified the school’s first year. The year started out highly-
structured, with teachers emphasizing more traditional forms of practice in their classrooms (e.g.
167
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
regular class periods, whole-group activities, silent individual work time, whole-class pacing,
unit tests, etc.). Once teachers and administrators felt that some of the challenges of the first year
were under control, there began to be some incremental steps toward PL, including some steps
toward personal learning paths, personalized pacing, increased digital work, and mastery-based
grading.
Balancing old and new forms of activity: “Lecture” and “Studio” days. In the first
semester of BA’s second year, the CEO instituted a structured demarcation between lecture-
based instructional days and online learning days that was meant to be relaxed later as the school
moved toward increased personalization. In the strategic plan, this was described as “a structured
week in which each classroom engaged in both lecture-based lessons and online (studio)
lessons.” Thus, one of the key ways in which class structure changed was in the implementation
of ‘A’ days and ‘B’ days. ‘A’ days, also referred to as “Lecture Days,” were typically for more
traditional, teacher-centered types of instruction. For example, in Ms. A’s tenth grade English
classroom, a typical “Lecture Day” consisted of a Do Now (a warm-up activity designed to
connect the previous day’s activities or learning objectives to upcoming activities or learning
objectives); a short lecture or activity; and some whole-group or small group discussion. Ms. Z’s
tenth grade social studies class looked similar. The following exchange typified “Lecture Days”
in Ms. Z’s class:
Ms. Z: What is [the author] telling us?

[Students give a few specific answers.]

Ms. Z: I like that you’re giving specific answer, but what is the overall idea?

Student 1: There are different sides to the story in history.

Ms. Z: History is written from the perspective of winners, but now he is going to show us
the stories of the oppressed. What motive drove Columbus?
168
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION

Student 2: Gold.

Student 3: Land.

Ms. Z: What was the ultimate fate of the Arouac Indians?

Student 3: Enslaved and eventually exterminated. Zinn calls this a genocide.

Ms. Z: What ultimately happened to the millions of Indians that were living in North
America when Columbus arrived? How did they justify the attacks?

Student 4: Medical purposes?

Ms. Z: Why?

Student 4: I don’t know, I thought it said that in the book?

-BA Field Notes, Classroom Observation, Fall 2013

Throughout this particular lesson, Ms. Z conducted whole group discussions that did not involve
the majority of students, indicating that “Lecture Days” were indeed teacher-centered, and
lecture-based.
Conversely, a ‘B’ day, also referred to as a “Studio Day” was meant to be more
personalized. As Ms. A described it,
Studio is when the students come in, they open their computers and they start working.
There are some Studio days where I literally don’t say anything because the whole point
is them being able to really go at their own pace and work so that’s kind of the difference.
You can tell a studio day just because they walk in and they open up their computer and
they know and traditional day we have to do more discussion centered so it’s a big
difference.

-BA Interview, Ms. H, Fall 2013
These Studio days were meant to be the time where students could work at more individualized
paces using an online curriculum. Teachers designed these Studio days to reflect this focus.
Indeed, in observations of Studio days, students were primarily working silently on their
computers while the teacher circulated.
169
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
As the year went on, the CEO and the AP, in response to teachers’ feedback, began to
relax the highly regimented schedule to which teachers were initially subject. Accountability was
still a pervasive thread throughout the school, but the school leadership, including the CEO and
the AP, began to allow for more choice around how teachers could meet requirements, in an
effort to move toward the PL mission of the school. For example, the strict delineation of
“Lecture Day” and “Studio Day” began to relax. As Ms. H explained,
[W]e had strict A and B days in the Fall. We pushed to make teachers decide – to allow
teachers to decide exactly what those A and B days would look like and when an A day
would be and when a B day would be. Now what the social studies teacher will do, for
example, is Studio day on Monday and Tuesday…She's decided when those A and B
days will happen. The science teacher, she doesn't like studio days at all, she doesn't feel
like kids can sustain themselves for 75 minutes…so half her periods are studio and half
her periods are traditional. They've [school leadership] allowed for us to dictate when
those days are because we felt that they were arbitrary. What happened was there was a
disconnection between an A and a B day. They would do a Studio and the next day would
be traditional but it wasn't connecting, the lessons weren't connecting. Teachers were
having a problem with that because they'd say I did this Studio lesson but now I'm on a
traditional lesson it's not…there was some kind of disconnection occurring so that's why
we pushed to allow us to decide when those A and B days are.

-BA Interview, Ms. H, Spring 2014
Essentially, teachers felt that the way the week was structured did not allow them to do their best
teaching. With their feedback, the schedule slowly began to shift. As I further discuss in chapter
six, this exemplified a process whereby teachers responded to tensions between organizational
priorities and their own existing beliefs about good teaching by pressing for changes in school-
level practices.
Balancing old and new forms of activity: Personalized pacing. In year one, one
difficulty that arose was around grading and student progression. For example, as mentioned
earlier, the digital curriculum was not producing accurate data. There were other challenges in
this area as well. The school vision was based on the idea of personalization; in particular,
170
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
personal learning paths and personalized pacing plans were to be an integral part of the model.
However, students were not able to manage their own learning, and as discussed in an earlier
section, many – indeed, most – students were far behind where they needed to be to pass their
classes and move on to tenth grade in the school’s second year. Teachers and administrators
discussed this problem in a January 2013 staff meeting:
Teacher: What happens when we get to the end of the year and we still have these kids
[kids who are failing]? What does their grade become?

Principal: This is the deal with self-pacing – we will have kids whose courses are still in
progress. When a student completes a course, it’ll be on their transcript. We have
continuous progress. It works for those who have already finished a class. As students
complete classes, it’s finalized and posted to the transcript. My guess is [there will be] an
incomplete option. Post with an incomplete and we’ll attach a copy of this progress report
for parents with the percent of the courses that they’ve done. Percent completion is really
what we’ll be looking for. We don’t want to let the kids off the hook if they’ve done
nothing. They’ll get a report card, but with an attached progress report, with a letter
explaining what it is they’re looking at.

-Excepted from BA Field Notes, January 2013

This discussion, which took place early in the second semester, represented a key challenge for
teachers in BA’s first year. The school vision prioritized flexibility, student autonomy, and self-
pacing, but students had a difficult time self-pacing, and teachers were not given any resources
or PD that would help them monitor student progress or enable students’ self-pacing. For
example, as described earlier, teachers had to “hover” over students and revert to more low-tech
practices in order to ensure that students were “on-task” (working on their assignments in Digital
X or making progress on learning objectives). In the end, so many students were failing (defined
as not finishing courses) by the end of the first year that they had to have summer school open
for all students to catch up. The concept of personalized pacing or self-pacing was thus a source
of tension for teachers.
In response to the tensions around personalized pacing, the CEO, the new administrative
171
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
team, and the teachers agreed that for PL to work, there had to be a “floor,” or a minimum
standard that students had to meet. Students could not just be allowed to languish in their
courses; rather, there needed to be a minimum standard of progress in the PL paths – something
that was never done in the first year. Ms. A identified this as being one of the core challenges of
moving toward personalization – providing personalized pacing, but not letting students fall so
far behind that they might never catch up. According to her,
You set a ground score for your students and what you know they should be doing to stay
on track. It’s really tough because you have 10% of your students who I’d say might just
be working their butts off and trying so hard, but they just cannot work at that pace. Since
you do not have control over what happens outside the school hours, it’s tough to
motivate them to work outside of school so much longer than their peers have to.
They’re still essentially having that two and a half hours homework, so certain students
have five hours of homework and that’s just too much for a student to do. They’ll fall off
the pace and they continue just to fall further and further off the pace and it’s really tough
to watch. You hear the kids say, “I thought I was supposed to do my … I thought that
was the point of the school. I thought I was supposed to be able to go talk to someone if I
wanted.”

You have to continually say, ‘If you’re allowed to go totally at your own pace, there will
be certain ground for you have to meet which you are not meeting. It’s at your own pace
as long as you’re on track to be what you need to be.’

It’s also a challenge when you see a student mastering something for the first time, but
not at the right level….For my reading, for example, I have students who continually to
master the reading skills at fifth grade level text.

They feel really pumped…So the first time in their life, they’re reading text fluently but
then when you have to bump them up to the ninth grade level to get them to master the
current standards and they can’t do it, that’s really tough too because they’re feeling
triumphant. They’ve never had that feeling of triumph, so when they have that feeling of
triumph it’s great, and then you try the higher level stuff and it’s really tough on a
student. What a student needs personally might not match where they need to be
academically, so that’s really tough as well.

-BA Interview, Ms. A, Fall 2013
Essentially, Ms. A identified what many teachers were struggling with in trying to enact a more
PL environment for students in an accountability-heavy context. The point of PL is to tailor
172
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
instruction to students’ needs and interests, but sometimes students need to close large academic
gaps. This makes it difficult for students to demonstrate mastery of grade-level standards.
Teachers thus had to figure out a way to help students close gaps, but also hold students to a
minimum grade-level standard. Toward these goals, Ms. L and Ms. H began to develop
“modules” – online learning units that would be scaffolded for students and self-paced. These
modules were based on ideas from the first year (online learning through Digital X), but would
be completely teacher-designed. Toward the end of year two, two teachers piloted these modules,
for full implementation in year three. In essence, in struggling to make sense of the goals and
strategies of PL in tandem with the school-level emphasis on accountability, some teachers
(specifically Ms. L and Ms. H), were able to innovate.
Modules. In BA’s first year, the division of labor as it related to student learning,
including student autonomy and self-regulation, did not happen as intended. In BA’s second
year, there was a desire among teachers and administrators to again move toward increasing
student autonomy, choice, and self-pacing. However, the CEO and the AP, Mr. F, emphasized
the lessons learned from year one: students had to be “trained” in order to promote student
autonomy. Teachers knew that in order to consistently use technology in the classroom, and to
move toward more personalization, both teachers and students had to be prepared. As Ms. A
explained,
In this kind of world [a high-tech personalized learning environment]…you just have to
let go. [The students] had to be really well prepared ahead of time. [Teachers] had to have
all the assignments ready at the beginning of the semester in order to let go during the
semester, and let the kids drive it. You also have to constantly assess every single kid to
know where they’re at and what they’re doing. My class management has to be super
tight otherwise the computers just go wild.

To institute self-pacing while maintaining some control in their classrooms, two teachers began
to pilot what were called learning “modules” in their classrooms. These modules were meant to
173
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
be self-contained personal learning paths – activities and assessments for students at multiple
levels. According to school documents, in their design, the modules had to have measurable
objectives and lessons that increased in rigor over time. The school thus began the preliminary
stages of re-prioritizing PL as part of the model by testing out modules as mechanisms of
personalized pacing. In the second semester of the school, two teachers piloted this practice, in
the hopes that full implementation would occur in year three.
Ms. L was one of the teachers who piloted modules. Though she did not plan out her
modules for the whole quarter in advance, she did plan them week by week. As she described it,
a typical day in which students worked through modules looked like this:
The kids walk in, they open their computers and they set their daily goal. We've been
working a lot on time-management skills and how to really pace out your learning, to do
what you need to do, in the environment you need to do it and how to best support
yourself and advocate for yourself. They'll come in, they'll set their daily goal and they're
going to tell me exactly what they're going to accomplish that day.

Then they will either begin working on independent skill modules, where it's purely
independent skills reinforcement, or they would work on their performance task. Every
day they choose what they want to do. The performance task could either be group or
individual. Sometimes I would force group because I wanted them to learn those non-
cognitive skills of group management and team management. Other times, they could
work on it on their own if they wanted.

For the 75 minute period, the students are working independently on their own
curriculum and then I would either have a one-on-six, or one-on-seven mini-lessons, for
the students who needed more direct instruction, or I'll have five to six mini-conferences
in a class period. I'll pull a student over, I will check in, make sure that they're on track,
go over any inconsistency or any misconceptions they're having. I'll have six to seven of
those mini-conferences a day or I'll do multiple mini-lessons a day.

-BA Interview, Ms. L, Spring 2014
Ms. L explained that she used the modules to free herself up to work with small groups or
individual students. The modules, as she discussed them, gave her the tools to personalize,
though she did not necessarily think her teaching had significantly changed; rather, she thought
174
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
the modules gave her more time to teach the way she had envisioned. However, the time it took
to create the modules was not sustainable. Some of the more experienced teachers had an easier
time with them, but still described the process of creating them as “cumbersome.” The plan was
for teachers to eventually create an entire quarter’s worth of modules in advance, but according
to several of BA’s teachers, they needed to be given significantly more planning time to do so.
Balancing old and new forms of activity: Mastery-based grading. To further institute a
personalized learning model, a few teachers also began the process of “Mastery-Based Grading”
(MBG). At first, this really just meant expecting students to be at “mastery-level,” which
teachers and administrators admitted was not well-defined. In essence, teachers experimented
with creating a “mastery assessment” for each standard and broke that assessment into multiple
levels. So, Ms. L, for example, created assessments that measured student mastery at a C-level, a
B-level, and an A-level. Ms. L decided what would constitute each type of mastery. Some
students would use Studio time to do each C-level task, then each B-level task, and then each A-
level task. As Ms. L recounted it,
A kid got to choose how they did their work and at which level of mastery they strove
for, then they were able to see the impact of every single assignment on their grade. It
was super cool because I felt like the total power of the classroom and that the kid's grade
in their hands entirely. Then I would cross-check all the grades to make sure everything
was accurate but the kids totally controlled the gradebook and they drove their grades.

-BA Interview, Ms. L, Spring 2014
Ms. L felt that MBG would present students with the opportunity for control over their own
grades, which would help to develop student autonomy.
Other teachers had different systems for mastery-based progress. Ms. A (tenth grade
English), for example, used Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum performance tasks to measure
mastery. She would create assignments and assessments for each level that would indicate
175
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
mastery. However, Ms. A, along with other teachers in her department, struggled with defining
mastery, among other issues. As she explained it,
For English in particular, sometimes it's challenging because we're using the ACT
English. The ACT English exam is only grammar, essentially. It's grammar and
organization of ideas. There's no writing, there's no literary analysis, so we have to
determine – what does mastery look like for this set of standards or for this concept?
That's what we are working on right now. The idea is that, in order to demonstrate
mastery, my students have to master the level of gold. There's four; it's bronze, silver,
gold, and platinum. Gold is the one that requires them to both take an ACT English test
and then also do an analysis that aligns to that standard. Platinum, if they choose to go to
that extra, is more like creation, it's more creative thinking. The mastery is based on
whether or not they master the third level.

In terms of scaffolding though, I'm still struggling with the idea of, yes, the student was
able to achieve this, but he had to have a few scaffolds built in. What does mastery look
like for a student with an IEP? What does mastery look like for a student who's an EL?
The reading level is not going to be up to the level where it needs to be by the end of
tenth grade. Am I grading them based on reading or am I grading them based on their
mastery of the standard? That's been challenging in a lot of ways, to try and figure out
what mastery really looks like.

-BA Interview, Ms. A, Spring 2014
These nascent stages of mastery-based grading were characterized by teacher innovation, but
also a sense of uncertainty. If the assessments were only concerned with grammar and
organization, for example, what did it mean to “master” the standards? Was that enough for
students to “master” English Language Arts as a subject?
Accountability as the basis for personalization. Accountability was an integral part of
the school throughout year two, even as the school moved toward increased personalization. For
teachers, this meant showing results for any and all practices they were implementing in their
classrooms. For students, this came in the form of the learning “floor;” the minimum amount of
progress students had to be making. According to Ms. L, “since we do have that one-on-one
education, no one can hide from their thinking. Everyone is being held accountable to
completing the work.” In other words, PL was not characterized by students picking and
176
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
choosing when (and if) they were going to work, as it was in year one; rather, in year two, PL
meant that every student was responsible for making minimum progress. Accountability, for both
teachers and students, was used to resolve issues from the first year, and was a critical aspect of
the CEO’s plan to avoid the sort of devolution into chaos that teachers experienced in year one.
The PL portion of the model was slowly being built throughout year two on the
foundations of “No Excuses” and accountability. In many classrooms, the PL aspects of the
model – and in particular, the pieces of the model that incorporated student’s strengths, struggles,
preferences, and interests into personalized learning plans and individualized learning
experiences were put on the back burner. Certain teachers – namely, Ms. A (ELA 10), Ms. H
(ELA 9), and to a lesser extent, Ms. L (Humanities 9) – experimented with these aspects of the
model and any practices they found to be successful (as indicated by interim assessments) were
shared school-wide in year three. Overall, the staff remained committed to (eventually)
increasing the amount of personalization in the school. For example, several teachers spoke
excitedly about using data in a more immediate sense to respond to individual student needs.
Ms. A, Ms. L, and Ms. H each expressed excitement about moving toward more flexible learning
spaces, and introducing personalized pacing and modules school-wide. The CEO also indicated
there was a school-level commitment to further integrating PL strategies into classrooms,
explaining,
I think what we'll see over the next few years is that we'll continue to shed the structures
that don't allow for complete personalized learning. What that means is, time structures
and core structures. Right? Those are the two systems that don't allow for it because they
force people to move out of a certain phase. I think next year you'll see it. We're already
blending Studio time and Lecture time. Next year we're going to take away a lot of the
periods and have more open, flexible working times. Then you'll see a lot of our design
be more user-focused and try to create the values that we want of integrity, joy, mastery
and perseverance, as an output instead of what we have now.

-BA Interview, CEO, Spring 2014
177
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION

Year 2 summary. In BA’s second year of operation, the “No Excuses” model and the
school-wide emphasis on accountability were arguably the driving forces behind many of
organizational and instructional practices. The new school leadership initiated significant
organizational changes around how teachers were held accountable for student learning and in
what kinds of practices were prioritized in the school. Thus, teachers’ practices were mediated by
these organizational priorities. In year two, for example, the school began with an emphasis on
high-levels of structure and more traditional teaching practices. Then, some PL strategies were
slowly re-introduced in certain classrooms. However, accountability was a pervasive piece of
this process – every practice had to be quantifiably justified. As evidenced by the use of teacher
dashboards like Hapara and Illuminate, the teacher scorecards and the scoreboard, and the “on-
going key metrics,” the school-level emphasis on “No Excuses” and accountability shaped
teachers’ practices in how they viewed and used technology, how they used data, and how they
began to integrate some aspects of PL. In essence, the “No Excuses” model and the emphasis on
accountability were key mediators of teachers’ classroom practices. At its core, year two of BA
was essentially about establishing a baseline for student behavior and progress and for teachers’
instructional practices – a foundation for PL built on accountability. In year three, teachers
continued this work, using the foundations established in year two to further develop
personalization.
Year 3: The Reprioritization of Personalized Learning
At the beginning of class, Ms. L plays ‘Rosie the Riveter’ and other World War II songs
while students work on their Do Now. There are more than 8 different Do Nows with
students’ names listed next to each. The board reads:
Today you should be on or beyond Quarter 2, Module 2, Silvers 1-3
Quarter 2 Daily Objectives- Period 2:
Daily Do Now Period 2:
[Student 1, 2]: Q2M2 Silver 1: Identify case and effect relationships between
178
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
actions and events of World War II and the impact on the American Homefront.
There are also Silver 2 and Silver 3 listed.
[Student 5, 6, 7] Q2M2 Gold 1: Determine why Japanese Americans were
interned during WWII and evaluate the credibility of the reasons given for
internment.
There are 1-2 students listed for each objective (or group of objectives). Some students
have 1 objective for today, others have 2-4.

On the board, Ms. L’s computer is scrolling the Period 2 Scoreboard, with students’
assignments highlighted in green, yellow, and red.

During the Do Now, Ms. L announces, “If your Do Now is not in yet, then you earn 1
demerit for taking too long on that. Today, to be on track, you should be on or done with
silvers 4-6 and take silver 6 quiz. I updated the name board…if your name is there you
owe me 2 hours [of tutoring]. You need to figure when you’re going to pay me your
hours.

Students begin to work on their objectives. Some students are sitting alone, some are in
groups. There are students working silently on their computers, and some are working on
worksheets. Some students are doing both. A few have their headphones in and some are
talking in groups quietly. The room is fairly quiet and students seem to get to work pretty
quickly.

It starts to get a little louder (just barely) and Ms. L interrupts. “It sounds like some
people aren’t on task. You need to keep your classmates in check and make sure that
everyone is on task or you put yourself at jeopardy for not being able to ask for help.
Make sure you’re on task or we will have to go silent.”

Ms. L calls people up to her table periodically. One student at a table stops another
student to ask her about the ships sailed by the allies. The other student goes to get her
worksheet and points out the answer to the other student. Ms. L circulates to check on
students. She brings her laptop wherever she goes. Students behind me discuss their
work. One student is working on her laptop near me and she is on the BA website and is
filling in a module. Ms. L checks work at her table with students periodically. She
reviews their work and tells them she wants them to check a certain objective.
Most students seem to be switching back and forth between a worksheet and their
laptops. The worksheet informs their work on the class module website. A few students
are lounging on beanbag chairs. A student asks Ms. L a question and the student gets it
right. She beams. Some students are highlighting reading in a packet. A student asks
another student what a question is asking.

Ms. L asks some students to move to a different table so she can use it for other students.
She moves a few students to this table from other tables. They have a small group lesson.
Ms. L has checked the scoreboard, and is keeping real-time tabs on their progress. She
tells the students at the table, “We’re all here because we’re all struggling a little bit.” She
gives them a new handout and walks them through an activity. She sits down at the table
179
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
with these students and adds them into a list on her computer. “I think we all got in the 35
percent range, so we’re going to go over the passage. Reacquaint yourselves with the
questions and the passage. We’re going to start with the one that no one got right. Can
someone read it aloud for me? [A student does.] Okay, so can someone tell me what the
question is asking? [Student answers.] Then the students talk through this and answer the
question aloud. This is a group of 6 students. She helps students to define some of the
words and reads some of the questions and passages aloud.

Ms. L carries around her computer with the scoreboard, and checks in with other
students. Ms. L navigates through some of the questions with students as they struggle.
To the small group she was working with, she says “I’m going to step away for a minute
and want you guys to answer numbers 5-7. At the end of class, you can turn those in.
Explain what you’re thinking.

Other students seem to be getting a little restless. Ms. L continues to check students’
progress on her laptop (scoreboard). Ms. L returns to the table of struggling students to
check on them. She reads the question to them and then reads part of the story. She also
explains what it is that the question is asking… “So based on that, what is the father
like?” She is rephrasing the questions. Ms. L turns to another student across the room and
says, “Will you go to an independent seat to take the quiz?” He moves to one of the
single desks and begins working on his computer. The room gets quiet again. Ms. L
updates the scrolling scorecard with new student information. She then emails students
some instructions: “What is in your inbox is what you need to complete for homework
tonight. To be on track, you need to complete silvers 4, 5, and 6 when you come in to
class tomorrow. Class ends.

-BA Field Notes, Classroom Observation, Ms. L, Fall 2014

“Everything is different from last year.”

-BA Interview, Ms. A, Fall 2014

As demonstrated by the above excerpt from my observation field notes, teachers’
practices in year three had again evolved – the organizational emphasis on discipline and
accountability for students and teachers still existed, but alongside this, there was a more
complete school-level commitment to PL – specifically, emphasizing personal learning paths and
the idea of mastery – which pressed teachers school-wide to implement modules and mastery-
based grading in their classrooms. The class described above, for example, demonstrates how the
modules, the technology, and the data were used across classrooms toward an increasing
180
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
emphasis on PL. This class was representative of a typical class for Ms. L, and looked similar to
other teachers’ classes throughout the school. It also serves to highlight, however, aspects of the
school’s emphasis on accountability and behavior and illustrates how the “No Excuses” portion
of the school model mediated teachers’ practices. For example, Ms. L used the threat of demerits
to keep students on pace and also threatened to withhold help from students who were not
making an obvious effort. In essence, teachers had to respond to, and align their practices to
organizational priorities – “No Excuses,” and accountability – while still maintaining an
emphasis on PL. In year two, teachers developed a baseline for student behavior and autonomy
based on the “No Excuses” model, so that more personalization could be implemented in year
three. Thus, year three was intended to further establish PL. Indeed, in year three, teachers
implemented modules (as a mechanism of personalized pacing and student autonomy), taught in
less regimented learning spaces, and engaged in full-school implementation of MBG.
“No Excuses,” accountability, and staff alignment in year three. In its third year, BA
continued to reflect the “No Excuses” model and the emphasis on accountability introduced by
the CEO in the second year. The CEO and the administration still prioritized alignment with the
model and with the aforementioned school mission, which seems to have led to some staffing
changes in year three. For example, some teachers’ core beliefs about teaching and learning
(particularly those who were left over from the school’s first year) did not appear to align with
the “No Excuses” model and the high levels of accountability and assessment driving instruction
in the school. These teachers, including Ms. Z and Ms. T, ended up leaving (or being asked to
leave) the school. Indeed, the CEO indicated that these were the teachers leftover from year one
that he “wasn’t sure about.” There were also several promotions; Mr. F (former science teacher
and AP) was promoted to principal. Ms. H (former master literacy teacher and ninth grade
181
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
English teacher) was promoted to AP. These two represented the only remaining staff from year
one. The CEO took a step back from the daily operations of the school to focus on opening two
new schools and replicating the model. Again the CEO and the new principal, Mr. F, conducted
hiring interviews that were intended to gauge teachers’ willingness to adhere to the “No
Excuses” model. Willingness to innovate and embrace the school’s commitment to blended
learning and PL were also emphasized during the hiring process. Additionally, incoming
teachers’ capacities to plan each quarter in its entirety prior to each new quarter were a priority.
In essence, teachers’ alignment with specific aspects of the school model, including PL,
accountability, and “No Excuses” were prioritized by the leadership in year three.
“Good teaching is just good teaching”: Personalized learning in year three.
It's crazy because more and more what we learn from this model is just good teaching is
just good teaching. All of the things that you've learned and practiced for years, at first
they feel unnatural when you're switching to a new teaching style, but really they're still
what works; it's just in a different way.

-BA Teacher Interview, Fall 2014
In BA’s third year, teachers were doing their best to implement PL strategies, including
modules (intended to facilitate personal learning paths and build student autonomy), mastery-
based grading, and consistent, instantaneous data-use to inform instructional decisions. Still, as
evidenced by the above quote, many teachers felt that, rather than being completely new ways of
teaching, these PL strategies allowed them to extend their existing teaching practices to scaffold
or differentiate to a greater degree. BA teachers, from the first year to its third year had indicated
in interviews that in BA’s model, they saw the potential to personalize and differentiate to a
greater degree than had previously been possible. In the third year, several teachers indicated
that they were actually able to fully engage in PL for the first time. Teachers attributed their
capacities to do so to the “No Excuses” model – without classroom management problems or
182
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
discipline issues, they felt they were able to “teach more” and “target better.” This suggests that
the “No Excuses” model was a key mediator of teachers’ practices in year two and year three.
In year three, school leadership prioritized the school-wide implementation of PL
strategies – specifically, the use of modules to support data-driven instruction and personalized
pacing, and the implementation of mastery-based grading – built on the foundational school-
level prioritization of accountability. Guidelines for instruction required that “Every interaction
with students [should] be personalized to what they need, when they need it, and how they need
to learn it best…quickly.” All teaching activity was encouraged to be aimed at PL, but teachers
were required to demonstrate that their practices were “effective” (as indicated by interim
assessments). However, how teachers chose to get there was, to some extent, ambiguous. The
vision for the school-level goals was unified, but teacher practice in the classroom varied. As one
teacher explained it, “Clearly, we'll always have blended learning. Clearly, we'll always have
personalized learning and the ability for students to work ahead. But, that iteration looks
different daily.” Another teacher explained,
We don't really have a common language framework, so the word personalization [means
something] different in every single class. Because what is differentiation versus
individualized? What is self-paced versus individualized? What is zoning versus
grouping? Direct instruction? All these things that we keep using we haven't really
defined. I brought it up in the meeting yesterday. I just created a doc and it's going to be
like, "When you hear these terms what does it mean to you?" So that we can start
developing that common framework.

In other words, some teachers indicated that the definitions for PL and PL strategies were not
necessarily consistent or well-defined, but that teachers and school leaders were working
together toward common definitions. Despite any ambiguity around which terms to use,
however, there were some common practices used across classrooms – teachers used digital
resources to scaffold and deliver some individualized content, assessed students consistently,
183
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
designed instruction based on up-to-the-minute data, and used data to group students (often
homogenously). Teachers also implemented mastery-based grading, as part of a whole-school
initiative. Each of these practices relied on teachers’ creation of modules.
Personalization through teacher-created modules. Teachers school-wide felt they were
able to increasingly personalize student learning in year three by using modules – a practice
piloted by Ms. A and Ms. H in the second semester of year two. As the school entered its third
year, all teachers were required to create modules (preferably for each quarter, in advance). In
the second year, Ms. A and Ms. H were essentially making up their modules as they went along.
In year three, there was a more consistent definition of “module” and more consistent
requirements around the development of modules. Basically, modules were defined as self-
contained units, created by teachers, which students could work through at a variety of levels and
paces. Modules housed formative and (teacher-created/compiled) summative assessments and
teachers used data from the assessments and activities in the modules to inform grouping and
instruction. These modules formed the foundation for personalizing students’ learning
experiences in year three. A typical class utilized these modules to provide students with
personalized objectives, content, activities, and assessments. Ms. L, now the U.S. history teacher,
exemplified these practices in her classes. She planned out leveled objectives, activities, and
formative and summative assessments in each module. This allowed her to personalize to a
greater degree. For example, in a typical class period, Ms. L’s students worked on different
objectives. Ms. L scaffolded each module and assigned students to objectives based on their
current progress (as indicated by the data from the assessments). She continuously monitored
their progress throughout each class (by having students’ current progress scrolling on her
computer and projected on the board).
184
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Technology and digital resources. Even more than in year two, technology and digital
resources were essential to instruction in year three because of the school-wide implementation
of modules. Teachers used technology and digital resources for monitoring students’ activity and
behavior, delivering content, assessing students and analyzing data, and creating personal
learning paths, all of which was done through modules.
As Ms. A and Ms. H did in year two, teachers in year three created modules using
technology and digital resources, which allowed teachers to monitor students’ progress and
behavior, and to deliver instruction and content in all classrooms. Ms. L (now teaching eleventh
grade U.S. history) explained that she used digital resources (which she loaded into Canvas) for
culture (which she defined as discipline and monitoring off-task behavior), instruction, and
curriculum. As she explained it,
In terms of culture-wise, I use technology to monitor that all kids are on task at all times.
Even if I am having a one-off talk or a small group instruction, I can still have my screen
that shows what every kid's doing at all times to make sure everyone's still on task. I can
also push out reminders, like little jokes or demerits to kids with that as well. I don't need
to disrupt my entire classroom to give a demerit, or to give a kid, if they're off-task or
talking, I can send them a small message, make it super subtle. No one else knows, but
they get right back on-task.

-BA Interview, Ms. L, Fall 2014
Ms. L used Canvas as a mechanism for classroom management and for enacting the “No
Excuses” portion of the school model, but she also used technology to house her content, and to
differentiate within her modules. As she described it, she pre-planned all of her modules, and
tried to anticipate where students would have problems by building in different levels of content
for each assignment that were aligned to different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy
27
.

27
Bloom’s Taxonomy is a framework for categorizing educational goals. The broad categories are Knowledge,
Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. The idea is that students should ascend the levels
of Bloom’s toward higher levels of critical thinking (See http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-
taxonomy/ for more information).
185
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Ms. L, who is now teaching eleventh grade U.S. History, moved from the A-, B-, and C-
levels that she had previously used in her modules, and was using the bronze, silver, gold, and
platinum levels piloted by Ms. A in year two, which were now used school-wide. Ms. A
described a typical class using the bronze, silver, gold, and platinum levels as follows:
The way my curriculum is designed, there's different levels within each module, and a
module is a unit of study. The first assignments are really low-level assignments, just
simple note-taking, recall, comprehension quizzes, just to make sure they got through the
low-level information. Silvers are where they apply the skills to reading. That's a little
more analytical, making inferences, generalizations, that kind of stuff. Then, when they
get to the gold level, they analyze primary resources and have discussions. They analyze
the resource on their own and then they have a filtering group discussion component, and
then an individual synthesis after. Platinum is different, depending on whether they're
honors or not honors. Normally, there will be at least one or two discussions happening in
class for half an hour. That's slightly monitored by me, but mostly student-led. Since
they're all at different places in the modules, they just hit the different parts at different
times.

-BA Interview, Ms. A, Fall 2014
Ms. L, however, went a step further to also create levels (A, B, C) within each color (bronze,
silver, gold, platinum) because she wanted all of her scaffolds to already be built in to her
modules (rather than creating them day-to-day).
In terms of instruction, I push out all my scaffolds online as well…I pre-build all [my
modules] and I let the kids choose when they need to use them, kind of like a module
[that I call] Helpful Hints. I have scaffolded every single assignment to different levels.
I'll tell [student 1], "You need to look at Gold A." I'll tell [student 2], who's a little bit
farther behind, "You need to look at Gold B." Everything's scaffolded differently, but it's
all already pre-loaded for them. My goal, eventually, to get to, we're not quite there yet,
but when a kid comes to ask me a question, it's already at the Bloom's 5 or 6 level
questioning, because I have built enough scaffolds that they don't need to depend on me
just for the procedural stuff. When they have questions about directions or questions
about what words mean, I have already pre-built all those scaffolds and uploaded them
online, so that they are totally autonomous in that way. When they get to me, it's like,
"Now let's discuss this. Let's debate this. Let's analyze this." That's one way. I'll build all
my scaffolds, and put them up ahead online. In terms of curriculum-wise, everything's
available online, but it's also all available on paper if they want to. Everything's
accessible in both ways.

-BA Interview, Ms. L, Fall 2014
186
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Ms. L was using technology in her classroom to manage students’ behavior and monitor their
activity, deliver content, and scaffold that content to a greater degree than what had previously
been possible for her. Other teachers, including Ms. A, were doing this as well. Essentially, the
high levels of technology use in teachers’ classrooms allowed them to have pre-built, scaffolded
material and learning activities ready for various students at various levels by letting them plan
out each objective and its associated activities and assessments ahead of time. Though teachers
might still have to respond to various student misunderstanding on the fly, the use of modules
gave them more time to respond to individual students.
Assessment and data-driven personalization. As in year two, teachers’ instructional
practices included consistent assessment and up-to-the-minute data use. Data-driven instruction,
linked to the existing accountability mindset of the school, was a key aspect of classroom
modules. In year three, teachers in all classrooms (rather than just two in year two) were engaged
in using modules, which delivered student data to teachers instantaneously and pressed teachers
to use that data to funnel students into the right paths in the modules (e.g. Gold A versus Silver
B, etc.). On a daily basis, teachers delivered formative assessments in modules, by level (bronze,
silver, gold, and platinum). Formative (and summative) assessments were each aligned to ACT
CCRS. Ms. A, for example, explained her use of daily assessments and data as follows:
Each module has built in ACT practice and then also a writing component. It has both to
it…and they build up [the levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy]. Bronze is something like “This
sentence is a run-on, and this is simple compound and complex sentences, and semi-
colons, and then this evil standard that's semi-colons and then picking the right clause
that goes with it. It's super fun. They build up in level as you go from bronze to gold.

This one has a quiz that's on that standard and then a writing component that also forces
them to use the grammar. You have to use the grammar assessing them in both writing
and ACT. Formative is constant throughout class. That's where I'm there instantly. Then,
I'll also be questioning constantly and doing checks. Then I grade as class goes on. As
this assignment comes in I'll grade it, so then students get instant feedback and I can go
and talk to them. Then, I use this [dry erase board on the wall] and I erase their names as
187
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
they complete whatever level they’re on. If I'm thirty minutes into class and a kid is still
[listed on the dry erase board], that's a problem.

Ms. A created her modules ahead of time, built in levels for each ACT CCRS standard, and then
let her students move through the levels at their own paces. Still, she enforced a learning “floor,”
working more consistently and closely with students who were struggling. Ms. A felt that the
process of instant grading and feedback gave her the information she needed to make
instructional decisions quickly.
Teachers also took part in weekly and quarterly data analysis sessions that informed their
instruction. The data and compliance coordinator compiled the class- and school-level data into a
“Scorecard” each week. This scorecard included current grades, detentions, merits and demerits,
students’ progress toward promotion, and “culture snapshots” (clean bathrooms, student greeters
in each classroom). Teachers used these scorecards to discuss school environment, behavior, and
academics with their students. The scorecards were also analyzed in the weekly Friday staff
meetings. As in year two, there was a process of quarterly interim assessments and quarterly
analyses of those results. In analyzing interim assessments, teachers reflected on which practices
they were using in their classes that led to positive (or negative) results. Ms. L explained that it
was difficult to pinpoint the good practices, because teachers were using a variety of
instructional strategies. As she explained,
It's hard to isolate the factors that are successful when you're still mixing in so many
traditional things. We're just trying to isolate, is this model working? Are we doing what's
best? Now we're trying to figure out…what are you doing on a daily basis that you think
is contributing to this good data? Then we're going to try to test all of those things
individually. We know what good teacher moves are regularly, but it's hard to see what
good teacher moves are here. When do I do small group instruction versus just one-on-
one, pinballing around to kids? It's hard to know when to make those decisions, so we're
trying to formalize that for teachers.

The quarterly data analysis was meant to formalize the process of identifying good teaching
188
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
strategies in a PL environment. Teachers were certainly drawing on their prior educational
experiences to design their instruction, but teachers admitted there was little to go on for what
might be successful in a PL environment. Indeed, even as they were implementing PL strategies,
it was difficult for them to tell what exactly was producing results. Additionally, as noted earlier,
there were not clear definitions for PL strategies (e.g. mastery; personalized versus
individualized versus differentiated; grouping versus zoning, etc.). This compounded the
difficulty in identifying successful practices.
Targeted grouping. Both Ms. L and Ms. A used their modules and the data gathered from
formative assessments to create a system of targeted grouping or “zoning.” Ms. A’s process
involved looking at available data and grouping students into homogenous groups. She described
her process of grouping students as follows:
Before class, I looked at this quiz which is details and transitions silver and it was all red.
I looked at it and I was like, "I clearly need to go over this." Those were my “ones.” The
kids that still have it blank or missing or they were absent today…those are the “ones.”
Those are the kids that just need to fix and revisit. Then, from there I go into the “twos,”
who are having problems with tone and subject verb. Those are the kids that are the
second farthest behind. Then, from there I go into the next module to see if anyone’s
missing a point, and that's those students – the “threes.” “Fours” and “fives” are ahead.
They're already ahead of the pacing. Threes are pretty much on track. Most of them have
finished half of it but just need to revise and peer-edit their essays.

I try to do grouping in the mornings before school for all my classes. Right now, I did
first period before school and I'm still working on third and fifth. It takes about ten
minutes per class and it's really doable. That helps. As they're walking in I just tell them,
"You're a one, two, three." Then, there's numbers on the desks that have zones. They're
on note cards so I can move them because the grouping numbers will change per class.

-BA Interview, Ms. A, Fall 2014
As Ms. A explained it, this targeted grouping helped her to further personalize because she was
able to manage a system of personalized pacing, which she felt was key to the idea of PL. Ms. L
did targeted, homogenous grouping as well. Indeed, homogenous grouping seemed to be the type
189
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
of grouping that was best facilitated by the PL strategies that teachers were using – creating
leveled and scaffolded objectives and assignments pushed teachers to group students who were
on the same level or working on the same objective. In other words, teachers’ experimentations
with and interpretations of PL seemed to facilitate homogenous grouping – creating leveled and
scaffolded objectives and assignments pushed teachers to group students who were on the same
level or working on the same objective.
Student autonomy. Modules were also intended to develop student autonomy. According
to school documents, creating an environment that fostered student autonomy was paramount in
year three of BA – specifically, autonomy in learning. According to the “Instructional Learning
Matrix” created by administrators and teachers toward the end of year two, teachers would build
students’ abilities to work autonomously by utilizing mastery-based grading, self-paced lessons,
providing multiple modalities to learn, and using a variety of learning spaces. Each of these
things was linked to teachers’ capacities to produce effective modules. As Ms. L explained, this
put the burden on individual teachers to plan ahead, but also helped them enable student
autonomy and self-pacing. When asked how the school and her instruction had changed since
she had come to BA the previous year, Ms. L responded,
It's become much less teacher-directed. Even in the first year, half my time was spent
doing regular class instruction, and half the time was self-paced learning [Studio lessons].
Now, it's totally self-paced at all times. I might have, within a class, a ten-minute mini-
lesson, but that's the most instruction I'm going to do. Besides my whole class
announcements, I'll never do whole-class instruction, whereas the first year [BA’s second
year], that was happening probably every, two out of five days was whole-class
instruction. This year, it's as independent and as autonomous as it can be. That puts so
much more on the teacher ahead of time, because you have to build all your lessons
ahead of time. You have to build all your videos ahead of time, make sure your lessons
are super clear, so that your kids aren't waiting for your instruction and your guidance,
and they can go through it on their own.

Other teachers shared this sentiment. As mentioned earlier, many of the teachers at BA pushed to
190
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
eliminate the distinction between Lecture and Studio days, so that they could move away from
whole-group instruction and toward personalization and self-pacing via modules. Indeed, the
modules, though time-consuming to create, were a key component in year three that had a
distinct influence on teachers’ practices. In essence, modules were what allowed teachers to
implement major components of a PL model: high levels of technology use, up-to-the minute
data use and responsiveness to student needs, personalized pacing/personal learning paths, and
student autonomy. Modules also helped teachers engage in a new way of measuring student
progression – mastery-based grading.
Mastery-based grading. Mastery-based grading (or other alternative forms of grading) is
often touted as key to PL models. Indeed, MBG is often a key part of instantaneous feedback and
consistent data use. However, as with other PL strategies, MBG is not often clearly defined, in
the abstract or in practice. As defined by the school, mastery-based grading (MBG) is “a system
of grading students based on their demonstrated levels of mastery of essential content and skills.
Rather than earning points for completing an assignment, students must demonstrate a level of
mastery in all assignments.” Still, both teachers and administrators admitted that the definition of
mastery, in particular, was vague in year three. Specifically, teachers were still not clear on what
is meant to “master” a particular skill.
Ms. L explained that MBG allowed her to provide students’ with more immediate
feedback, which was difficult, but necessary. According to her, the individualized pacing meant
more individualized grading for teachers:
[MBG] made [feedback] much more immediate. We’re grading on the spot, constantly, in
class. When a kid turns in an assignment, we grade it. Their grade immediately goes into
the gradebook, and they know if they have to re-submit it or not on the spot. I think, in
combo with the self-paced learning, when you expect kids to meet a certain pacing target,
the teacher has to be able to meet that pacing target in return with the grading as well.
You tell a kid that they have to have these four assignments done by this day, but it's not
191
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
graded till two days later, the entire legitimacy of the deadline goes away. You have to be
able to grade things, and then put grades on the spot. It has to be within a 30-minute
period, I think. Otherwise, the kids don't see the value of having that pacing plan.

Most of my assignments are in smaller chunks now. Most things can be done in 30-45
minutes. That's what I can grade nearly on the spot. My longer discussions or my longer
writing stuff, I'll have them to do Friday, so I have the weekend to grade it by Monday.
Most of the stuff is in small enough bites for me to be able to grade it on the spot and
give them immediate feedback. Also, rather than grading one ticket at the end of the day,
I'm grading 45 assignments throughout class. It also allows you to redirect
misunderstandings much quicker than when you're at the end of the class.

-BA Interview, Ms. L, Fall 2014
Ms. L felt that MBG contributed to the immediacy needed to enact personalized pacing, and
allowed her to instill her students with a sense of urgency.
Another key part of MBG is that students are able to re-submit assignments as many
times as necessary to attain mastery; MBG emphasizes mastery and growth by “recognizing
students who grow over time.” This focus on growth, as articulated by both school leaders and
teachers, was an essential part of the school’s PL mission in year three. Teachers’ use of modules
allowed for the continuous resubmission (and re-grading) of students’ assessments and activities.
Indeed, Ms. A and Ms. L both indicated that students resubmitting assignments was key to
recognizing students’ growth over time. However, the focus on growth indicated problems with
the school’s assessment system. According to Ms. L,
One thing we learned last quarter, when we were trying to predict how well our kids
would do on the interims, we didn't know, because with mastery, you can submit and
submit and submit until you get mastery, but then that didn't give us clear data of where
the kids actually were at. They might have been at a 40% on their first submission, and
by their fourth one, they mastered it, but how much of it was not actually learned between
those two steps? If they're doing the same assignment over and over again, of course
they're going to master it eventually, whether or not they learned it or not…I need to have
an accurate snapshot of data to be able to figure out where to go next. If you keep letting
them re-submit the same things, you don't get that accurate snapshot.

Both teachers and administrators wanted to emphasize student growth, but needed to find a way
192
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
to fit that focus on growth into a system where students and teachers were being held
accountable to students’ scores on standardized assessments.
Flexible scheduling and learning spaces. The reprioritization of self-pacing in year three
also prompted changes in school scheduling and the design of the learning spaces. In the latter
half of year two, teachers were encouraged to plan out each quarter (10 weeks of instructional
time) in advance of the beginning of the quarter. However, as Ms. H – now the assistant principal
– noted, “if teachers are required to plan out weeks in advance, doing it while you’re in the class
is too overwhelming.” Ms. A reiterated this, saying,
I think the biggest clash [between administration and teachers] has probably been the
planning time, and having X amount of curriculum built out, whereas we are hearing
from our administration that you need to have ten weeks, and everyone was saying,
"That's impossible." The administration would say, "OK, then give us four." We had, the
negotiations have gone back and forth. The expectation is that by next year, that's going
to happen. True to the model, everyone's been pretty committed to moving into the
personalization world, and has seen the benefits in the classroom in that world. There
hasn't been push-back there. I think the biggest teacher-[administration]
miscommunication or disconnection was the planning time and how tired people really
are, because they have to build out and do everything in the current moment.

In response to this challenge, the school began instituting a new schedule in year three, which
Ms. H described as follows:
It’s basically is eight weeks on, two weeks off. Every quarter we have a two week break.
The purpose is A) for planning time, and B) for remediation. We are on this self-paced
track. If there are students who are behind they have two additional weeks with intensive
support over those two weeks to make it up. It’s a safety net where students can get work
done and then move on to the next quarter successfully. Rather than if they did fail their
course and then moving on to the next, that doesn’t help anybody so giving them two
extra weeks with intense support to remediate… Once we started the self-paced model, I
think we realized that if we were going to be true to it, then we had to build something
where teachers could plan and really dig deep into looking at what went well the previous
quarter in order to inform their next quarter in their planning process.

This new schedule would allow for teachers to build the modules that would serve as the basis
for instruction, assessment, and personalization in any upcoming quarter.
193
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
The schedule also changed for eleventh grade students. Eleventh graders had a slightly
different weekly schedule that included the “Learning Commons.” As Ms. A described it,
Their Mondays through Thursdays are the same as everyone else. Friday, we're getting
them ready to have a more autonomous learning schedule when they get to college. Every
single Friday, the kids choose their own schedule of office hour blocks. Every teacher on
Friday has three office hour blocks with their prep period, and then we have a college-
style lecture. On Tuesday afternoons, they choose what classes they want to go to on that
day. They choose their advisor, and they can choose any of these teachers for Block 1 or
if they're totally on track, and they don't need any help, they can go work in the learning
commons all day. Learning commons, and then we have a lecture. All our kids have a
really hard time focusing for more than five minutes, because we don't do lectures here,
so we bring in a lecturer every single week to do a workshop with them or a talk with
them. They take notes, college-style, to get ready for that. Then they choose more blocks.
So they can choose any of these teachers, these teachers or these teachers. They'll choose
what help they need. Just as a check on our end, because some kids will, a kid who's
failing every class will choose the learning commons all day because they don't want to
go.

-BA Interview, Ms. A, Fall 2014
This new schedule for the eleventh graders was reminiscent of the original plan for open
classrooms and schedules. However, only eleventh graders were deemed autonomous enough to
take part in this more flexible Friday schedule.
To accommodate personalized pacing, another new practice was introduced in year three:
the addition of varied learning spaces, where students could work “sitting up, standing, on the
ground, independently or groups.” According to Ms. H, this also helped push teachers away from
any lecture-based, whole-class work.
[W]e found that if their space was conducive to small groups, pairs, individual if they
created that space they were more likely to be on board with the blended personalized
learning model. We were noticing that some teachers still couldn’t peel themselves away
from it and you could tell in their space. You could see 20 desks on the side all facing one
screen and that was their way of still holding on to a whole class lesson. Then also
teachers struggled with letting go.

-BA Interview, Ms. H, Fall 2014
As a result, classrooms looked slightly different in year three, with bean bags, couches, and high-
194
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
top tables being reinstated into the classrooms. Additionally, there was a new “learning center,”
which was a larger area on the second floor of the school, with several smaller rooms at the back
of the room. Teachers used this area when they wanted to have a variety of learning
environments available at the same time. For example, Ms. A used the learning center frequently.
In one class I observed, she had students working independently on a writing assignment and
students running discussion periodically. As I noted in my field notes,
Some students are lounging on the back couches and working. Others are sitting at the
tall tables by themselves. The rest are sitting individually or in groups at the long tables.
One kid sits at the far end wearing headphones. A few students scattered throughout are
also wearing headphones. Some students are in the small rooms at the back, having small
group meetings and discussions. Each discussion group in the back has a group leader
who is responsible for grading the discussions.

-BA Field Notes, Fall 2014
The use of open classrooms and flexible scheduling was part of the founder’s original plan; this
plan never materialized in years one or two. However, it was operationalized in part in year
three.
Year three summary.
I think the greatest success is that we started the first year with an idea of students being
able to work at their own pace. We weren’t sure what that meant and we didn’t have a
culture that could foster student learning and self-paced learning and keep students
disciplined and self-regulated. Year two, we shifted. We went through two different
iterations in year two which was crazy, but year three we’re back to where we wanted to
be in year one which I find incredible.

-BA Interview, Fall 2014
Year three was the year that the school and the teachers began to integrate PL strategies
into their day-to-day activities. The instructional component that supported this the most was the
creation of modules. According to teachers, these modules allowed for high levels of technology
use, up-to-the minute data use and responsiveness to student needs, personalized pacing, student
195
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
autonomy, and mastery-based grading. However, teachers who had been at the school for one,
two, and three years also felt that the discipline system and an emphasis on planning and
accountability were key to their abilities to personalize their students’ learning experiences. Ms.
H, for example, who had been with the school since year one, explained the evolution of the
school in this way:
Culture is one of the primary changes that made this model possible. We became a
culture first school in year two and we added the merits and demerits. Once we set these
expectations for students and they understood their behavioral expectations, their
classroom expectations, we started to see a shift and more productivity and increased
focus on their work.

It wasn’t about behavior issues anymore. Culture first. Then the second thing was in year
two we provided a curricular focus for teachers. Year one, we used [Digital X]. With
[Digital X] we didn’t know more or less how it aligned to the standards and we weren’t
looking at the standards. We weren’t creating our own curriculum so we didn’t own a
curriculum. In year two, now we’re focused on the culture and the standards but in year
two we were asked to identify the standards.

-BA Interview, Ms. H, Fall 2014
Teachers that remained at BA – namely, Ms. H, Ms. L, and Ms. A – felt that it was the “No
Excuses” model and the prioritization of accountability that supported teachers’ capacities to
implement more PL strategies.
Summary
As evidenced above, school design and instructional practice evolved over the course of
the first three years of the school. In year one, the disconnect between school vision and
classroom realities drove teachers to revert to practices with which they were most comfortable –
primarily more traditional classroom structures and practices. In year two, the implementation of
the “No Excuses” model and the emphasis on accountability shaped teachers’ practices, pushing
teachers to prioritize student discipline and measurable results. In year three, school leaders and
teachers reprioritized PL, which prompted teachers to implement modules and mastery-based
196
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
grading school-wide. In essence, the nature of teacher practice was reactive – teachers reacted to
school-level and classroom-level issues, changed their practice in response to challenges, and
drew on their existing knowledge structures to make instructional decisions.
In the first year, the blended PL model created more work than teachers had anticipated,
which resulted “survival mode” – most classrooms saw a return to more traditional, low-tech
practices, intended to make students’ behavior and teachers’ work more manageable. As teachers
strove to “survive,” the original vision for teacher practice broke down to varying levels in each
classroom, with teachers exhibiting a return to the pedagogical roles and practices with which
they were most comfortable. For most teachers, this included more teacher-centric, low-tech
practices – whole-class lectures, handwritten notebooks, and non-digital management of student
progress. Several salient factors, which I discuss in further detail in chapter six, may explain the
degree to which the intended blended PL model was implemented in the classroom. First,
teachers spent a great deal of time managing student’ technology use and off-task behavior.
Second, teachers had far more roles and responsibilities than anticipated (as outlined by school
vision, rules, and norms). Finally, the interplay of school organizational context and teachers’
beliefs and experiences, along with the tensions between the school vision for practice and the
day-to-day classroom activities, shaped teachers’ roles and practices in the classroom.
In the second year, the “No Excuses” model and the emphasis on accountability became
key organizational characteristics, with a decreased emphasis on PL and flexibility. In the latter
part of the second year and into the third year, there was an increasing emphasis on the
personalization portion of the school’s theory of action. Throughout, teachers’ instructional
practices were shaped by the “No Excuses” model and accountability as an organizational
imperative. Instructional activity toward the goal of PL was thus mediated by the rules and
197
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
norms of the school – discipline and accountability– and by the tools available to teachers –
technology and curricular resources. Teachers’ work was further shaped by community
perceptions – teachers, students, and parents wanted more structure and clearer expectations,
which the CEO and the CMO aimed to give them through the “No Excuses” model.
In BA’s third year, discipline and accountability were still prioritized, but personalization
was again at the forefront of the model, and of teachers’ classroom practices. The school-wide
implementation of teacher-created modules served to support the goals of PL; namely, high
levels of technology use, up-to-the minute data use and responsiveness to student needs,
personalized pacing, student autonomy, and mastery-based grading. The use of modules and the
accompanying increase of personalized instructional practices influenced classroom design –
specifically, the use of more flexible scheduling, open learning spaces, and the learning center.
Teachers’ work was primarily shaped by school-level characteristics (especially the “No
Excuses” model and the accountability imperative), specifically by mediating teachers’
understandings and capacities to enact various school-level goals.
Throughout all three years, teachers’ instructional practices were characterized by several
waves of significant change, as was the design of the school model. The school experienced
substantive changes as an organization that filtered down to teachers’ classroom practices (which
I discuss in further detail in the next chapter as a process of expansive learning). These changes
were prompted by a disconnect between vision and practice in year one, the implementation “No
Excuses” and the prioritization of accountability in year two, and the reprioritization of PL in
year three. Within each of these categories, the emergence of systemic contradictions and
accompanying cycles of sensemaking prompted classroom-level and organizational-level
changes. Several systemic contradictions emerged around technology-mediated personalization,
198
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
manifesting in tensions, disruptions, and conflicts in a variety of instances. These contradictions
created opportunities for individual and collective sensemaking, which prompted expansive
learning at the organizational level. Across teachers, the introduction of the “No Excuses” model
served as a key mediator of teachers’ practices (particularly toward PL) in years two and three,
shaping teachers’ understanding and enactment of the Object of Activity – PL. Teachers filtered
the school’s goals and theory of action through existing schemas that varied by teacher. In
essence, teachers did not experience substantive changes to their existing schemas (existing
understanding of teaching and pedagogy); rather, they drew on their existing knowledge frames
to first reconcile the disconnect between vision and practice, and then to reconcile a primary
contradiction between the tenets of a “No Excuses” model and the ideals of PL.
The story of BA is reminiscent of any school in which a new school model is being
implemented or a new instructional reform is being introduced. Indeed, plenty of research has
explored implementation problems (e.g. Spillane et al., 2002). Still, the dynamic interplay of
historical, individual, organizational, and societal factors at BA presents a story that is
simultaneously familiar and unique. The interactions among these factors – particularly among
teachers’ individual sensemaking processes, the high-tech tools of instruction, the organizational
priorities (PL, “No Excuses,” and accountability), and the larger educational climate – shaped
teachers’ practices in particular ways. In the next chapter, I further examine these interactions
and explore how they shaped both teachers’ practices and organizational context. Specifically, I
discuss contradictions in detail, tracing how tensions and disruptions indicated underlying
contradictions and prompted teacher sensemaking. This sensemaking process in turn led to
specific changes to instructional practice and school design, but not to schema reconstruction.

199
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION OF THEORY
In this dissertation study, I aimed to tell the story of teachers’ work in a blended,
personalized learning school. I also sought to describe how teachers’ instruction and school
design evolved over the first several years of the school’s operation. I thus aimed, in chapter five,
to answer the following overarching research question:
1. What is the nature of teacher practice in a blended learning charter high school with a
theory of action of technology-mediated personalized learning?
Toward these aims, in chapter five, I provided an in-depth, detailed look at organizational
practice and teacher instruction at Blended Academy. In particular, I discussed the nature of
teachers’ instructional practices and the changes in organizational practices and school design as
they unfolded over the first five semesters of the school’s operation. However, this dissertation
study also sought to answer three remaining research questions:
2. How do teachers interpret the school’s program goals and underlying theory of
action?
3. What, if any, are the systemic contradictions that develop around technology-
mediated personalized learning?
4. How, if at all, do systemic contradictions and teachers’ interpretations of those
contradictions shape school design and teachers’ practices over time?
It is these questions to which I turn my attention in this chapter – I utilize CHAT and
sensemaking theory to “make sense” of the case of Blended Academy. In engaging CHAT,
specifically, I am able to examine challenges of practice as opportunities for learning and
change. Indeed, as indicated by my research questions and as I discussed in chapters two and
200
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
three, a complementary aim of this study is to bring the use of theory into an area of research that
has been under-theorized, so as to understand not only what teachers’ practices looked like in a
blended PL setting, but also how and why practices developed as they did – what triggered
change or innovation and how systemic and contextual factors interacted with individual
teachers’ beliefs and understandings. Toward these ends, in this chapter, I draw on CHAT
supplemented by sensemaking theory to provide a clearer understanding of what shaped
teachers’ work, how teachers interpreted the vision for PL, and what impelled those
interpretations throughout BA’s first, second, and third years of operation. In so doing, I
conceptualize BA as an activity system, rather than as simply an organization, so that I can trace
how underlying contradictions stimulated key changes in organizational and individual practices
by creating opportunities for sensemaking.
Core Argument
In the preceding chapter, I demonstrated that instructional practice at BA was
characterized by several waves of organizational change at the school-level. These changes were
discussed as: (1) a disconnect between school vision and classroom practice; (2) the
implementation of a “No Excuses” school model and the school-level prioritization of
accountability measures; and (3) the reprioritization of PL. In this chapter, I apply tenets of
CHAT and sensemaking theory to my analysis of the case of Blended Academy. Emerging from
this analysis is the following core argument: The school’s evolution and the changes in teachers’
classroom practices were rooted in two key processes: (1) expansive learning – tensions and
disruptions arose from underlying contradictions, which created opportunities for sensemaking
and shifts in individual and organizational practices; and (2) sensemaking – teachers interpreted
“personalized learning” and other key aspects of the school model through existing knowledge
201
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
frames and through their understanding of organizational priorities. Undergirding each of these
processes is a Primary contradiction
28
inherent in the tension between “No Excuses” schooling
and personalized learning (as an outgrowth of SCL and constructivism). In this chapter, I delve
deeply into this argument, linking the narrative of BA to organizational and individual processes
that served as catalysts for school-level and instructional-level changes, and utilizing aspects of
CHAT and sensemaking theory as tools to help me uncover how teachers interpreted and enacted
the school model and to understand what individual and organizational factors influenced them
in doing so.
Ultimately, I argue that the school exhibited substantive changes in organizational
practices, which I describe as a process of expansive learning. These changes were rooted in a
series of contradictions arising from: a disconnect between vision and practice, the
implementation of a “No Excuses” model and the school-level prioritization of accountability,
and the reprioritization of PL. The changes in organizational practices were also rooted in how
teachers understood the concept of PL as a school-level goal, and as a driver of classroom
activity. Of particular consequence was a Primary contradiction that emerged between the
drivers of PL: student-centered, constructivist teaching practices and market-driven,
accountability-based reforms. This Primary contradiction undergirded other emerging
contradictions, and served as a key mediator of teachers’ understanding and interpretation of PL.
Though high-tech PL is often presented as a new, innovative means of teaching and learning that
may require changes in teachers’ existing beliefs, overall, teachers did not appear to experience
substantive changes to their existing knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning; instead,
they drew on their existing knowledge frames to first reconcile the disconnect between vision

28
Throughout this chapter, I distinguish between a Primary contradiction (between use-value and exchange-value)
and a primary contradiction (a contradiction located within a specific component of an activity system). When
Primary is capitalized, it indicates the foundational Primary contradiction in a capitalist society.
202
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
and practice, and then to attempt to reconcile a Primary contradiction between the tenets of a
“No Excuses” model and the ideals of PL.
Chapter Structure
In this chapter, I first review some key ideas from CHAT and sensemaking theory that
will prove particularly pertinent in this chapter, including contradictions, expansive learning, and
the sensemaking process. I then briefly introduce how BA experienced expansive learning and
explore the emergence of the Primary contradiction that served as a key mediator of teachers’
sensemaking processes. Next, I present my discussion through “key analytic moments” aligned
to the waves of organizational change discussed in chapter five: (1) the disconnect between
vision and practice; (2) the introduction of “No Excuses” and the accountability imperative; and
(3) the reprioritization of personalized learning. I structure my discussion within each “ key
analytic moment” by first examining underlying contradictions and mediating factors that
manifested in tensions or disruptions and facilitated changes, focusing on how contradictions
emerged (in practice) and how they were resolved toward new instructional or organizational
practices. I then look at how these contradictions served as sensemaking triggers that mediated
school-level and classroom-level changes, but did not necessarily lead to the reconstruction of
teachers’ existing schemas (existing knowledge frames through which teachers’ experiences,
beliefs, practices, and attitudes coalesce to allow them to make predictions and interpret
information). Organizing the discussion this way allows me to zoom in on those moments to
understand how teachers made sense of and enacted the school model, even as it changed;
identify underlying systemic contradictions that triggered sensemaking and created (or mediated)
opportunities for change; and clarify how contradictions as sensemaking triggers shaped
practices at the individual and organizational levels. I conclude this chapter by further examining
203
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
BA’s process of expansive learning and arguing that although the school experienced
organizational change, teachers did not experience a substantive shift in their own teaching
beliefs. Using CHAT and sensemaking in tandem provides me with a theoretical lens that
facilitates shifting the level of analysis from the organizational- to the individual-level and back
again, in order to draw out the dynamic relationship between individual and context, and
delineate the process by which an organization can exhibit changes in organizational practices
that are not reliant on changes in individuals’ existing knowledge structures.
Re-conceptualizing Blended Academy Using CHAT and Sensemaking Theory
One of the aims of this dissertation is to bring theoretical lenses to an understudied and
theoretically-impoverished area of research toward understanding teachers’ interpretations and
enactments of PL, and the contradictions that shape those interpretations and enactments at both
the school- and individual-levels. As discussed in chapters two and three, utilizing an integrated
CHAT/sensemaking framework helps me to better understand the phenomenon of teachers’
instruction in a blended PL model. In CHAT, problems that are usually discussed as
implementation challenges that hinder change are discussed as manifestations of underlying
contradictions that can trigger innovation, change, and sensemaking. Utilizing CHAT in
conjunction with sensemaking theory helps move me past simply describing the many tensions
in a school that constrain teachers’ practices, and toward painting a more detailed, richly-
theorized picture that shows how contradictions can be generative and can trigger change. Re-
conceptualizing Blended Academy as an activity system helps me to identify the underlying
contradictions that gave rise to failures and innovations, as if behind the backs of the conscious
actors in the system (Engeström, 1999). Utilizing sensemaking in tandem with CHAT allows me
to zoom in on how certain subjects in the system – my case study teachers – “structure the
204
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
unknown,” how and why they make meaning from cues in the system, and what the effects of
these meaning-making processes are (Waterman, 1990, p. 41; Weick, 1995). In this case, it
appears that teachers’ sensemaking processes helped to generate changes at the system-level, but
did not necessarily help trigger changes to teachers’ existing schemas.
The Activity System
CHAT assumes that cultural, historical, and social factors influence learning and change
– learning and development of practice at both the individual and organizational levels are
mediated by the interacting factors of the system or organization in which the learning is taking
place. In CHAT, this organization or system is referred to as the activity system and is
represented by the triangular heuristic in Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1. BA as an activity system.
As Figure 6.1 demonstrates, the interacting factors at BA included Tools (technological
tools, learning management systems, and other digital resources, for example), Subjects (the
205
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
participants engaged in the activity, whose point-of-view is chosen as the perspective of the
analysis), Rules or norms (school vision, and normative practices and behaviors), Community
(other stakeholders in the system – administrators, teachers, students, staff, parents, community
members, etc.), Division of Labor (continuously negotiated division of responsibilities – how
instructional responsibilities are divided between teachers and digital tools, teachers and other
teachers, and teachers and students), the Object of activity (personalized learning), and the result
of the activity (the Outcome). The Object is not necessarily the goal of the activity in the
system, but is the horizon of possible actions – at BA, for example, the object may be
personalized learning (both in the sense of the concept of PL as an instructional model and in the
sense of learning that is achieved through personalization), but there is an array of possible
actions toward that end.
Contradictions
Contradiction is a critical concept in this dissertation study that helps to explain the
change process at the organizational- and classroom-levels and provides a common language for
discussing tensions and disturbances that triggered teacher sensemaking. Given the multitude of
factors at play in any organization, tension within and among components is inevitable
(Engeström, 1999; 2001). Tensions, or disturbances in the system, are “deviations from the
normal scripted course of events in the work process, interpreted as symptoms or manifestations
of inner contradictions of the activity system in question” (Engeström & Sannino, 2011, p. 372).
The contradictions in the activity system are not simply problems or conflicts (Engeström, 2001),
they are “historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems”
(p.137). This idea of “historically accumulating” is a particularly useful component of CHAT
that lends itself to a study of how teachers’ interpret and enact a reform – in this case, a school
206
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
model – that is rooted in not only in the context of the school, but also in the accumulated history
of a system of education. In other words, PL (as a theory of learning and as a school model)
becomes integrally connected to the history of education and to which educational goals have
been prioritized at any given time. In the current educational climate, this could be conceived of
as a tension between the use-value of education (a student’s education is an end in and of itself,
and is a mechanism of democratic citizenship and equality) and the exchange-value of education
(a student’s achievement is quantifiable and can be used as “currency” for credentials, entrance
into a college, and eventually economic stability and productivity). Indeed, the pervasive
Primary contradiction in a capitalist society is the contradiction between use-value and
exchange-value, inherent in commoditization, to which all aspects of life are subject (Engeström
& Sannino, 2010). Contradictions can also occur within any component of the activity system,
between components, between old and new elements of activity, and between transformed
activity systems and other activity systems. In activity theory, these contradictions are what drive
individual and collective change.

Figure 6.2. Contradictions as opportunities for learning and change.
207
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Contradictions can occur within any component in the system (a primary
contradiction), as indicated by the red circle in figure 6.2. For example, if mastery-based
grading were introduced into a school, contradiction may occur if MBG fundamentally conflicts
with more traditional elements of teacher practice. So, a teacher may typically rely on – and was
trained to use – a series of unit tests to assess student content knowledge, at the end of which
students all progress to a new unit as a class; however, MBG requires that students show
evidence for meeting particular learning objectives and the pacing of this is individualized, rather
than whole-group. This contradiction, located within the Subjects node could then be the source
of a tension that could threaten implementation – the teacher’s prior knowledge and experience
might lead her to blend MBG with her old way of doing things, perhaps by neglecting to
implement individualized pacing. The teacher could also respond to the contradiction by
researching and learning better ways to assess mastery, leading to changes in that teacher’s
practice.
An example of a contradiction between components (a secondary contradiction),
represented by the red double-headed arrow in figure 6.2, could arise from the tension between
the Tools available to the teachers and the Object of their activity – which in this case could be
conceived of as personalized learning. For example, if the available technology (the Tool) is
insufficient to achieve PL (the Object) – if there are no quality digital assessment tools that
provide good enough data for teachers to personalize students’ learning paths – then tensions or
disruptions of practice could arise from this. If the available tools do not support implementation,
either the Object must be re-conceptualized, or new tools need to be sought or developed in order
to transform practice.
208
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
A tertiary contradiction – a contradiction between the Object of activity as it is
currently conceived of and new practices that are meant to reshape it. For example, if teachers in
a PL school implemented ideas for practice stemming from their prior experiences (say,
instructional strategies aligned with mastery-based grading), those strategies may be formally
implemented at the organizational level, but re-conceptualized in day-to-day practice as a hybrid
of mastery-based grading and traditional grading. Further, a quaternary contradiction might
arise between activity systems. A pertinent example for PL schools might be a contradiction
between how a PL school measures student progress and how a traditional school measures
student progress. If a student transfers between schools, a conflict might emerge between
systems in how a student is placed or graded.
Finally, there is an inherent contradiction located within the Object of activity; the Object
is simultaneously a manifestation of future goals and the current reality of the activity system. It
is also simultaneously the “generalized object of the historically evolving activity system and the
specific object as it appears to a particular subject, at a given moment, in a given action”
(Engeström & Sannino, 2010, p. 6). In other words, the Object is both how it is conceived of by
individuals at any given moment, and also how it has developed over time in a particular activity
system. In figure 6.2, the circle around the Object indicates both “the focal role” and the
“inherent ambiguity” of the Object of activity (Engeström & Sannino, 2010, p. 6). It is the focus
of activity, but it is also inherently ambiguous. The Object thus presents “an invitation to
interpretation, personal sensemaking, and societal transformation” (Engeström & Sannino, 2010,
p. 6) – a clear area of the activity system which lends itself to the sensemaking process. Within
that circle is where individuals interpret, understand, reconstruct, and make retroactive sense of
actions toward the Object of activity. Using sensemaking theory to augment CHAT helps to
209
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
examine the Object as it relates to changes in the system and to changes in individual subjects’
understanding.
Expansive Learning and Sensemaking
Contradictions are the core contextual, cultural, historical, and societal issues from which
surface-level tensions and disruptions (sensemaking triggers) arise. A particularly useful aspect
of CHAT is that it frames all of this – sensemaking, tensions, contradictions, and challenges of
practice – as potentially positive (and indeed, inevitable) sources of learning and organizational
change (Lee, 2010). Using CHAT to frame an analysis of instructional practice and
organizational change lets me identify the deeper contextual contradictions from which tensions
and disruptions stem and thus identify how contradictions presented possible opportunities for
learning and change in a way that makes the analysis more transferable to other contexts. These
opportunities for learning and change are where Subjects (teachers or administrators, in this case)
can interpret, make choices about, and respond to contradictions in order to facilitate
(re)construction of the Object of activity, and/or changes in individual and organizational
practice. For activity theorists, this process of constructing and resolving emerging
contradictions is known as expansive learning (Engeström, 1987; Engeström & Sannino, 2010).
Applying concepts from sensemaking theory, this process of expansion is the area in which in
which existing schemas, issues of emotion and identity, and external representations, messages,
or signals can shape practice. Thus, during the process of expansion, individuals can respond to
attempts to restructure practice through assimilation (a process by which actors attempt to fit
reforms into their existing frameworks), accommodation (restructuring of existing knowledge
frames), and/or schema reconstruction (substantively changing practice).

210
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Expansive Learning at Blended Academy
As discussed in chapter five, BA evolved over the course of its first five semesters,
demonstrating changes in organizational practices and in teachers’ instructional practices. These
changes, for example, included shifts in organizational priorities (e.g. prioritizing discipline and
accountability in year two), and changes in what digital resources were used and to what ends
(e.g. using digital resources to monitor students’ online behavior). In looking at how BA
evolved, I argue that BA, as a school, experienced substantive changes in organizational
practices that represented a process of expansive learning. This process of expansive learning
came in response to a series of contradictions (which I discuss in detail later in this chapter) that
emerged over the course of BA’s first several years of operation, foremost of which was an
underlying Primary contradiction. This Primary contradiction (which I discuss in further detail
below), inherent in a capitalist society, is the contradiction between use-value and exchange-
value (Engeström & Sannino, 2010). At BA, for example, this Primary contradiction manifested
in a tension between the tenets of a “No Excuses” school model based in market-based reform
and accountability and the ideals of PL, as an outgrowth of SCL and constructivism.
As indicated in the previous section, the Object of activity is a key driver of sensemaking,
and consequently, of expansive learning. Expansive learning, according to Engeström and
Sannino (2010) is “manifested primarily as changes in the [O]bject of collective activity,” which,
in instances of successful expansive learning, “eventually leads to a qualitative transformation of
all components of the activity system” (p. 8). In other words, changes in how PL is understood in
a school can lead to changes in school practices. As I discuss in further detail in later sections, at
BA, there were both individual and collective changes to the Object of activity (conceived of
here as PL). For example, when the “No Excuses” model came into being, teachers’
211
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
understanding of PL had to be filtered through the lens of “No Excuses.” School leaders
redefined PL by shaping the organizational messages to which teachers had to respond (e.g. by
emphasizing discipline) and by shaping the direction of teacher activity (e.g. requiring
quantifiable results to justify practices). Teachers’ understanding of PL was thus shaped by the
school environment (through organizational tensions, organizational messages, and changes in
organizational practice) and by other sensemaking triggers (e.g. teachers’ existing beliefs,
identities, and emotions). Using CHAT and sensemaking theory together provides me with the
tools to analyze how teachers’ understanding of PL was shaped by interacting factors at both the
organizational and individual levels. For instance, as teachers (and other stakeholders) re-
conceptualized PL (the Object) over time and in relation to organizational priorities – and in
particular, how all other components of the activity system related to and mediated PL – changes
occurred across the school (in each area of the activity system): Subjects (e.g. the teachers
understanding of and actions toward PL), Tools (e.g. technological tools and digital resources),
Division of Labor (e.g. how responsibility for student learning was conceptualized and divided),
Community (e.g. teachers, administrators, parents, and students), and Rules (e.g. the school
vision and the normative practices that were shaped by that vision). Changes in organizational
practices reflected the developments in each component of the activity system. I argue then, that
BA experienced expansive learning, representing an ascension from the abstract (PL as a
learning model) to the concrete (PL in everyday classroom activities and PL strategies enacted at
the classroom level).
The process of expansive learning is not just a process of large organizational changes.
Indeed, the impetus for larger shifts in organizational practices is evident in smaller decisions
and events, and in responses to particular tensions. Utilizing CHAT and sensemaking together
212
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
allows me to probe the relationships and interactions in the organization that shaped teacher’s
understanding of PL, and prompted changes in both organizational and instructional practices
over time. CHAT provides a way to anticipate particular sources of tension, thus allowing for the
identification of instances of contradiction that are the sensemaking triggers that lead to
expansion (Russell & Schneiderheinze, 2005). These sensemaking triggers pressed teachers in
the system to understand, develop, and reconstruct PL (the Object of activity) toward an
Outcome. In other words, where teachers encountered sensemaking triggers, they were
prompted to reevaluate their understanding of PL, and their classroom actions toward
implementing PL strategies.
In the following sections, I discuss tensions and contradictions in the school as catalysts
for sensemaking and change, as a means of exploring how and why BA’s program design and
teachers’ instructional practices evolved as they did. In discussing these contradictions, I
examine how they manifested in practice, how teachers made sense of them, how they were
resolved (or not resolved), and how, if applicable, they resulted in further contradictions. In the
end, I argue that teachers at BA experienced changes at the school-level and the classroom-level,
as well as in their own conceptions of key components of the school model; these changes, at
every level, were facilitated by the tensions and contradictions in the activity system. However, I
maintain that in responding to tensions and contradictions in the system, teachers themselves did
not appear to experience schema reconstruction; rather, their sensemaking processes were
characterized by assimilation – fitting their existing ideas about teaching into the extant school
structures.

213
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Contradictions as Triggers of Sensemaking and Expansive Learning
There is no doubt that BA as an organization, and the nature of teachers’ practice within
that organization, changed throughout the course of my study. However, as mentioned above,
that type of organizational change is characterized by and evident in smaller-scale “cycles of
innovative learning” (Engeström, 1987, p. 13). For example, teachers in BA’s first year realized
that they did not have the technological resources to monitor students’ online work. This was a
significant challenge for teachers in year one. However, in year two, school leaders and teachers
responded to this challenge by choosing digital resources that allowed them to keep a close eye
on students’ online activity. These smaller cycles are what I focus on in this section in order to
more closely examine teacher practice and to explore the interrelation of individual and
organizational change at BA.
I align my discussion with the key waves of change introduced in chapter five: (1) the
disconnect between vision and practice; (2) the introduction of “No Excuses” and the emphasis
on accountability; and (3) the reprioritization of PL. I structure my discussion in this way
because each of these waves of change was facilitated by contradictions that manifested in
tensions in and disruptions to teachers’ practices. To understand how and why, I not only draw
on concepts from CHAT, but also concepts from sensemaking theory – specifically, assimilation,
accommodation, and schema reconstruction. Adding sensemaking theory to my analysis allows
me to zoom in on those smaller-scale cycles of innovation within each year to identify specific
sensemaking triggers, so that I can examine how teachers’ existing knowledge frames and
interpretations further shaped practice in response to contradictions. This is important, as
teacher’s existing individual knowledge can have implications for organizational and
institutional change (Spillane et al., 2002). For example, undergirding the contradictions that
214
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
arose throughout BA’s first several years of practice was a Primary contradiction – a
contradiction emerging from the historical development of schooling as a whole that manifests in
tension between the core driving forces of PL (market-based accountability reforms, and reforms
reflecting the tenets of SCL and constructivism). The Primary contradiction, and the other related
contradictions that emerged throughout BA’s history triggered teachers’ sensemaking in various
ways, and led to shifts in organizational practices, but ultimately, not to the reconstruction of
individuals’ existing teaching knowledge.
The Primary contradiction. A core tenet of CHAT is that contradictions in the system
drive learning and change. Indeed, as I discuss in later sections, the emergence and resolution of
contradictions across the activity system provided the impetus for the expansion of Blended
Academy. Yet, undergirding these contradictions as they emerged is a Primary contradiction
(Engeström, 1987). As discussed in chapter two, PL as a school model and an instructional
reform sits at the juncture of both SCL/constructivism and accountability. According to Giddens
(1979), contradiction is “the opposition or disjuncture of structural principles of social systems,
where those principles operate in terms of each other but at the same time contravene one
another” (p. 141). In a CHAT analysis, the Primary contradiction is between the use-value and
exchange-value of a commodity (Engeström, 1987). This Primary contradiction emerges
differently in different historical contexts and in different activity systems (Engeström &
Sannino, 2010). In this case, I argue that the Primary contradiction is embedded in current
educational priorities and policies – high stakes accountability policies and an emphasis on
personalization toward improving outcomes for traditionally-underserved students. This
embodies what I would argue represents a Primary driving contradiction that shaped teachers’
practices and school design at BA: a contradiction between the driving forces of PL – student-
215
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
centered, constructivist teaching practices and market-driven, accountability-based reforms. In
other words, there is a Primary contradiction inherent in the tension between “No Excuses”
schooling (based in accountability and standardization) and PL (as an outgrowth of SCL and
constructivism). This tension mediated how teachers’ made sense of and enacted PL as an
instructional model.
BA is a microcosm in which this Primary contradiction emerges and drives the
development of other contradictions throughout the school’s history. For example, in BA’s first
year, the school vision was more firmly rooted in constructivist ideas and SCL – there was an
emphasis on social-emotional support, collective responsibility for learning, and social learning
experiences. Yet, teachers were operating in a charter school (which, as discussed in chapter two,
is held to specific accountability standards and is rooted in market-based reform). Further,
teachers were judged (informally evaluated) by their abilities to manage their classrooms, and by
their students’ scores on standardized assessments. In year two, the CMO’s concern with
measurable results and discipline ushered in a “No Excuses” model. A “No Excuses” school
model makes certain assumptions about students – that they all must be held accountable in the
same way, without regard for individual circumstances. This model is firmly rooted in market-
based accountability reform and is indicative of a mindset in which education is seen as a
commodity, not a mechanism of social justice. Yet, BA is also a PL school – a school model that
is intended to be rooted in constructivism and SCL, and is part of a movement toward improving
educational experiences and outcomes for traditionally-underserved students. Essentially, BA
has developed a school model that aims to maximize equity and to facilitate the goals of
capitalism (which some may argue is inherently unequal). These tensions are indicative of a
fundamental underlying Primary contradiction – often described as the root of all contradiction
216
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
in an activity system (Engeström, 1987) – that lies in the historical development of schooling as
a whole. The Primary contradiction of capitalism resides in every commodity (in this case,
education), between its use-value and its exchange-value. It is this Primary contradiction that
generates other contradictions specific to the particular conditions of the given activity or
institution (Giddens, 1984).
It is this Primary contradiction from which BA’s process of expansion develops and from
which much of teachers’ sensemaking processes stem. In year one, when teachers encountered a
disconnect between the school vision and the realities of their classrooms, most teachers drew on
their existing understanding of how a classroom “should” look – a more traditional environment
where teachers are in charge and students are compliant – to reintroduce more highly-structured
practices reflective of a more traditional classroom environment. In the school’s second year, the
introduction of the “No Excuses” portion of the model and the prioritization of accountability
and measurable results acted a foundation for teachers to begin to implement more PL strategies.
However, the introduction of a “No Excuses” model was another manifestation of the Primary
contradiction, through which a heavier emphasis on the accountability-driven aspects of the
school was intended to be a foundation for PL strategies. In years two and three then, the “No
Excuses” model mediated teachers’ understandings of and practices around PL. The “No
Excuses” model may have other implications as well. By “asking students to overcome
overwhelming disparities through hard work and motivation, instead of addressing the structural
sources of poverty and poor academic achievement [including] the unequal distribution of
resources in schools and society” (Lack, 2009, p. 126), the ideals of a “No Excuses” model may
directly conflict with a more student-centered, constructivist approach in which PL is meant to
be rooted. Further, these changes were not accompanied by the reconstruction of teachers’
217
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
existing schemas. Rather, as discussed in subsequent sections, teachers, in one way or another,
engaged in a process of assimilation in response to contradictions and other sensemaking triggers
– teachers whose views on teaching fit with that of the school stayed, and those whose views did
not echo the school’s organizational goals and viewpoints were fired.
Key analytic moments: Cross-sections of contradiction, sensemaking, and teacher
practice. In chapter five, I demonstrated that instructional practice at BA exemplified several
waves of organizational change at the school-level, including a disconnect between school vision
and classroom practice, the implementation of a “No Excuses” school model and the school-level
prioritization of accountability measures, and the reprioritization of PL. In this chapter, I discuss
these waves of change as “key analytic moments” through which I can analyze the emergence
and resolution of contradictions, and the key sensemaking triggers that shaped teachers’ work
throughout BA’s first five semesters. The Primary contradiction discussed above was a key
mediator of teachers’ practices throughout BA’s first several years of operation, yet, other
contradictions emerged under the umbrella of this Primary contradiction. Using CHAT to
identify these contradictions allows me to trace how these contradictions triggered teacher
sensemaking and led (or did not lead) to changes in organizational practices. Using sensemaking
theory in conjunction with CHAT allows me to zoom in on teachers’ individual sensemaking
processes to examine how teachers responded to contradictions and to demonstrate that although
teachers sometimes responded differentially to contradictions, on the whole, they did not
experience substantive changes to their existing schemas.
Key analytic moment: The disconnect between vision and practice. The primary
disturbance teachers encountered in BA’s first year of operation was that the original vision for
teachers’ practice at Blended Academy conflicted with teachers’ classroom needs and
218
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
experiences. As discussed in chapter five, this disturbance manifested in several ways (i.e. was
evident in a multitude of tensions) throughout the first year – the digital curriculum (Digital X)
did not deliver as expected, students had difficulty self-managing, teachers were doing too much
work with not enough support (15 hour days; teaching up to 12 classes at once), and teachers
struggled to respond to constant school-level design changes.
The disconnect between school vision and classroom realities was prompted by a variety
of underlying contradictions including contradictions within the Rules of the school, within the
Subjects, between the Subjects and the Object of Activity, within the Division of Labor, within
the Community, and between the available Tools and the Object of activity (all discussed in
further detail below).
29
This disconnect between vision and reality was a primary manifestation
of existing and emerging contradictions. In more concrete terms, teachers experienced a series of
challenges in their classrooms where, for example, the school norms and the digital resources did
not support the school vision. Still, this disconnect between school vision and classroom reality
was also where much of teachers’ and administrators’ energies were focused in terms of
resolving contradictions toward personalizing students’ learning experiences in the future, and
improving students’ learning experiences immediately. Indeed, at various points throughout the
year, teachers attempted to resolve contradictions by re-conceptualizing PL (the Object of
Activity), the Rules, the Tools, and the Division of Labor. In so doing, several changes were
introduced in year two that corresponded with the resolution of these contradictions, including
the introduction of a “No Excuses” model (new Rules), new technological and digital resources
(new Tools), increased emphasis on accountability, and a more incremental introduction of the
elements of personalized learning. Undergirding each of these contradictions, and acting as a key

29
I capitalize the components of the activity system to differentiate from when I am discussing “rules” or “tools” as
more general concepts.
219
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
sensemaking trigger, was the Primary contradiction. Teachers filtered their understanding of PL
through their existing understanding of how a classroom “should” look – a reflection of more
traditional conceptions of education, where teachers are in charge and students are compliant.
See figure 6.3 for a visual representation of the contradictions emerging in year one.

Figure 6.3. Contradictions at BA – Year 1.
Emerging tensions and underlying contradictions. The school vision, though clearly
outlined in the beginning, did not translate to day-to-day activities in the classroom, indicating a
tension between the vision for the school and the needs of real-life teachers and students. This
tension ended up creating much more work for teachers than was anticipated; rather than helping
teachers manage the demands of PL, the school vision resulted in overwhelming workloads for
teachers. This tension between vision and practice is a manifestation of an underlying
contradiction in the Rules of the school’s activity system. The Rules – which were a combination
of the school vision for a blended PL high school, the state and district policies that had to be
220
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
navigated, and the administration’s mandated and prioritized practices – created tension for
teachers in a variety of ways. Throughout the first year of practice at BA, for example, teachers
experienced a continually shifting set of school Rules (the school vision, and the set of normative
practices and behaviors in the school). The Rules of the school pushed the teachers to prepare
students for testing and to use a blend of online and face-to-face instruction tailored to individual
student needs. However, these Rules changed throughout the year, first mandating that teachers
stick closely to the original vision, then encouraging the teachers to implement a highly-
structured, teacher-centered classroom model. Other tensions that emerged from the Rules were
evident as well. For example, the Rules represented continually shifting priorities – prioritizing
social-emotional learning, high-tech teaching practices, and classroom management at various
points throughout the year, and sending conflicting messages to teachers about best practices.
The founder, for example, wanted teachers to stick to the original vision for open, fluid
classrooms, while the principal praised teachers who were implementing highly-structured
classroom practices.
Further, teachers experienced a tension between their own teaching knowledge and how
they were supposed to be using that experience toward the desired aim: PL. The Rules did not
provide teachers with the guidance they needed to personalize their instruction once it was clear
that the original vision was not working. From this, a contradiction emerged within the Subjects
node and between the Subjects and the Object of Activity as well – specifically, teachers’
experiences and histories had not prepared them for PL, and teachers did not always have a clear
understanding of the methods and strategies of personalization. The school’s Rules, though
meant to prepare teachers for the demands of personalization, exacerbated these contradictions
because the Rules and normative practices were constantly shifting, thus creating confusion and
221
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
additional work for teachers. This suggests that teachers’ interpreted the idea of PL through their
existing knowledge of teaching, particularly when they were not given the support or
development they needed to engage in PL.
The tension between the vision for practice and the day-to-day realities of classrooms
also indicated other underlying contradictions involving the Community component of the
activity system. One such contradiction was located within the Community node of BA’s
activity system. Members of the community – parents, teachers, and administrators disagreed
over the school model. As demonstrated in the previous chapter, parents were worried about
discipline, and teachers were worried about classroom management and student progress.
Administrators were concerned about classroom management and school environment. The
founder was concerned with fidelity to the envisioned model, and members of the CMO board
emphasized measurable results. These issues also indicated another contradiction between the
school Community and the Rules. These stakeholders disagreed on what the Rules should be,
which resulted in a fractured vision, further exacerbating the disconnect between vision and daily
classroom practices.
Another underlying contradiction emerging from the tension between the school vision
and classroom realities is evident in the Division of Labor in the activity system. Though
teachers traditionally take on most of the responsibility for students’ learning, at BA, teachers
were primed (by the school vision) to expect to share some of the responsibility for curricular
design, standards alignment, differentiation, and student learning with the digital curriculum. In
reality, this Division of Labor did not play out as expected. The digital curriculum created more
work for teachers; for example, teachers had to rewrite curricula and assessments and manage
student data by hand. Teachers also expected collective responsibility for student learning
222
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
through open rotational schedules and open classrooms that relied on Digital X, but adjustments
to the model shifted sole responsibility to the teacher. Additionally, virtual instructors and TAs
were supposed to share some of the responsibility. In reality, these supports never materialized,
once again shifting the burden of responsibility to teachers, who were already shouldering so
much. Finally, students were originally intended to share a more pronounced amount of
responsibility for their own learning. Indeed, the school model relied heavily on students’
autonomy and abilities to self-pace and manage their own learning. However, in the first year,
students had difficulty self-managing and self-pacing, and there was no support built in to the
model in the first year to either help teachers monitor student progress or train students to learn
in this new type of environment.
As indicated above, tensions and disturbances also arose from the digital curriculum and
the school’s reliance on technology as a mode of instructional delivery and assessment. Other
challenges emerged around technology as a mediator of PL as well that were indicative of other
contradictions. For example, teachers encountered difficulties managing students’ use of
technology, which disrupted teachers’ capacities to personalize. Teachers also experienced other
issues with the digital curriculum, including unreliable data and questionable content, which
made it difficult for teachers to rely on the digital curriculum as a conduit of instruction and
personalization. Rather, teachers had to rewrite and supplement to a high degree. In other words,
teachers expected that the technological and digital resources available to them would support a
vision for personalized teaching and learning. Instead, there was a contradiction evident between
the Tools available to teachers in the model and the Object of their activity (personalized
learning). The digital curriculum hindered teachers’ capacities to personalize, resulting in a series
of disturbances at the classroom level. This contradiction serves to not only highlight the
223
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
importance of appropriate technological tools in a high-tech school model, but also the
importance of vetting any digital resources.
Resolving contradictions and triggering teacher sensemaking. The CHAT literature
suggests that mediating artifacts – the Tools that facilitate the achievement of specific goals –
influence whether and how the Object is turned into the outcome. In other words, the tools
teachers are given influence whether and how they are able to implement a specific school goal
or reform. In this case, the technological resources employed by the school and its teachers
influenced their abilities to achieve personalized learning (the Object). In BA’s first year,
teachers encountered a contradiction between the Tools available to them and the Object of their
activity – a disconnect between the digital resources they were given and the purpose for which
they were using those resources – PL. This contradiction meant that the school and its teachers
needed to either reconsider the Object (decrease personalization or find new personalization
strategies) or reconsider the Tools (find new tools that do support personalization). In year one,
this contradiction elicited teachers’ reconsideration of the Object: most teachers decreased
personalization in their classrooms in favor of pushing for student progress and increasing their
capacities to manage their classrooms. Ms. Z, for example, utilized non-digital means to monitor
student progress and minimize students’ off-task behavior. Teachers’ responses to this
contradiction also indicate the presence of the Primary contradiction – their understanding of
how to use the technology toward the goal of PL was mediated by their desire to demonstrate
quantifiable student outcomes.
When teachers decreased PL activity in year one (reconsidered the Object), the Division
of Labor also changed. As mentioned above, a contradiction in the Division of Labor manifested
in several tensions at the classroom level – teachers faced overwhelming workloads as a result of
224
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
a disconnect between the expected Division of Labor, and the actual Division of Labor as it
played out in the day-to-day realities of the classroom. However, once teachers began to decrease
PL, they also reconstructed their expectations for the Division of Labor; most teachers decided
that relying on student self-pacing and autonomy was not working, so they enacted highly-
structured classrooms, relied on more traditional teacher-centric teaching practices, and phased
out much of the technology-reliant instruction.
The Rules were reconfigured as well. As contradictions arose in the Rules component of
the activity system, teachers had to reconsider the Rules and normative practices of the school,
both in and of themselves, and as part of the path toward PL. Initially, teachers had expectations
for what their instruction would look like. Teachers were given a clear vision for what their
classrooms would look like, and there was a clear vision for how the school would run and how
students would behave in the model. This allowed teachers to predict what sorts of practices they
would engage in to instruct students and enact PL. For example, most teachers expected that
students would work through the online curriculum at their own paces, freeing teachers to work
with students individually. However, there was an evident disconnect between the expectations
for how instruction would look in the classroom and the day-to-day realities of teachers’
experiences. A contradiction emerged in the Rules node that manifested in a discrepancy
between the vision for the school and the day-to-day realities of the school. This served as
another sensemaking trigger for teachers, forcing them to reconsider their predictions, and
attempt to justify what they had done toward enacting (and eventually discarding) PL, and what
they would do next toward creating a better learning situation for students and a more
manageable teaching situation for themselves. Most teachers thus resolved this contradiction by
discarding the systemic Rules and creating their own set of normative practices. Though these
225
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
normative practices varied slightly across classrooms, the majority of teachers employed more
traditionally-structured classroom practices.
Teachers also attempted to resolve the contradiction that emerged within the Community
and between the Community and the Rules. These contradictions manifested in the series of
disagreements that characterized BA’s first year. The founder and the English teacher, wishing to
stick to the original vision, made it clear that they wanted to prioritize flexible scheduling, self-
pacing, Digital X, and social-emotional supports. The principal and some of the teachers were
concerned about students’ lack of progress and the unmanageable classrooms created by the
model, and thus wanted to implement more highly-structured practices. Parents were also
concerned with the lack of structure presented by the PL model, and, as evidenced in chapter
five, voiced their opinions that structure and classroom management needed to be prioritized. At
the end of the first year, the CMO hired a CEO whose experience was in school turnaround, and
whose priorities were discipline and accountability. Most teachers managed these disagreements
(and thus the contradictions from which they emerged) by returning to the more traditional
classroom practices. Teachers seem to have done this for three reasons: (1) these were the
practices with which they were most comfortable; (2) these more traditional, highly-structured,
teacher-centric practices enabled teachers to better control their classrooms; (3) school leadership
was sending conflicting messages around which strategies teachers should be using, but appeared
to implicitly encourage more highly-structured practices (e.g. by having teachers who were using
more highly-structured, teacher-centric practices lead PD). In the end, the contradiction evident
in the Community’s disagreements over the Rules, resulted in a collective effort to get everyone
“on the same page” that ultimately did not work (as evidenced by continuing disagreements in
staff meetings).
226
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Making sense of contradictions. Activity theorists frame tensions and contradictions as
sensemaking triggers that allow for change to happen and progress to be made (Engeström, 1999,
2001; Sannino et al., 2009). The goings-on at BA confirm this. The primary sensemaking
triggers for teachers in year of BA were the tensions they experienced between the assumptions
and expectations associated with the original blended PL vision and the day-to-day happenings
in the classroom. Actions taken in response to these situations are connected to individuals’
meaning-making processes, and are influenced by existing schemas and organizational
characteristics (Weick, 1995). Through the sensemaking process, individual and collective
interpretations within the organization feed back into the organization to promote change or to
maintain exisiting practices. At BA, this sensemaking process was evident in how teachers
responded to the contradictions in the activity system.
A key point of disturbance for teachers, as discussed above, was a tension between
teachers’ expectations and the realities of the BA classroom. Expectations can often serve as
subjects’ core filters, making the formation and activation of expectations crucial for
sensemaking (Weick, 1995, p. 146). In this case, teachers’ expectations were key to how PL (the
Object) was understood and how it (and teachers’ interpretations of it) changed over time;
indeed, teachers’ expectations reflected the idea that a blended PL model would be the
foundation for them to substantively change their practices. As noted earlier, using available
information to predict what will happen is a key way that Subjects in an activity system make
sense of concepts and contradictions. As Blended Academy, then, expectations were key to how
teachers’ practices developed over the course of the first year. In interviews, teachers indicated
that they expected their practices to be in contrast with more traditional teaching practices.
Further, teachers were given a clearly articulated vision for what their classrooms would look
227
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
like, and there was a clear vision for how the school was expected to run and how students were
expected to behave in the model. This allowed teachers to predict what sorts of practices they
would engage in to instruct students and enact PL. As discussed in chapter five, for example, Ms.
H expected that students’ would be able to self-manage – she predicted that the digital
curriculum would facilitate autonomy. However, there was an evident disconnect between the
expectations for how instruction would look in the classroom and the day-to-day realities of
teachers’ experiences. Contradictions emerged that manifested in a discrepancy between the
vision for the school and the day-to-day realities of the school. As noted above, teachers
generally responded to these contradictions by re-conceptualizing PL, which led to changes in
other aspects of the school. For example, most teachers in the school responded to contradictions
by de-emphasizing personalization and orienting their activities toward managing their
classrooms and pushing for student progress. In this way, they reconstructed the Rules of the
school as well, establishing their own normative behaviors and practices. Teachers also had
expectations linked to the Division of Labor that were significant sensemaking triggers. For
example, because teachers expected that the responsibilities for instruction and student learning
would be shared across digital platforms and TA’s, and that students would learn somewhat
autonomously via Digital X, teachers initially engaged in teaching practices that emulated these
expectations. When the Division of Labor did not play out as expected, most teachers responded
by drawing on more highly-structured teaching practices to help them manage their classrooms.
The one teacher who did not employ highly-structured teaching practices, Mr. J., still relied on
his existing beliefs about teaching to make sense of the tension between the vision for the school
and what was happening in the classroom – he resisted utilizing more traditional forms of
228
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
practice, but this reflected his core belief that highly-structured, lecture-driven classrooms were
ineffective.
Also key to the sensemaking process, as it is described by sensemaking theorists, are the
messages teachers receive from their environment. These organizational messages trigger the
sensemaking process, particularly when there are conflicting messages (Weick, 1995). In this
case, most teachers in the school returned to more traditional teaching practices. As noted above,
part of the reason for this could be that teachers were more comfortable with those types of
practices and teacher-centric practices afforded them more control over their classrooms.
Another reason for this could be the conflicting messages they received from school leadership.
For example, the leadership privileged some teaching strategies over others. The types of
classrooms identified as most successful by the principal and the AP were those that
implemented the most structure and strayed furthest from the original model. The school leaders
consistently used those teachers’ practices as examples of successful teaching, and often asked
them to lead professional development sessions and share strategies. In this way, the school
leaders were sending the message that those teachers’ instructional practices were preferred over
the original vision for the school. The founder and one of the teachers, Mr. J, on the other hand,
were continually pressing for more fidelity to the original model. This seemed to generate
conflict among staff and leadership; indeed, as the year went on, teachers increasingly relied on
their own pedagogical beliefs more than the Rules of the school.
The Primary contradiction also served as a key sensemaking trigger. Teachers’
understanding of PL was filtered through teachers’ existing understanding of how a classroom
“should” look – a more traditional environment where teachers are in charge and students are
compliant – an environment reflective of a more traditional worker-boss relationship. As
229
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
mentioned above, this filtering process was validated by many of the school’s key stakeholders,
including the principal, several teachers, parents, and students. For example, students acted out
against the new model because they did not know how to act in a self-paced environment.
Parents pressed for more structure and discipline. Most administrators and teachers began to
prioritize classroom management over PL. Thus, the contradiction between PL and more
traditional modes of schooling influenced teachers’ sensemaking processes, suggesting that this
contradiction in particular pressed teachers toward a process of assimilation, and not schema
reconstruction.
The changes experienced by teachers – and by BA as an organization – throughout the
first year were significant. However, throughout the school, teachers’ responses to sensemaking
triggers and contradictions were indicative of a process of assimilation (Spillane et al., 2002) in
which teachers fit the idea of PL into their existing frameworks without substantively changing
practice or restructuring their prior understanding of instructional practice. In other words,
teachers’ core beliefs about teaching do not appear to have changed. Indeed, most teachers began
to wholly abandon the notion of PL as their expectations for practice did not align with their day-
to-day realities. The one teacher who did not abandon the original model, Mr. J, was still
engaging in the type of teaching that aligned with his core beliefs about pedagogy. His core
beliefs and existing schema simply aligned better with what BA was originally envisioned to be.
Thus, on the whole, teachers did not appear to experience a process of accommodation –
restructuring existing schemas and knowledge frames. When teachers encountered a conflict
between their expectations and the realities of the school, they drew on their backgrounds for
teaching strategies they felt would work for their students and better control the environment.
230
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
At the core, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs reflected a desire to help students learn and get
them to college. When the school model as intended was not meeting students’ needs, most
teachers relied on traditional practices – not necessarily because these were the best possible
practices, but because those practices helped them to regain control of the classroom
environment and allowed them to feel like students were making progress. Mr. F, for example,
relied heavily on his prior experience teaching in similar schools.
30
He felt that more highly-
structured practices worked with students he had before, so he again employed highly structured
practices at BA. Conversely, Mr. J felt that if teachers just waited for the model to work, it
would. He modified his practices only in relation to his perception that the online curriculum was
not rigorous enough by providing students with extra after-school activities and writing
assignments. Mr. J did not mind “the chaos,” and wanted to give the original vision a chance to
work. Still, rather than a transformation of teaching practice and role, in the majority of
classrooms, the vision for practice was adjusted, reflecting a return to the teacher-centric
practices previously jettisoned by teachers. Across teachers, however, the theme is the same –
core beliefs about teaching did not appear to change.
In sum, the interacting factors in the activity system inevitably produced tensions and
conflicts between teacher’s expectations and the actual practice of teaching in the school. As
evidenced by the events of year one, teachers experienced tensions between what was expected
of them and what was possible in the day-to-day activities in the classroom. In BA’s first year,
teachers responded differentially to this tension (and the contradictions from which this
fundamental tension stemmed), employing strategies and teaching roles commensurate with their
own backgrounds and experiences. Some teachers responded with highly-structured, more
extreme modifications to the model; others floundered, attempting to make modifications, but on

30
Defined by Mr. F as “challenging” or “difficult” schools – schools in urban areas, serving high needs students.
231
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
a smaller scale – only dealing with immediate classroom problems, like missing data and
technology management. On the whole, teachers “survived” instability and resolved
contradictions by drawing on their existing schemas – their predominant, pre-existing
understanding of what teaching should look like. In other words, teachers resolved the
disconnect between the school vision and the daily realities of their classrooms – and the
contradictions associated with this disconnect – by relying on the practices with which they were
most comfortable.
This is not the end of the story, however. Actions toward resolving the contradictions that
emerged in year one triggered the next key analytic moment: the introduction of “No Excuses,”
prioritizing accountability, and pulling back on personalization. In reviewing what happened in
the course of BA’s first year, it might be expected that by resolving the contradictions, and
providing a better foundation for PL, teachers might experience a teaching situation more
conducive to schema reconstruction. Yet, as discussed in the following sections, changes to the
school at the organizational level still did not result in teachers’ substantive restructuring of their
existing knowledge frames. Rather, changes in organizational practices either pushed out the
teachers whose existing worldviews did not sync with BA’s Rules or provided the classroom
management mechanism by which teachers could enact teaching strategies that fit within their
current understanding of good teaching.
Key analytic moment: The introduction of “No Excuses” and the accountability
imperative. The second key analytic moment is the implementation of the “No Excuses” model
and the school-wide prioritization of accountability – a key turning point that came at the very
end of year one and into the beginning of year two. This turning point came with the hiring of the
new CEO, who made many of the organizational decisions in year two. His primary goal was to
232
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
“fix” the school by instituting a new disciplinary system and prioritizing accountability for both
students and teachers in order to deliver better student outcomes.
31
Thus, several key changes
occurred in year two, including the implementation of the “No Excuses” model, the introduction
of new staff members and new technological resources, and the demarcation of lecture-centric
and online-centric (Studio) instructional days. These are the key changes that shaped teacher
practice and organizational design in year two. In particular, the “No Excuses” model served as a
key mediator of teachers’ practice, shaping their understandings of PL and triggering changes in
organizational practices. These changes were made toward emphasizing discipline and
accountability as a foundation for future personalization. As discussed in the previous section,
many of these changes appeared to be in response to contradictions. However, these key changes
also elicited a new cycle of contradiction and response. See Figure 6.4 for a visual representation
of the contradictions that emerged in year two.

31
When I describe “student outcomes” as defined by the school (at the organizational level) or by the CEO, I am
referring to the focus on the “on-going key metrics” as described in chapter five. These metrics emphasized
standardized test scores and discipline.
233
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 6.4. Contradictions at BA – Year 2.
Resolving remaining contradictions and triggering teacher sensemaking. Prioritizing
discipline and accountability resolved several of the contradictions that emerged in year one.
Prior to BA’s first year, the Rules of the school (as articulated by the founder in founding
documents) were clear and were intended to be aligned to technology-based PL as the Object of
teaching activity. As year one progressed, a disconnect emerged between the school design and
the day-to-day realities of the classroom. Contradictions were evident across the activity system,
and were resolved primarily by teachers reverting to practices with which they were more
comfortable. In year two, however, several of these contradictions were revisited and resolved
toward increasing teachers’ capacities to enact PL (as defined at the school-level). For example,
in year one, tension emerged from a contradiction between the Tools and the Object of Activity
– the available technological tools did not enable teachers to enact PL as it was envisioned. Thus,
teachers moved away from PL as a school-level goal – PL (the Object) was reconsidered, and not
234
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
the Tools (e.g. Digital X, Apple products). As the school moved into year two, however, teachers
and administrators reconsidered the Tools (in this case, the technology). Apple products were
abandoned in favor of Google Chromebooks and teachers began using Hapara, which allowed
them to monitor students’ computer activity, thus increasing teachers’ capacities to monitor
student progress and attend to off-task behavior. For teachers, this resolved some of the tension
between the available tools and the goals of their activity (to use technology to personalize). The
contradiction between the Tools and the Object also appeared to influence larger school-level
decisions to allow teachers to develop and find their own digital resources, rather than being
forced to use a particular digital curriculum. By pushing teachers to find their own digital tools
and resources, the contradiction between the Tools and the Object was not necessarily resolved,
but teachers were given the agency to resolve it, rather than being beholden to a specific set of
Tools.
When teachers in year one encountered the contradiction between what they expected the
Division of Labor to be and what it actually ended up being, teachers did what they needed to
do to manage their increased roles and responsibilities – they drew on their existing knowledge
of teaching to implement more highly-structured practices, decrease technology use, and rely less
of student autonomy, in order to better manage their classrooms and their workloads. They also
made sense of this contradiction by revising their expectations for how much responsibility both
the digital curriculum and students would bear in the learning. As they moved into year two,
these new expectations for the Division of Labor remained; teachers bore primary responsibility
for instruction. Teachers’ expectations – a key sensemaking trigger – were revised; the “No
Excuses” model emphasized teacher control and accountability, which effectively mediated
teachers’ interpretation and understanding of PL as a school-level goal and instructional model.
235
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Teachers expected to shoulder much of the responsibility and were also given the agency to
decide what technological tools they might use toward shifting some of the responsibility for
learning to digital resources and increasing student autonomy.
Other contradictions that emerged in year one were also resolved by the movement
toward accountability in year two. For example, in year one, contradictions emerged both within
the Community and between the Community and the Rules. There was continual
disagreement around what school processes should be and how the vision should be
implemented – a common theme was that discipline and classroom management were
problematic. Administrators and teachers attempted to resolve this contradiction in a series of
discussions toward the end of year one – there was a collective effort to get everyone “on the
same page.” Still, as evidenced by excerpts from end-of-year staff meetings (discussed in chapter
five), the staff was still not united toward the same ideals and goals. Teachers and administrators
indicated that there was no follow-through and that people were just agreeing to whatever was
said in a staff meeting and then continuing to do whatever they wanted in their individual
classrooms. Teachers retreated to their classrooms and engaged in whatever practices they saw
fit, regardless of what had been agreed upon (tacitly or not) in staff meetings. Thus, when the
effort to get everyone “on the same page” did not work, a new CEO was hired by the CMO,
forcing vision alignment and resolving the contradiction. The CEO did so by first enacting the
“No Excuses” model. He then focused on staffing, getting rid of several staff members and only
hiring new teachers and administrators who would be engaged in and willing to carry out the
“No Excuses” model and be subject to the increased levels of accountability.
Finally, the establishment of the “learning floor” – the means of holding students and
teachers accountable for minimum standards of progress – also seemed to come about in
236
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
response to particular contradictions from year one. Specifically, in year one, there was an
evident tension between wanting to give students the room to learn at their own pace and
wanting them to actually learn something. This was indicative of a pressing inner contradiction
developing between the demanded new Outcome of the activity (as mediated by teachers’
understanding of PL) – student achievement and learning – on the one hand and the existing
Rules of the activity (the tenets of PL as a school model) on the other hand. As discussed in
chapter five, in the school’s first year, there was no minimum requirement for student
progression – students were allowed progress as far as they could manage in the course of each
semester. The assumption was that some accelerated students would work ahead and that other
students would eventually catch up if given extra time in the form of extended hours and summer
school. However, these extended hours never materialized, and most students were far behind
grade-level (as determined by teachers and by progress in Digital X) at the end of the first year.
The implementation of a learning floor in year two was in direct response to this particular
contradiction; the existing Rules were adjusted toward implementing PL (the Object), but with
the eventual Outcome reconstructed to consider a “floor” for progress. In other words, the
emphasis on accountability and “No Excuses” influenced how PL was understood and
implemented by teachers in year two.
New contradictions emerge. The implementation of the “No Excuses” model and the
move toward increased accountability also created the conditions for several new contradictions
to emerge. For example, in making staffing changes, and in implementing the “No Excuses”
model (and demanding adherence to it) the CEO discouraged the type of disagreement and
discordance that characterized the first year by removing those teachers who did not “fit” and by
making it very clear that it was “his way or the highway.” Indeed, this was part of what made BA
237
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
a pertinent case of changes in organizational practices – in the context of BA as a charter school,
the CEO was free to hire and fire as he pleased. This initially resulted in some tension between
remaining teachers and the new administration. As discussed in chapter five, the returning
teachers indicated that they felt that they would have little input into the school design. They also
lamented the fact that some of their colleagues, whom they had liked, were asked to leave. These
issues, at first, indicated a possible emerging contradiction in the Community component of the
activity system. The overt disagreement and discontent was not there in staff meetings as it was
in year one, but teachers discussed conflicts in their interviews, providing a glimpse into this
contradiction as it manifested in the early months of year two. However, this contradiction was
resolved for several of the teachers when the CEO introduced some degree of agency into the
process of instructional design for the school. Though teachers had to show results (in the form
of student achievement data) for any instructional design decision, they were given the leeway to
make those decisions, including developing or finding curriculum and digital resources. Many
teachers appreciated this professional autonomy and realigned themselves with the school vision.
Still, several teachers left (or were asked to leave) at the end of the second year as they had not
fully embraced the “No Excuses” model or were not demonstrating the kinds of results the CEO
wanted. The contradiction within the Community at the school was thus resolved, but only by
removing certain members of that community.
Other contradictions, catalyzed by the implementation of “No Excuses” and the school-
level emphasis on accountability, manifested in the turmoil around reexamining school-level
goals and directions. For example, as the new CEO took over the school, contradictions within
the Rules and between the Rules and the Object of Activity in the school became evident. As
the founder had defined it, and as teachers understood it, the Object of Activity at BA was
238
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
technologically-mediated PL. However, in year two, the Rules of the school were dominated by
the “No Excuses” model. As the “No Excuses” model was fully implemented in year two,
contradictions emerged between the tenets and assumptions of a “No Excuses” model and the
tenets and assumptions of a blended PL model (as it was understood by some teachers) – a
manifestation of the Primary contradiction, and of a contradiction within the Rules of the school
and between the Rules and the Object of Activity. For example, the implementation of the “No
Excuses” model initially resulted in a decreased emphasis on PL. The CEO was primarily
interested in what was discussed as “school culture” – establishing a baseline for behavior that
would provide a foundation for future personalization. To respond to these contradictions,
teachers had to reconsider their understanding of PL (the Object); PL was reconceived as the
future Object, to be realized once other foundational systems were in place. However, as the
school developed throughout the year, the Object again began to shift – there was an increasing
emphasis on PL. Still, the “No Excuses” model continued to mediate teachers’ practices toward
enacting PL, by holding them accountable for managing students’ behavior and providing
evidence of positive student outcomes.
Each of the above contradictions, in order to be resolved, required teachers to either
reconsider PL as a goal, or to reconsider how PL would be achieved. Thus, how PL was
individually and collectively defined was reconstructed in year two – PL was still a priority, and
was still understood as a goal of the school, but it had to be PL mediated by the emphasis on “No
Excuses” and accountability, with a grade-level “floor” of expectations for progress. This
learning “floor” added a new dimension to PL as the Object of teachers’ activity; essentially, the
Object of teachers’ activity was still personalized learning, but was reconstructed slightly to
incorporate the new Rules in the system (“No Excuses” and high levels of accountability for both
239
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
students and teachers). Accountability and measurable results became mediators for PL –
teachers could personalize, but had to demonstrate results. Accountability was the priority, and
PL could follow only if PL strategies proved effective.
To move toward PL, but with the “learning floor” in mind, the CEO instituted an aspect
of school design that he hoped would facilitate technology integration and personalized pacing:
the demarcation of Lecture days and Studio days. Teachers thus attempted to balance (and
integrate) alternating traditional, lecture-based lessons, with online-based instruction. This
created a tension for teachers, who were required to manage some semblance of personalized
pacing, while also maintaining a whole-class progression alongside the online work. Thus, in
pulling back on the vision for personalization and instituting a structured lecture/studio schedule,
the CEO introduced another contradiction: a tertiary contradiction between old (more
traditional) forms of activity and new (more personalized) forms of activity. In other words,
forcing teachers to alternate between traditional lecture-style classes and Studio classes during
which students could work online at varying paces created a concrete disturbance for teachers –
they were simultaneously maintaining whole-class progression and individualized progression,
which, in teachers’ minds, was not sustainable or practical. In response to this contradiction,
teachers pushed for a more flexible approach to the Lecture/Studio schedule. The change here
was incremental, with teachers first able to choose when to have Studio lessons. Still, however,
teachers felt a tension between traditional teaching and technology-based PL.
As mentioned, a key facet of the CEO’s vision for how PL would be achieved lay in
teachers’ autonomy toward finding and developing tools and curricula. This change established a
reliance on teachers as professionals to find and create digital resources and effective learning
experiences for students. This resulted in a disturbance for some teachers – most teachers did not
240
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
have much experience finding and vetting digital teaching resources for a K-12 classroom. Many
of BA’s teachers (especially those teachers who had been forced to use Digital X) appreciated
being given the professional autonomy to find and create their own resources; however, along
with this appreciation came the realization that not only did they not have a good grasp on the
kinds of resources and curricula that would work for PL, but also that there were far fewer
available/appropriate digital tools than they had anticipated. These were thus manifestations of
deeper underlying contradictions between the Tools and the Object of Activity. The available
Tools, as they were understood by teachers, were not always well-suited to PL. This disturbance
also suggested an underlying contradiction in the Subjects node of the BA’s activity system. The
Subjects – in this case, BA’s teachers – did not yet have the acquired knowledge or expertise in
PL to find and vet good digital resources. This makes sense, as PL is a new school model and
most teachers did not have any training or experience that specifically related to PL. With some
experimentation, however, many teachers were able to attend to some of these knowledge gaps
and find digital tools that at least allowed them to enact some of their plans toward PL.
Making sense of contradictions: Part two. Many changes in BA’s second year toward
managing tensions and disturbances in practice stem from how teachers made sense of
contradictions, particularly, the Primary contradiction, as it manifested in a contradiction within
the Object of Activity (PL mediated by the “No Excuses” model and the accountability
imperative). At every turn, teachers had to make sense of the PL, constructing it and
reconstructing it in response to changes in organizational practices and priorities. In other words,
teachers were interpreting and enacting PL through the lenses of “No Excuses” and
accountability. Teachers’ sensemaking processes appear to have been triggered by the Primary
contradiction and the accompanying fundamental contradiction within the Object (PL), and by
241
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
other contradictions within and between components of the activity system, stimulated by the
integration (and prioritization) of accountability and a “No Excuses” model. Contradictions that
arose in the first year were resolved by the implementation of the “No Excuses” model and by
the increased emphasis on student and teacher accountability. As a result, the school experienced
changes at the organizational level that shaped teachers’ practices at the classroom level (and, in
turn, reshaped organizational practices). On the whole, however, teachers’ practices were again
indicative of a process of assimilation, rather than accommodation. Organizational practices
changed, and teachers responded to those changes, but overall, teachers did not appear to
experience a substantive reconstruction of their existing beliefs about teaching.
Similar to events in year one, teachers in year two also had to interpret organizational
messages, which were key sensemaking triggers (Weick, 1995). In BA’s first year, conflicting
messages from various stakeholders served as sensemaking triggers for teachers. The conflicting
messages generated by the founder, the administrators, and various teachers were examples of
this. In the second year, a primary message that teachers received was inherent in the
implementation of the “No Excuses” model – the lack of conflict within the organizational
messaging from the CEO (“my way or the highway”) pressed teachers to adhere to the “No
Excuses” framework and made PL the secondary component of the model. The high levels of
accountability and the “No Excuses” framework became primary sources of BA’s organizational
identity. Teachers thus had to interpret PL as the Object of Activity as it was mediated by the
tenets of “No Excuses” and the prioritization of accountability; this included understanding PL
as an outgrowth of “No Excuses,” and conceiving of PL as a future goal, not a current one.
However, for some teachers, these mediators represented sources of tension that influenced their
242
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
conceptions of their own individual identities as teachers, pressing them to make sense of PL in a
different way – as an extension of their teaching identity.
As discussed in chapter three, educational reforms are often or always value-laden
(Schmidt & Datnow, 2005; Spillane, et. al., 2002) and are integrally tied to individual and
organizational identity via the sensemaking process. The introduction of the “No Excuses”
model and the accompanying focus on discipline and accountability played a critical role in
teachers’ identity development, and thus in teachers’ instructional practices. As I also discussed
in chapter three, an instructional reform or initiative can lead to individual identity
(re)construction within an organization and to the (re)construction of the identity of the
oganization as a whole (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991;Weick et al., 2005). At BA, some teachers
appeared to assimilate the school-level organziational characteristics into their own teaching
identities. Ms. L, for example, as a new teacher, relied heavily on the “No Excuses” framework
and the high levels of accountability to develop her teaching identity. Other teachers resisted the
“No Excuses” and accountability-heavy context entirely. For example, in Ms. Z’s case, the “No
Excuses” model and the school’s newfound emphasis on accountability in year two conflicted
with her identity as a teacher. She came to the school under the auspices of a blended PL model
that she felt aligned with her teaching identity and pedagogical beliefs (which, as discussed in
chapters four and five, emphasized student-centeredness and responsiveness to
students’emotional needs), but she ended up working in a “No Excuses” school. As she tried to
reconcile this conflict, she experienced a process of sensemaking that ended with her departure
from the school. Though she believed in more personalized attention for her students, her
personal beliefs about accountability-driven reform mediated her ability to function within the
school. Ms. Z relied on a process of assimilation – she wanted to implement PL, but the
243
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
contradictions between the organizational accountability requirements associated with a “No
Excuses” model and the ideals of a PL model were, for her, irreconcilable. She was
uncomfortable in her teaching role at BA, and, ultimately, her contract was not renewed.
The process of assimilating new practices into existing knowledge frames and thus
subverting those practices (consciously or subconsciously) is a process that is part of both
sensemaking and CHAT. In sensemaking theory, this is referred to as assimilation (Piaget, 1974;
Spillane et al., 2002). In CHAT, this process is indicated in the mediation of any practice by
other components of the activity system in which those practices are taking place (Engeström,
1987). According to Engeström (1987), “new procedures may be formally implemented, but
probably still subordinated to and resisted by the old general form of the activity” (p. 105). In the
case of Blended Academy, as new ideas and practices were introduced into the design, some
teachers – Ms. Z included – accepted these new procedures formally, but simultaneously
subverted them by assimilating the reforms into their existing knowledge frames. Ms. Z
performed the tasks that were required of her (toward both PL and “No Excuses”), but she
resisted the push for accountability. This may be because she was not performing as well as other
teachers (in terms of measurable student outcomes), which may have had implications for her
sense of who she was as a teacher. Other teachers, like Ms. L, were able to make sense of the
contradiction between the tenets and assumptions of a “No Excuses” model and the tenets and
assumptions of a PL model, perhaps because these ideas did not conflict with their own identities
as teachers. Indeed, most of the teachers that remained at BA felt that the only way they could
implement PL was with “No Excuses” model in place. For most teachers, the “No Excuses”
model, and the accompanying merit/demerit system helped them manage their classrooms and
almost entirely extinguished classroom management issues. Without classroom management to
244
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
worry about, many teachers felt more comfortable experimenting with different instructional
strategies. Teachers filtered PL through the lens of “No Excuses,” which they felt afforded them
the capacities to begin to implement more PL strategies as the year went on. The collective
sensemaking process of teachers toward developing their own knowledge, and discovering new
PL practices helped move the school to a reprioritization of PL in year three. For example, in
year three, all teachers were required to create modules for each quarter, in advance, as a
mechanism of personalized pacing. Additionally, mastery-based grading, a key component of
PL, was implemented school-wide in year three. Still, teachers’ existing schemas did not
necessarily change; rather, teachers whose existing ideas about teaching and themselves as
teachers were not threatened by BA’s organizational environment and reliance on “No Excuses”
as a foundation of PL continued on at BA, while others did not.
Key analytic moment: The reprioritization of personalized learning. The third and final
key analytic moment can be described as the resurgence or reprioritization of PL. As BA entered
its third year, teachers experienced, and were part of, a reprioritization of personalization. School
leaders emphasized PL as a priority, and teachers responded to this prioritization, implementing
PL strategies across the school. This rededication to PL as a school-level goal served to resolve
some of the contradictions from year one, but, as is typical with contradictions and activity
systems, also elicited new ones. See figure 6.5 for a visual representation of contradictions that
emerged in year three.

245
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 6.5. Contradictions at BA – Year 3.
Resolving existing contradictions by reprioritizing personalized learning. In year two, a
tertiary contradiction emerged between old and new forms of activity. As discussed earlier, the
demarcation of lecture-based traditional teaching and online-based studio instruction created
tensions for teachers in balancing these two forms of teaching. This contradiction was resolved
to some degree in BA’s second year when the school leaders responded to teachers’ feedback by
loosening the strict demarcation between lecture-based teaching and online learning days and
allowing teachers to have some choice in when they would engage in lecture and when they
would engage in online lessons. In year three, however, teachers advocated for the full
eradication of the demarcated Lecture/Studio days, with teachers shifting toward technology-
based PL (in the form of modules) as the main form of instruction. For the most part, teachers
moved away from lecture-based instruction, though some lecture-driven instruction was
incorporated into lessons delivered through technological means (digital resources and
curricula). The introduction of modules was one of the key school-level changes that mediated
246
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
teachers’ practices at the classroom level via a reconsideration of the Tools (digital resources)
used toward personalization. Modules provided a way for teachers to use technology to house
content, personalize objectives, use data to group students and drive instructional choices, and
provide scaffolded material and differentiated pacing. The use of modules spurred changes in
which technological resources used by teachers. As much of students’ work needed to be stored
and assessed digitally, new resources were needed (new Tools), and these Tools provided the
basis for moving toward new forms of activity.
As mentioned earlier, another contradiction that emerged in year two as teachers moved
toward technology-mediated PL, arose from tensions between the Tools – in this case, the
assessments available to teachers – and the Object of Activity – PL. Teachers (and
administrators) did not yet have a good understanding of the types of tools and digital resources
that would facilitate PL (a contradiction within the Subjects component of the activity system).
This indicated gaps in teacher knowledge around what it meant to engage in PL, and what tools
and practices would help them do so. However, in year three, the reprioritization and
implementation of PL practices – namely, modules, personalized pacing, data-driven instruction
and MBG – and the participation of senior teachers in the development of these practices helped
to decrease some of the tension that teachers were experiencing. Teachers began to discover and
utilize new technological resources and build their own knowledge around PL practices. Still,
differences can be seen in how teachers were implementing these practices; newer teachers had
difficulty planning modules in advance, suggesting that the contradiction still existed for some
members (particularly newer members) of the activity system.
Finally, as discussed in the previous section, tensions emerged in year two between the
tenets and assumptions of a “No Excuses” model and the tenets and assumptions of a blended PL
247
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
model – these tensions were representative of the contradiction inherent in the tension between
market-based accountability reforms and constructivist teaching practices (the Primary
contradiction), as well as a contradiction within the Rules of the school and between the Rules
and the Object of Activity. In the school’s second year, teachers managed this contradiction by
reconstructing PL as the future Object, for realization once other systems were in place –
namely, once discipline was under control and accountability processes were in place. In year
three, administrators and teachers reconstructed the Rules and the Object toward resolving the
tensions that were arising between the tenets of the highly-structured and regimented school
model (“No Excuses”) and the more loosely-structured school model founded on PL as a theory
of action. The school-wide implementation of modules as a high-tech mechanism of PL (which
allowed for the implementation of key PL strategies – personalized pacing and learning goals,
MBG, and increased data-driven instructional practices) was a primary step toward reconciling
the demands of a “No Excuses” model and the ideals of PL. Indeed, the implementation of
modules characterized the nature of teachers’ practices at BA, and demonstrated how teachers’
responses to contradictions shaped organizational and classroom practices. Still, there remains a
Primary contradiction inherent in the tension between “No Excuses” schooling and PL (as an
outgrowth of SCL and constructivism) – a key sensemaking trigger that mediated teachers’
understanding of PL, and served a hindrance to schema reconstruction at the individual level.
New contradictions emerge. One of the first key changes implemented toward the
reprioritization of PL was the school-wide introduction of modules. This came in response to the
dissolution of the Lecture/Studio day schedule and was intended to push teachers toward
increased up-to-the-minute data use, targeted grouping, personalized student objectives, and
MBG. However, the implementation of modules brought a new set of tensions. First, as teachers
248
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
struggled to understand the concept of PL, they also struggled to develop PL instructional
strategies, while trying not to sacrifice their students’ valuable learning time. Even teachers who
had been at BA for more than one year (Ms. A and Ms. L) struggled to design and create
modules on a strict timeline. Newer teachers found this to be even more difficult. Thus,
contradiction again emerges both within the Subjects (teachers), and in the relationship between
the Subjects (teachers) and the Object of their activity – technology-mediated PL. Lack of
experience in or knowledge about teaching practices in a PL model – particularly modules and
MBG – created gaps in teacher knowledge, as did hazy definitions of PL and its associated
strategies (as discussed in chapter five). Specifically, teachers’ experiences and histories have not
prepared them for PL, and teachers do not always have a clear understanding of the methods and
strategies of personalization. In other words, there was contradiction present, particular for newer
teachers, in teachers’ capacity to understand and enact PL.
Teachers also experienced tension between BA’s emphasis on accountability and the
incorporation of teacher agency into finding and developing resources for PL. The increasing
reliance on data to drive instruction and identify effective practices was somewhat muddled by
teachers’ incorporation of a variety of practices and resources. Because teachers were using a
variety of instructional strategies and practices, it was difficult to pinpoint which practices were
actually working (in terms of measurable student outcomes) and which were not. Further, and as
discussed in chapter five, PL and PL strategies were sometimes ambiguously defined,
compounding the problem of identifying effective practices across classrooms. There was thus a
tension emerging between the school’s reliance on accountability and measurable outcomes and
the nature of PL at BA, which allowed teachers to develop and create their own resources. This
tension is indicative of a larger contradiction looming in the Rules of the school – the normative
249
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
practices and behaviors associated with the “No Excuses” model and the prioritization of
accountability contradicted the Rules and normative practices of PL in terms of strategies and
practices.
A similar tension emerged from the introduction of MBG in year three. MBG is
identified as a key component of PL, and was indeed a prominent piece of the model in year
three toward rewarding and measuring “student growth and mastery,” not just achievement at
one point in time. It was introduced alongside modules, and the introduction of modules was part
of what allowed teachers to engage in MBG in the first place. However, a tension again emerged
between the school’s reliance on accountability and measurable outcomes and the nature of PL –
allowing students to re-submit assignments and formative assessments over and over again until
they achieved mastery aligned with the tenets of PL and MBG, but not with the practice of
measuring a students’ ability on single summative standards-based tests. Teachers complained
that it was difficult to get an accurate snapshot of how students might perform on interim
assessments, state tests, or other standardized assessments because they were focusing on growth
in their students’ formative assessments and assignments. This indicates a larger contradiction
emerging within the Rules of the school. This tension could also be a manifestation of a possible
emerging contradiction between BA as an activity system and other outside activity systems (e.g.
the school district, or state or federal educational contexts) – a quaternary contradiction. This
is a contradiction that may prove more difficult to overcome because it requires alignment
between multiple contexts – individual school, districts, and the state.
To be continued: Resolving contradictions and triggering teacher sensemaking. As BA is
still moving through its third year as I write this, I cannot say if, or how, the contradictions that
emerged in year three were resolved. Indeed, key to CHAT is actors’ continued engagement with
250
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
tensions and contradictions toward individual and organizational learning. However, I can
discuss how a consistent source of contradiction (the Tools) evolved in year three and how it
indicates further tensions and contradictions on the horizon. In BA’s second and third years,
teachers re-conceptualized the Tools (in this case, the digital resources) in terms of how digital
tools were used and for what reasons. In BA’s first year, technology was meant to be a source of
social-emotional support, and a way to deliver curriculum and instruction on a more
individualized basis – for personal learning paths and adaptive course content and delivery. This
is how technology is conceived of in the broader sense in PL models. However, as demonstrated
in chapter five, technology was also a source of tension for teachers – the digital curriculum was
insufficient, and teachers had difficulties managing students’ use of technology. With the advent
of the “No Excuses” model and the accompanying high levels of accountability for teachers and
students, technology – the Tools that mediated activity in the system toward the Object of PL –
was reconstructed as not only a delivery mechanism for curriculum and instruction, but also a
tool for monitoring student behavior and progress. In other words, the Tools were initially a
source of contradiction in year one, which was resolved by the introduction of new Tools.
However, as these new Tools were introduced, teachers had to make sense of the new technology
through the lens of “No Excuses” and accountability. Ms. L, for example, explained that she
used technology for instruction, curriculum, and “culture,” which in her mind meant monitoring
off-task behavior and progress. The Tools were used toward the Object of Activity (PL), but also
served as artifacts that mediated teachers’ practices toward the goals of control, discipline, and
accountability. This is indicative again, of the influence of the Primary contradiction, and of the
contradiction inherent in the Object of activity.
251
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Making sense of contradictions: Part three. In year three, teachers’ sensemaking
processes again shaped their practices, and were triggered by contradictions. Specifically, the
sensemaking triggers for teachers were ambiguity around PL and PL strategies, the Primary
contradiction, and the inherent contradiction within the Object of PL.
First, for teachers in year three, a significant sensemaking trigger was ambiguity. This is
to be expected as ambiguity presses individuals to draw on their existing knowledge frames “to
resolve ambiguous information, affecting the interpretation of information presented in that
context (Higgins, 1996; Spillane et al., 2002, p. 394). In other words, teachers at BA used their
existing knowledge to interpret ambiguous information. At BA, a key source of ambiguity was
the development and implementation of PL strategies – specifically, modules, data-driven
personal learning paths, and MBG. As discussed above, there was a contradiction emerging in
the Subjects node of the activity system – gaps in teacher knowledge that mediated teachers’
capacities to fully define and enact PL strategies. In response to these contradictions, teachers
drew on their existing knowledge of what good instruction looks like. For example, Ms. A
grouped her students homogenously into differentiated levels (bronze, silver, and gold). This
targeted grouping was an outgrowth of the kind of differentiation that she would do in classes
she had taught in other schools – the difference was that she was able to group instantaneously as
she received data from Canvas. Similarly, Ms. L used ability grouping to sort students by level
and objective. In other words, rather than a complete revolution in practice, teachers integrated
existing practices into some of BA’s now established PL procedures – modules, personal
learning paths, and mastery-based grading. In many cases, they were able to extend upon their
existing practices; yet, their practices were still based on their existing understandings of “good
teaching” and in reference to the traditional classroom structures they were used to.
252
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Another source of sensemaking was again presented by a contradiction – undergirded by
the Primary contradiction – between the Rules and PL as the Object of Activity. In practice, the
“No Excuses” model and the tenets of PL (indicative of the Rules of the activity system and
normative behaviors at the school-level) were interpreted and responded to differentially across
teachers – sometimes, in ways that were problematic. For example, Ms. L, in her classes in the
third year of the school, sometimes gave demerits for not working fast enough – a practice she
interpreted as keeping students on task, but one which could be construed as being in direct
conflict with the tenets of PL. As she attempted to make sense of the contradictions mentioned
above, she interpreted PL as it was mediated by the “No Excuses” framework and the emphasis
on accountability. Her understanding and implementation of PL was shaped by her existing
schema, which was heavily shaped by the “No Excuses” model, the school-level prioritization of
accountability and measurable outcomes, and her work as a TFA teacher. In Ms. L’s case, her
understanding of teaching and instruction had been shaped by the consistent prioritization of data
and measurable results – Ms. L had only ever taught in the context of BA’s “No Excuses” PL
model, and she was a TFA teacher, beholden to measurable outcomes. Another example is the
prevalence of homogenous ability grouping at BA – a strategy often used as a mechanism of PL
(student data was used to group students by ability/level). There is some evidence that suggests
that ability grouping may exacerbate educational inequality (Condron, 2008; Slavin, 1987),
which fundamentally conflicts with the goals of PL. This provides another example of how
teachers filtered PL through the organizational messages around “No Excuses” and measurable
outcomes/accountability.
Other teachers made sense of the aforementioned contradictions differently. For example,
Ms. A managed her classroom with the merit/demerit system, and utilized the emphasis on
253
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
accountability to inform her practice by testing out various PL methods and determining their
efficacy using data. Still, Ms. A’s sensemaking process around these contradictions reflected a
process of assimilation rather than accommodation or schema reconstruction – the ideals of PL
reflected her own teaching beliefs, and according to her, the “No Excuses” model provided her
with the structure to implement her beliefs. Across teachers, the sensemaking processes
stimulated by the aforementioned contradictions represented a process of assimilation, rather
than accommodation or schema reconstruction. Teachers were assimilating the demands of the
PL model and the “No Excuses” model into their existing understanding of teaching practice.
Summary
In looking across the first five semesters of BA’s existence, the nature of teacher practice
at BA can be summed up as follows: teacher practice was characterized by a cycle of
sensemaking in response to a cycle of contradictions. Contradictions created opportunities for
sensemaking and changes in the activity system because they manifested in challenges that
teachers’ had to address individually and collectively. Teachers made sense of the contradictions,
interpreted their importance, and developed strategies for addressing them. Though teachers’
specific interpretations, responses, or strategies differed in some ways from teacher to teacher, on
the whole, teachers addressed emerging tensions and challenges by relying on their own beliefs
about teaching and learning. In so doing, teachers attempted to resolve underlying contradictions,
and attempted to reconcile the Primary contradiction. As contradictions were resolved, the
resolution created opportunity for expansive learning.
However, I argue that although there were substantive changes in organizational
practices, teachers’ sensemaking processes did not result in schema reconstruction. In other
words, teachers’ core beliefs about teaching and learning did not change. In the first year of
254
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
operation, teachers first went through a process of embracing changes/transformations in
practice, then encountering challenges with those changes that led them to revert to or integrate
more traditional practices. In relying on more familiar forms of practice, teachers drew on their
existing schemas to assimilate the instructional reform into their existing frameworks. In years
two and three, teachers again drew on their existing knowledge frames to reconcile
contradictions that existed between the tenets of PL and the expectations of an accountability-
driven “No Excuses” model. Some of BA’s teachers were able to reconcile emerging
contradictions between accountability and PL. Other teachers – Ms. Z being the notable example
– relied exclusively on their existing frameworks to subvert the changes that went against their
existing beliefs about teaching. Ultimately, this subversion appears to have resulted in her
dismissal from the school. In other words, teachers – at least those who stayed at BA – did
indeed change their practices toward implementing a PL model (mediated by the “No Excuses”
model and the emphasis on accountability). Yet, these changes did not require substantive
reconstruction of teachers’ existing schemas. Rather, the changes to the school model (the
implementation of the “No Excuses” model and the emphasis on accountability) seem to have
pressed teachers to interpret PL through those lenses. Teachers who could assimilate the changes
in organizational practices into their existing knowledge structures were able to operate within
the BA context, and indeed, indicated that the “No Excuses” model and the accountability to
which they were subject allowed them to utilize more PL strategies. Other teachers who could
not reconcile the school-level priorities with their own understandings of themselves as teachers
left, or were asked to leave. In other words, teachers who accepted and implemented the “No
Excuses” model got to stay, while teachers whose views did not align with a “No Excuses”
program exited (sometimes by choice and sometimes not).
255
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
BA’s theory of action – technology-mediated PL – relies on high levels of technology
use. However, As discussed in chapter two, prior research has demonstrated that teachers’
consistent, high-level technology use in the classroom may require significant shifts in teachers’
knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about technology (Cuban, 2012; Ertmer et al., 2012; Hixon &
Buckenmeyer, 2009). Indeed, teachers’ technology use often sustains traditional teaching
practice, rather than changing it (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). At BA, the organization
changed, and teachers’ practices changed alongside shifts in organizational practices and
priorities. Still, teachers at BA did not necessarily experience schema reconstruction – they took
their own understandings of what good teaching and learning looked like and used the tools they
were given at BA to do the things they regarded as good teaching (differentiation, grouping,
individualized attention) to a greater degree. This challenges some existing understanding of
how teachers’ integrate technology into the classroom. In essence, the school context (BA as a
“No Excuses” charter school) had implications for teachers’ implementation of high-tech PL –
because BA was a charter school, the hiring and firing practices allowed the school leaders to
curate a specific teaching staff whose views were aligned with those of the school.
In sum, it was evident that at BA, distinct changes in organizational practices and
teachers’ practices had occurred. By year three, teachers had implemented modules, and were
utilizing mastery-based grading. By the second semester of year three, teachers were more fully
able to integrate technology into their teaching, and were able to further personalize their
instruction using the resources that technology afforded. This included personalized learning
paths (with personalized learning goals), some personalized pacing, and mastery-based grading
and assessment. Nevertheless, changes in practice did not represent substantive changes to
256
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
teachers’ core beliefs; instead, teachers’ views on PL were mediated by school context and
school-level priorities.
From Meaning-Making to Expansive Learning: How Sensemaking Shaped Practice and
Triggered Expansive Learning
As I discussed earlier in this chapter, BA exemplified a process of expansive learning. In
this section, I “expand” on my earlier points, explaining how the process of expansive learning
began with the construction and reconstruction of the Object of activity – PL. How teachers first
understood PL, and how they filtered their interpretation and enactment of PL through
organizational priorities played a critical role in shaping teachers’ classroom practices and in
promoting changes in organizational practices. This aligns with the tenets of CHAT, and also
demonstrates that teachers’ understanding and enactment of reforms can trigger changes in
organizational practices and classroom practices, even if teachers’ existing beliefs about teaching
remain the same.
CHAT suggests that expansive learning can manifest as changes in the Object of the
activity system (Engeström & Sannino, 2010). These changes eventually lead to a
transformation of the activity system as a whole, and of each component within the activity
system. Changes in the Object of activity occur at specific “turning points” (Engeström &
Sannino, 2010; Karkkainen, 1999), which are characterized by contradictions and disturbances.
As I discussed earlier, the Object of activity was a source of contradiction in the system, and was
shaped by other emergent contradictions in the system. The “turning points” could be construed
as the “key analytic moments” discussed in this chapter. The Object of activity in the system was
relatively consistent in terms of how it was articulated: technology-mediated PL toward
improved student outcomes. However, there were changes in how the Object was individually
257
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
and collectively understood and in the “horizon” of actions taken toward realizing PL. For
example, in the earlier days of BA, PL was understood as being entirely flexible and self-paced
and wholly reliant on the use of a digital curriculum. As time went on and problems emerged
from this understanding of PL, the Object was re-conceptualized (PL as a future object; PL
mediated by “No Excuses;” PL with a “learning floor”) and the actions taken toward enacting PL
changed (PL strategies, organizational priorities).
As Engeström and Sannino (2010) note, “Expansive learning leads to the formation of a
new, expanded object and pattern of activity oriented to the object” (p. 7). In other words,
changes in organizational practices and priorities can lead to new interpretations and
understandings of the Object and thus to changes in how that Object is enacted. Thus, how
teachers understood PL – through the lenses of school-level changes and priorities – shaped
practice at the classroom level. Key to teachers’ sensemaking processes around their
understanding of PL as a teaching strategy and a school model was the Primary contradiction
between the ideals of PL and the current policy emphasis on accountability and standardization.
On one hand, the foundations for many PL strategies are grounded in constructivist teaching
ideas and are meant to support student-centered learning. On the other hand, PL as a school
model is also situated in an educational context that prioritizes accountability, and
standardization, particularly for traditionally underserved students. In enacting a PL model, then,
teachers had to filter their understanding of PL through both of those lenses simultaneously.
How Changes to the Object Shaped the Activity System
The concept of PL, both in how it was understood by teachers and in how it was mediated
by organizational practices, triggered changes across the activity system as a whole. In other
words, the changes in how PL was conceived of and understood elicited changes across the
258
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
school. First, the Subjects in the system (in this case, my case study teachers) exhibited change in
response to contradictions throughout the course of this study. Teachers adjusted their practices
in response to organizational changes (e.g. by enacting scheduling changes, embracing and then
abandoning Lecture and Studio days, changing digital resources) and also adjusted their
instruction based on perceived student needs. In year one, for example, that took the form of
implementing more highly-structured, low-tech practices in response to students’ off-task
behavior and low rates of progress. However, teachers do not seem to have experienced
substantive changes in their own conceptions of good teaching. This applies particularly to those
teachers who did not leave the school. This may be because they held views about teaching and
learning that were similar to the views held by leaders that determined school-level changes.
This could also be because, at times, they were a part of what determined school-level changes.
Though they had no input into the overarching school model (e.g. “No Excuses”), they were able
to have input into the types of instructional practices they used toward implementing PL (as long
as they demonstrated that said practices were effective). For example, Ms. H introduced Canvas
into the school after piloting it in her class over a ten week period.
Teachers’ understanding of PL also shaped the Tools used in the school to enact PL.
Indeed, the Tools (specifically, the technological tools that mediated teacher practice and student
learning) changed over the course of the first several years of the school. There is an integral
relationship between the Tools available to teachers and the Object toward which they wield
those Tools. In other words, the technology teachers were using was pertinent to whether or not
they could personalize students’ learning experiences. If the Tools are not sufficient or
appropriate, they must be reconsidered. BA exemplified this process. For example, as discussed
in chapter five, teachers moved from using Digital X in year one (which offered them no way to
259
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
monitor students’ online activity) to using Hapara and Illuminate in year two (which provided
them with the tools to monitor students and enforce disciplinary requirements). In other words, in
year one, the technological resources given to teachers were not sufficient to implement PL. As a
result, new Tools were introduced in year two by school leaders that mediated teacher practice.
Teachers also tested Tools throughout year two, intent on finding the right Tools to support their
practice toward personalization for their students. In effect, there was a consistent evaluation and
reconstruction of the technological Tools available to teachers. I suspect that as new
technological tools and digital resources emerge, the Tools used at BA will continue to evolve
toward PL. This would appear to be a key characteristic of utilizing technology toward specific
aims – the types of technology and digital resources teachers use change as their aims and needs
change. Teacher practice was shaped by this process of testing and using technological tools and
digital resources toward the aim of personalizing students’ learning experiences, and will
presumably continue to be.
The Division of Labor also shifted from year one to year three. At first, the Division of
Labor was meant to be collective – responsibility for student learning was to be divided amongst
teachers, students, the digital curriculum, and other systems of instructional support (TAs, virtual
instructors, etc.). Throughout the first year of the school, this Division of Labor faltered and
much of the onus of responsibility was placed on the teachers, making their workloads
overwhelming. In the second year of the school, this was remedied to some extent by
encouraging teachers to find and create their own curriculum, relying less on student autonomy
as a driver of PL, providing more accurate data, and clarifying the Division of Labor
(specifically, placing less importance on student autonomy). However, the teachers were still
working at a rate that was unsustainable. In year three, with the full-school implementation of
260
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
modules, the workload was again increased. Though this seemed to be (somewhat) manageable
for more experienced teachers, the newer teachers had difficulty keeping up with the demands of
a module-driven PL model. Thus, the Division of Labor in the activity system evolved over the
course of the first several years of the school, but in each evolution, created new contradictions
in practice. These contradictions demonstrate areas of tension for teachers that warrant further
attention.
The Community component of the activity system was also influenced by changes in how
the PL was understood. Indeed, the Community was an essential mediator for teachers’
understanding of PL and the relationship between the two was reciprocal. An example of this is
evident in the staffing changes that we see over the course of BA’s first several years of
operation. As the teachers’ understanding of PL shifted and the Rules that mediated that
understanding changed (e.g. the “No Excuses” model), the Community of the school shifted as
well. Those teachers (and leaders) who did not fit into or buy into the “No Excuses” model or the
increased emphasis on accountability were counseled out of the school or left the school on their
own. The same can be said for students and parents. Teachers’ understanding of PL as it was
shaped by leadership and organizational priorities helped to facilitate these changes.
Finally, the Rules of the school also embodied several waves of change. Here, the
relationship between elements of the activity system is clearly evident. As PL (the Object) was
constructed and reconstructed over time, so too were the Rules of the school toward enacting PL.
In the first year, the Rules did not facilitate activity toward PL – there was a disconnect between
the school vision and the realities of teachers’ classrooms. As teachers’ understanding of the
Object of activity changed in year one (i.e. as PL was decreased in most classrooms in practice),
the Rules in the school were relaxed to allow for less personalization and less technology use.
261
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
The normative practices in which teachers engaged further shaped their understanding of PL,
which in turn shaped normative practices. In the second year, the introduction of the “No
Excuses” model represented a key shift in the Rules and normative practices at the school that
served as a key mediator of practice from that point on. As the Rules changed, so did the school
as an organization, and so did the practices employed toward PL.
In all three years, teachers’ understanding of PL (the Object) was mediated by
organizational priorities and organizational messaging. In year one, the school leadership made
blended PL the aim of instructional activity, which shaped teachers’ expectations for
instructional practice. As most teachers began to recognize that PL in its current instantiation
was not supporting student learning (or teacher efficacy), teachers drew on their existing
understandings of teaching and redefined their understanding of PL (by decreasing PL in favor of
more comfortable, often traditional practices and prioritizing current student learning as the aim
of instructional activity). In year two, PL was again redefined by school leadership, with the
CEO introducing a “No Excuses” model and a “floor” for learning that would ensure teacher and
student accountability. Thus, teachers’ understanding of PL was mediated by the prioritized
concept of accountability. Teachers were given relative freedom to design instruction, leading
them to again draw on their existing schemas to make sense of PL as it was mediated by the “No
Excuses” framework and by the introduction of school-wide accountability measures. Finally, in
year three, PL was again re-conceptualized, with school leaders reprioritizing PL (on the
foundations of accountability built in year two). Throughout all three years, teachers encountered
an inherent contradiction in their understanding of PL that triggered teacher sensemaking. Thus,
the key contradiction that teachers faced was in understanding and enacting PL (the Object of
activity) through contradictory lenses.
262
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
From expansion to schema reconstruction? In previous sections, I discussed how BA
exemplified a process of expansive learning driven by contradictions that substantively changed
organizational practices and shaped teachers’ practices in their classrooms. Yet, I argue that
although expansive learning occurred at the school-level, changes in organizational practices did
not appear to result in teachers fully re-conceptualizing their understanding of teaching or
reshaping their teaching identities; rather, there appears to have been a process of fitting their
views on good teaching practices into a new type of organizational structure. Some teachers –
Mr. J and Ms. Z, for example – attempted to continue enacting their own pedagogical visions in a
school that was not necessarily supportive of those visions. Mr. J clung to the initial school
vision, and was asked to leave because he did not buy into the “No Excuses” model. Ms. Z’s
teaching identity was threatened by the school’s emphasis on accountability in year two – as
discussed in chapter five, she felt that her students “were more than just numbers on a graph.”
Ultimately, she was also fired. Other teachers’ pedagogical visions fit into the overarching
organizational context of BA. Ms. H, for example, had experience teaching with technology, and
was committed to the high-tech PL vision in year one, but pulled back on PL strategies to focus
on classroom management. In years two and three, she felt her capacity to personalize was
buoyed by the “No Excuses” model and the emphasis on accountability. For Ms. H (and for other
teachers in the school) the “No Excuses” model mitigated classroom management issues, and the
emphasis on measurable outcomes provided a “floor” for student learning – something she felt
was lacking in year one. Ms. A and Ms. L shared similar sentiments, expressing that the concept
of “culture first” and “No Excuses” allowed them to better enact PL.
According to Spillane and colleagues, “What is novel is always seen in terms of past
understandings. In large part, ‘people generate what they interpret’ – they create the environment
263
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
and select the cues and signals that they interpret (Spillane et al., p. 393; Weick, 1995, p. 34).
Teachers’ understanding of and capacities to personalize learning was reflective of how they
made sense of the organizational school-level decisions and conditions, and of how they
understood their practices in relation to what constituted “traditional” teaching practices. In
particular, how teachers made sense of the Primary contradiction between accountability-driven
organizational practice (e.g. the “No Excuses” model and the accompanying emphasis on
accountability and measurable outcomes) and the foundational ideals of PL (constructivism and
SCL) mediated how teachers responded to systemic contradictions. Teachers’ interpretation and
enactment of PL also reflected teachers’ existing understandings of what a school should look
like, and what “traditional” teaching practice looked like.
In the end, there is no question that teachers at BA experienced changes in their
organizational environment and changes in the messages they received from school leaders in
that environment. Additionally, it is clear that teachers adapted their practices to the changing
organizational environment, albeit in a variety of ways. Despite differences in how teachers’
understood and reacted to contradictions and changes in organizational practices, on the whole,
teachers primarily made sense of contradictions through a process of assimilation. Ms. Z, for
example, resisted the school-level emphasis on accountability because it conflicted with her
teaching identity. She attempted to assimilate the school-level reforms into her existing
understanding of good teaching, but ultimately, because her teaching beliefs were counter to the
school vision, she was let go. Though reconsideration of specific components of the activity
system – for example the Tools or the Object – required some changes on the teachers’ parts, the
changes they enacted did not substantively change their understanding of what good instruction
entailed. For example, teachers wanted technology to transform their teaching, but ultimately, it
264
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
would seem that they did not conceive of it as transformational. Rather, technology was seen as a
way to extend what they had already deemed to be effective practices. As I discussed in chapter
five, for the teachers that worked at BA, “good teaching is just good teaching.” If changes did
threaten teachers’ existing schemas, it appears that the teachers (rather than the changes) were
abandoned. Teachers whose views did not fit into the organizational vision were removed or
removed themselves from the community. Teachers only stayed at BA if their definition of good
teaching fit into what the CEO, the CMO, and the administration identified as good teaching –
teaching that produces quantifiable results and allows for no excuses.
Conclusion
32

Disequilibrium - tensions and contradictions - are inevitable in an activity system; indeed,
this is how the system changes (Engeström, 1999, 2001; Sannino et al., 2009). The goings-on at
BA support that assertion. It is clear that over the course of its first five semesters, BA (and its
teachers) experienced a series of tensions and contradictions. Contradictions were, more often
than not, met with a response, which in turn drove the emergence of additional contradictions – a
cycle of expansive learning. Using CHAT to analyze the evolution of BA allowed me to identify
particular areas of tension that shaped teacher practice and drove organizational change. The
addition of sensemaking to that framework provided an additional layer of analysis, allowing me
to explore how teachers’ understanding of high-tech PL changed over time and how that
meaning-making process shaped their classroom practices. What is particularly interesting in this
case is the process of assimilation that many teachers appear to have experienced (albeit with
various outcomes and manifestations) throughout their time at BA. The consistent emergence of

32
My purpose here was neither to comment on the merits and drawbacks or the effectiveness (however it may be
defined) of personalized learning as a school model – others may build on this study by doing so – nor was my
purpose to discuss the effectiveness of individual teachers’ practices in this school. Rather, my aim was to examine
how a PL model was implemented over the course of several years, how it changed, and how teacher’s work
evolved within the model.
265
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
contradictions produced a process of sensemaking that drove teacher decision-making and
shaped teacher practice around technology-mediated PL, yet did not result in a reconstruction of
how teachers understood good teaching as a whole. Core enduring beliefs were recalcitrant. In
the next chapter, I examine the implications of these findings, offering some specific
recommendations for policy and practice. I also explore some of the theoretical implications of
this study and discuss some directions for future research.

266
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 7
LESSONS LEARNED, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this dissertation study was to: (1) to examine teachers’ instruction in a
high-tech personalized learning school model, focusing on how teachers make sense of and
respond to the school’s vision of personalization in their instructional practice; (2) to illustrate
how both the school’s program design and teachers’ practices evolve over time and; (3) to
explore why design and practice develop as they do. To accomplish these aims, I conducted a
single qualitative case study designed to elicit a deeply contextualized understanding of the
development of BA as an organization, the evolution of teachers’ practices within that
organization, and the systemic contradictions that enabled and constrained how the system and
its teachers developed over time. I utilized a combined theoretical framework of CHAT and
sensemaking theory to help me understand how and why practices developed as they did.
Ultimately, I found that the school experienced substantive changes as an organization –
a process of expansive learning. These changes were rooted in a series of contradictions arising
from: (1) a disconnect between vision and practice; (2) the implementation of a “No Excuses”
model and the school-level emphasis on accountability; (3) the reprioritization of PL as a school-
level goal. Along with each of these key changes came the emergence of contradictions and
accompanying cycles of sensemaking that prompted organizational and classroom-level changes.
The changes in organizational practices were also rooted in how teachers understood the concept
of PL as a school-level goal, and as a driver of classroom activity. Of particular consequence
was a Primary contradiction that emerged between the drivers of PL: student-centered,
constructivist teaching practices and market-driven, accountability-based reforms. This Primary
contradiction undergirded other emerging contradictions, and served as a key mediator of
267
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
teachers’ understanding and interpretation of PL. Overall, teachers did not appear to experience
substantive changes to their existing beliefs about teaching; instead, they drew on their existing
knowledge frames to first reconcile the disconnect between vision and practice, and then to
attempt to reconcile a primary contradiction between the tenets of a “No Excuses” model and the
ideals of PL.
Lessons Learned from Blended Academy
As elaborated and described in further detail below, this study both confirms and extends
current research on PL, implementation, and high-tech school models more generally. This study
also provides a model for the deep integration of theory in research on PL and technology use in
schools. As discussed in chapter two, there has been little research on PL strategies, and even
less research on school models that are based on a theory of action of technology-mediated PL.
Related research, such as that on blended or online learning, provides some understanding of the
changes required of teachers, and some evidence around questions of effectiveness (Means et al.,
2010; 2013), but does not focus specifically on instructional practice in these models, or on
implementation over time (Bingham, in press). Other related research on teachers’
implementation and integration of technology has indicated that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs
toward technology in the classroom may play a role in how teachers understand and enact high-
tech models and teaching practices (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002) and that any school
model that challenges teachers’ existing understandings about teaching may require a departure
from teachers’ existing norms of practice, or from their existing beliefs and understandings of
teaching as a profession, which may present a threat to teachers’ teaching identities (Cuban,
2012; Ertmer et al., 2012; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010). Further, though PL models and other
high-tech school models are often promoted by policymakers, administrators, and educators as a
268
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
way to provide more effective instruction for traditionally under-served students (Patrick,
Kennedy, & Powell, 2013; Rose & Blomeyer, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2014), little
research specifically focuses on these subgroups. Finally, research on PL and on high-tech
school models has typically been under-theorized (Bingham, in press), and is often limited to one
level of analysis, focusing on either the individual teacher level, or the school level, effectively
ignoring possible mediating interactions among cultural-historical antecedents, school-level
contextual components, and individual-level factors. It was thus important to conduct a
theoretically-grounded examination of the implementation and evolution of a PL model, looking
both at teachers’ practices and organizational development, in the context of a charter school that
serves traditionally-underserved students.
Existing Schemas and Beliefs Are Not Necessarily Barriers to Change
As noted above, and in chapter two, current literature tells us that it is often teachers’
existing beliefs about technology or other transformational reforms that must be overcome in
order to effectively implement technology in the classroom (Cuban, 2012; Ertmer, 2005; Ertmer
et al., 2012; Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009; Spillane et al., 2002). Looking at BA through the
lenses of CHAT and sensemaking theory shows that this is not necessarily true. For example, in
this case, teachers in the first year were committed to PL and to high levels of technology use,
yet were not able to successfully implement the blended PL model. In the second and third years
of the school, many PL strategies were indeed implemented, and the school utilized technology
consistently; however, teachers’ capacities to implement PL strategies and high levels of
technology use did not appear to be related to their beliefs about technology or even their beliefs
about best teaching practices. Rather, the “No Excuses” model seemed to be a key mediator of
teachers’ capacities to implement PL and utilize technology. Teachers who had difficulty
269
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
teaching in BA’s blended PL model had existing beliefs that conflicted with the “No Excuses”
model, not necessarily the PL portion of the model. The ways in which the school context
mediated teachers’ work, particularly in how the school – as a “No Excuses” charter school –
emphasized measurable goals and quantifiable results pressed teachers to prioritize measurement
over other aspects of a PL model. This was an idea with which some teachers were not
comfortable (e.g. Ms. Z and Mr. J), while others cited it as the reason they were able to enact
some PL strategies at all (e.g. Ms. H, Ms. L, and Ms. A). Thus, the charter school context also
appeared to play a key role in how teachers made sense of and implemented PL – the fact that
BA was a charter school allowed the CEO to only hire teachers and keep teachers whose existing
beliefs did not need to change, only their practices.
Conceiving of BA as an activity system, and utilizing sensemaking theory to attend to
individual and collective meaning-making processes helped me to see how BA truly evolved
over its first five semesters of operation, and how that evolution influenced teachers’ practices
within the school. As Mwanza and Engestrom (2003) noted, “Contradictions serve as the means
by which new knowledge about the activity being examined emerges” (p. 2). Indeed, the analysis
of contradictions, and how they emerged and were dealt with over time helped me to zoom in on
how the construction and reconstruction of the concept of PL triggered teacher sensemaking and,
at the same time, triggered changes across BA as an activity system. For example, as discussed
in chapter six, in BA’s first year, there was a contradiction between the Tools of activity and the
Object of activity – the Tools (Digital X and other technological resources) did not support
teachers’ implementation of PL. In response to this contradiction, in BA’s second year, the
Object of activity (technology-based PL) was reconstructed through the lens of a “No Excuses”
model and an accountability-heavy context. This appears to have led to changes in the Tools that
270
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
teachers used toward enacting PL – teachers employed digital resources that allowed them to
monitor student activity, discourage off-task behavior, and enforce discipline policies. This
analysis demonstrates how a contradiction – in this case, between the Tools and the Object of
activity – triggered teachers’ sensemaking. The contradiction spurred changes in organizational
practices, which in turn shaped how teachers were using technology and toward what ends. Still,
teachers at BA did not experience a process of change that required schema reconstruction or
accommodation; rather, teachers relied on their existing schemas to make sense of such changes
in the system, and assimilated school-level practices into their own extant understanding of
“good teaching.” Teachers who were not able to reconcile their existing worldviews with that of
the school left the school – sometimes of their own accord and sometimes not.
Cultural-Historical Context Is (Still) Relevant to Implementation
Teachers’ existing schemas are important – cultural, societal, and historical context shape
teachers’ understanding and enactment of reforms via teachers’ sensemaking processes. In
particular, in this study, it is clear that dimensions of the current systemic context – the policy
climate encouraging personalization, accountability, market-based reforms, and technology use –
mediated teachers’ sensemaking processes and instructional practices. For example, teachers at
BA were enacting PL strategies and situating their understanding of PL in tenets of student-
centeredness, but were also teaching in a school context that prioritized accountability and
measurable outcomes. Thus, in thinking about this context, of particular interest and
consequence in this study is the analysis of the Primary contradiction between the conflicting
antecedents and drivers of PL. Specifically, this study draws explicit attention to the inherent
contradiction between the ideals of PL and the current policy emphasis on accountability and
standardization, particularly for traditionally-underserved students. On one hand, PL, as an idea,
271
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
is grounded in tenets of student-centered learning and constructivist teaching ideas. On the other
hand, PL as a school model is also situated in an educational context that prioritizes
accountability, and standardization, particularly for traditionally underserved students. This
contradiction in particular, has not been discussed in the research, and is worth attention from
policymakers, school leaders, and researchers.
Expectations Are Powerful Sensemaking Triggers
In BA’s first year, leaders’ and teachers’ expectations played a key role in the
development of practice. This is certainly congruent with the theoretical tenets of sensemaking
(Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002; Weick, 1995). However, bringing CHAT into the analysis
helps to identify more precisely how teachers’ expectations created opportunities for key changes
to the school and to teacher’s instructional practices. For example, at BA, teachers expected their
roles in the classroom to be different from their roles in a traditional teaching environment. The
educators at BA expected student autonomy, flexible class periods, and one-on-one and small
group work that centered on concepts from the digital curriculum, coupled with class- and
school-wide projects that connected classroom learning to the real world. Teachers anticipated
that responsibility for student learning would be shared among the digital curriculum, through
online learning and content delivery; the students, through projects and self-directed online
learning; and the teachers collectively, through open classrooms and a supportive community.
Taken together, these expectations allowed teachers to predict what sorts of instructional
practices they would engage by providing teachers with alternatives to more traditional teaching
practices (project-based learning, online learning, one-to-one instruction). However, teachers’
expectations did not match the realities of the school. Teachers still had to adjust their role and
their teaching practices, but not in the ways they anticipated. Using the language of CHAT,
272
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
contradictions arose that forced teachers to re-conceptualize PL as the Object of activity, which
led to changes in other aspects of the school. In the first year, for example, when teachers
encountered a contradiction between what they expected and the daily realities of the school, the
individual teacher took on much more instructional work than would be expected in a traditional
classroom. This included rewriting curriculum, managing technology, coming up with ways to
measure progress and mastery, dealing with inaccurate digital data, managing and teaching the
content of up to 12 courses at a time, and trying to facilitate student learning, all while working
to redesign the school model in the middle of the school year. Some of the work they took on
was mandated by the PL model (e.g. teaching multiple courses in one classroom); however,
much of what teachers had to do was unexpected, forcing them to reconstruct their expectations,
and their understandings of PL and engage in practices with which they were more comfortable.
Autonomy Is neither Automatic nor Automatically Good
This study, particularly my analysis of BA’s first year, demonstrates that student
autonomy, even in a high-tech school, is not automatic. This study further shows that relying
heavily on student autonomy may be misguided. This is consistent with what is already known
about learner autonomy in computer-based environments – learners may not always know what
is best for them and may simply choose what they prefer over what they need (Kirschner & von
Merriënboer, 2010; Lee, Lim, & Grabowski, 2010). Additionally, teachers may not always have
a good understanding of how to teach students to be self-regulated, autonomous learners
(Bingham, in press). This study adds to that literature base, demonstrating that an overreliance on
learner autonomy and self-management may be misguided, particularly when there is also a high
degree of reliance on technology as a form of instructional delivery. The findings of this study
suggest that if student autonomy is indeed a key part of a school model, there needs to be
273
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
planning around how students will be trained to self-direct, and how teachers will facilitate
learning. As demonstrated in chapter five, and discussed in chapter six, students did not
automatically become self-directed learners simply because they had access to self-paced, digital
learning resources; instead, many students fell behind and teachers had to spend much of their
time “hovering” over students to ensure they were being productive. This suggests that rather
than assuming that students are “digital natives” for whom technology and flexibility will be
enough to promote learning and autonomy, there either needs to be a plan in place for
scaffolding student autonomy and self-pacing or there needs to be reconsideration of a school
model’s reliance on learner autonomy. If a large percentage of the students are still struggling
with learning how to learn in a PL environment by the end of the year, how much learning might
be lost in pursuit of implementing a new model?
A “No Excuses” Model Is a Powerful Mediator of Teachers’ Practices
Conceiving of the activity system as the unit of analysis, as is typical in CHAT studies
(Bertelsen & Bødker, 2003; Engeström & Miettinen, 1999), allows me to see how the school
evolved and developed over time, directing me toward systemic sources of contradiction that
shaped organizational practices and triggered teachers’ sensemaking around those organizational
practices. Specifically, CHAT, coupled with sensemaking, pushed me to probe the interactions
among individual and organizational factors to uncover how and why practices changed over
time. The concept of expansive learning, specifically, directed me to look at how organizational
and individual factors interacted to shape BA’s evolution. In looking at BA through the lenses of
CHAT and sensemaking, it is evident that, although it was just one piece of a complicated
puzzle, the “No Excuses” model played a key role in mediating teachers’ practices. For example,
in BA’s second year, the CMO and the CEO pulled back on the implementation of PL and
274
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
prioritized the “No Excuses” model. The decision to do so came in response to the myriad
challenges faced by teachers and administrators in the first year – namely, the conflicting visions
for school purpose, design, and classroom practice; student behavior and classroom management
issues; problems with technology management and the digital curriculum; and overwhelming
and unanticipated roles and responsibilities for teachers. The organizational restructuring and
instructional re-design revolved around the newly instituted emphasis on discipline and
accountability, primarily in the form of the “No Excuses” model. This “No Excuses” model
proved to be a mediator of teacher’s practices in three ways: (1) the “No Excuses” model
reflected larger systemic priorities around accountability and market-based reforms; (2) in
prioritizing these systemic priorities, the “No Excuses” model shaped how teachers interpreted
PL; (3) the prioritization of the “No Excuses” model mitigated some conflicts around school
vision and student discipline.
In years two and three, for example, the “No Excuses” model mediated teachers’
understanding of the Object of activity – PL – and drove them to engage in PL strategies that
both supported “No Excuses” and the emphasis on accountability and reflected those priorities
(e.g. utilizing digital resources that allowed them to monitor student activity). In other words,
changes in how teachers understood PL (through the lens of “No Excuses” and accountability)
facilitated changes across the system (i.e. changes in organizational practices that reflected a
process of expansive learning). Using CHAT, and in particular, the concept of expansive
learning, directed my attention toward how teachers’ understanding of PL elicited changes in
organizational practices.
In essence, the school model – and the school’s status as a charter school – played a role
in mediating teachers’ understanding and enactment of school-level goals. Teachers filtered PL
275
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
through the lens of “No Excuses,” and many teachers felt that the merit/demerit system increased
their capacities to implement more PL strategies as the year went on. The collective sensemaking
process of teachers toward developing their own knowledge, and discovering new PL practices
helped move the school to a reprioritization of PL in year three. Still, a conflict remains between
the tenets of PL as an outgrowth of SCL and constructivist teaching practices, and the tenets of a
“No Excuses” model. Indeed, this contradiction may prove irresolvable – the students PL was
meant to help (as described in policy and by proponents) may well be those who are pushed out a
“No Excuses” model.
The Division of Labor Is a Powerful Mediator of Teachers’ Practices
Using CHAT as a theoretical frame directs me to look at the Division of Labor in the
school as a potential mediator of practice and as a potential source of contradiction. In looking at
how BA evolved over the course of its first five semesters through the lenses of CHAT and
sensemaking theory, it is clear that the Division of Labor (as it was articulated and as it played
out in practice) was a particularly generative source of tension and contradiction for teachers.
The goings-on at BA confirmed that the Division of Labor was indeed a source of contradiction
and a mediator for changes in organizational practice. For example, in the first year, the
responsibility for learning was intended to be divided among teachers, students, and the digital
curriculum; however, the Division of Labor broke down, resulting in overwhelming workloads
for teachers. The digital curriculum, in particular, did not play the role it was intended to play as
a mechanism of student autonomy, content delivery, and instructional support. For example, as
discussed in chapter five, Ms. H explained,

276
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
I expected that [Digital X] would do the trick and I expected the students would maintain
their motivation and do it on their own. I expected that the study sheets would work for
them, but now I know they’re horrible. And so it only took me two weeks to think ‘ugh
this is not working and now I have to change it fast.’ I didn’t expect that I would have to
rewrite the curriculum. I mean I knew that it was a possibility but I didn’t realize that I
had to sit down and rewrite entire classes.

In other words, Ms. H and the other teachers in the school ended up carrying more of the burden
than they had anticipated – rewriting curriculum and classes, and moving away from a reliance
on technology-facilitated student autonomy – because the Division of Labor did not play out as
intended. In year two, the Division of Labor evolved in response to first year contradictions –
teachers were given primary responsibility for finding and developing resources, and for
managing their classrooms with the merit/demerit system, and students’ responsibilities were
reconstructed. Utilizing CHAT helped me to pinpoint this specific source of tension, and
provided a common language in which to discuss this contradiction (within the Division of
Labor) as a driver of changes in organizational practice. Using sensemaking theory as a lens of
analysis, demonstrates how the “No Excuses” model acted as a mediator for teachers’
sensemaking about the Division of Labor in the school and how it related to PL. For example,
student autonomy and digital curricula are key components of PL, but BA’s “No Excuses” model
and the emphasis on accountability mediated teachers’ understanding of the role of student
autonomy (e.g. by mandating that students first be held to specific standards of discipline) and
the role of the digital curricula (e.g. as a way to monitor student behavior and progress).
Teachers’ Knowledge and Understanding of PL Is Still in Nascent Stages
In chapter two, I noted that existing research indicates that there may be possible teacher
knowledge gaps related to some of the strategies of PL that could potentially mediate teachers’
capacities to implement PL. This study confirms that there are some gaps in teachers’ knowledge
around PL strategies, particularly as it relates to finding and using digital resources to deliver PL.
277
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
For example, though teachers at BA indicated that they liked creating and finding their own
resources, they also realized that they did not have a good understanding of the kinds of
resources and curricula that would enable PL strategies and that there were far fewer
available/appropriate digital tools than they had hoped (discussed in chapter six as manifestations
of a deeper underlying systemic contradiction between the Tools and the Object of Activity).
Further, BA’s teachers did not yet have the acquired knowledge or expertise in PL to efficiently
find good digital resources or enact them toward PL (a contradiction within the Subjects and
between the Subjects and the Object – PL). These contradictions are not only reflective of the
fact that these school models are in the nascent stages of operation, but are also reflective of the
Primary contradiction between the assumptions of a “No Excuses” model and the assumptions of
PL. However, these contradictions also demonstrate the need to identify or develop digital
resources – specifically, digital content and curriculum, assessments, and digital learning
management systems – prior to pursuing PL (both at the individual teacher level and at the larger
systemic level). If indeed these models are increasing in prominence and are being written into
policy, tools that can achieve PL need to be developed and honed in response to teachers’ needs.
Teachers need time to implement high-tech PL. Along similar lines, findings from this
study also indicated that teachers (particularly newer teachers) need time to preview and vet
technological resources, and time to plan how and why they will use digital resources. This
supports findings from prior studies on teachers’ integration of technology into the classroom
(Cuban et al., 2001; Hew & Brush, 2007). In this study, in particular, teachers needed time to
plan and develop modules – a key mechanism of PL. This suggests that changes to how the
school year is structured in a PL model may be beneficial to teachers as they plan. Indeed, when
asked what a teacher needed to do to be successful in this sort of school model, Ms. A
278
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
responded,
Plan everything out ahead of time. You cannot be successful in this environment if you
don't have every single module planned at least two to three weeks out from the second
you walk in the door and the students start. The first day of quarter two I had my entire
quarter planned out. If you don't do that then you're trying to frantically plan while you're
also grading, while you're also grouping, while you're also designing mini lessons to
reteach. It's just it's overwhelming and/or impossible. You have to have everything
planned out.

-BA Interview, Ms. A, Fall 2014
As Ms. A understood it, the PL model depended on teachers’ capacities to plan everything out, in
detail, ahead of time and build it onto a digital learning platform. Thus, teachers needed both
time and support, beyond what might be needed in a more traditional school setting, to
implement high-tech PL.
Teachers need support to implement high-tech PL. This study also suggests that it is
important to develop teachers’ expertise in relation to the Tools of PL (e.g. digital resources, data
management tools). As demonstrated by the integration of sensemaking theory into the analysis,
teachers responded to systemic cues, but did not reconstruct their existing schemas toward the
implementation of PL. This is consistent with prior sensemaking literature (Spillane, Reiser, &
Reimer, 2002; Weick, 1995), and suggests that the larger contextual factors and the
organizational characteristics of the school influenced teachers’ understanding and
implementation of PL, which is consistent with CHAT (Engestrom, 1999; 2001; Engestrom &
Sannino, 2010). For example, looking at the relationship between the school vision (Rules) and
PL (the Object of Activity) demonstrates how each was reconstructed in year two to include the
“No Excuses” model and accountability as mediators the shaped teachers’ understanding of PL,
but did not necessarily change their views on teaching as a whole. In this case, the “No Excuses”
model and the emphasis on accountability mediated teachers’ responses to the PL model, but in
279
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
ways that are particular to the current educational policy context. Teachers who bought in to the
more market-based, accountability-driven parts of BA’s model in year two were able to function
within that context; those teachers were able to begin to integrate more PL strategies toward the
end of the year, as their classrooms become easier to manage. Other teachers simply left (or were
asked to leave) the school.
Summary
This study demonstrated several important “lessons learned,” that could be applicable to
other settings – particularly high-tech PL school models. First, using CHAT and sensemaking
theory as lenses of analysis helped to show that existing schemas and beliefs are not necessarily
barriers to change. Indeed, BA exhibited changes in organizational practices and teachers at BA
exhibited changes in instructional practices; yet, teachers’ existing beliefs about teaching did not
appear to change. Teachers who were not able to reconcile their existing worldviews with
school-level priorities left the school or were fired. Second, this study, particularly my analysis
of BA’s first year, demonstrates that that relying heavily on student autonomy, even in high-tech
school settings, may be misguided. Consistent with some existing literature, this study indicates
that simply providing technology is not enough to facilitate learner autonomy. Further, the
findings of this study suggest that there needs to be planning around how students will be trained
to self-direct, and how teachers will facilitate learning. Third, using CHAT and sensemaking
theory to look at how BA and teachers’ practices at BA developed over time indicated that the
Division of Labor was a particularly generative source of tension and contradiction for teachers.
Indeed, the Division of Labor, particularly as it pertained to the roles and responsibilities of the
digital curriculum and of students at BA, was a source of contradiction that shaped teacher’s
practices over the course of this study. Finally, this study also demonstrates that cultural,
280
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
societal, and historical contexts shaped teachers’ understanding and enactment of reforms via
teachers’ sensemaking processes. In other words, teachers’ understanding and implementation of
a reform or new school model is situated in its historical antecedents and in the current
educational climate. Specifically, in this case, the Primary contradiction between the conflicting
antecedents and drivers of PL warrants further attention from practitioners, policymakers, and
researchers, as it may have implications for how reforms are implemented on-the-ground. For
example, the Primary contradiction inherent in PL and the various mediators in the activity
system appear to have prompted various instructional and organizational decisions that could be
problematic (e.g. “No Excuses,” ability grouping) for the very students a PL model is intended to
serve (traditionally-underserved students in high needs schools). In the remainder of this chapter,
I discuss the implications of the above “lessons learned” as they pertain to practice, policy,
theory, and research.
Implications
Activity theorists frame tensions and contradictions as sensemaking triggers that allow
for change to happen and progress to be made (Engeström, 1999, 2001; Sannino et al., 2009).
Thus, the sensemaking process is inevitable in the activity system. It is clear from this study that
BA evolved throughout its first five semesters of existence, in response to a variety of tensions
and contradictions. Changes occurred at the organizational level and at the level of teachers’
classroom practices. Drawing on the various facets of activity theory shows that a bevy of
tensions and contradictions arose, and that these contradictions drove many of the changes
experienced by teachers at BA. In particular, the contradictory nature of the drivers of PL
(constructivism and accountability) was a key source of contradiction that mediated how teachers
281
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
made sense of and enacted PL in their classrooms. In sum, BA experienced a process of
expansive learning that resulted in substantive changes in organizational practice.
Drawing on ideas from sensemaking theory, however, paints a somewhat different
picture of BA. Despite the process of expansive learning that appeared to exist at the school
level, there was not really a process of accommodation or substantive change requiring schema
reconstruction at the teacher-level. In other words, the school as an organization changed, but the
teachers in that school did not necessarily experience schema reconstruction – substantive
changes to their existing knowledge frames as they pertain to instructional practice. In year one,
teachers responded to tensions and contradictions in the system by reverting to a “survival
mode,” drawing on their existing schemas to regain some semblance of control in their
classrooms and to try to help their students learn. In year two, teachers relied on existing
knowledge frames to teach in an accountability-heavy context, and used new tools to explore
how to meet students’ needs on a more personalized level. In year three, teachers drew on their
existing understandings of good instruction, picking and choosing what they considered to be
best practices, given the tools afforded them. The activity system experienced growth and
teachers responded to contradictions, but they did so by relying on their existing schemas. The
system changed, but teachers’ existing schemas did not; instead, their capacities to engage in
more of what they considered to be good teaching increased. Again, the Primary contradiction
may play a role here – teachers had to interpret the concept of PL through contradictory lenses.
This is perhaps what is most interesting about BA. Percolating beneath the school’s
design throughout its first several years was the promise that teachers would be able to do their
best teaching – that they would be able to personalize their instruction so that students could
learn better. The presupposition was that this would be made possible by the incorporation of
282
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
technology into the classroom. It took several years, but it can be argued that by year three,
teachers were finally able to use technology in such a way that they were able to personalize to a
greater degree than had previously been possible. Still, it was not necessarily teachers’
understanding of good teaching or instructional practice that had changed – it was the school that
changed in response to organizational and individual challenges. The changes that occurred at
the school-level slowly increased teachers’ capacities to implement the kind of teaching they had
really wanted to do all along. Ms. A – BA’s tenth grade English teacher – perhaps best explained
this, saying
It's crazy because more and more what we learn from this model is just good teaching is
just good teaching. All of the things that you've learned and practiced for years, at first
they feel unnatural when you're switching to a new teaching style, but really they're still
what works it's just in a different way.

-BA Interview, Ms. A, Fall 2014
This echoed the sentiment that Ms. H had in year one when she described what she believed was
the core intent of the school model:
I think in terms of [BA’s] intentions, it’s this idea of personalized learning. So, in a
typical school, students are taught by one teacher, it’s a class of 30, and you’re just sort of
blanketing strategies and I know we talk about differentiation, but it’s not usually done
well because you have 30 kids in your classroom and you are trying to manage different
groups. And you are sort of just teaching to the middle.

-BA Interview, Ms. H, Fall 2012
In essence, the key takeaway is this: teachers did not completely transform their
understanding of what good teaching is; rather, the system in which teachers operated changed,
which allowed the teachers that remained to enact their existing understandings of good teaching.
The “No Excuses” model may have other implications, for good or for ill, for the school and its
students; still, the implementation of the “No Excuses” model played a critical role in mitigating
underlying systemic contradictions at the school level toward PL as it was re-conceptualized by
283
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
leaders and teachers. I do not maintain that a “No Excuses” PL model is the best way in which to
do this, but I do maintain that there is much we can learn from how this particular model, and its
teachers, developed over time. Toward this end, in the remainder of this chapter, I discuss some
preliminary lessons for those who are operating or building PL or other high-tech school models
in this kind of school environment. I first discuss the implications of this study for practice and
policy. I then discuss theoretical implications. I conclude with some directions for future
research based on the findings of this study.
Implications for Policy and Practice
As Stake notes (1995), “Cases seldom exist alone. If there’s one, there are surely more
somewhere” (p. 72). Though there is certainly a specific interest in BA as a stand-alone instance,
there is also a general interest in what BA as a case says about the phenomenon of technology-
mediated PL, and high-tech school models more generally. In this section, I discuss what this
case demonstrates about PL as a phenomenon toward developing particular recommendations for
school leaders, practitioners, and policymakers.
First, it is critical for both practitioners and policymakers to remember that simply
introducing technology into a classroom, even when teachers and students are comfortable with
technology, does necessarily mean that PL will be achieved and technology will be a successful
conduit for learning. Experience with technology is not necessarily a proxy for implementation
success. Using the language of CHAT, a contradiction between the Tools of activity (in this case,
technological tools and digital resources) and the Object (in this case, PL) could arise if the
Tools do not support the Object. At BA, for example, most teachers (particularly in the first year)
had extensive experience with technology and online teaching. Still, they were unable to
implement high-tech PL as it was intended because of other mediating factors – like students’
284
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
difficulties self-pacing, or the difficulties teachers had in managing students’ technology use.
Technology became a source of tension for teachers because they were unable to ensure that
students were using technology productively. School leaders and teachers should thus be sure to
develop (or find) a system to manage students’ use (and misuse) of technology before fully
implementing a school model that relies heavily on technology for content delivery.
For those schools that are implementing a high-tech model that relies on a digital
curriculum, it is also critical that leaders anticipate teacher needs and ensure the digital
curriculum meets those needs. Keeping in mind a possible contradiction between the Tools
(technological tools and digital resources) and the Object (PL), teachers and leaders should vet
any online curricula or other digital resources in order to ensure that the curriculum is rigorous,
that the assessments are reflective of what needs to be learned, and that the data is accurate. In
other words, anticipating how the Tools mediate teacher’ capacities to enact the Object is
important. In the context beyond the school, identifying teacher needs toward implementing PL
and developing digital content and learning platforms that satisfy those needs is critical to the
implementation and success of a PL model. For example, it would be useful for schools to have
access to learning platforms that can integrate data from multiple sources. Alongside this, it is
important for state and federal policymakers and district decision makers to recognize how
detrimental technological resources and online curricula that do not deliver accurate data or are
not rigorous can be for students. Thus, taking steps to ensure minimum standards for digital
educational resources continues to be paramount.
Next, it is important for school leaders and others involved in the development of a PL
school model to articulate a clear division of labor and ensure that there is a structure in place to
facilitate that division of labor. Framing BA as an activity system provides a way to identify
285
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
contradictions as possible points of learning and growth. The Division of Labor in the school –
and in particular the reliance on the notion of student autonomy – was a clear source of
contradiction that should be addressed prior to the implementation of a PL model. School leaders
should ask themselves and their teachers: How much will the success of PL rely on student
autonomy? How will this autonomy be built and taught to students? Along the same lines,
leaders need to develop systemic supports, including built-in planning time, to keep teachers’
workloads manageable. Teachers at BA had overwhelming responsibilities in year one, but this
did not necessarily go away in later years. Certainly teachers’ work became more manageable,
but the amount of work teachers had to do to implement personalization, particularly around the
development of modules, was still not really sustainable. This is something that warrants further
examination in the future – how teachers’ workloads toward PL can be made more sustainable
(especially for newer and less experienced teachers).
This study also indicated existing teacher knowledge gaps around PL and PL strategies (a
contradiction in the Subjects node and between the Subjects and the Object – PL). It is thus
critical that we begin – at the school- and district-levels in particular – to identify best practices
and create teacher training and PD around those practices. At several times throughout BA’s first
several years of operation, teachers experienced contradictions that arose from their own
knowledge gaps around PL strategies and digital resources. Though teachers were able to make
strides toward resolving this contradiction, particularly in years two and three, it would be
helpful for future PL teachers if school and district leaders took steps toward identifying
teachers’ specific needs in PL models and pushed for the development of digital content and
learning platforms that could satisfy those needs. We also need to look beyond teachers’
experiences and existing knowledge, toward the possible systemic contradictions that can arise in
286
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
high-tech school models, with an eye on anticipating those contradictions and providing teachers
with a solid foundation on which to build PL. For example, in thinking about making way for
innovative school models, it will be important to rethink how school and student success is
measured. For example, rather than multiple choice assessments tied to particular grade levels,
state assessments could include more flexible options for demonstrating progress, and ultimately
competency, through mastery of standards or objectives.
Finally, the tension between “No Excuses” schooling and PL (as an outgrowth of SCL
and constructivism) is a contradiction that warrants further attention – from school leaders,
policymakers, and researchers – in terms of how this contradiction mediates, hinders, or supports
teachers’ practices. As discussed in chapter six, there is a conflict inherent in a school model that
intends to integrate the tenets of a “No Excuses” model with a student-centered, constructivist-
based PL model. Still, it is important to recognize that many teachers at BA felt that the “No
Excuses” model allowed them to incorporate more PL practices because they had fewer
classroom behavioral disruptions. This is not necessarily an endorsement of the effectiveness of a
“No Excuses” model; however, this does support the notion that organizational context and
various contextual mediators matter in implementation, particularly for high-tech reforms. Both
CHAT and sensemaking theory are useful in that regard, demonstrating the need for more
theoretically-informed policy analysis and research.
Theoretical Implications
As discussed earlier, a secondary aim of this dissertation study is to apply theory to what
is otherwise a theoretically-impoverished area of study – high tech PL. However, this study also
has implications for the use of theory in research on high-tech school models, and
implementation and educational change research more generally.
287
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Using CHAT and sensemaking theory to research educational change. As mentioned
in chapter three, scholars have indicated that several difficulties or challenges often arise in
conducting research in schools that are undergoing significant change. These difficulties include:
(1) a failure to fully understand the context in which the change is taking place; (2) the tendency
to shy away from complexity; (3) a tendency toward neutral analysis, rather than sensitivity to
how power and politics play a role in educational change; (4) inattention to emotion and identity
issues; and (5) inadequate monitoring of rapid innovation (Hargreaves, 2005; Lee, 2010;
McLaughlin, 2008). In this dissertation study, I utilized both CHAT and sensemaking theory to
attend to these difficulties. In tandem, CHAT and sensemaking theory fully attend to context,
placing great emphasis on the interaction between individual and context, while also attending to
the cultural-historical context of the setting. CHAT, in particular, does not encourage the
researcher to embrace reductionism; rather, CHAT provides a framework through which
researchers can embrace complexity and better understand complex interactions. CHAT also
emphasizes attention to the role of power and politics in research in change and innovation;
specifically, the concept of contradictions and their emergence from cultural, historical, and
societal issues is especially pertinent here. Complementing CHAT, sensemaking theory is critical
to attending to the roles of emotion and identity in these spaces. Finally, the use of CHAT and
sensemaking theory as an integrated theoretical framework helps to attend to rapid change over
time, allowing the researcher to zoom in on individual processes, while also keeping an eye on
shifting context.
Integrating CHAT and sensemaking theory to analyze change at multiple levels. To
date, no other studies have utilized an integrated framework of sensemaking and CHAT.
Utilizing CHAT and sensemaking together to make sense of the case of Blended Academy
288
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
allowed me to analyze changes at multiple levels. In using these two theories together, I was able
to create a fuller picture of the evolution of BA, moving between an organizational-level analysis
and an individual-level analysis. In so doing, I was able to not only see how the organization
changed as an activity system – experienced a process of expansive learning – but also keep an
eye on how the individuals within the system shaped those changes and how they themselves
experienced change. The use of sensemaking theory showed me that teachers themselves did not
experience substantive change (schema reconstruction) even though the system did experience
substantive change. The use of either one theory or the other would have painted a different
picture, perhaps obscuring key organizational changes or individual sensemaking processes.
Further, the use of sensemaking theory allowed me to zoom in on how individuals constructed
and reconstructed the Object of activity – a key process in CHAT. Thus, using sensemaking in
conjunction with CHAT may be key to future studies that require analysis of multiple levels of
change.
Directions for Future Research
This study has also has implications for future research in implementation, high-tech
school models, and PL practices. For example, an analysis of the first year of Blended Academy
showed that the vision for the school model and teachers’ practices differed from the school
model and teachers’ practices as implemented. Teachers encountered challenges due to a
disconnect between vision and classroom needs and experiences, and thus primarily returned to
more traditional practices to manage their classrooms and try to get student learning back on
track. Thus, several generative questions emerge from the first year of data: (1) Do other teachers
and administrators in other personalized learning schools face similar challenges? (2) Are there
289
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
similar contradictions undergirding these challenges? An examination of these questions could
shed light on whether and how the findings from this study are transferable across contexts.
Building on those questions, future studies might also examine what schools, districts,
and states are doing to facilitate the implementation and success of innovative school models and
instructional practice. If policies and initiatives are driving the implementation of PL models,
then it is important to investigate systemic supports or constraints. As mentioned in chapter six,
tensions emerged between the school’s reliance on accountability and measurable outcomes and
the nature of PL – allowing students to resubmit assignments and formative assessments over
and over again until they achieved mastery aligned with the tenets of PL and MBG, but not with
the practice of measuring a students’ ability on single summative standards-based tests. Thus, it
was difficult for teachers to garner an accurate understanding of how students might perform on
state tests or other standardized assessments. As discussed in chapter six, these tensions could
represent a possible emerging quaternary contradiction between PL schools and other outside
stakeholders (e.g. the school district, or state or federal educational contexts). Future studies
might then ask: (1) How can districts or states align their measurement processes with those of
innovative school models that use alternative grading practices? (2) How are districts supporting
teachers in developing and finding digital resources and implementing innovative teaching
strategies?
In building on this study, future studies might also look at how students (as opposed to
teachers) are adjusting to and making sense of PL models and other high-tech school
environments. In this study, I closely examined teachers’ understanding and implementation of a
PL model. Yet, students are also integral to how PL models are interpreted and implemented as
well. For example, in BA’s first year, the PL model relied heavily on students’ autonomy and
290
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
capacities to self-regulate. As demonstrated by the findings of this study, however, simply using
technology in the classroom was not enough to create autonomous, self-directed students. Future
studies of blended and PL models might focus on students’ experiences and understandings, in
order to more closely examine how the assumptions inherent in a blended or PL model (e.g. that
students will benefit from or be motivated by the opportunity to self-pace via an online
curriculum) align with students’ thoughts about their own strengths, weaknesses, and needs,
particularly at the high school level.
Along those same lines, there is also a need for more quantitative and outcomes-based
research that can focus on student outcomes in these settings, and on identifying exemplar
schools and teachers (perhaps by exploring student outcomes in these models or by surveying
students). This could be a first step toward providing a descriptive analysis of these exemplar
schools and teachers which could address the teacher knowledge gaps around PL strategies noted
earlier, and could contribute some understanding of best practices in innovative school models.
Generative questions might include: (1) What supports are necessary for teachers to make high-
tech changes to their practice? (2) How do students adapt to new forms of high-tech instruction?
(3) How do personalized learning models influence various student outcomes? (4) What are
some best practices for personalizing learning?
Finally, this dissertation study also demonstrated the importance of situating a reform in
its cultural-historical context. More specifically, paying particular attention to the systemic
context and cultural-historical antecedents of a reform is paramount to fully investigating and
understanding that reform, particularly around whether and how it is implemented on the ground.
For example, as discussed in this study, there appears to be a Primary contradiction between the
driving forces of PL – student-centered, constructivist teaching practices and market-based,
291
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
accountability-driven reforms. Thus, the intersection of the tenets of market-based,
accountability-driven reforms and school models and student-centered, constructivist reforms
and school models mediated how teachers understood and implemented PL. In terms of future
research, researchers interested in high-tech PL models would be remiss to neglect situating
those models in the educational reform context; asking how contextual factors like school type
(charter/public) and school model (“No Excuses,” blended, PL) contribute to implementation,
sustainability, and outcomes; or asking how tensions and contradictions that emerge in this
context present learning opportunities. This is especially pertinent for reforms being
implemented in “No Excuses” models. As noted earlier, the “No Excuses” model was a
particularly salient mediator of teachers’ practices toward PL. Thus, future studies on educational
policy implementation or instructional reform should be attentive not only to school type
(traditional public, charter, parochial, etc.), but also to school model within school type.
Conclusion
This study examined how teachers’ practice and school program design evolves over the
first several years of the implementation of a blended personalized learning school model. In so
doing, I utilized a combined theoretical framework of CHAT and sensemaking theory to uncover
how and why teachers’ practices and school design developed as they did. In essence, what I
found was that instructional practice at BA was characterized by several waves of change at both
the school-level and the classroom-level, including changes to the technology used, the types of
teaching strategies teachers engaged in, and shifts in the school’s organizational structure. These
changes were rooted in teachers’ sensemaking process (teachers filtered “personalized learning”
and other key aspects of the school model through their existing understanding of good
pedagogy) and expansive learning (tensions and disturbances arose from underlying
292
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
contradictions, which created opportunities for sensemaking and individual and organizational
change). Underlying contradictions, including a Primary contradiction inherent in the tension
between “No Excuses” schooling and personalized learning (as an outgrowth of SCL and
constructivism), drove individual and organizational changes. Teachers did not appear to
experience substantive change to their existing knowledge structures.

293
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J., Dynarski, S., Kane, T.J., & Pathak, P. (2009). Accountability
and flexibility in public schools: Evidence from Boston’s charters and pilots. National
Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved http://www.nber.org/papers/w15549.
Abelmann, C., Elmore, R., Even, J., Kenyon, S., & Marshall, J. (1999). When accountability
knocks, will anyone answer?. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.
Ahn, J. (2011). Policy, technology, and practice in cyber charter schools: Framing the issues.
Teachers College Record, 113(1), 1-26.
Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2013). Making learning the object: Using cultural historical activity
theory to analyze and organize student teaching in urban high-needs schools. Teachers
College Record, 115(3).
Angrist, J. D., Dynarski, S. M., Kane, T. J., Pathak, P. A., & Walters, C. R. (2012). Who benefits
from KIPP?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(4), 837-860.
Angrist, J., Pathak, P.A., Walters, C.R. (2012). Explaining charter school effectiveness,
Discussion Paper series, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, No. 6525, http://nbn-
resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-2012081412501
Archambault, L., Diamond, D., Brown, R., Cavanaugh, C., Coffey, M., Foures-Aalbu, D.,
Zygouris-Coe, V. (2010). Research committee issues brief: An exploration of at-risk
learners and online education. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online
Learning.
Ash, K. (2010). Mobile learning costs add up, EdWeek, pp. 24-25.
294
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Attwell, G. (2010). Personal learning environments and Vygotsky. Retrieved from
http://www.pontydysgu.org/2010/04/personal-learning-environments-and-vygotsky/.
Baker, B. D., & Dickerson, J. L. (2006). Charter schools, teacher labor market deregulation, and
teacher quality: Evidence from the Schools and Staffing Survey. Educational Policy,
20(5), 752-778.
Banister, S., Reinhart, R. & Ross, C. (2014). Using Digital Resources to Support Personalized
Learning Experiences in K-12 Classrooms: The Evolution of Mobile Devices as
Innovations in Schools in Northwest Ohio. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.),
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference 2014 (pp. 2715-2721). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Bannon, L.J. (1995). The politics of design: Representing work. Communications of the ACM,
38(9), 66-68.
Barbour, M., Brown, R., Waters, L. H., Hoey, R., Hunt, J. L., Kennedy, K., Trimm, T. (2011).
Online and blended learning: A survey of policy and practice from K-12 schools around
the world. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview.
Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1–15. doi:10.1207/s15327965-pli0701_1.
Baviskar, S.N., Hartle, R.T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize
constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five
constructivist‐ teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education,
31(4), 541-550.
Bean, M. (2013). The ‘No Excuses’ Charter School Movement.
http://edcommentary.blogspot.com/p/no-excuses-charter-movement.html.
295
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Becker, H. (1986). Doing Things Together: Selected Papers. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press.
Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (3rd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Huang, B.
(2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-
analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.
Bertelsen, O. W., & Bødker, S. (2003). Activity theory. In Carrol, J. (Ed.). HCI models, theories,
and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science, (pp. 291-324). San Francisco, CA:
Morgan Kaufman.
Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2007). School choice, racial segregation, and test‐ score gaps:
Evidence from North Carolina’s charter school program*. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 26(1), 31-56.
Bingham, A.J. (In press). Drowning digitally? How disequilibrium shapes practice in a blended
learning charter school. Teachers College Record.
Blackler, F. (2009). Cultural-historical activity theory and organization studies. In A. Sannino,
H. Daniels, & K. Guitierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp.19-
38). New York: Cambridge Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as
effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 4-16.
Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2012). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map
from beginning to end. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

296
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Press.
Breiter, A., & Light, D. (2006). Data for school improvement: Factors for designing effective
information systems to support decision-making in schools. Educational Technology &
Society, 9(3), 206-217.
Brewer, D. J., & Ahn, J. (2010). What do we know about teachers in charter schools? In J. R.
Betts, & Hill, P. P. T. (Eds.), Taking measure of charter schools: Better assessments,
better policymaking, better schools. (pp. 129-152). Maryland: R & L Education.
Brewer, W. F., & Nakamura, G. V. (1984).The nature and functions of schemas. In R. S. Wyer &
T. K. Srull ( Eds.), Handbook of social cognition, (pp. 119-160). Hillsdale,N J: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bulkley, K. (2001). The accountability bind. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9, 37.
Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2002). A review of the research on charter schools. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice.
Educational Policy, 17(3), 317-342.
Burch, P. (2006). The new educational privatization: Educational contracting and high stakes
accountability. The Teachers College Record, 108(12), 2582-2610.
Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Burch, P. & Good, A.G. (2014). Equal Scrutiny: Privatization and Accountability in Digital
Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
297
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Burian-Fitzgerald, M., Luekens, M. T., & Strizek, G. A. (2004). Less red tape or more green
teachers? Charter school autonomy and teacher qualifications. In Wohlstetter, P. &
Bulkley, K.E. (Eds.). Taking account of charter schools: What’s happened and what’s
next? (pp.11-31). New York: Teachers College Press.
Canary, H. E. (2010b). Structurating activity theory: An integrative approach to
policyknowledge. Communication Theory, 20, 21-49.
Cannata, M.A., & Peñaloza, R. (2012). Who Are Charter School Teachers? Comparing Teacher
Characteristics, Job Choices, and Job Preferences. education policy analysis archives, 20,
29.
Carr, S. (2014). “The painful backlash against ‘no-excuses’ school discipline.” The Hechinger
Report. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/painful-backlash-excuses-school-
discipline/.
Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of
distance education on k-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning
Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL).
Chudowsky, N., & Ginsburg, A. (2012). Who attends charter schools and how are those students
doing? Exploratory analysis of NAEP data. Washington, DC: National Assessment
Governing Board.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading
policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
23(2), 145-170.
298
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional
environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211-244. Doi:
10.1177/003804070407700302.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and
Practice: The case of reading instruction in california. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 27(1), 23-52. Doi: 10.3102/01623737027001023.
Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.
Coburn, C. E., Russell, J. L., Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability:
Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of
Education, 119(1), 137-182. Doi: 10.1086/667699
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331-338.
Cole, M. & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G.
Salomon (Ed.) (1997). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations (pp. 1-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M. & Gajdamashiko, N. (2009). The concept of development in cultural-historical activity
theory: Vertical and horizontal. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Guitierrez (Eds.),
Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp.129-143). New York: Cambridge Press.
299
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Cole, R., Kemple, J. J., & Segeritz, M. D. (2012). Assessing the early impact of School of One:
Evidence from three school-wide pilots. New York: The Research Alliance for New York
City Schools.
Cole, K., Simkins, M., & Penuel, W. R. (2002). Learning to teach with technology: Strategies for
inservice professional developmen. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3),
431-455.
Common Core State Standards. (2014a). Common core state standards for English language arts
& literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/.
Common Core State Standards. (2014b). Common core state standards for mathematics.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/.
Condron, Dennis. “An Early Start: Skill Grouping and Unequal Reading Gains in the Elementary
Years.” Social Problems, v. 54/1 (2008)
Cook, L. S., Smagorinsky, P., Fry, P. G., Konopak, B. C., & Moore, C. (2002). Problems in
developing a constructivist approach to teaching: One teacher’s transition from teacher
preparation to teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 102(5), 389.
Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van Merri¨enboer, J. J. G. (2006). Towards a personalized task
selection model with shared instructional control. Instructional Science, 34, 399–422.
doi:10.1007/s11251-005-5774-2.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
300
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (2012). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in
American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technology in high
school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4), 21.
Daly, A. J., Moolenaar, N. M., Bolivar, J. M., & Burke, P. (2010). Relationships in reform: The
role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 359-391.
Davydov, V. (1999). The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Y. Engeström, R.
Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 39-52). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Davis, N., & Rose, R. (2007). Research committee issues brief: Professional development for
virtual schooling and online learning. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online
Learning.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diamond, J. B. (2012). Accountability policy, school organization, and classroom practice:
Partial recoupling and educational opportunity. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 151-
182. Doi: 10.1177/0013124511431569.
Diamond, J.B., & Spillane, J.P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools:
Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145-1176.
301
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Dobbie, W. and Fryer, R.G. (2011a). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement
among the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics 3(3):158–87.
Dobbie, W. and Fryer, R.G. (2011b). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools: Evidence from
New York City. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17632.
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived
environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3).
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in
organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517-554.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
Ellison, S. (2012). It’s in the name: A synthetic inquiry of the Knowledge Is Power Program
(KIPP). Educational Studies, 48(6):550–75.
Engeström, Y (1987) Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to
Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Engeström,
Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L (Eds.). Perspectives on activity theory (pp.19-38).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge
creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamäki, R. (Eds.)
Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377-406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
302
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, &
K. Guitierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp.303-327). New
York: Cambridge Press.
Engeström, Y. & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.
Punamäki, R. (Eds.) Perspectives on activity theory (pp.1-18). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in
organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 24(3), 368-387.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary
crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities.
Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319-336.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (1999). Perspectives on Activity Theory. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.)
Handbook of research on teaching, (pp. 119-161). Washington, DC: AERA.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
303
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationships. Computers
& Education, 59, 423-435.
Furgeson, J., Gill, B., Haimson, J., Killewald, A., McCullough, M., Nichols-Barrer, I., & Lake,
R. (2012). Charter-school management organizations: Diverse strategies and diverse
student impacts. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Gallucci, C. (2003). Communities of practice and the mediation of teachers’ responses to
standards-based reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(35).
Gawlik, M. A. (2007). Beyond the charter schoolhouse door: Teacher-perceived autonomy.
Education and Urban Society, 39(4), 524-553.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In Geertz, C., The
interpretation of cultures, (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes
toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education,
13(4), 451-458.
Gill, B.P., Timpane, P.M., Ross, K.E., & Brewer, D.J. (2001). Rhetoric versus reality: What we
know and what we need to know about vouchers and charter schools. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.
Gioia, D.A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change
initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems,
12(4), 436-445.

304
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C. C., & Dwoyer, E. (2010). The evaluation of charter school
impacts: Final report. NCEE 2010-4029. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Golann, J.W. (2015). Golann, J. W. (2015). The paradox of success at a No-Excuses school.
Sociology of Education, 88(2), 103-119.
Goldring, E., & Cravens, X. (2008). Teachers’ academic focus on learning in charter and
traditional public schools. Washington, DC: National Center on School Choice.
Goodman, J.F. (2013). Charter management organizations and the regulated environment: Is it
worth the price? Educational Researcher, 42(2):89–96.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S.
public schools: 2009. NCES 2010-040. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Groff, J. & Mouza, C. (2008). A Framework for Addressing Challenges to Classroom
Technology Use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21-46. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Guarino, C. M. (2003). Staffing in charter and conventional public schools. Charter school
operations and performance: Evidence from California. Santa Monica: RAND.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75-91.
Gutiérrez, K. (2006). White innocence: A framework and methodology for rethinking
educational discourse. International Journal of Learning, 12, 1-11.
Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-
enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional science, 25(3), 167-202.
305
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Hargreaves, A. (2001). Pushing the boundaries of educational change. In International handbook
of educational change (pp. 281-296). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hargreaves, A. (2005) Pushing the boundaries of educational change. In A. Hargreaves
(Ed.), Extending Educational Change (1–14). The Netherlands: Springer.
Hassel, B.C. (1999). The charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls, fulfilling the
promise. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. New Tork: SUNY Press.
Heinrich, C. J., Burch, P., Good, A., Acosta, R., Cheng, H., Dillender, M., Kirshbaum, C., Nisar,
H. and Stewart, M. (2014), Improving the Implementation and Effectiveness of Out-of-
School-Time Tutoring. J. Pol. Anal. Manage., 33: 471–494. doi: 10.1002/pam.21745.
Henig, J. R., Holyoke, T. T., Brown, H., & Lacireno‐ Paquet, N. (2005). The influence of founder
type on charter school structures and operations. American Journal of Education, 111(4),
487-588.
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(3), 223-252.
Higgens, E.T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E.T.
Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski, (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles,
(pp. 133-168). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press
Hill, P., Lake, R., Celio, M. B., Campbell, C., Herdman, P., & Bulkley, K. (2001). A Study of
Charter School Accountability. National Charter School Accountability Study.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
306
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisting technology integration in schools: Implications
for professional development. Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of
Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 26(2), 130-146.
Hooper, J. & Cowell, R. (2014). Standards-based grading: History adjusted true score.
Educational Assessment, 19(1), 58-76, doi: 10.1080/10627197.2014.869451.
Horn, M. B., & Maas, T. (2013). Innovating at last? The rise of blended learning in charter
schools. In R. Lake (Ed.), Hopes, fears, and reality: A balanced look at american charter
schools in 2012 (pp. 13). Seattle, Washington: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Hoxby, C. (2002). Would school choice change the teaching profession? The Journal of Human
Resources, 37(4), 4.
Huber, G.P., Sutcliffe, K.M., Miller, C.C., & Glick, W.H. (1993). Understanding and predicting
organizational change. Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for
improving performance, 215-54.
Kagawa, S. & Moro, Y. (2009). Spinozic reconsiderations of the concept of activity: Politico-
affective process and discursive practice in transitive learning. In A. Sannino, H.
Daniels, & K. Guitierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp.176-
195). New York: Cambridge Press.
Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity Theory as a conceptual framework for understanding teacher
approaches to information and communication technologies. Computers & Education,
53(2), 436-444.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Agamba, J. (2014). Promoting effective e-learning practices
through the constructivist pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies, 19(4),
887-898. doi:10.1007/s10639-013-9260-1
307
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Keil, F. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in K-12
online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher
Education, 63(3), 185-200. Doi: 10.1177/0022487111433651.
Kezar, A. (2006). To use or not to use theory: Is that the question?. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher
Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Netherlands: Springer.
Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merri¨enboer, J. J. G., & Slot, W. (2009). Design and
evaluation of a development portfolio: How to improve students’ self-directed learning
skills. Instructional Science, 37, 453–473. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9058-5
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends
in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169-183.
Knowlton, D. S. (2000). A Theoretical Framework for the Online Classroom: A Defense and
Delineation of a Student‐ Centered Pedagogy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
2000(84), 5-14.
Lack, B. (2009). No excuses: A critique of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) within
charter schools in the USA. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 7(2), 126-153.
Lake, R., Bowen, M., Demeritt, A., McCullough, M., Haimson, J., & Gill, B. (2012). Learning
from charter school management organizations: Strategies for student behavior and
teacher coaching. Center on Reinventing Education and Mathematica Policy Research.
Retrieved from
http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/pub_CMO_Strategies_mar12.pdf).
Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M.J. (2000). Student-centered learning environments. Theoretical
foundations of learning environments,1-23.
308
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Lee, Y-J. (2011). More than just story‐ telling: Cultural–historical activity theory as an under‐ utilized methodology for educational change research. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
43(3), 403-424.
Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy
use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 58, 629–648.
Lektorsky, V.A. (2009). Mediation as a means of collective activity. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels,
& K. Guitierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp.75-86). New
York: Cambridge Press.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research.
Qualitative inquiry, 1(3), 275-289.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. New York: Sage Publications.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in
restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.
Makitalo, A. & Saljo, R. (2009). Contextualizing social dilemmas in institutional practices:
Negotiating objects of activity in labor market organizations. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels,
& K. Guitierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp.129-143). New
York: Cambridge Press.
Malloy, C. L., & Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools: What’s the
appeal for teachers? Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 219-241.
309
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Mandinach, E. (2012) A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform
practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71–85.
Manno, B.V., Finn, C.E., Bierlein, L.E., & Vanourek, G. (1998).Charter schools:
Accomplishments and dilemmas. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 537–558.
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G.
Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, (pp. 137-230). New York,
NY: Random House.
Margolin, J., Kieldon, B., Williams, R., & Schmidt, M. C. (2011). Vermont’s Title II-D
enhancing education through technology program: 2010-2011 final report. Los Angeles:
American Institute for Research.
Marris, P. (1975). Loss and Change. New York: Pantheon Books.
Marsh, J.A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps
Teachers College Record, 114(1), 1–15.
Marsh, J.A. & Farrell, C.C. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision
making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management
Administration and Leadership, 43(2), 269-289.
Marsh, J.A., Pane, J.F. and Hamilton, L. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in
education. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation.
Marx, K., Engels, F., & Tucker, R. C. (1978). The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: Norton.
Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
310
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that Matter for Teaching and Learning:
Strategic Opportunities for Meeting the Nation’s Educational Goals. Stanford, CA:
Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
McLaughlin, M. W. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned, lingering
questions and new opportunities. In M. Honig, New directions in education policy
implementation: Confronting complexity, (pp. 209-228). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
McLaughlin, M.W. (2008) Beyond ‘misery research’—-new opportunities for implementation
research, policy and practice. In C. Sugrue (Ed.), The Future of Educational Change:
International Perspectives, (175–190). London: Routledge.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-
Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning
Studies. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Means, B., Chen, E., DeBarger, A., & Padilla, C. (2011). Teachers' ability to use data to inform
instruction: Challenges and supports. Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, Evaluation
and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R. F., & Bakia, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and
blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record,
115, 1-47.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
311
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Miettinen, R. (1999). Transcending traditional school learning: Teachers’ work and networks of
learning. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity
theory (pp.325-344). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miettinen, R. (2009). Contradictions of high-technology capitalism and the emergence of new
forms of work. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Guitierrez (Eds.), Learning and
expanding with activity theory (pp.129-143). New York: Cambridge Press.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Miller, L., Gross, B., & Lake, R. (2014). Is personalized learning meeting its productivity
promise? Early lessons from pioneering schools. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing
Public Education.
Miron, G. (2008). Time to stop and rethink charter schools. Teachers College Record.
Miron, G., & Urschel, J. L. (2012). Understanding and improving full-time virtual schools.
Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
Moeller, B. & Reitzes, T. (2011). Intergrating technology with student-centered learning.
Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation.
Molnar, A., Miron, G., Huerta, L., Cuban, L., Horvitz, B., Gulosino, C., Rice, J. K., & Shafer,
S.R. (2013). Virtual schools in the US 2013: Politics, performance, policy, and research
evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.
colorado. edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2013.
Moore Johnson, S., & Landman, J. (2000). “ Sometimes Bureaucracy has its charms”: The
working conditions of teachers in deregulated schools. The Teachers College Record,
102(1), 85-124.
312
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Mwanza, D. & Engestrom, Y. (2003). Pedagogical Adeptness in the Design of E-learning
Environments: Experiences from the Lab@Future Project. In A. Rossett (Ed.),
Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare,
and Higher Education 2003 (pp. 1344-1347). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
National Education Association. (2004). Charter schools. Retrieved from
http://www.nea.org/home/16332.htm.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
19(4), 317-328.
Neumann, A. (2006). Professing passion: Emotion in the scholarship of professors at research
universities. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 381-424.
Next Generation Learning Challenges. (2014). Learning and assessment:Personalized learning.
Retrieved from http://nextgenlearning.org/topics/personalized-learning.
Oláh, L. N., Lawrence, N. R., & Riggan, M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark
assessment data: How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2),
226-245.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can “blended learning” be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 10.
Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Expectancies. In E.T. Higgens & A.W.
Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, (pp. 211-238). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and
directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
313
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher
value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student
needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321-1335.
Patrick, S., Kennedy, K., & Powell, A. (2013). Mean what you say: Defining and intergrating
personalized, blended, and competency education. Vienna, VA: International Association
for K-12 Online Learning.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Piaget, J. (1972). The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books.
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A Survey of U.S. school district
administrators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(3).
Podgursky, M. (2007). Teams versus bureaucracies: Personnel policy, wage-setting, and teacher
quality in traditional public, charter, and private schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Podgursky, M. (2008). Teams versus bureaucracies: Personnel policy, wage-setting, and teacher
quality in traditional public, charter, and private schools. In Berends, M., Springer, M.
and Walberg, H.J. (Eds.), Charter school outcomes, (pp. 61–79). New York, NY:
Erlbaum.
Podgursky, M., & Ballou, D. (2001). Personnel policy in charter schools. Washington, DC:
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core standards: The new U.S.
intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
314
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Putnam, L. L. (2013). Primary and secondary contradictions: A literature review and future
directions. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(4), 623-630.
doi:10.1177/0893318913504139
RAND Corporation. (2014). Early progress: Interim report on personalized learning. Gates
Foundation: Next Generation Learning Challenges. Retrieved from
http://collegeready.gatesfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Early%20Progress%20Interim
%20Report%20on%20Personalized%20Learning%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf.
Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425-448.
Rice, K. (2009). Priorities in K-12 distance education: A Delphi study examining multiple
perspectives on policy, practice, and research. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3),
163-177.
Richards, J. (2014). An old chestnut revisited: Teachers' opinions and attitudes toward grading
within a competency based training framework. International Journal of Training
Research, 12(3), 182-191. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1642597230?accountid=14749.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640.
Rose, R. & Blomeyer, B. (2007). Access and equity in online classes and virtual schools.
Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Roth, W.-M. (2009). On the inclusion of emotions, identity, and ethico-moral dimensions of
actions. In Sannino, A. & Daniels, H. (Eds.). Learning and Expanding With Activity
Theory, (pp. 53-74). New York: Cambridge University Press.
315
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity
theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Ruckriem, G. (2009) Digital technology and mediation: A challenge to activity theory. In A.
Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Guitierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory
(pp.129-143). New York: Cambridge Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce,
& W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, (pp. 33-58).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Russell, D. L., & Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding innovation in education using
activity theory. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 38-53.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes
and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253.
Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2009a). Learning and Expanding with Activity
Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Guitierrez, K.D. (2009b). Activity theory between historical
engagement and future-making practice. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Guitierrez
(Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp.1-17). New York: Cambridge
Press.
Schildkamp, K. & Kuiper, W. (2010) Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what
purpose and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 482–
296.
Schmidt, M. (2000). Role theory, emotions, and identity in the department headship of secondary
schooling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(8), 827-842.
316
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Schmidt, M., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers’ sensemaking about comprehensive school reform:
The influence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 949-965.
Schunk, D. (2011). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 6
th
Edition. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Slavin, R. E. (1987a). Mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57(2),
175-213.
Slavin, R.E. (1987b). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools. Review of
Educational Research, 57.
Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research on Indigenous People. Dunedin,
New Zealand: University of Otago Press.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research,
72(3), 387-431. Doi: 10.3102/00346543072003387.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition. In
M.I. Honig (Eds.), New directions in educational policy implementation, (pp. 47-64).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5-8.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin, N. K. & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research, (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. San Mateo,
CA: Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation (Innosight Institute).
317
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. San Mateo, CA: Clayton
Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation (Innosight Institute).
Starbuck, W.H., and Milliken, F.J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and
how they make sense. In D.C. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and
methods for studying top managers (p. 35-65). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Stillman, J. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension
and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133-180.
Stillman, J., & Anderson, L. (2011). To follow, reject, or flip the script: Managing instructional
tension in an era of high-stakes accountability. Language Arts, 89(1), 22-37.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Strauss, V. (2014). Why ‘no excuses’ charter schools mold ‘very submissive’ students – starting
in kindergarten. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/19/why-no-excuses-
charter-schools-mold-very-submissive-students-starting-in-kindergarten/.
Supovitz, J. A., & Klein, V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How
innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement.
Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Taminiau, E. M. C., Kester, L., Corbalan, G., Alessi, S. M., Moxnes, E., Gijselaers, W. H.,…van
Merri¨enboer, J. J. G. (2013). Why advice on task selection may hamper learning in on-
demand education. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 145–154.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.028.
318
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Tanenbaum, C., Le Floch, K., & Boyle, A. (2013). Are personalized learning environments the
next wave of k-12 education reform? Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Tierney, W. G., & Clemens, R. F. (2011). Qualitative research and public policy: The challenges
of relevance and trustworthiness. In Smart, J.C. and Paulson, M.B. (Eds.) Higher
Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 57-83). New York: Springer.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top assessment program.Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/index.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National education technology plan. Retrieved from
http://tech.ed.gov/netp/.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Absolute priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/race-top/district-competition/absolute-priorities.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2013a). ConnectED
initiative. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/connected/.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013b). 2013 Race to the Top: District executive
summary.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013c). ESEA flexibility. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Office of educational technology. Retrieved from
http://tech.ed.gov/netp/#.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Competency-based learning or personalized learning.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/oii-news/competency-based-learning-or-personalized-
learning.
319
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Vasudeva, A., & Grutzik, C. (2000). Teachers’ perspectives on charter school reform: Lessons
from California. Teaching and Change, 7(3), 235-257.
Virkkunen, J. (2009). Two theories of organizational knowledge creation. In A. Sannino, H.
Daniels, & K. Guitierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp.129-
143). New York: Cambridge Press.
Von Hippel, E., & Tyre, M. J. (1995). How learning by doing is done: Problem identification in
novel process equipment. Research Policy, 24(1), 1-12.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walsh, K. (2003). After the test: How schools are using data to close the achievement
gap. San Francisco: Bay Area School Reform Collaborative.
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping pace with k-12
online learning: An annual review of policy and practice, 2011. Boulder, CO: Evergreen
Education Group.
Watson, J. F., Winograd, K., & Kalmon, S. (2004). Keeping pace with k-12 online learning: A
snapshot of state-level policy and practice. Boulder, CO: Learning Point
Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL).
Wei, X., Patel, D., & Young, V. M. (2014). Opening the “black box”: Organizational differences
between charter schools and traditional public schools. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 22, 3.
Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies,
25(4), 305-317.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
320
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50(1), 361-386.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking. Organization science, 16(4), 409-421.
Welsh, M. E., D'Agostino, J. V., & Kaniskan, B. (2013). Grading as a Reform Effort: Do
Standards‐ Based Grades Converge With Test Scores?. Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practice, 32(2), 26-36.
Whiteman, G., & Cooper, W. H. (2011). Ecological sensemaking. Academy of Management
Journal, 54(5), 889-911.
Williams, M.D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technologies. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Wilson, L., & Gielniak, M. (2012). One-to-one solutions: Where are we today? Mason, MI:
One-to-One Institute.
Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta
Kappan, 80(10), 751–757.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer
school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture.
American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165-205. Doi:
10.3102/00028312039001165.
Wohlstetter, P. & Chau, D. (2004). Does autonomy matter? Implementing research-based
practices in charter and other public schools. In Bulkely, K.E. & Wohlstetter, P. (Eds.).
321
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Taking account of charter schools: What’s happened and what’s next, (pp. 53–71). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Wohlstetter, P., & Griffin, N. C. (1997). Creating and Sustaining Learning Communities: Early
Lessons from Charter Schools. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center.
Yanow, D. (1996). How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions.
Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology
innovations. The Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., & Lai, C. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical
analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record,
107(8), 48.

322
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW TOPIC GUIDES

Topic Guide: Teacher Interviews and Focus Groups

Background and Historicity
1. Can you tell me a little bit about your background?
a. How did you come to be a teacher?
b. Tell me about your pre-service experience.
c. If applicable, tell me about your first and last teaching jobs.
d. If applicable, tell me about any experience you have teaching with technology.
2. What is the thing that excites you the most about teaching? Give an example.
3. What is the thing you find most challenging? Give an example
4. How did you come to be a teacher at HHS? If applicable: Why did you apply to be a teacher
at USC Hybrid High?

Individual Sensemaking and Interpretation
1. How would you describe the program goals or theory of action of HHS? What would you say
is the defining characteristic of this school?
2. How would you describe your teaching role at HHS? Does it differ from previous teaching
roles you’ve had? How?
3. If you could describe your teaching self (at Hybrid High) in one word, what would it be and
why?
4. What do you think makes HHS different from other high schools?
5. What is your vision for being a successful teacher here? If you were to have a good year at
HHS, how would you know it? How do you imagine yourself at end of first year?
6. What concerns do you have, if any, about the program?
7. What do you think teachers need in order to be successful in this type of environment?
8. What is your teaching philosophy? What things do you like to do or have in place in your
classroom so that students are learning? Where does that align with HHS model? Where does
it diverge?
9. How would you describe the program goals or theory of action of HHS? Have these goals or
your interpretation of these goals changed since you began working at HHS? How would you
say the school vision has evolved since you began working at HHS? Give an example.
10. What is your teaching philosophy? Where does that align with HHS model? Where does it
diverge?

Instructional Activities
1. Walk me through a typical hour in your classroom. How do you start a class? How do you
end a class?
2. How, if at all, has this changed since the beginning of the year?
3. Describe how you assess students. What is your process for formative assessment?
Summative assessment? How do you use student data? How do you know if you're being an
effective teacher or not?
323
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
4. What are some of the tools and strategies you use to personalize instruction in your
classroom? Give an example.
a. Give me an example of time one of these really supported what you try to do as a teacher.
b. Give me an example of a time in got in the way. What did you do in response?
5. How do you use technology in your classroom? Why do you use it that way?
6. Describe how you assess students. Has this changed at all? What is your process for
formative assessment? Summative assessment? How do you use student data?
7. How do you know if you're being an effective teacher or not?

Disruptions and Contradictions
1. What challenges, if any, do you experience in teaching at HHS?
2. What challenges, if any, do you experience in operationalizing the technology-heavy part of
the school model?
3. What challenges, if any, do you experience in operationalizing the personalized learning part
of the school model?
4. What challenges, if any, do you experience in trying to personalize instruction?
5. How do you respond to those challenges? Give an example.
6. What is your biggest critique of the school model? What makes you say that?
7. If there is one thing you could change about HHS given things you have talked about, what
would it be? What makes you say this?
8. If there was one thing you could ask for and GET as a teacher given things you talked about,
what would it be? What makes you say this?
9. What, if anything, would you like to change about your instruction? What makes you say
that?
10. Tell me about any instances where the teaching staff disagreed about how to enact blended
learning/personalized learning in their classrooms.
11. Tell me about any instances where the teaching staff disagreed with the administration about
(the school model/instruction/technology use/personalization).
12. Were these disagreements resolved? How? If not, why not?

Individual Change
1. How do you think your practice has evolved since you began working at HHS? Give an
example.
2. How has your practice changed since last semester? How has the school changed since last
semester? What do you think about these changes? What else, if anything, would you
change?
3. When you first came to HHS, I’m sure you had some expectations for what your role would
be and what you classroom would be like. How does your experience now compare with
those expectations? What is different? What is the same? Give me a few examples.
4. How do you use technology in your classroom? How, if at all, has your use of technology
changed since you began working at HHS?

School-Level Activities and Organizational Change
1.What have been some of the major school-level changes you’ve experiences since you began
working at HHS? How have these changes influenced your instruction?
2.What is important for a teacher here to know and be able to do? Why?
324
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
3.If you could have PD on anything, what would it be? Why?
4.Tell me about your experiences in PD here at HHS. How has PD progressed since the
beginning of the year? What have been the primary goals of PD? How, if at all, have these
changed throughout this year?

Topic Guide: Administrator Interviews

Background and Historicity
1. Can you tell me a little bit about your background?
2. Why did you want to be the CEO/Principal/AP at HHS?
3. How did you come to be the CEO of Ednovate? Why did you want the job?

Individual Sensemaking and Interpretation:
4. What do YOU think makes HHS different from other high schools?
5. What is your vision for being a successful CEO? What would it mean for you to have a
successful year?
6. What concerns do you have, if any, about the program?
7. What do you think teachers need in order to be successful in this type of environment?

Individual Goals and Activities:
1. Walk me through a typical day for you.
2. What is your plan for this school year? What do you hope to accomplish? What is your 5-
year plan for the school?
3. What is the thing that excites you the most about this school? Give an example.
4. What is the thing you find most challenging? Give an example
5. What should be the roles of teachers and students in the learning process?
6. How do you know if a teacher is being effective or not?

Disruptions and Contradictions

1. What challenges, if any, do you experience in being an administrator at HHS?
2. What challenges, if any, do you experience in operationalizing the technology-heavy part of
the school model?
3. What challenges, if any, do you experience in operationalizing the personalized learning part
of the school model?
4. How do you respond to those challenges? Give an example.
5. What is your biggest critique of the school model? What makes you say that?
6. If there is one thing you could change about HHS given things you have talked about, what
would it be? What makes you say this?
7. If there was one thing you could ask for and GET as an administrator given things you talked
about, what would it be? What makes you say this?
8. What, if anything, would you like to change about instruction here at HHS? What makes you
say that?
9. Tell me about any instances where the teaching staff disagreed about how to enact blended
learning/personalized learning in their classrooms.
10. Tell me about any instances where the teaching staff disagreed with the administration about
325
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
(the school model/instruction/technology use/personalization).
11. Were these disagreements resolved? How? If not, why not?

School-Level Goals and Activities
1. How would you describe the school’s program design/purpose? What would you say is the
school’s defining characteristic?
2. Tell me about your vision for personalization in the classroom.
3. Tell me about your vision for technology use in the school/classroom.
4. Tell me about your vision for assessment in the classroom.
5. Tell me about the professional development at HHS. What is your vision for successful
professional development?
6. What are your goals for this year (in terms of developing your teachers)?
7. What would say are the biggest changes you’ve made since becoming (CEO/Principal/AP)?
Why did you make those changes?
8. What would you like to change in the future? Why?

Organizational Changes
1. What have been some of the major school-level changes you’ve experiences since you began
working at HHS? What prompted those changes?
2. What, if any, are some changes you plan on making in the future?
3. Tell me about your experiences in PD here at HHS. How has PD progressed since the
beginning of the year? What have been the primary goals of PD? How, if at all, have these
changed throughout this year?
4. What is important for a teacher here to know and be able to do? Has this changed at all since
you began working at HHS? How? Why?

Topic Guide: Student Focus Groups/Interviews

Background and Historicity:
1. Tell me what grade you are in.
2. How long have you attended this school?
Individual Activities:
1. Tell me about a typical school day for you.
2. What is it like to be a student at HHS?
3. What made you decide to attend/stay at HHS?
School Activities:
4. What do you like about your classes at HHS? Why? What do you not like? Why?
5. How do you use technology in your classes?
6. (For older students) How have your classes changed since you started here? What are some
of the biggest changes you’ve seen in the school since you’ve been coming here?
7. (For freshmen) How is this school different from your last school?
Challenges
8. What challenges have you experienced in being a student here?
9. What would you change at HHS, if you could? Why?
326
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
APPENDIX B
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Field Note #:

Name of Observer Date Time

Location Study

Abstract
I observed…

Language Used

Sequence of Events Comments
Beginning
•

Middle
•

End
•

Physical Space
Describe the physical
space.

Participants
Who are the participants?
How many are there?

Demographics
What are the participants’
roles?

What are the participants
doing?
• Interaction among
participants
• Group power
dynamics
• Passivity/Activity

327
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Observer Role
What am I doing?
What is my role?

How did my presence
affect the participants?

Questions:

Pictures:

[Save pictures from event with same file name as observation log.]

328
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
APPENDIX C
CODING MANUAL
Overview: This study seeks to understand the implementation and evolution of
technology-mediated personalized learning in a blended charter school setting. I utilize
sensemaking theory and CHAT uncover the collective and cultural forces that interact to
influence how teachers make sense of new practices, use new instructional tools, navigate
changing school processes, and enact instructional practice in the context of their classrooms.
The use of these theories serves to help me to understand how teachers’ instructional practices
and systemic practices evolve and develop as they do. In pursuit of these goals, this coding
scheme is meant to assist me in identifying and capturing (a) the activities of the school
community and the classrooms (what is happening); (b) the artifacts/tools that are mediators of
activity, particularly those used toward the object of personalized instruction (what is being used
and how); (c) the rules and normative practices that govern activity (what helps to structure
activity in the system); (d) how labor is divided in the system (who is doing what); (e) the
historicity and background of the subjects and the school; (f) the tensions, disruptions, and
contradictions the emerge, become intractable, or resolve throughout the life of the school. I am
interested in the ways in which all of this interacts and shifts over time and in how these
interactions create the conditions for individual and organizational change.

Path through data: This qualitative case study contains a large amount of data, in
various forms: interviews, focus groups, observations, documents, artifacts, and photographs. As
I am particularly interested in meaning-making and in the particular experiences of individuals in
the system, I intend to begin by coding interviews, followed by focus groups. I believe that
beginning here will offer a foundational understanding of teachers’ thought processes,
interpretations, and opportunities for sensemaking. After coding interviews and focus groups, I
will code observations, documents, artifacts, and photographs, in that order. This will offer me
the opportunity for comparison among data types and will help me to code more productively.

General approach to coding: For this study, I am choosing to utilize data analysis
strategies advocated by Stake (1995), with a few other strategies (discussed in further detail
below) to augment Stake’s process. Stake argues for a four-step process: direct interpretation,
categorical aggregation, pattern recognition and correspondence of patterns, and naturalistic
generalizations (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995). In direct interpretation, the researcher looks at
single instances in the data and attempts to draw some meaning out of it. Next, in categorical
aggregation, the researcher aggregates these discrete instances until statements can be made
about these instances as a whole. In the process of pattern recognition and correspondence, the
researcher establishes patterns and looks for instances of correspondence between categories
(Creswell, 1998, p. 154). Finally, the researcher develops naturalistic generalizations that can
inform individuals about the case or can be applied to similar circumstances.
Stake’s (1995) process of analysis undergirds my coding strategy. In this study, I conduct
both inductive and deductive analysis throughout data collection and analysis, coding in cycles,
and conducting frequent memoing and code revision.

329
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
Specific approach to coding: Coding will occur in four iterative cycles:

• Cycle 1: Initial read-through, with attribute coding
I conduct an initial read-through of the data and memo concurrently in order to
further familiarize myself with the data and form some initial reactions to help shape the
coding process. In this first cycle of coding, I utilize attribute coding to organize the data by
type and source (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2013).
• Cycle 2: Provisional coding using propositions and macro-codes
In the second cycle, I code provisionally, using my propositions as a guide to identify
pertinent data points, to bound the inquiry, and to offer points of comparison for what is
happening in my case and what the empirical and theoretical literature describes.
o Specific approach to macro-coding:
 Code for Individual, Activity System, and Larger Context (Macro-codes I,
II, and IX)
 Code for Artifacts, Practices, and school context (Macro-codes II, III, and
VIII)
 Code for Principles and Changes in Practice and/or School Design
(Macro-codes V and VII)
 Code for Tensions, Disruptions, and Contradictions (VI)
• Cycle 3: Inductive sub-coding
I develop inductive sub-codes under the master-codes as I read through the data
again.
 Sub-Code for specific Artifacts, Practices, and school context (under
Macro-codes II, III, and VIII)
 Sub-Code for specific Principles and Changes in Practice and/or School
Design (under Macro-codes V and VII)
I then code chunks of data, identifying categories and properties, and looking for
patterns and themes. Here I use the constant comparative method, combing through the
data, comparing data points, and coding until all data fits into a category. During this
cycle, I memo in order to develop analytic summaries of the data, which allows me to
identify patterns and categories, condense codes, and to synthesize what I have learned so
far
• Cycle 4: Deeper theoretical coding
Finally, I code using my theoretical framework, so I can begin to identify explanations
for the patterns and themes I am seeing. Here, I focus in on mediating factors in the
activity system, and on contradictions and tensions, as these are the key sensemaking
triggers that facilitate change and innovation in an activity system (Engeström, 1999).
 Sub-Code for Tensions, Disruptions, and Contradictions (VI)
 Sub-Code for Individual Schemas
Utilizing my theoretical framing in this way allows me to identify sources of
tension and contradiction and to explore where and how these discordances led to
changes or evolutions in practice. Because change and innovation are primary goals in
high-tech personalized learning models, these discordances are particularly relevant. I
also utilize concepts from sensemaking in this cycle of coding, looking for instances
where individual schemas are at play. In this cycle of coding, I continue to memo,
focusing on patterns, categorizations, and possible naturalistic generalizations.
330
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION

Actual codes are bolded and underlined (background)

I. Individual (individual): In this category of codes, I code information about
participants’ backgrounds or identities. Also included in this section are codes that capture the
process of individual meaning-making (sensemaking).
• background: Participant background, history (growing up, where they’re from, family,
etc.)
• education: Schooling, own educational experiences
• indchanges: Participant articulates specific changes in thinking, beliefs, or knowledge
about teaching.
• credentialing: TEP, credentialing program, experiences in becoming a teacher
• identity: comments about self or identity statements (“I’ve always been the type of
person who…”; “For me, my culture is really important…”
• philosophy: statements about teaching philosophy, or underlying pedagogical beliefs
• schema: how background, life experiences, beliefs, and identity influences teaching
beliefs or practices; connections between participants’ backgrounds and actions and
interpretations around learning and instruction.
• assimilation: instances or statements that indicate assimilation.
• accommodation: instances or statements that indicate accommodation.
• reconstruction: instances of statements that indicate schema reconstruction.

II. Activity System (system): In this category of codes, I code for representations of
nodes in the activity system (subjects, object, outcomes, rules and norms, community, division of
labor) and for sensemaking opportunities.
• subjects: the participants engaged in the activity, whose point-of-view is chosen as the
perspective of the analysis.
• object: The subjects create the object, which shifts continuously. The object is not a goal,
but “determines the horizon of possible actions." The object of the activity is constructed
and reconstructed as a result of the activity in the system, but is never fully achieved. The
generalized object of activity is connected to societal meaning, while the more specific
object is connected to personal sense and meaning-making.
• outcome: The outcome, rather than being the goal, is the result of the object-oriented
activity.
• rules and norms (rules): Rules and norms of behavior, conventions
• community: others in the system
• division of labor (labor): Division of labor: continuously negotiated division of
responsibilities.
• opportunity for sensemaking (sensemaking): Here, I code for any opportunity for
sensemaking. SM is triggered by situations, such as the process of reform, in which
individuals experience discordances, ambiguities, environmental uncertainties, or
turbulence in their environments. Actions taken in response to these situations are
connected to an individual’s understanding and interpretation, which is influenced by the
organizational context in which the individual operates and the other people in that
context.
331
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION

III. Artifacts/Tools (tools): In this category, I code for references to mediating artifacts
(tools, signs, and language that facilitate achieving specific goals and are a product of history)
that are used in planning, implementing, or discussing personalized instruction – plans,
instructional activities, curriculum, assessment.
• Technology (techtools): Here, I code for technology as a mediating artifact – tech as a
conduit for pedagogy, or as a tool that is used to achieve the goal of personalized
learning/instruction. Here, the type of tech used is a product of the history of the school
and the accumulated knowledge of technology-facilitated learning.

IV. Practices (practices): Here, I code for direct and indirect references to and
enactments of particular instructional and assessment practices (including those related to
planning instruction and assessment).
• accountability: Here, I code for instances where teachers directly reference or
demonstrate an emphasis on accountability in practice.
• Assessment (assessment): Code for direct and indirect references to and enactments of
particular instructional and assessment practices (including planning).
o assessing formally (assessform): practicing formal assessment
o assessing informally (assessinf): practicing informal assessment
o Formative assessment (formative): practicing formative assessment
o Summative assessment (summative): practicing summative assessment
• biography: referencing own biography/lived experience during instruction
• choice: engaging students in choosing their own learning experiences/drawing on
students’ interests
• curriculum: Here, I code for references to curriculum used/created by individual
teachers.
• data: using data to inform practice. This can include formative or summative assessment
data, as well as any other data (learning profiles, etc.)
• expectations: Here, I code for teachers’ and administrators expectations for practice.
This code includes not necessarily what they are doing, but what they expect to be doing.
In other words, this code reflects participants’ understanding of what is expected of them
as teachers/administrators in this school.
• grouping students (group): Grouping students for in-class or out-of-class activities.
• modules: students working through modules
• project based learning (PBL): engaging students in project-based learning
• planning (plan): planning instruction or assessment
• scaffolding (scaffold): scaffolding learning
• releasing (release): gradually releasing responsibility to students
• universalism/universal design (universal): providing undifferentiated/universalist
instruction (i.e., instruction that treats all students the ‘same’)
• ETC. – code at the artifacts/tools (tree) node and then also keep a running tab of possible
subcodes

332
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
V. Changes in Practice and/or School Design (changes): Here, I code for any changes
in instructional practices and/or school design since the school’s inception. This will include
individual changes that teachers make in their own classrooms as well as changes made at the
school-level.
• Instructional changes (changeinstruction): This code represents changes that
individual teachers have made to their practices during their time at the school. This code
should include only individual changes that teachers have made based on issues they
have faced. These changes may or may not be brought to the school-level.
• Design Changes (changedesign): This code represents larger school design changes.
This code includes changes made at the school level. This can include school-level
changes made in response to individual instructional changes that are working – for
example, a teacher testing out a new curriculum that then becomes standard for all
teachers – or changes at the design level – for example, the new CEO deciding to
implement a whole-school discipline system.
o envcultchanges: This node includes all environmental, structural, and cultural
changes at the organizational level.
• School’s story (history): referencing how the school has changed over time

VI. Tensions, Disruptions, and Contradictions (contradictions): In this category, I
code for contradictions, manifested as tensions among components of the activity system,
disruptions in practice and plans, and dilemmas, conflicts, critical conflicts, and double binds as
demonstrated by participants and interactions between and among participants. Once I have
coded the manifestations of contradictions, I code for possible underlying contradictions (these
will become categories or themes) that serve as sources for these tensions, disruptions, dilemmas,
conflicts, critical conflicts, and double binds.
• tension: This code represents any tension that occurs within or between nodes of the
activity system.
• disconnect: This code represents any mention or indication of a disconnect between
vision and reality.
• disruption: This code represents any disruption that is experienced by the participants.
These can include “deviations in the observable flow of interaction” (Engeström, Brown,
Christopher, & Gregory, 1991, p. 91)…or “problems, ruptures, breakdowns, clashes” in
activities (Kuutti, 1996, p. 34). They result in double binds in everyday practices when an
individual receives “two messages or commands which deny each other” (Engeström
1987, p. 174). (Murphy, p. 445).
• dilemma: “A dilemma is an expression or exchange of incompatible evaluations, either
between people or within the discourse of a single person” (p. 374).
• conflict: “resistance, disagreement, argument and criticism” “conflict occurs when an
individual or a group feels negatively affected by another individual or group, for
example because of a perceived divergence of interests, or because of another’s
incompatible behavior” (p. 374).
• critical conflict (critcon): “‘Critical conflicts’ are situations in which people face inner
doubts that paralyze them in front of contradictory motives unsolvable by the subject
alone” (p. 375).
• double bind (dblbind): “‘Double binds’ (Bateson, 1972; Sluzki and Ransom, 1976) are
processes in which actors repeatedly face pressing and equally unacceptable alternatives
333
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
in their activity system, with seemingly no way out” (p. 374)
• challenges: This code is s general code that encompassess all forms of challenges. These
will likely be co-coded with Practices or Context. This may get absorbed into other codes
in the Contradictions category.

VII. Principles (principles): Here, I code for the principles of practice to which teachers
report ascribing or appear to ascribe. By principles, I mean philosophies, orientations,
dispositions, beliefs, etc. that teachers express or embody in their practice. Similar codes may
appear in the schools section, but to be coded principles, the participant should be talking about
their own beliefs versus talking about the belief as a shared belief among those at the school. For
example, a teacher might talk about believing (personally) in the value of personalizing
instruction for special education students – that would be coded here. However, if that same
teacher talked about the school’s blended program or the fact that all teachers at BA believe in
blended learning, then it would be coded in (schcontext). Codes currently listed only as
principles (in the individual sense) may become (schcontext) (in the sense of intangibles,
norms, etc.) if they emerge as shared/common across participants.
• accountability: Here, I code for instances where teachers' principals indicate an
emphasis on accountability.
• value of collaboration (collabvalue): referencing the importance of collaboration
(and/or expressing commitment to or belief in collaborative process)
• critical thinking (criticalthink): referencing the importance of critical thinking
• cultural relevance (CRP): referencing the importance of cultural relevance (and/or
teaching in culturally relevant ways)
• Personalized learning (personalization): Here I code for instances where teachers or
administrators report ascribing or appear to ascribe to the concept of personalized
learning as a way of teaching and learning.
• noexcuses: Any mention or instance of ascribing to “No Excuses” as a foundation of
individual practices.
• ‘School way’ (schoolway): referencing the expected, accepted, or encouraged ways of
thinking and practicing at BA, including any comparisons to the thinking and practice of
‘other’ teachers
• high expectations (highexp): referencing the importance of holding high expectations
for all students (and/or working against deficit assumptions)

VIII. School Context (schcontext): In this category, I code for two related strands:
examples of and references to contextual conditions present in the school or in teachers’
classrooms and beliefs held across all teachers/the school program.

• accountability: Here, I code for instances indicating school-wide emphasis on
accountability.
• administration (admin): referencing the administration, including referencing the
general administrative approach/presence or any specific administrators or specific
administrative decisions or actions.
• advisory: Here, I code for discussions of the school's advisory program as a whole.
• characteristics: referencing specific characteristics that define the school.
• choice: Here I code for instances that indicate a school-wide emphasis on choice.
334
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
• collaboration (collaboration): referencing teachers working together.
• curriculum: Here, I code for references to the curriculum used in a whole-school
context. For example, references to the use of Apex in the first year will be coded here.
However, references to Apex in year 2 or 3 may be coded under practices because the use
of Apex was not schoolwide in those years.
• different: Here, I code for any discussion of how BA is different from traditional schools
or from traditional educational practices.
• Discipline (discipline): Here I code for discussion of discipline issues at the school-level
(not individual students or classrooms, but how the administration/teachers handle
discipline as a whole and how it impacts the school context.
• ‘School way’ (schoolway): referencing the conditions in place at [school], including any
comparisons to conditions elsewhere/at ‘other’ schools
• noexcuses: Any mention or instance of “No Excuses” as a foundation or mediator of
organizational practices.
• onboard: referencing the idea that staff must be on board with school vision
• parent and community engagement (parentcomm): referencing the relationship
between [school] and parents and community members, particularly any school-wide
expectations, structures, or practices that facilitate (or are intended to facilitate) parent
and community engagement
• personalization: Here I code for instances that indicate a school-wide emphasis on
personalization/personalized learning.
• pressure (pressure): referencing the pressure that teachers feel to ‘perform’ (in certain
ways)
• school-level policy (schoolpolicy): any school-level policies, mandates, procedures, etc.
(usually set by administrative team)
o Merit/Demerit System (demerit): Here. I code for any discussion of the
merit/demerit system.
• self-selection (selfselect): referencing the idea that staff choose to be here
• teacher development (teacherdev): referencing “PD” as well as any additional
structures/procedures/practices that facilitate (or are intended to facilitate) teacher
learning
• demand on teachers’ time (timedemand): referencing the time demands placed on
teachers

VII. Larger Context: In this category, I code for examples of a references to the larger
societal, cultural, and normative contexts within which the school is situated. Context is defined
broadly to support my interest in the development and history of the school, and organizational
evolution and change.
• community context (commcont): referencing the local community context (e.g., ‘in a
neighborhood like this…’) and/or how it has changed (or not changed) over time (e.g.,
‘…was a huge challenge facing the community in the Reagan years’)
• external/government policy context (policy): referencing local/district, state and federal
policy including: the standards movement, test scores, NCLB, etc.
335
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
• professional context (profession): referencing teaching as a profession (including
references to teachers’ unions) and/or how teaching or teachers has changed (or not
changed) over time (e.g., ‘since the beginning of time, teachers have…’)
• education/schooling context (schooling): referencing how education/schooling is (e.g.,
‘that’s the thing about education today…’) or has changed (or not changed) over time
(e.g., back then schools were’)
• technological context (techcont): Here I code for references to the use of technology in
education in the larger context. Note: I am not coding every reference to technology here.
In most cases, such references will already be coded under artifacts/tools, which reflects
how they are usually referenced (given my questions and the known topic of study, i.e.,
how educators understand and use technology toward personalized learning). Here I am
interested in references ‘about’ the broader context of technology use in policy/education
as a whole (beyond BA), and how people are making sense of its relationship to and
implications for BA.

The interactions among codes will be of particular interest. For example, if data is coded
as noexcuses and identity, this would indicate that the “No Excuses” model was somehow
related to a specific teacher’s identity and might warrant further analysis to see how or why.

336
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
APPENDIX D
LINKING RESEARCH QUESTIONS, THEORY, AND PROTOCOL

Research Question Theoretical Connection Protocol Questions and
Observation Points
What is the nature of
teacher practice in a
blended learning charter
high school based on a
theory of technology-
mediated personalized
learning?
What are the defining
characteristics of this
blended learning charter
high school, including
how technology is used,
the roles of the teachers,
and the approaches to
student progression and
evaluation?

• CHAT: Establishing
the components of the
activity system:
community, division
of labor, rules and
norms, subjects,
possible mediating
artifacts
Teacher:
• Walk me through a typical hour in
your classroom. How do you start
a class? How do you end a class?
• How, if at all, has this changed
since the beginning of the year?
• What are some of the tools and
strategies you use to personalize
instruction in your classroom?
Give an example.
• Give me an example of time one
of these really supported what you
try to do as a teacher.
• Give me an example of a time in
got in the way. What did you do
in response?
• How do you use technology in
your classroom? Why do you use
it that way?
• Describe how you assess students.
Has this changed at all? What is
your process for formative
assessment? Summative
assessment? How do you use
student data?
• How do you know if you're being
an effective teacher or not?
• How would you describe the
program goals or theory of action
of HHS? Have these goals or your
interpretation of these goals
changed since you began working
at HHS? How would you say the
school vision has evolved since
you began working at HHS? Give
an example.
• What would you say is the
defining characteristic of this
337
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
school?
• How would you describe your
teaching role at HHS? Does it
differ from previous teaching
roles you’ve had? How?
Administrator:
• Can you tell me a little bit about
your background?
• Why did you want to be the
CEO/Principal/AP at USC Hybrid
High?
• How did you come to be the CEO
of Ednovate? Why did you want
the job?
• Walk me through a typical day for
you.
• What is your plan for this school
year? What do you hope to
accomplish? What is your 5-year
plan for the school?
• What is the thing that excites you
the most about this school? Give
an example.
• What is the thing you find most
challenging? Give an example
• What should be the roles of
teachers and students in the
learning process?
• How do you know if a teacher is
being effective or not?
• What do YOU think makes HHS
different from other high schools?
• How would you describe the
school’s program design/purpose?
What would you say is the
school’s defining characteristic?
• Tell me about your vision for
personalization in the classroom.
• Tell me about your vision for
technology use in the
school/classroom.
• Tell me about your vision for
assessment in the classroom.
• Tell me about the professional
development at HHS. What is
338
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
your vision for successful
professional development?
Students:
• Tell me about a typical school day
for you.
• What is it like to be a student at
HHS? What do you like about
your classes at HHS? Why? What
do you not like? Why? How do
you use technology in your
classes?
Observations:
• Look for classroom processes and
instructional practices.
• Look for how technology is used
in the classroom.
• Documents:
• Class websites
• Instructional documents
• Student work
• Charter documents
• Strategic plans
How do teachers
interpret the school’s
program goals and
underlying theory of
action?
How are teachers using
technology to enact a
theory of action of
personalization?
How, if at all, do teachers’
existing schemas appear
to shape how they
interpret and respond to
the model?

• SM: Cognitive
schemas
• CHAT: Historicity
Teachers:
• Can you tell me a little bit about
your background? How did you
come to be a teacher? Tell me about
your pre-service experience. If
applicable, tell me about your first
and last teaching jobs. If applicable,
tell me about any experience you
have teaching with technology.
• What is the thing that excites you
the most about teaching? Give an
example.
• What is the thing you find most
challenging? Give an example
• How did you come to be a teacher
at HHS? If applicable: Why did you
apply to be a teacher at USC Hybrid
High?
• How would you describe the
program goals or theory of action of
HHS? Have these goals or your
interpretation of these goals changed
339
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
since you began working at HHS?
How would you say the school vision
has evolved since you began working
at HHS? Give an example.
• What would you say is the defining
characteristic of this school?
• How would you describe your
teaching role at HHS? Does it differ
from previous teaching roles you’ve
had? How?
• If you could describe your teaching
self (at Hybrid High) in one word,
what would it be and why?
• What do you think makes HHS
different from other high schools?
• What is your vision for being a
successful teacher here? If you were
to have a good year at HHS, how
would you know it? How do you
imagine yourself at end of first year?
• What concerns do you have, if any,
about the program?
• What do you think teachers need in
order to be successful in this type of
environment?
• What is your teaching philosophy?
What things do you like to do or have
in place in your classroom so that
students are learning? Where does
that align with HHS model? Where
does it diverge?
• What is your teaching philosophy?
Where does that align with HHS
model? Where does it diverge?

Observations:
• Look for classroom processes and
instructional practices.
• Look for how technology is used in
the classroom.
Documents:
• Class websites
• Instructional documents
• Student work
What, if any, are the • CHAT: Activity Teacher:
340
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
systemic contradictions
that develop around
technology-mediated
personalization?
What are possible sources
of these contradictions?
What are the interacting
and mediating factors
involved in these
contradictions?
How, if at all, do these
contradictions prompt
individual sensemaking or
individual activity toward
personalized instruction?
How do these
contradictions manifest in
the daily activities of the
school?
How do teachers respond
to contradictions? How, if
at all, do teachers’
existing schemas influence
how they respond to
tensions and
contradictions in the
system?

system
• CHAT: Tensions and
contradictions
• CHAT: Mediating
artifacts
• CHAT: Expansive
learning cycle
• SM: Sensemaking =>
object of activity
• What challenges, if any, do you
experience in teaching at HHS?
• What challenges, if any, do you
experience in operationalizing the
technology-heavy part of the school
model?
• What challenges, if any, do you
experience in operationalizing the
personalized learning part of the
school model?
• What challenges, if any, do you
experience in trying to personalize
instruction?
• How do you respond to those
challenges? Give an example.
• What is your biggest critique of the
school model? What makes you say
that?
• If there is one thing you could
change about HHS given things you
have talked about, what would it
be? What makes you say this?
• If there was one thing you could ask
for and GET as a teacher given
things you talked about, what would
it be? What makes you say this?
• What, if anything, would you like to
change about your instruction?
What makes you say that?
• Tell me about any instances where
the teaching staff disagreed about
how to enact blended
learning/personalized learning in
their classrooms.
• Tell me about any instances where
the teaching staff disagreed with the
administration about (the school
model/instruction/technology
use/personalization).
• Were these disagreements resolved?
How? If not, why not?
• How do you think your practice has
evolved since you began working at
HHS? Give an example.
• How has your practice changed
since last semester? How has the
341
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
school changed since last semester?
What do you think about these
changes? What else, if anything,
would you change?
• When you first came to HHS, I’m
sure you had some expectations for
what your role would be and what
you classroom would be like. How
does your experience now compare
with those expectations? What is
different? What is the same? Give
me a few examples.
• How do you use technology in your
classroom? How, if at all, has your
use of technology changed since
you began working at HHS?
Administrator:
• What do YOU think makes HHS
different from other high schools?
• What is your vision for being a
successful CEO? What would it
mean for you to have a successful
year?
• What concerns do you have, if any,
about the program?
• What do you think teachers need in
order to be successful in this type of
environment?
• What challenges, if any, do you
experience in being an administrator
at HHS?
• What challenges, if any, do you
experience in operationalizing the
technology-heavy part of the school
model?
• What challenges, if any, do you
experience in operationalizing the
personalized learning part of the
school model?
• How do you respond to those
challenges? Give an example.
• What is your biggest critique of the
school model? What makes you say
that?
• If there is one thing you could
change about HHS given things you
342
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
have talked about, what would it
be? What makes you say this?
• If there was one thing you could ask
for and GET as an administrator
given things you talked about, what
would it be? What makes you say
this?
• What, if anything, would you like to
change about instruction here at
HHS? What makes you say that?
• Tell me about any instances where
the teaching staff disagreed about
how to enact blended
learning/personalized learning in
their classrooms.
• Tell me about any instances where
the teaching staff disagreed with the
administration about (the school
model/instruction/technology
use/personalization).
• Were these disagreements resolved?
How? If not, why not?

Observations:
• Look for dilemmas, conflicts,
critical conflicts, double binds in
classrooms, staff meetings, and
PDs.
Documents:
• Comparing strategic plans, charter
documents, and other school
planning documents over time.
How, if at all, do
contradictions shape the
school as an activity
system over time?
In what ways, if any, do
contradictions trigger
individual and collective
changes in the activity
system? How do the
interactions in the activity
system (the interactions
among individuals and
• CHAT: The
development and
redevelopment of the
activity system
• CHAT: Contradictions
• CHAT: Expansive
learning
cycle/organizational
change
• SM: Sensemkaing =>
object of activity
Teacher:
9. What have been some of the
major school-level changes you’ve
experiences since you began
working at HHS? How have these
changes influenced your
instruction?
10. What is important for a
teacher here to know and be able to
do? Why?
11. If you could have PD on
anything, what would it be? Why?
343
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
between individuals and
the environment) shape
the activity system and
vice versa?
How, if at all, do the
schools’ program goals
and vision for practice
evolve throughout the first
several years of
implementation? How, if
at all, do contradictions
create opportunity for or
conditions for changes in
instructional practice and
program design?

12. Tell me about your
experiences in PD here at HHS.
How has PD progressed since the
beginning of the year? What have
been the primary goals of PD?
How, if at all, have these changed
throughout this year?
13. How do you think your practice
has evolved since you began
working at HHS? Give an example.
14. How has your practice changed
since last semester? How has the
school changed since last semester?
What do you think about these
changes? What else, if anything,
would you change?
15. When you first came to HHS, I’m
sure you had some expectations for
what your role would be and what
you classroom would be like. How
does your experience now compare
with those expectations? What is
different? What is the same? Give
me a few examples.
16. How do you use technology in
your classroom? How, if at all, has
your use of technology changed
since you began working at HHS?
Administrator:
17. What are your goals for this
year (in terms of developing your
teachers)?
18. What would say are the
biggest changes you’ve made since
becoming (CEO/Principal/AP)?
Why did you make those changes?
19. What would you like to
change in the future? Why?
20. What have been some of the
major school-level changes you’ve
experiences since you began
working at HHS? What prompted
those changes?
21. What, if any, are some
changes you plan on making in the
future?
344
HOW CONTRADICTIONS SHAPE IMPLEMENTATION
22. Tell me about your
experiences in PD here at HHS.
How has PD progressed since the
beginning of the year? What have
been the primary goals of PD?
How, if at all, have these changed
throughout this year?
23. What is important for a
teacher here to know and be able to
do? Has this changed at all since
you began working at HHS? How?
Why?

Observations:
• Look for dilemmas, conflicts,
critical conflicts, double binds in
classrooms, staff meetings, and
PDs.
• Look for how these may have
been resolved by attending to
discussion of issues and problem-
solving in group contexts (PD,
staff meetings, etc.)
• Look for changes across
classroom observation (same
classroom and different
classrooms).
• Look for changes from year to
year in staff meetings, planning
sessions, and PDs.
Documents:
• Comparing strategic plans, charter
documents, and other school
planning documents over time.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In recent years, there has been an upsurge in educational policies aimed at improving the academic achievement of all students, with an emphasis on traditionally‐underserved students—low‐income students, students of color, and particularly those students at the intersection of those two groups. These policies have focused on increasing accountability, and encouraging the development of innovative instructional practices and school models. At the forefront of this wave of system‐changing reform is a confluence of initiatives encouraging the use of personalized learning (PL) and driving the growth of educational technology in K-12 contexts. In this climate, school models that leverage technology to deliver personalized educational experiences—blended learning, for example—have proliferated. ❧ PL, as a learning model, is intended to tailor instruction to students’ needs, strengths, and interests to promote mastery of skills and content. There has been little research on PL strategies, and even less research on school models that are based on a theory of action of PL. Related research, such as that on blended or online learning, provides some understanding of the changes required of teachers, and some evidence around questions of effectiveness, but does not focus specifically on instructional practice in these models, or on implementation over time. ❧ Examining how teachers make sense of, navigate, and enact technology‐based PL school models and program goals in their classroom practices is central to understanding teachers’ practices in an educational climate that promotes high levels of technology use and personalization in conjunction with an emphasis on accountability. Specifically, examining teachers’ instruction in a high‐tech PL charter school in the context of the current policy climate, focusing on how teachers make sense of and respond to the school’s vision for PL in their instructional practices, illustrating how program design and teachers’ practices toward PL evolve over time, and exploring why design and practice develop as they do is critical to understanding high‐tech PL school models that may require teachers to make substantive changes to their practice. In addition to this, theoretically‐informed research is needed that examines systemic contradictions as they are experienced by teachers, their responses to and the sources of these contradictions, and the ways in which this process might generate change. ❧ The purpose of this dissertation study was thus to: (1) to examine teachers’ instruction in a high‐tech PL school model, focusing on how teachers make sense of and respond to the school’s vision of personalization in their instructional practices

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers' literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability

PDF

Building networks for change: how ed-tech coaches broker information to lead instructional reform

PDF

21st century teaching and learning with technology integration at an innovative high school: a case study

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

Technology integration and its impact on 21st century learning and instruction: a case study

PDF

Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

PDF

A story of achievement in areas where others fail: a case study of secondary school reform in mathematics at Pacific North High School

PDF

Secondary school reform and improved math achievement: a case study of site efforts at Mission Valley High School

PDF

Using technology to drive high academic achievement