Achieving clarity: principle to practice. The difference reflection makes in implementing a policy for information technology in a primary school

Abstract

This article considers two pivotal issues in school development: first, the epistemological foundations by which a curriculum area is generally held to be constructed, and how this knowledge base can be accepted or reconstructed by individual interpretation. Secondly, the paradigm, and therefore the methodology, by which change agents represent their understanding of curriculum areas to those participants of curriculum change. The article has an unusual structure, as it is written in two separate sections. The first section relates in a simple narrative style the actions the author undertook in her role as a coordinator for information technology, seeking change in classroom practice within a large primary school (ages 5–11 years) in a London suburb. It is told retrospectively, for the author then undertook a period of study and reflection which led her to reconsider both her understanding and the method by which she introduced change. Hence, the second section, written at the end of this period of reflection, enters the realm of ‘paradigm shift’ in that it examines the author's past rationale, her actions and the consequent results within her new epistemological and ontological understanding. Essentially, she deconstructs her actions and reconstructs them as ‘what-should-have-happened!‘ The implicit tenet is that her actions did not lead to the change she sought because she did not have clarity in understanding or direction, hence the article's title: ‘Achieving Clarity … The Difference Reflection Makes …’. The axiom of her revised understanding is that enduring and profound change cannot occur without the change agent having this clarity of understanding, which can achieve consistency between principle and practice with both rigour and credibility. At least, that's the first step, for innovation is never that simple; it's a long process.