Teachers’ learning and sense-making processes in the context of an innovation: a two year follow-up study

Figures & data

Table 1. Details of GUTS and its main differences throughout the school years.

School year	Grades involved	Details of GUTS
2013–2014	7	10 GUTS lessons through the year in three subjects (two in subject 1, four in subject 2, four in subject 3). Lessons took place on Wednesday afternoons between November and June at the end of the school day and lasted 100 minutes.
2014–2015	7, 8	8 GUTS lessons per semester, a different subject each semester: thus, more time per subject. Times of the lessons alternated. Several regular lessons had to be cancelled to free up time for the GUTS lessons. Again, lessons lasted 100 minutes. In the second semester, classes combined students from 1st and 2nd grades.
2015–2016	7, 8, 9	GUTS lessons for 7 and 8 as in 2014–2015. The GUTS lessons had their own place in the schedule and regular lessons no longer had to be cancelled. Again, the moment in the day alternated. 9th grade did not follow GUTS lessons, but carried out a personal project.

The personal project of the 9th grade is not explained in detail, as this and teachers’ participation in that was beyond the scope of this study.

Table 2. Descriptives of the participating teachers.

Subject	Teacher (sex)
English language	Sarah (f), Helga (f), Gideon (m)
Dutch language	Rita (f), Frank (m)
Chinese language	Nicole (f)
German language	Quint (m)
Spanish language	Julia (f)
French language, Drama	Irma (f)
Art & Design, Art History	Paula (f), Mark (m)
PE	Leon (m)
Mathematics	Alex (m)
Biology	Kate (f)
History	Otto (m)

Table 3. Concepts, variables and questions in the questionnaire.

Concept	Variable	Questions
Perception of situational demands	Attitude to GUTS	What do you think of GUTS until now? Please elaborate in a few sentences.
Personal frame of reference	Perception of differentiated student talent development	What is, according to you, differentiated student talent development?
		As a teacher, how can you stimulate each students’ talent development?
	Practice of DI	When planning your lessons, do you plan (how) to differentiate your lessons? If so, could you elaborate to what extent you plan your differentiation?
		What student characteristics do you take into account when differentiating instruction? (for example readiness, interest, learning profile)

Table 4. Types of search for meaning as described by Luttenberg, Van Veen et al. (2013) and the applied definitions in this study.

Type of search for meaning	Description
Assimilation	There is a match between teachers’ perceptions of GUTS and their personal frames of reference regarding differentiated student talent development. Also, they are positive or ambivalent towards GUTS, but mainly stay true to their own frame of reference. (Most teachers who felt ambivalent and were placed in this category had limited resources as source of ambiguity.)
Accommodation	There is a match between teachers’ perceptions of GUTS and their personal frames of reference regarding differentiated student talent development. However, they feel somewhat ambivalent or negative towards GUTS and feel they have to adapt their personal frames of reference to the situational demands of GUTS. (Most teachers who felt ambivalent and were placed in this category, had conflicting goals as source of ambiguity; teachers who felt negative and were placed in this category, had limited resources as source of ambiguity.)
Toleration	Teachers are ambivalent or negative towards GUTS when they have to do something during GUTS that is different from what they want to do (in total or within GUTS). (Teachers who felt ambivalent were positive about the idea behind GUTS, but had conflicting goals and limited resources as sources of ambiguity; teachers who felt negative and were placed in this category were negative about the idea behind the innovation, and had conflicting goals and perhaps ‘limited resources’ as source(s) of ambiguity.)
Distantiation	Not used in this study. Teachers had to teach GUTS lessons and could not simply give a regular lesson if they distanced themselves from the innovation. In addition, if teachers did decide to organise their GUTS lessons so that they would be very similar to their regular lessons, this would not be clear from the questionnaires.

Table 5. Teachers’ sense-making by type of search for meaning and source of ambiguity in 2014.

2014	Perceptions of the situational demands: Source of ambiguity
Type of search for meaning		None	Limited resources	Conflicting goals	Both
Assimilation		Otto – Divergent DI, providing autonomy, and higher order learning regardless of subject Gideon – DI, providing autonomy, and higher order learning within subject Paula – Convergent DI, within subject	Nicole – Convergent DI, and enrichment within subject Sarah – Convergent DI within subject Rita – DI within subject	Mark – Convergent teaching, and enrichment within subject
Accommodation				Julia – DI, and enrichment within subject	Irma – Convergent DI Leon – DI within subject
				Helga – Convergent DI within subject
Toleration				Frank – Convergent DI, and providing autonomy within subject Kate – Convergent DI within subject Quint – Convergent DI, and enrichment regardless of subject Alex – Convergent DI regardless of subject

Table 6. Teachers’ sense-making by type of search for meaning and source of ambiguity in 2015.

2015	Perceptions of the situational demands: Source of ambiguity
Type of search for meaning		None	Limited resources	Conflicting goals	Both
Assimilation		Otto – Divergent DI, providing autonomy, and higher order learning regardless of subject Mark – DI, and providing autonomy within subject	Rita – DI, and providing autonomy within subject Paula – DI, and providing autonomy within subject Leon –DI within subject Helga – Convergent DI, and providing autonomy within subject Kate – DI within subject	Sarah – Convergent DI, and providing autonomy within subject Quint – Convergent DI, and enrichment regardless of subject Alex – Convergent DI within subject
Accommodation				Nicole –Convergent DI within subject Gideon –Divergent DI, providing autonomy, and higher order learning within subject Irma – Divergent DI
Toleration				Frank – Convergent DI within subject	Julia –Divergent DI, providing autonomy and enrichment, regardless of subject

Italics indicate differences in the teachers’ source of ambiguity between 2014 and 2015; Underlines indicate differences in the teachers’ type of search for meaning between 2014 and 2015.