The rise of the alternative paradigm has confronted many teachers with vaguely formulated goals and largely undefined new practices. In such a context, many teachers feel insecure about the benefits of innovation, and about their own role as implementers and their future role as teachers (Gitlin & Margonis, 1995).
more and more clear, then, that the paradigm shift is realized only when teachers become able to learn creatively, as opposed to reproductively (Illeris, 2002). The problem with creative learning is that it can only happen within strong learning envi-ronments, allowing for experiential learning and, at the same time, providing a communicative structure that invites the learners to reflect on their experiences. Most people are not motivated themselves to reflect, because it involves feelings of
uncertainty and ambiguity (Hermans & Hermans-Jansen, 1995). Creative learning is based, therefore, on ‘warm’ communication (i.e. mutual trust) that allows the learners to express their feelings and emotions (Law et al., 2002).
Thus, creating a strong learning environment has consequences for the organiza- tional structure and culture of schools. Moreover, this increases the need for school leaders capable of initiating, steering and guiding these processes, to balance the needs of teachers with the organizational needs and vice versa. So, what goes for teachers goes for the school leaders: they also have to learn creatively. Understanding the interface of school leaders, the school organizational structure
and culture and teachers within schools, in relation to educational change processes, has been a research topic for more than two decades. This research has led to some important insights: the paradigm of managed change (Louis, 1994) and the impor- tance of aligning teacher learning with the development of the school as a whole
(Fullan, 1993), the acknowledgement of the crucial role of the school leader (Leithwood, 2000), the social-cognitive complexity of change at the teacher level (Spillane et al., 2002) and the opportunities of envisioning schools as professional learning communities (Toole & Louis, 2002). Overall, the conclusion can be drawn that current literature regarding the intersection of school management, organization
and change is focusing on sustained educational innovation as a social construction of new practices within the professional community.
In this paper, we will argue that the learning of teachers not only should be viewed as a process of social construction, but also one of individual sense-making. We argue that changes in professional identity of teachers, implying here processes of creative identity learning, are possible only when social construction and individual sense-
making become closely related to each other. In clarifying this relationship, we offer an additional perspective to the understanding of educational change processes.
We first give an overview of the existing knowledge about the development of schools as contexts for teachers’ professional learning and educational change. It will become clear that, in educational literature, the focus appears to be mostly on processes of meaning-giving from a cognitive perspective, while the emotional side of
change processes, the sense-making, remains a ‘black box’. We then turn to the ques-tion of what kind of learning is actually required of teachers, and argue that this learn-ing can be identified as identity learning. A model for identity learning is presented, involving the processes both of meaning-giving as well as sense-making that are essen-tial to bringing about fundamental educational change. Building on this model, we
discuss how school leaders and others involved in the steering and guiding of educa-tional change processes can arrive at what might be the core process of educational
change: the identity learning of teachers.
