The government of the Republic of Estonia accepted in 2014 the Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020, which has set five ambitious aims, one of these being the digital turn towards 1:1 computing in classrooms. The concept of digital turn is based on the theory of multi-level perspective (Kemp & Rip, 1998) on socio-technical transitions (Geels, 2010). According to this theoretical model, slow and incremental changes take place on the macro level (e.g. 4G mobile communication, multimedia-capable smart phones, ubiquitous social media). On the micro level, the niches of radical innovation are created by groups of technology enthusiasts (e.g. early bloggers and podcast authors). Increasing pressure from macro and micro levels eventually undermines the existing meso-level (institutional or societal) socio-technical regime, resulting with transition to the new regime. Regime is defined as a stabile set of "practices, rules and shared assumptions, which dominate the system and its actors” (Romans et al, 2001). The current socio-technical regime that is dominant in Estonian schools is based on the use of desktop PC-s in computer labs. Our previous research has demonstrated (Laanpere, 2015) that in 90% of Estonian schools students can access digital technology only in computer labs, while to use of personal digital devices such as smart phones and tablet computers rarely takes place. This old socio-technical regime poses a series of limitations to pedagogical, information management and knowledge building practices.  Until recently, the dominant policy of fostering the digital innovation in schools was based on awareness raising through massive teacher training about new pedagogies and technologies. As it has been demonstrated by Moore (1991) and Rogers (2003), such measures seem to result with adoption of new socio-technical paradigm only among innovators and early adopters, while majority (up to 85%) of teachers will not change their everyday practices.  The Digital Turn envisaged by the Estonian Strategy of Lifelong Learning 2020 is taking a different approach, approach, focusing on the school as a unit of innovation through socio-technical transition. The aim of the current study was to design and validate an instrument for scaffolding and evaluating the socio-technical transition towards 1:1 computing in classrooms, BYOD model and open learning environments. We have relied on ideas of Michael Fullan (2012) by focusing on three domains that should be addressed by the whole-school policy on digital innovation: (1) digital infrastructure, (2) pedagogical innovation, and (3) systemic change management and leadership. Through the three phases of iterative design-based research, we have created a 5-level self-assessment framework that helps schools to measure their maturity regarding the socio-technical transition. 

Creswell, J. W. (2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Sage. Fullan, M. (2012) Stratosphere: Integrating Technology, Pedagogy, And Change Knowledge. Toronto: Pearson. Change, Vol. 2, 327-399. Battelle, Columbus,Ohio. Geels, F.W., 2010. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy 39 pp. 495-510 Laanpere, M. (2015). Creative Classroom survey on the status of digital turn in Estonian schools. Online: http://www.bcskoolitus.ee/creativeclass/?portfolio=survey Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling technology products to mainstream customers. New York, N.Y.: HarperBusiness Rip, A., Kemp, R. (1998) Technological change. In S. Rayner and E. Malone (eds.) Human Choices and Climate. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. and van Asselt, M. (2001) More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3 (1) pp. 15-31. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context. Educational Psychologist, 39(4). Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.