This paper presents results of a comparison study of three intervention designs with ICT between 2013-17 within the national development project called the Demonstrations School Project in Danish Primary and Secondary education made possible by the Danish Ministry of Education. The expectation was to enhance the students’ motivation, commitment, and well-being as well as their digital competencies and 21st Century Skills. For the staff there were expectations of increasing the use of ICT in teaching and establishing durable organizational solutions. The three intervention projects are in many regards very different although they were designed within the same theoretical framework and evaluation theory (Bundsgaard, Georgsen, Graf, Hansen, & Skott, 2018). In the paper we scrutinize the three intervention designs in the light of their effects according to our evaluation. The common framework for the theory-based interventions draws on socio ecological system theory (Bronfenbrenner 1977, 1999; Thomson 2010) and intervention research (Edwards, Mill & Kothari 2004; Cobb & Jackson 2011). This implies adapted approaches on different levels and for different systems in schools. In order to maintain cohesion each intervention combined a technological, a didactical and an organizational dimension. For the evaluation of the interventions we conceptualized a middle range theory based on the concept of realistic evaluation and mechanisms of change in order to search for explications for what works for whom, and under which circumstances (Pawson & Tilley 2004). In the paper we focus on similarities and differences of the interventions in question in order to identify effective intervention elements without adapting a simple linear causality. One of the central challenges of intervention designs is the dilemma between the autonomy of teacher and school practices and the interventions agency from outside (Priestley, Biesta, & Robinson, 2015). What can we learn from how different design elements deal with this central dilemma? Where does change emerge and what is the role of external consultants? How does the intervention change by the interplay with the school practice? In relation to these questions it might be helpful to distinguish between perspectives of fidelity, adaption and enactment (Randi & Corno 1997)

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). “Toward an experimental ecology of human development”. American Psychologist, 32, s. 513-31. Bundsgaard, J., Georgsen, M., Graf, S. T., Hansen, T. I., & Skott, C. K. (Eds.). (2018b) (in press). Skoleudvikling med it (School Development with ICT). Århus: Århus Universitetsforlag. Cobb, P. & Jackson, K. (2011). “Towards an Empirically Grounded Theory of Action for Improving the Quality of Mathematics Teaching at Scale”, Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), s. 6-33. Edwards, N., Mill, J. & Kothari, A.R. (2004). “Multiple intervention research programs in community health”. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research (CJNR), 36(1), s. 40-54. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (2004). Realistic evaluation. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: what is it and why does it matter? In R. Kneyber & J. Evers (Eds.), Flip the System: Changing Education from the Bottom Up. London: Routledge. Randi, J. & Corno, L. (1997). “Teachers as innovators”, in B.J. Biddle, T.L. Good & I. Goodson (red.). International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching s. 1163-1221. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Thomson, P. (red.) (2010). Whole school change: a literature review, Newcastle: Creativity, Culture and Education.