NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership

Transcription

1 NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership Collection Editor: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration

2

3

4 ii NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership Collection Editor: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration Authors: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration L. Kay Abernathy Sheryl Abshire Lyndsay Agans Susan Asselin James E. Berry Brad E. Bizzell Marlena S. Bravender Frederick Buskey Theodore B. Creighton Cindy Cummings Ann W. Davis Douglas M. DeWitt Tod Allen Farmer Lloyd Goldsmith Sandra Harris Kim Kappler Hewitt Beverly J. Irby Madelyn Isaacs Jody Isernhagen Michael Jazzar Craig H. Jones Susan Korach Rafael Lara-Alecio Carl Lashley Xinyu Liu Gary E. Martin Diane Mason Melissa McIntyre Lane Mills Carol A. Mullen Jessica Papa Rosemary Papa Marjorie Ringler Ruth Ann Roberts Carolyn Rogers Russell A. Sabella Pauline Sampson Kaye Shelton John Shinsky John R. Slate Samuel Smith Randy St.Clair Janet Tareilo Robert Thiede Thomas Valesky Paul Watkins Mark Weber Online: < >

5 iii C O N N E X I O N S Rice University, Houston, Texas

6 This selection and arrangement of content as a collection is copyrighted by National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license ( Collection structure revised: March 6, 2012 PDF generated: October 29, 2012 For copyright and attribution information for the modules contained in this collection, see p. 251.

7 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction Challenging the Online Assumption 2.1 Online Courses, Instructional Quality, and Economics: A Conceptual Analysis A Narrative Review of Literature Regarding Class Size in Online Instruction Entrepreneurial Leadership for Technology: An Opposable Mind Towards the Virtual K-12 Educational Organization: An Emerging Framework with Technology Pedagogy Transformative Pedagogy through Advanced Technologies: A Description of Practices and Analysis of Program Integrity Acknowledging the Changes to Teaching 3.1 Game Changers: Developing Graduate Faculty for a Technology-Rich Learning Environment Challenges to Maintaining the Human Touch in Educational Leadership Online Course Oerings: Issues of Retention and Professional Relationship Skill Development Leading Adult Learners: Preparing Future Leaders and Professional Development of Those They Lead Focusing on the Twenty-First Century Learner 4.1 Implementing Webfolios in School Leadership Internships: "Pluses and Pitfalls" Online Internships: A Successful Model Developing and Implementing An Eective Online Educational Leadership Internship Revisited Interactive Case Study Simulations in Educational Leadership Case Studies: Developing Decision Making Skills in Diverse Simulated Environments Technology Assisted School Counselor and Principal Collaboration Universal Design for Access and Equity Considering Practices Impacting Program Development 5.1 Hybrid Course Delivery: A Good Fit for Education Leadership Preparation Programs Multi-Dimensional Recruiting: Electronic Evidence Breaking Traditions Revisiting the Four Cornerstones to Mentoring Adjunct Faculty Online Enhancing Online Instruction in Higher Education: Professional Development Strategies That Work Practicing New Pathways of Student and Program Assessment 6.1 A Study of the N/A/R (Narrative/Analysis/Research) Rubric as an Assessment Tool and its Impact on Learning with Online Assignments Evaluation of an Online Technology Leadership Master's Program Examining Elements of Quality within Online Education Programs in Higher Education Online Student Satisfaction Renewing Our Commitment 7.1 The Rise and Fall of Camelot: Designing, Implementing, and Dismantling an Online Leadership Program Index

8 vi Attributions

9 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Introduction from the Editors Welcome to the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership. The Handbook is a collaborative eort of two editors, four associate editors, and 42 authors. Because of changes in technology and publishing philosophies that have made available the open educational resource environment within Connexions, the Handbook has gone from idea to published book in less than nine months. This change in publishing mirrors similar changes in teaching and learning environments both at the P-12 level and in higher education. This Handbook is intended as a resource for those planning and delivering programs in educational leadership. Like the eld of educational leadership, the Handbook is broad in scope. Chapters are situated within six major sections. The rst section, Challenging the Online Assumption, contains only three chapters. In 1 This content is available online at < 1

10 2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Online Courses, Instructional Quality, and Economics: A Conceptual Analysis, Jones and Slate (2011) challenged the notion that online courses can be delivered with high levels of quality at lower overall costs to the institution. In keeping with the "technology" theme of the Handbook, Berry and Bravender include in their chapter, "Towards a Virtual K-12 Educational Organization: An Emerging Framework with Technology Pedagogy", a link to a YouTube video furthering the reach of their work. The nal section, Renewing our Commitment, contains only one chapter. In The Rise and Fall of Camelot: Designing, Implementing, and Dismantling an Online Leadership Program, Buskey (2012) provided a compelling personal narrative describing his journey with a fully online educational leadership program. In between, 21 additional chapters describe, challenge, suggest, question, and assess a wide variety of issues related to online teaching and learning. Chapters focus upon designing online programs with best practices, preparing faculty to teach in online environments, eectively designing instructional strategies for course content and internship experiences, understanding today's learners, and evaluating program eectiveness. Chapters also venture into areas into which our future P-12 educational leaders will need to be prepared related to their own use of the online environment for collaboration and instruction. We wish to express deep gratitude to our authors for sharing their informative and thought provoking work. We hope you, the reader, will nd the Handbook to be instructive and that it will lead to personal reections on how best to prepare educational leaders in online, hybrid, or traditional face to face programs. Enjoy! Janet Tareilo, Editor Brad E. Bizzell, Editor

11 Chapter 2 Challenging the Online Assumption 2.1 Online Courses, Instructional Quality, and Economics: A Conceptual Analysis 1 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech 1 This content is available online at < 3

12 4 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION About the Authors Craig H. Jones is a Professor of Psychology and Counseling at Arkansas State University. He holds an Ed.D. in Higher Education and College Student Personnel Services from the University of Mississippi, and also served on the editorial board for Educational Research Quarterly, Louisiana Education Research Journal, and Research for Educational Reform. John R. Slate is a Professor at Sam Houston State University where he teaches Basic and Advanced Statistics courses, as well as professional writing, to doctoral students in Educational Leadership and Counseling. His research interests lie in the use of educational databases, both state and national, to reform school practices. To date, he has chaired and/or served over 100 doctoral student dissertation committees. Recently, Dr. Slate created a website (Writing and Statistical Help) to assist students and faculty with both statistical assistance and in editing/writing their dissertations/theses and manuscripts Online Courses, Instructional Quality, and Economics: A Conceptual Analysis We have been both online instructors and online learners. One of us even enthusiastically undertook the task of being the rst faculty member in a college of education to teach an online course. We mention these points to emphasize that neither of us are troglodytes or simple naysayers. Indeed, we remain convinced that online learning holds great educational promise in a variety of instructional contexts. On the other hand, we have both had sucient experience with online learning to understand that it is not a panacea but a tool (Shieh, 2009). As is the case with any tool, the eectiveness of online learning depends upon the manner of its use. Uncritical use of any tool can cause serious problems. In higher education, the most successful institutions are mission driven (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005). In many instance, however, the decision to place courses online appears to be revenue driven rather than mission driven (So many students, 2009). In some instances the prevailing motive underlying these revenue driven decisions appears to be greed, that is, the generation of revenue for its own sake. In other instances, the prevailing motive appears to be fear, that is, the fear that not oering online classes will result in a loss of enrollment to other institutions with online courses (Newman, Coultrier, & Scurry, 2004). The analysis presented in this paper, a conceptual analysis, is an interpretation of a complex real world phenomenon based upon principles that have been established in previous research. Such analyses are common in science when a real world phenomenon is too large or too complex for direct manipulation, such as ocean tides, the movement of plants, or weather phenomena. A number of calculations are presented as part of the analysis. The numbers used in these calculations represent the best or most recent estimates available. Because the specic numbers will vary from institution to institution, our calculations herein are only for illustrative purposes The Current Situation: The Use of Benchmarking The Decision to Oer Courses Online In ours and the opinion of other professionals, organizational decision-makers seldom use sound statistical data to make decisions (Carson, Becker, & Henderson, 1998). Instead, they prefer benchmarking, the process of comparing what an organization is doing with what its competitors are doing. Jayne and Rauschenberger (2000, p. 140) noted that, Executives are fascinated with comparing practices of their own rms with those of others. Decision makers in higher education are no exception. Benchmarking can provide important information to decision-makers. It can yield examples of eective practices. Moreover, keeping informed of what competitors are doing is always of value. Copying them, however, may or may not be the best decision. Followed blindly, benchmarking is simply the adult equivalent of, everyone else is doing it. Unfortunately, when this process is given the fancy name, benchmarking,

13 5 organization members are less likely than your mother was to ask, If everyone were shooting themselves in the foot, would you do it too? Decision-making in higher education regarding online instruction is currently dominated by the fact that the number of institutions oering online courses, and the number of students enrolling in these courses, is increasing rapidly (Ashby, 2002). These raw numbers, however, provide an incomplete picture of the demand for online learning. Although educational researchers have a fondness for straight lines, there will certainly be limits to the demand for online education. Raw numbers on growth do not answer such questions as: To what extent do online students represent a new enrollment pool as opposed to being students who would have enrolled in higher education anyway? If a new pool of students is being tapped, at what rate does this pool replenish itself? If the large enrollment growth primarily reects students who would have enrolled in on-campus classes, institutions will expend considerable resources with the main eect being to allow students to take courses in their pajamas instead of getting dressed to go to class. If the increases in enrollment tap a new pool that has built up over time but that does not replenish rapidly, the result will be the creation of a large, expensive infrastructure to serve a rapidly dwindling population. Benchmark data also ignore the fact that the student market is segmented rather than homogenous (Zemsky, Shaman, & Shapiro, 2001). This segmentation reects a variety of institutional types and missions. Students who will be attracted to, and well served by, one type of institution will not be attracted to, or well served by, another institution. Recruiting outside the normal market segment of an institution is costly because of increased recruitment costs and lower retention rates. Furthermore, the intrusion of large institutions into markets normally the province of small institutions may have a negative impact on higher education in general (Newman et al., 2004). Without the capital to compete with larger institutions, smaller institutions may ultimately cease to exist. With them will go the unique missions they serve and the diversity which is the great strength of higher education in the United States. Thus, an important consideration in the decision to go online is whether students appropriately served under the institutional mission will benet from the courses and programs provided Return on Investment Analysis: An Alternative to Benchmarking Benchmarking alone, in our opinion, should not be the reason for oering online courses. Instead, benchmark data should trigger a serious return on investment analysis (ROI). That is, data showing that other institutions of higher education are implementing online learning are only sucient to indicate that institutional leaders need to determine whether or not such instruction can serve their institutional mission in a cost eective fashion. Other data must be considered before this decision is made. The additional data, however, may be dicult to obtain because institutions of higher education are not accustomed to calculating costs accurately. For example, institutions typically underestimate the cost of recruiting students (Raisman, 2007). Nevertheless, such calculations need to be made because simply increasing enrollment can actually result in a loss of revenue when the costs of recruitment and instruction exceed the revenue obtain through tuition, fees, and so forth Calculating Required Cost How much should putting a course online cost? Prior to oering online courses, the costs of putting quality courses on line needs to be calculated. The cost estimates for the ROI in the current analysis are taken from the business world. We used business calculations because higher education is under increasing pressure to provide accountability with regard to student learning (Newman et al., 2004). In the past, if we provided insucient instruction and students failed to learn, we either failed them or adjusted grades in some way (e.g., curving, extra credit). Thus, the cost of instruction has simply been whatever we have been willing to pay. In the business world, however, if insucient instruction is provided and students do not learn, the trainer gets red. A world in which teachers can be red when their students do not learn not only tends to generate better practice, but also reects a level of accountability typically not present in higher education. That is, in higher education, poor teaching can often be covered up by failing the students, grading on a curve, giving extra credit, or similar practices that either blame the student or inate grades. Thus, we

14 6 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION contend that the business world is the best place to estimate what online courses should cost. In this world, instruction costs whatever it takes to do the job well, not simply what the institution is willing to pay. The rst estimate is provided by Piskurich (2006) who generated data for use in calculating in-house ROI estimates. Nothing is sacred, of course, about these numbers, and he provided ranges rather than xed values. Exactly how much something costs depends on the objectives of the task and the degree of quality desired in accomplishing the task. Good reason exists to rely upon Piskurich's numbers. As noted, he gets red if his instruction is ineective. Thus, he is likely to spend enough to accomplish tasks in a quality manner. On the other hand, if he makes a project look too expensive, his boss will reject it. The contingencies create pressures to not exaggerate cost in either direction. Suppose classes at a given institution meet for 42 hours per semester. The standard estimate is that face-to-face instruction would require 2-3 hours of preparation time per hour to prepare a course properly. Thus, hours of preparation time should be needed to set up an on-campus class. For asynchronous e-learning, however, Piskurich estimated hours of preparation time per class hour. Thus, hours of preparation time would be needed to set up a course properly as an online course. Now, the interesting calculation is that Piskurich estimated the cost being involved at a minimum of $10,000 per hour of classroom instruction. Thus, the minimum cost to place a full semester course online properly would be 42 X $10,000 = $420,000. Of course, if something fancy is needed the cost would increase. A second estimate is provided by Dierkmann (2001). He did not work in-house for a company but rather led a consulting rm. Therefore, Dierkmann's cost included his prot margin as well. To place a 42 contact hour course online in 2001, he would have charged for 200 hours of preparation time for each contact hour. With his charge of $100 per preparation hour, the cost for developing an online course would be 42 x 200 x $100 = $840,000 for a full-semester course. Given ination since 2001, this cost will have increased, but for the sake of the current illustration, we will simply allow this increase to compensate for Dierkmann's prot margin. Although he made his living developing online instruction, Dierkmann told businesses that cost of doing online asynchronous learning is prohibitively high in most instances. He recommended that businesses not go online unless travel costs are very high (e.g., large multinational corporations) or consortiums are formed to share the cost. Understanding why course development costs are so high requires knowing exactly what needs to be developed. Muchinsky (2006) listed four methods of instruction used in the business world: (1) programmed instruction; (2) intelligent tutoring systems; (3) interactive multimedia training; and (4) virtual reality training. Using a course shell such as Blackboard as an information dump was not even mentioned. Unlike either an in-class lecture or an online information dump, which can be prepared entirely by a subject matter expert (SME), e-learning requires the combined eorts of an SME to provide content knowledge, an instructional design (ID) expert to convert the content to appropriate activities (e.g., programmed instruction), and a computer specialist to convert the instructional design to computer code (Piskurich, 2006). For quality instruction, the contributions of either the ID expert or the computer specialist for e-learning cannot be overlooked or underemphasized. The $10,000 per hour of instruction is really for low end instructional design and computer code (e.g., programmed instruction). Virtual reality training can reach $100,000 per classroom hour equivalent Current Expenditure and its Eects on Learning The next question, of course, is what are institutions of higher education spending on online instruction? Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) reviewed the literature and concluded that the per student cost for distance learning was not statistically signicantly dierent from the cost of on-campus instruction. In other words, rather than being willing to spend what it takes, institutions of higher education are only willing to spend the same amount of money as they spend for the same course on campus. Thus, most online courses really involve using 21st Century technology to oer little more than 19th Century correspondence courses with a discussion board. All that has really changed is the speed of communication (e.g., using instead of snail mail). Although technology has the power to improve education, the power of new technologies is not being harnessed for online instruction. Instead, technology is simply being used to do what we have always done. Administrators, we argue, must be willing to expend the money to involve ID experts and technology

15 7 specialists in the development of online courses rather than leaving this process solely to the SMEs. The information dump has long been the preferred teaching method in higher education. In the past, it occurred through a combination of textbooks and classroom lectures. As such, information dumps left students to sink or swim based on their individual learning skills and, perhaps, the help they could obtain from other students. An argument can be made that at one time it was an appropriate approach to college teaching. Higher education is now at a time of increased access (resulting in increased student diversity) and skyrocketing tuitions. Indeed, many online students are nontraditional learners. They have weaker learning skills and weaker technological skills than do traditional students. Online learners also tend to engage in online lessons at the worse possible time, that is, after fullling all their other life obligations (Dierkmann, 2001). For most working mothers this situation means they will sit down to their online lessons after 40 hours of employed work and 72 hours of household work. Society will simply no longer accept sink or swim teaching methods that result in high student attrition (Burke & Associates, 2005). Dressing up the information dump with electronic technology is unlikely to fool the public for very long. Given the current low level of investment in the development of online courses, what is the eect of these courses on student learning? The data are not particularly heartening. Although Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) reported that students in distance education appear to learn as much course content as do students on campus, serious methodological aws are present in this research. The main aw is that the distance learning students are self-selected through both enrollment and attrition. Thus, the results of research to date are best translated as, given every possible advantage, online courses seem to produce about the same level of learning at the lower levels of Bloom's taxonomy as standard lectures. Given that 50% of college graduates now lack college level skills (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), this level of learning certainly will not meet the needs of the information age in which people must be able to process information rather than simply memorize it. Nor will it meet the growing demands to improve the quality of higher education ROI and Institutional Enrollment Of course, to administrators, the most important perceived outcome of online courses is increased enrollment. Increased enrollment, however, does not necessarily equate to increased revenue even if the cost of online courses is held constant with the cost of on-campus courses. A situation Raisman (2007) referred to as Churn and Burn can occur in which students do not enroll in a sucient number of credit hours to recoup the cost of their recruitment. To illustrate, we can calculate ROI using an average cost of recruiting a college student of $5,460 (Raisman, 2007). Although this estimate may seem high, most administrators in higher education forget to include indirect recruitment costs. These costs are both high and increasing rapidly as universities engage in an all out recruiting war for the best students (Newman et al., 2004). Indirect costs include expenditures such as new residence halls, recreation centers, and so forth. For example, land is expensive. Demolishing an old high rise residence hall and replacing it with apartment style housing involves, not only construction costs, but the cost of the additional land required to house the same number of students. At the time Raisman (2007) calculated the average cost of recruiting a student, one institution of higher education estimated that a student taking 15 hours (i.e., one FTE) would pay $2855 in tuition and fees per semester, and a student taking 12 (.8 FTE) hours would pay $2291. Note that if either of these students left after only one semester the result would be a net loss of $2605 for the student taking 15 hours and $3169 for the student taking 12 hours. If these students remain a second semester, the 15 hour student becomes a very small net gain of $250, the student taking 12 hours remains a net loss of $878. Thus, after one academic year, these students would have produced a net loss of $628. Let's assume that this university recruits 100 students with half of these students taking 15 hours and half taking 12 hours, although the actual number of credit hours is likely to be less. The recruitment cost for these students is $546,000. After one semester, these students provide $278,000 in tuition and fees. This institution has a 78% freshman to sophomore year retention rate. Let's also assume that six students leave from each group after the rst semester, the remaining students who complete the rst year provide an additional $212,940 in tuition and fees. This

16 8 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION circumstance leaves the university $55,060 short of its recruitment costs for these students after one year. 2 Of course, these losses would be covered if the students enrolled for an additional semester. Continued enrollment, however, is not guaranteed. Students do not make a one-time decision to enroll at a university. This decision is on-going and many students will drop out or transfer. Roughly 70% of students who leave a university do so due to dissatisfaction with the university (Raisman, 2007). A critical issue underlying student dissatisfaction is a belief the university is only interested in their money. If a university begins oering large numbers of online courses without investing what is required to oer them properly, this is likely to convince students that the university is interested in their money rather than their education. Thus, attempts to increase enrollment with online courses could convince students to leave before the costs of recruiting them have been recouped. Although a common conception is that online education is breaking geographic barriers, this assumption has only limited validity. In a recent survey (Guess, 2007), two-thirds of prospective online students were seeking courses from institutions within their home state. As a result, most institutions will probably be serving a primarily local population through online courses. This situation means that a very large percentage of the students taking online classes are already taking on-campus courses at the same institution or would have been enrolled on campus if the online course were not available. Thus, failure to retain online students will have the same economic implications as failing to retain students in face-to-face classes. Consideration of student retention raises the issue of providing student services to online students. Relevant services include, but are not limited to, admissions, orientation, advising, career and personal counseling, and tutorial services (Schwitzer, Ancis, & Brown, 2001). This issue is of particular concern when an institution moves from simply providing online courses to oering entire academic programs online. Providing appropriate student services to online students is one of the most critical issues currently confronting student aairs professionals (Sandeen & Barr, 2006). An important aspect of providing such services is facilitating the holistic development of college students that distinguishes the mission of an institution of higher education from that of a technical school (Brown, 1972). Both retention eorts and student development initiatives are currently centered on rst year experience programs such as freshman interest groups and learning communities (Upcraft, Gardner, Barefoot, & Associates, 2005). Much of the positive eect of these programs comes from creating a sense of community. Although a sense of community can be developed online, doing so is labor intensive and requires skills that faculty often do not possess (Pallo & Pratt, 2007). For example, Pallo and Pratt estimate that teaching online in a way that develops community requires three times as much instructor time as does teaching face-to-face. Specics will vary across institutions but the concept should now be clear. Administrators must consider the possible impact of foregone income due to loss of currently enrolled students. The currently enrolled student population remains the best, and cheapest, source of future students. Retention costs less than recruitment. Raisman (2007) did not provide an average cost for a successful retention program but mentioned that the cost can be as low as $30 per student retained, in comparison to the $5460 to recruit a new student. Thus, he suggested that institutions of higher education focus on Full-time Graduate Equivalent (FGE) rather than FTE. An FGE is simply the ratio of how many FTE students an institution needs to enroll to get one graduate. The lower the FGE, the better o an institution is economically. Mission driven, as opposed to enrollment driven, institutions tend to be more successful because policies and programs are focused on providing a challenging environment with support for academic success, and on making students feel part of something special (Kuh, et al., 2005). In the long run these policies and programs generate more revenue because the institution gains a higher ROI than they would obtain from online information dumps Economic and Political Pressures Although administrators in higher education typically feel tremendous economic pressure the irony is that these pressures are essentially internal. Newman and his colleagues (2004) commented that, except for brief declines during recessions, revenues adjusted for ination from all revenue sources (tuition, state funding, 2 This institution is state supported. Although increased enrollment can also increase state funding, this increase is not included in the calculations related to osetting recruitment costs. Any increase in state revenue is better included in calculations related to osetting the cost of educating students than in osetting the cost of recruiting them.

17 9 etc.) are actually increasing. The economic pressure comes from ever increasing expenditures rather than declining revenues. Administrators are simply spending more money on more things. This spending is typically focused on institutional status and mission creep (Newman et al., 2004). Thus, the increased revenue is not being spent on student learning. Instead, the money is spent on programs with poor ROI, causing further economic pressure, leading to even more programs with poor ROI. The dog is chasing its tail. The result is not only the perceived economic pressure, but actual external political pressure as well. Students, parents, and political leaders see skyrocketing tuition paired with atrocious four year graduation rates (e.g., Hess, Schneider, Carey, & Kelly, 2009). They also encounter institutional resistance when they try to hold institutions accountable for student learning. They may not be aware of the results of national tests showing that 50% of college graduates cannot read or do mathematics at a college level (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), but they have a vague sense that the revenue from rapidly increasing tuition and fees is not being spent on student learning. Thus, lowering the FGE is politically smart in addition to being economically smart. Throwing information dumps online that, at best, merely reproduce the low levels of learning already of public concern is no one's best interest. In fact, the rush to online instruction may turn out to be the higher education equivalent of the charge of the Light Brigadecharging right into the big guns of our biggest critics. If, at best, what we accomplish through electronic instruction is simply more of what we are already doing, can a higher education equivalent of No Child Left Behind, and the resulting loss of institutional control, be far away? Conclusion Throwing a lot of courses and programs online is the Benchmark solution to the problem. Everybody is doing it and higher education administrators fear they will miss out if they do not join in. At one level this occurrence does make sense. Even if an institution winds up shooting itself in the foot, at worst it will be competing against institutions with similar holes in their feet. But this is the relative comparison. In absolute terms, the institution is really better o economically only if it generates a suciently high ROI on its students. The churn and burn approach to enrollment can be very costly. Low retention rates, churning enrollment every year, is equivalent to lighting a cigarette with recruitment dollars. Continuing to generate low FGE is also not wise politically. This situation does not mean that technology cannot improve instruction in classrooms or that online courses cannot help accomplish institutional missions. But doing so will be expensive and must combine the talents of SMEs, ID experts, and computer experts. Online learning may be the wave of the future, but this wave does not mean that the future will necessarily be bright. Making this future bright will require a major change in the way institutions of higher education approach online learning. Ashby, C. M. (2002, September 26). Growth in distance education programs and implications for federal education policy. Washington, DC: General Accounting Oce. Retrieved from 3 Burke, J. C., & Associates. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, R. D. (1972). Student development in tomorrow's higher educationa return to the academy. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. Carson, K. P., Becker, J. S., & Henderson, J. A. (1998). Is utility really futile: A failure to replicate and an extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, Dierkmann, F. J. (2001). Everything you wanted to know about e-learning (but didn't know where to log on to ask). Credit Union Journal, 5(30), 6-7. Guess, A. (2007, November 28). Geography emerges in distance ed. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

18 10 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION Hess, F. M., Schneider, M., Carey, K., & Kelly, A. P. (2009, June 3). Diplomas and dropouts: Which colleges actually graduate their students (and which don't). American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved from 5 Jayne, M. E., & Rauschenberger, J. M. (2000). Demonstrating the value of selection in organizations. In J. F. Kehoe (Ed.), Managing selection in changing organizations (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Newman, F., Couturier, L., & Scurry, J. (2004). The future of higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pallo, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Eective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college aects students. Volume 2: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Piskurich, G. M. (2006). Rapid instructional design: Learning ID fast and right (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeier. Raisman, N. (2007, September 14). The power of retention: An Academic MAPS retention White paper. Retrieved from 6 Sandeen, A., & Barr, M. (2006). Critical issues for student aairs: Challenges and opportunities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwitzer, A. M., Ancis, J. R., & Brown, N. (2001). Promoting student learning and development at distance. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Service. Shieh, D. (2009, February 10). Professors regard online instruction as less eective than classroom learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from 7 So many students, so little time. (2009, March 24). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from 8 Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates. (2005). Challenging and supporting the rst year student: A handbook for improving the rst year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Zemsky, R., Shaman, S., & Shapiro, D. B. (2001). Higher education as a competitive enterprise: When markets matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=

19 2.2 A Narrative Review of Literature Regarding Class Size in Online Instruction 9 NCPEA Publications 11 note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Authors Beverly J. Irby, Texas State University System Regents' Distinguished Professor and Associate Dean for Graduate Programs, College of Education, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas. Dr. Irby has a Bachelor of Science in Education degree with a double minor in math and science from Delta State University, Mississippi. Her masters and doctoral degrees are in curriculum and instruction from The University of Mississippi. Her primary research interests center on issues of social responsibility, including women's and gender issues, bilingual and English-as-a-second-language (ESL) education administrative structures, curriculum, instructional strategies, and international education. She is the author and/or co-author of more than 150 refereed articles, chapters, books, including curricular materials for Spanish-speaking children; additionally she is co-author of several research articles related to ELL's growth or classroom observation that have appeared in International Journal of Education Leadership Preparation, Research in the Schools, and American Educational Research Journal. She has two books with NCPEA Press that she has co-edited, and she has authored papers in three books for NCPEA Press. She developed the science components of the DLM Early Childhood Program for 9 This content is available online at <

20 12 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION SRA McGraw-Hill. In higher education, Dr. Irby has taught research at the masters and doctoral level. Among her awards, she is the recipient of the AERA and RWE Willystine Goodsell Award, the Texas Council of Women School Executives Margaret Montgomery Leadership Award, and the Diana Marion-Garcia Houston Area Bilingual Advocacy Award. She is the co-developer of a 21st century leadership theory, The Synergistic Leadership Theory, which is inclusive of diverse voices. Dr. Irby has garnered in funding for grants and contracts in access of $20,000,000. These funds were awarded by the U.S. Department of Education via Oce of English Language Acquisition (OELA), Oce of Special Education Research, TRIO, Institute for Educational Sciences (IES) via Texas A&M Research Foundation, and the National Science Foundation (NSF). At the international level, Dr. Irby is working as PI in an international English language acquisition study for teachers and students using high technology. This 18-month study is sponsored by the Intercontinental Development Bank and the Costa Rica and the United States America Cooperation (CRUSA). Rafael Lara-Alecio, Professor of Educational Psychology, College of Education and Human Development at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, earned his B.S. from University of San Carlos, Guatemala, his M.A. from University of Del Valle, Guatemala, and his Ph.D. from the University of Utah in Educational Psychology (specialtyinstructional Psychology). He has been a faculty member since Fall, 1991, with research focusing on academic oral language and literacy development, assessment, and evaluation for students K-12 and with published work in English and Spanish in top tier journals. He is the Director of Bilingual Programs and developed the undergraduate and masters and doctoral programs in bilingual education. Additionally, he developed the rst two courses in English as a second language for all undergraduate teacher education candidates. He serves on national and international editorial review boards. Though there are multiple language acquisition theories, his published theory on bilingual classroom pedagogy remains the only one in the eld since 1994 with an accompanying, validated observation protocol. His research eorts have garnered over $20,000,000 for TAMU or for public schools from the Institute of Educational Sciences (IES), National Science Foundation, Oce of English Language Acquisition at the United States Department of Education, Texas Educational Agency (TEA), and Intercontinental Development Bank and Costa Rica/USA Foundation. He is one of the three individuals to ever receive signicant funding from the IES to investigate dierences in program types for English Language Learners K-3 via a longitudinal randomized trial study. Recently, he was recognized by the Texas Association for Bilingual Association as the Higher Education Honoree for TAMU leadership includes: Council of Principal Investigators, Director of Bilingual Programs, past Faculty Senator, past Assistant Head, and numerous committees. He is a past Chair of the Bilingual Research Special Interest Group (SIG) for the American Educational Research Association and the Research and the Evaluation SIG for the National Association of Bilingual Education (NABE) and developed the Parental Training Strand in 2009 for the NABE Introduction Class size long has been a topic of discussion in terms of learning and, more recently, in terms of budget in public school settings. According to the National Center of Education Statistics (2011), in 1970, the student/teacher ratio was However, in 1985 it declined to 17.9 students per teacher and continued to decline reaching 17.3 students per teacher in 1995, 16.0 in 2000, and 15.8 in In , for public elementary schools, the numbers stood at 20.0 students per teacher and for public secondary schools, the student/teacher ratio was 23.4 /1. In 2010, there were an estimated 15.6 students per teacher in the U.S. public schools. If that estimate is correct, then on average in the United States, public school students should be making fair progress, because, according to Brewer, Krop, Gill, and Reichardt (1999), average class sizes in traditional classrooms of 15 produces signicant improvement in student achievement. However, this level of student/teacher ratio reduction may not last if the Elementary and Secondary Education Act proposal passes which includes a 10% rather than the current 38% of Title II allocations to class-size reductions (Sawchuk, 2012). In fact, class size in public schools of late has been inexorably related to funding. For example, Sparks (2010) indicated that 19 states had allowed class size increases since 2008's economic slump.

21 13 Even though class sizes in public schools have risen over the past 4 years, there is an assumption that smaller classes provide better learning environments (Kerr, 2011), but nding empirical evidence for this assumption is more challenging The Problem with Research on Online Class Size To date, much of the class size debate and research has occurred in the elementary and secondary school settings (Achilles, 1999; Krueger, 2000). Few researchers have assessed the impact of class size on the learning experience and outcomes in higher education, much less have they done so in terms of online courses. With little information, there continue to be questions from faculty members related to their online sections and numbers of students taught in them. In 2003, Wallace conducted a review of online education and suggested in his conclusions that class size be considered in future research, but that has not seemed to be a focus in much of the research since Wallace's conclusion. In most studies reviewed, such as the one conducted by Kim and Bonk (2006), topics studied have included those such as support structures, technical competency of the professors, marketing, management systems, and/or pedagogy online. Those topics frequently are covered in professional development sessions on campuses or at technology and discipline-specic conferences. However, when we attend professional conferences and/or discuss this issue in formal and informal meetings at our own universities, faculty members, as well as administrators, ask for another topic which is related to the optimum number of students for online sections. As a response to requests to know optimum class sizes for online courses, we conducted a research synthesis on this topic. Though we much rather would have conducted a best evidence synthesis (Slavin, 1986), a systematic review (Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997), or a research literature critique (Lunenburg & Irby, 2008), we could not do so due to the lack of evidenced-based papers. Therefore, we were compelled by the available information to conduct a research synthesis known as narrative review (Davies, 2000) The Narrative Review Procedure The narrative review is the most simple type of synthesis and is qualitative in nature (Davies, 2000). In this narrative review, we sought to identify all that had been written about class size in online courses in higher education. Most writings are commentaries via anecdotal accountsor papers published mainly to the web via blogsor non-refereed forums. Only a few attempts have been made actually toassess the relationship of class size in online higher education to student outcomes or to faculty evaluations. Our protocol, therefore, in this narrative review was (a) to identify the range and diversity of the available literature based on a dened phenomenon, (b) to determine gaps which might spawn new research, and (c) to report the available literature. We determined our range of literature to be within a 12-year timeframe ( ). In terms of technology density, we based our selection of the 12-year time period on Moore's Law (Intel, 2005) which indicates that technological advances double every 2 years. Thus, our selected timeframe covered the six latest periods, or 12 years, of technological advances since the turn of the century. The phenomenon we reviewed, of course, was online education and more specically optimum class size. Sener's (2010) denition of online education included teaching and learning with online technologies via not only fully online, but also via a blended learning approach (face-to-face and online combination). We adopted Sener's denition in order to search the literature. Additionally, we used online education, distance education, blended learning, hybrid courses, mobile learning, virtual learning, synchronous learning, and asynchronous learning along with class size as a search terms. To determine gaps or to critique published works, we attempted to be inclusive of any type of posting, non-refereed or refereed or any type of writing, anecdotal, theoretical, prior reviews of online instruction, or empirical studies. We searched across various disciplines via: (a) Google, (b) Bing, (c) National Center for Education Statistics, (d) Education Week, (e) Chronicle of Higher Education, (f) Sam Houston State University and Texas A&M University Digital Databases, including EBSCO, JSTOR, Wilson Web, Pro- Quest Dissertations/Theses, PsycInfo, and (g) Sloan Consortium. We also searched journals related to

22 14 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION distance education, online education, and educational technology: Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Asian Journal of Distance Education, the American Journal of Distance Education, the Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, Distance Education, the Journal of Distance Education, International Journal of Distance Education Technologie, the Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, the Quarterly Review of Distance Education, T.H.E Journal, the Journal of Educational Computing Research, the Journal of the Learning Sciences, Internet and Higher Education, the British Journal of Educational Technology, the College Student Journal, and the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. What is not included in this review is literature related to and reporting of specic tools for teaching, learning management systems, course and content quality, online learning environments, or the role of the instructor. Rather, our focus herein was strictly related to class size for online courses in higher education. This focus ranged from undergraduate to graduate classes and the distinction was attempted when it was possible to determine from the published literature. In this narrative review, we rst share the anecdotal, theoretical, and opinion works published. Next, we present the studies found in the literature. Finally, we furnish concluding remarks including gaps and future directions for research Anecdotal Information Related to Class Size for Online Courses There is a broad opinion as expressed by Foerster (2011) that colleges and universities try to set themselves apart from competing institutions in terms of student/faculty ratio and class size. The concept is that if there are fewer students to vie for the professor's attention, the more attention each student will receive, and the better outcome the student will have. Foerster indicated that insomuch as there are simply large numbers of people who value small classes, there must be something to the idea. He indicated, It's extremely rare for even the lowest level online course to have more than twenty or twenty-ve students ( 4). Also, Shelton and Saltzman (2005) supported the notion of small class sizes online and indicated that more is required of the professor for online courses as opposed to face-to-face courses in terms of student interactions in order to engage students and to determine the degree to which they are learning. Because of that, they recommended to keep class sizes small. Likewise, Howard (2002), a professor and author of Guidelines for Eective Distance Education at the University of Mary Hardin Baylor in Texas, indicated online classes should have a small class size of 20 students. There are interaction issues when there are too few students in online classes in terms of generating meaningful discussions. In fact, Rovai (2002) recommended eight to ten students for meaningful discussions and interactions. On the other hand, too many students may generate more messages than the students and the faculty member can attend to on a daily basis; therefore, up to 15 students in a graduate class was recommended by Colwell and Jenks (2004), and even 10 to 14 has been noted as a good number for rst-time faculty members teaching online (Boettcher, 2006a). Others such as Aragon (2003) and Rovai (2002) have suggested 30 as a maximum number on online classes. Numbers of students in online classes matter, according to Dykman and Davis (2008), particularly in terms of the level of interaction possible; therefore, they recommended numbers of students in the classes online should be limited. They indicated that the larger the classes, the more impersonal they become and that quality could suer. Taft, Perkowski, and Martrin (2011) suggested three frameworks (constructivist-objectivist, community of inquiry, Bloom's taxonomy, and combinations of the three). Based on each framework and a review of literature, they recommended numbers of students in online classes, with numbers ranging from fewer than 15 to 40 students. They did, however, indicate that large sections may have no known upper limits within the constructivist-objectivist framework. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT; 2003) recommended that faculty should have a voice in establishing online class sizes. The AFT provided examples on how to maintain integrity with class sizes online primarily because a faculty member indicated that the amount of work that a distance education course took to develop and implement was far greater than that of a traditional course. The resulting increased workload, therefore, demanded smaller, not larger, classes (p. C-6). The AFT suggested that (a) the maximum class size should be equivalent to face-to-face classes, (b) class size determinations should go through the traditional curriculum development process, and (c) classes online should be set with a limited numberall suggestions should have faculty input. The rationale for the suggestions were prompted by the

23 15 standards set forth by the AFT (2000), one of which indicated that class size should encourage a high degree of interactivity. In the 2000 survey by the AFT, there were 33% of the respondents who taught fewer than 20 students online, more than 50% taught 20 to 50 students, less than 10% taught more than 50 students Recognized University Programs Online Some of the top 25 online school in 2011, as noted by TheBestColleges.org (Top 25 Online Colleges, 2011), include on their websites, the average number of students in online classes. For example, Southern New Hampshire University classes include 20 students per class, and Liberty University undergraduate classes include 25 students, while the average graduate class size is 20. American Military University has an average class size of 14, while Drexel University noted an average class size of 18. University of Phoenix boasts of having a class size limit of 20 students, while Cappella University has an average class size of 12. Herzing University indicates an average class size of 18 with each class capped at 25 students maximum, and Devry University also indicates an average class size of 18. According to U.S. News and World Report (2012), 14 universities made the honor roll list for 2012 for their graduate education online programs: (a) Auburn University, Bowling Green State University, University of Massachusetts- Amherst, and Wright State University noted a maximum class size of 20; (b) Brenau University has a maximum class size of 24; (c) Fort Hays State University was noted as N/A; however, on the school's website, the average class size is at 18; (d) George Washington University posted an N/A in terms of class size, as did Sam Houston State University (note that SHSU has an average class size of 18 as reported by the author); (e) Northern Illinois University, Pennsylvania State University Park, University of Houston, University of Nebraska-Kearney, and University of South Florida have maximum class sizes of 25, and (f) Syracuse University noted a maximum class size of Other University Programs Online: Decisions on Class Size and Scale Other universities have been reported to have much higher numbers in online classes. For example, in a Task Force report (IPFW, 2008) from Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, Indiana, it was stated that departments have serious concerns regarding classes online of above 40. However, this statement was related to economic issues of payments ($75 per student) made to faculty for each student above 30. Ultimately the Task Force report indicated that the decision for class size should be up to the departments. Specically, the Task Force provided its collective opinion as follows: "The size of an online class should support the instructional objectives and teaching strategies selected by the department for this course, with input from the instructor or faculty member teaching the course. The size of the online class should not cause alterations to course design and delivery that would signicantly impair teaching and/or learning. Although there are certainly others, below are some factors related to the decision about class size:" Course goals (e.g., general education with a need for developing communication and quantitative skills as well as critical thinking) The type of content (e.g., facts, principles, theories, or requiring critical thinking, problem-solving, or experiential learning) The teaching and assessment strategies (e.g., the need for extensive feedback on writing assignments) Whether the course is a culminating or capstone experience Whether the course is required of majors, or a foundation for a subsequent course or sequence of courses The level of support or assistance for the instructor with course design, technical issues, responding to basic student queries, and grading The experience of the faculty member in the online environment, with the particular subject matter or course, and the faculty member's technological expertise The faculty member's other workload The technological competence and maturity level of the students. (p. 9) Furthermore, the Task Force warned that:

24 16 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION "In spite of the pedagogical arguments in their favor in some instances, oering smaller online classes has consequences. If qualied faculty are unable to be found to teach another section of the course, some of the student demand for classes in the online environment will not be met (although the students may enroll in a face-to-face class instead). Even if faculty are available to teach online, there is an increased cost to two smaller classes as compared to one larger one. Therefore, departments are encouraged to consider a balance between a demonstrated need for relatively smaller classes in the online environment both for the sake of faculty workload and eective instruction, and the need to meet student demand in a scally responsible manner." (p. 10) Though 40 students were of concern in online classes as was reported by the faculty at Indiana University- Purdue University Fort Wayne, there are other universities with higher numbers in online classes. According to Stripling (2009), Lamar University in partnership with the private company, Higher Education Holdings or Academic Partnerships, noted a 2000-student class size in graduate classes. Coaches assist the professor of the course with approximately 100 to 125 students per coach. An average load for a coach was at 118, but with no fewer than 25 per coach. In this type program with Academic Partnerships (AP) which is also at Ohio University, Arkansas State University, Stephen F. Austin State University, University of Texas at Arlington, Texas A&M University Commerce, and Arizona State University, the goal is scale. According to Lederman (2011), the AP company president indicated that for-prot colleges have been the primary beneciaries of online education, but that public universities (AP works to scale programs online with public universities) should not cede that terrain. Many professors have voiced concerns over the volume of students in the programs, noting that the universities may be forfeiting quality for quantity (Hacker, 2011) Open Online Classes, Access, and Funding Class sizes with Academic Partnership universities are not the only ones that have reached exponential numbers. Parry (2010) noted that at the University of Mannitoba in 2008 that two professors experimented with open teaching. Downes and Siemens opened their 25 member class up to the world, and over 2300 people enrolled as non-paying participants. Such open teaching, known as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC), is growing and allows an expanded learning experience for students beyond just the ones enrolled for credit. In such courses, students have to take more responsibility for their learning. Along those lines, Lederman (2011) reported that Khan (Kahn Academy) indicated that the Google- and Microsoft-backed network of freely available video and other lessons for self-paced learning would eventually move toward a model where it would oer credentials of some kind ( 19). Several universities, such as MIT, Carnegie Melon, and Yale, have many open courses and have seen astronomical numbers in those classes. Recently, Walsh (2011) in her book, Unlocking the Gates, about such open courses, reported that MIT actually has three tiers of education: the MIT traditional degree on campus, MITx certicates via the open courseware for a fee, and completely free courses via OpenCourseWare (OCW). On January 24, 2012, DeSantis reported that the open online course on articial intelligence oered by Stanford University Professor Thrun hit a high of 165,000 students. Based on that information and his experience, Thrun is leaving Stanford to begin his own private online education courses oered to the public at a low cost. Lederman indicated that former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt said that for public universities to `take the next big steps' in increasing access for their states' citizens, `when the money's not available,' leaders will have to `realize that getting online education is much more aordable' ( 24). That may mean charging lower prices for online classes and providing open courses on top of that. However, many state universities are doing other things related to online education, such as going out of state recruiting students for online courses and programs, but such actions have implications for access, nancial aid, and in-state workforces. Related to funding issues and technology, on January 23, 2012, Armario, a writer for The Associated Press, reporting on two recent studies (one from Center for the Study of Education Policy at Illinois State University known as the Grapevine Study and one from National Science Board), noted that state funding for higher education has decreased due to the recession and ending of stimulus funds. The National Science Board (2012) in their major report on science and engineering, indicated that states cut funds for public research universities by 20% from 2002 to The Board indicated that countries such as China and India

25 17 have increased spending on technology and education, while the United States has dealt with a faltering economy since Palmer, the editor of the Grapevine study, indicated that universities cannot depend on state funding to meet their goals and aspirations (Amario, 2012). Certainly, funding impacts access to an education, including online education, and ultimately funding impacts class sizes at universities Managing Online Education: Class Sizes We found the questions that Judith V. Boettcher (2006b) of the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN) and author of online educational resources, put forward on current practices related to class size and online learning thought provoking. She said: "I think that the issue of class size in online courses is causing us to look at basic issues that we have not discussed for some time in higher education. How do we manage and address issues such as the following?" Expectations of Students-How much access and interaction with faculty member is appropriate for the class content and goals? Expectations of Faculty-How much time `should' a course take under our current model and under the new model? Is it time to seriously look for strategies that will help us to unbundle traditional courses so that they can be delivered online more eciently while reducing the faculty burden? Expectations of Administrators-What size classes and what types of courses do we oer our students while maintaining and developing our desired institutional image? Expectations of Society-How can we change the model to achieve quality, lower cost, and high satisfaction by all? "Maybe it is time for us to seriously rethink just what a course is. We know that a course is more than a book-that can be an embodied teacher. We know that a course is more than a set of readings and discussion. But just what is it? Perhaps we are still in the early stages of designing a learning model to really t the needs of our Information age. We might also consider if, perhaps, we haven't come very far in the science of teaching, if a teacher is always required? In what form might the `teaching function' be constituted? In what other forms might courses be? While it is not something we may want to consider, we may have to put some creative thought into how we can use technology to structure and deliver really great learning experiences with less eort on the part of a teacher. If we continually design and redevelop every semester for the same course, are we not still a cottage industry in how we design and deliver learning? Must we always do it this way? Our situation calls for the design of new models of instruction, and work on managing expectations." (p. 43) In much of the anecdotal information related to online class size, there are issues of quality just as those issues are present in face-to-face classrooms. Basic questions of the quality of an online course with 15 would be the same as questions of quality of an online course of over 2000 with coaches. Quality is quality. The bigger question relates to how the quality is maintained and how ongoing assessment of that quality is institutionalized. It seems, based solely on literature that is anecdotal, theoretical, or opinion, class size appears to (with the outliers removed) to hover around 22 on average Research Studies Related to Class Size for Online Courses Few researchers have conducted studies regarding class size for online education since Taft, Perkowski, and Martin (2011) reviewed some of the literature in this area, indicating they reviewed research articles; however, numerous articles included in their list of research articles were not noted in our review as research papers. One of the rst studies at the turn of the century was in survey format and was conducted by the National Education Association (NEA, 2000) regarding distance education or online learning. At that time, the NEA found that 31% of distance education courses enrolled between 1 to 20 students, 33% included 21 to 40 students, 17% included 41 to 700 students, while 19% were not able to be determined.in 2001, the NEA conducted focus groups as a follow up to the survey conducted in The responses from faculty members participating in the focus groups indicated concerns with enrollments in online courses. They

26 18 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION indicated a need for universities' faculty committees, faculty senates, or curriculum committees to set limits on enrollments for each online course. Faculty members responded specically as follows: "I think 15 is a real nice number because my fundamental concern is that administrators see this as a way of teaching 200 students with one faculty member. My distance education course started with 147 students and 22% of them nished with a C or better. My only concern is quality and that becomes a personal ethical decision. If I get paid per student my rst thought is to get as many students as I can and make more money, but I can tell you that with 500 students a semester, maintaining this pace as I have for many years, I'm starting to get burnt out." (p. 6) Another survey study was conducted by Reonieri (2006) with the purpose to determine the optimum size of online classes. Respondents were graduate students and faculty predominately from Thomas Edison College and with fewer respondents from another institution. Results indicated the participants believed the following: small online class size is equivalent to 5 to 10 students; medium online class size equals 10 to 15 students, and large online class sizes are noted at 15 to above 24 students. He indicated that a medium class would be the optimum size for quality online discussion boards. The recommendation for larger class sizes is to split the class in to smaller groups for discussion and work. Orellana (2006) also conducted a survey regarding typical class sizes for online courses. With the 131 respondents (instructors and researchers), the range of reported class size was from 4 to 81 with an average of Almost 62% of the respondents reported having 20 or fewer students in their online courses Small Studies Regarding Online Classes Class numbers are important according to Hislop's (2001) study in which time logs of he and three other colleagues who delivered four pairs of 10-week graduate courses (pairs were one class online and one class face-to-face). The online classes clearly showed involvement of more days per term in which the instructor was involved in a course activity. However, Hislop's ndings in this small study were actually inconclusive, and he indicated that it was premature to conclude that teaching online takes more time than teaching face-to-face if other factors are constant (p. T1F-26). Along these same lines, Dibiase and Rademacher (2005) reported a study regarding time and class size. They explored the scalability and sustainability of an online class in geographic information science between two instructors. Though small in terms of a study with only two instructors participating, the yield is interesting. With an increase in class size from 18 to 49, the instructors increased their time from 47.5 hours to hours. However, a graduate teaching assistant was used to evaluate student assignments and give feedback, so the instructor decreased his time by about 8% from 47.6 hours to 43.1 hours. In another study on the instructor's time commitment and class size, Tomei (2006) reported that online teaching demands a minimum of 14% more time than do traditional classes. The study was a self reective study with 11 students in each type of class (online and face-to-face) during one semester. For the 11 student load, online delivery of the course content was hours online compared to hours face-toface. Student advisement was at hours online and hours for face-to-face students. Assessment hours were noted at hours for online students and hours for traditional students. Tomei then provided a formula for determining online class size based on the hours she compared in both traditional and online formatted classes and based on 11 students and the typical number of hours for a class. Ultimately, his formula yielded a traditional class size of 17 students and an online class size of 12 students due to the online class demanding more time than the traditional class. Tomei ended the report of his study with Online teaching should not be expected to generate larger revenues by means of larger class sizes at the expense of eective instructional or faculty over-subscription (p. 540). Though Tomei's study was limited in terms of it being a personal accounting of time in his classes, he does provide a promising foreshadowing of the type of calculation that can be attempted in determining appropriate class sizes. In that sense, more faculty members would be needed to address, analyze, and keep time logs of the concepts he included in his study in order to make a more broad generalization regarding class size in online education.

27 Social Presence, Interactions, and Class Size Studies Hewitt and Brett (2007) studied the relationship between class size and student online activity patterns among 28 graduate online courses ranging in size from ve students to 19 students at the University of Toronto. They found that larger classes are related to an increase in the number of notes written, decreases in average note size and the percentage of notes opened, and an increase in note scanning. There appeared to be a greater social presence in the larger classes (note that the larger classes were those of only up to 19 students). Qui (2010), in her mixed methods dissertation study led by Hewitt, expanded the work of Hewitt and Brett. She analyzed tracking logs from 25 graduate-level online courses (25 instructors and 341 students) and interviewed 10 instructors and 12 graduate students with diverse backgrounds. She found 13 to 15 students to be an optimal class size and four to ve as an ideal subgroup size and determined that as class size increased, the total notes that participants read increased signicantly. But, as class size increased, the percentage of course notes that students read decreased signicantly (i.e., students were reading a smaller proportion of the course notes). In larger classes, participants were more likely to experience information overload and students were more selective in the notes that they read. A signicant positive correlation was found between class size and total notes written. Students' note size and grade-level score were negatively correlated with class size. The data also suggest that the overload eects of large classes can be minimized by dividing students into small groups for discussion purposes. According to a study by Burruss, Billings, Brownrigg, Skiba, and Connors (2009), social presence was less present in medium and very large classes as opposed to small classes among nursing students. They conducted an exploratory study with a very large sample on fully online students (1128 students265 undergraduate and 863 graduate students). This is perhaps the largest sample size included in all the studies we reviewed. Burruss et al. classied their groups as very small classes (1-10), small (11-20), medium (21-30), large (31-40), and very large (41 or more). There were signicant dierences between small and very large classes related to graduate student reponses on issues of student faculty and peer interactions. Graduate students found the larger the class, the more diculty or unwieldy the interactions became. Oestmann and Oestmann (2006) determined that online classes with fewer than 10 students yielded low interactions among students, but class sizes of 20 produced greater interaction; such numbers also appeared to aect learning outcomes with the larger class size having greater outcomes. As class sizes increased, graduate students were less satised. Kingma and Keefe (2006) studied student satisfaction in online classes at Syracuse University School of Information Studies and determined that student satisfaction is maximized with a class size of 23 to 25 students Non-positive or Non-signicant Findings Related to Class Size Studies Not all researchers have determined positive signicance related to class size. For example, Jiang and Ting (2000) analyzed 19 online courses and compared class size to variables of students' perceptions of (a) achievement, (b) level of interaction with the instructor, and (c) level of interaction with other students, as well as the number of notes written by the instructor. No signicant correlations were found between class size and any of the four variables listed. Arbaugh and Duray (2001) found that class section size was negatively associated with student learning using a sample of courses with enrollments of up to 50 students. In other studies with class sizes of 30 or fewer students, it has been determined that class size was not a signicant predictor of student learning or satisfaction (Arbaugh, 2002). Drago and Peltier (2004) studied the eect of class size on the evaluation of teaching eectiveness. The class sizes among 31 online business courses ranged from 22 students to 83 students. They determined that size had little impact on overall course eectiveness; however, data were limited by a potential non-response bias in that only 53% of the students returned the survey Concluding Remarks Only a handful of researchers since 2000 have attempted to determine optimum class size in online courses. Of those published studies, perhaps only one or two of the studies can be considered generalizable. This is the rst gap in knowledgea lack of generalizable studies published for consumption and adoption. Numbers

28 20 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION of students in online sections, based on anecdotal data (excluding extreme outliers) appear to mirror the numbers of class sizes reported within the available studies as noted in Figure 1. Figure 1. Numbers of students in online classes mentioned in anecdotal and research studies with the exception of major outliers of over More stringent research studies are needed in terms of understanding the optimum number of students for an online class. The second gap in knowledge, therefore, is the need for the development of a formula for determining optimum class size under specic and varied conditions in higher education. Probably most important to the research of online class size is the impact it is having on learning outcomes. That represents a third gap in knowledge related to online class size. Finally, since this review is appearing in a handbook related to the educational administration discipline, we must add a fourth gap. There are no researchers who have provided data, to date, on class size optimization in educational administration programs. Certainly, these gaps in the literature on online class size are as Li and Irby (2006) indicated undiscovered territory waiting to be explored (p. 457) References Achilles, C. A. (1999) Let's put kids rst, nally: Getting class size right. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Aragon, S. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directors for Adult and Continuing Education 100, Arbaugh, J. B. (2002). Managing the on-line classroom: A study of technological and behavioral characteristics of web-based MBA courses. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13, Armario, C. (2012). State higher education spending sees big decline. The Associated Press. Retrieved from 10 American Federation of Teachers. (2003). Technology review: Key trends, bargaining strategies and educational issues. Retrieved from

29 21 8 Arbuagh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2001). Class section size, perceived classroom characteristics, instructor experience, and student learning and satisfaction with web-based courses: A study and comparison of two on-line MBA programs. In D. Nagao (Ed. ), Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings. Retrieved March 7, 2004, from wpbdimj: widw.aomonline.org/aom-asp %3d%3dl01+academy+of+management+best+papers+proceedings&hl=em&ie=utf-8 12 Boettcher, J. V. (2006a). How many students are just right in a web course? Design for Learning. Retrieved from 13 Boettcher, J. V. (1999, revised 2006b). Cyber course size: Pedagogy and politics Retrieved from 14 Brewer, D., Krop, C., Gill. B. P., &, Reichardt, R. (1999).Estimating the cost of national class Size reductions under dierent policy alternatives. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis,21 (2), Burruss, N.M., Billings, D., Brownrigg, V., Skiba, D., & Connors, H.R., (2009). Class size as related to the use of technology, educational practices, and outcomes in web-based nursing courses. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25(1), Colwell, J. L. & Jenks, C. F. (2004). The upper limit: the issues for faculty in setting class size in online courses. Retrieved from the%20upper%20limit.pdf Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5), Davies, P. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3&4), DeSantis, N. (2012).Tenured professor departs Stanford U., Hoping to teach 500,000 students at online start-up. Wired Campus. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from students-at-online-start-up/35135?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en DiBiase, D., & Rademacher, H. (2005). Scaling up: How increasing enrollments aect faculty and students in an asynchronous online course in geographic information science. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(1), Drago, W., & Peltier, J. (2004). The eects of class size on eectiveness of online courses. Management Research News, 27(10) Retrieved from Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008). Online education forum: Part three: A quality online educational experience. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19 (3), Foerster, S. (2011). Does size matter? The elearners News Blog. Retrieved from Hacker, H. (2011). Several Texas colleges are using private recruiters for online classes. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from severaltexas-colleges-are-using-private-recruiters-for-online-classes.ece Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2007). The relationship between class size and online activity patterns in asynchronous computer conference environments. Computers & Educaiton 49, Hislop, G. W. (2001). Does teaching online take more time? Paper presented at the 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno NV, Session TIF. Retrieved from Howard, D. (2002) Enhanced by technology, Not diminished. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Intel. (2005). Moore's law. Retrieved from ftp://download.intel.com/museum/moores_law/printed_materials/moores 12 wpbdimj: widw.aomonline.org/aom-asp %3d%3dl01+academy+of+management+best+paper

30 22 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION IPFW. (2008). Distance and online learning at IPFW task force report and recommendations (Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne). Retrieved from Kingma, B., & Keefe, S. (2006). An analysis of the virtual classroom: does size matter? Do residencies make a dierence? Should you hire that instructional designer? Journal Of Education For Library & Information Science, 47(2), Jiang, M., & Tiong, E. (2000). A study of factors inuencing students' perceived learning in a webbased course environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6 (4), Kerr, A. (2011). Teaching and learning in large classes at Ontario universities: Anexploratory study. Toronto, CA: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Retrieved from Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: The survey says.educause Quarterly, 29(4), Retrieved from Krueger, A. B., (2000). The class size policy debate: Understanding the magnitude and eect of class size on student achievement. Working Paper No Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from Lederman, D. (20011). An unusual conference. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from Li, C., & Irby, B. (2008). An overview of online education: Attractiveness, benets, challenges, concerns, and recommendations. College Student Journal, 42, 449[U+2010]458. Lunenburg, F. C., & Irby, B. J. (2008). Writing a successful thesis or dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of education statistics, 2010(NCES ), Introduction 15 and Chapter 2. Retrieved from National Education Association. (2000). A survey of traditional and distance learning Higher education members. Retrieved from 16 DistanceLearningFacultyPoll.pdf National Education Association. (2001). Focus on distance education. Update, 7(2). Retrieved from National Science Board (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012 Retrieved from Oestmann, E., & Oestmann, J. (2006). Signicant dierence in learning outcomes and online class size. Journal of Online Educators, 2(1), 1-8. Orellana, A. (2006). Class size and interaction in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(3), Parry, M. (2010). Online, bigger classes may be better classes. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from Qui, M. (2010). A mixed methods study of class size and group conguration in online graduate course discussions. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Toronto. Proquest. DAI-A 72/07, Jan Reonieri, D.C. (2006). Optimizing the number of students for an eective online discussion board learning experience. An unpublished masters thesis Thomas Edison State College. Trenton, NJ. Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of research in Open and Distances Learning 3(1), Sawchuk, S. (2012). Class size funding in crosshairs in republican ESEA bill. Education Week. Retrieved from Sener, J. (2010). Why online education will attain full scale. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 14(4), Retrieved from 17 default/les/1_jalnv14-4_sener_0.pdf Shelton, K., & Saltzman, G. (2005). An administrator's guide to online education. Charlotte, NC:

31 23 Information Age Publishing. Slavin, R.E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15 (9), Sparks, S. (2010). Class sizes show signs of growing. Education Week. Retrieved from Stripling, J. (2009). So many student, so little time. Inside Education. Retrieved from Taft, S. H., Perkowski, T., & Martin, L. S. (2011). A framework for evaluating class size in online education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12 (3), Tomei, L. (2006). The impact of online teaching on faculty load:computing the ideal class size for online courses. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,14 (3), Top 25 Online Colleges of (2011). TheBestCollege.org. Retrieved from U.S. News & World Report. (2012). Honor roll: Top online graduate education programs. Retrieved from Wallace, R. M. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions among teachers and students. Education, Communication & Information, 3 (2), Walsh, T. (2011). Unlocking the gates: How and why leading universities are opening up access to their courses. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2.3 Entrepreneurial Leadership for Technology: An Opposable Mind 18 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN note: This manuscript is reprinted in its original form (no third party contribution) from the previous publication, Entrepreneurial Leadership for Technology: An Opposable Mind 1, authored by Theodore Creighton, serving as a Chapter in Technology Leadership for School Improvement 18 This content is available online at <

32 24 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION (pp. 3-17), Rosemary Papa, Editor, and published by Sage Publications (2011), ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Author Theodore Creighton has served as a teacher in the Cleveland Public Schools and the Los Angeles Unied School District, and a principal and superintendent in both Fresno and Kern Counties, CA. Recently (2011) he retired from Virginia Tech as a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and presently serves as Director of NCPEA Publications Introduction Before we proceed in this chapter, we must decide if a specic leadership behavior is needed to eectively lead technology in our schools. More importantly, should we suggest that there is something uniquely dierent about leadership in the broad sense than leadership for such a specialized teaching and learning component as technology? There is an abundance of empirical evidence that relates the leadership of the principal to a school's eectiveness (Fullan 2001; Fullan & Stiegelbaure, 1991; Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Louis, 1994). The most recent and most exhaustive literature review and empirical study related to school technology leadership is the seminal work of Anderson and Dexter (2005), who conclude all the literature on leadership and technology acknowledges either explicitly or implicitly that school leaders should provide administrative oversight for educational technology (p. 51). They admit however, that most of the literature tends to be narrow in identifying specically what the knowledge and skill sets are that dene technology leadership. The obvious skills mentioned include (1) principals should learn how to operate technology and use it; (2) principals should ensure that other sta in the building receive learning opportunities; (3) principals should have a vision for the role of educational technology in school; and (4) principals should assess and evaluate the role of academic and administrative uses of technology and make decisions from those data. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2002) include the perhaps most recent set of suggestions in the literature about what school principals should do as leaders of technology in schools. The National Educational Technology Standards for Administrators (NETS-A, 2009) are integrated into the ISTE standards and are grouped into ve specic areas: 1. Visionary Leadership 2. Digital Age Learning Culture 3. Excellence in Professional Practice 4. Systemic Improvement 5. Digital Citizenship The following questions are addressed in this chapter:

33 25 What are the key aspects of a technology plan leaders need to know to optimize high-quality student outcomes? How can leaders tie technology plans to institutional mission and priorities? What can leaders do to avoid excessive detail and technical jargon? Once change in the curriculum and instructional strategies are implemented, how can technology plans be realigned? So, What's the Problem? Some (including this author) might argue that perhaps technology leadership as practiced by today's principal is outdated unless it helps faculty and students to address the great challenges presented by technology in our schools. Much of what we see happening in schools (along with the literature just presented) focuses on the management of technology. Our principal preparation programs, mine included, cover technology leadership lightly if at all, and rarely extend beyond the most basic skills (i.e., word processing, spreadsheets, and database use). A theme of this chapter is that eective technology leadership has more to do with teaching pedagogy and human relations and much less to do with technology itself. A principal's mission must now include designing and implementing new strategies to help teachers and students recognize, understand, and integrate technology with teaching and learning in the classroom. The mere presence of hardware and software in the classroom does not assure meaningful learning for students. We are beyond the point of deciding whether or not we will accept technology in our schools. The crucial task at hand is to decide how to implement this technology eectively into instruction. As early as 2000, Avolio discussed the relationship between leadership and technology and suggested that leaders must play a more proactive role in implementing technology, and more specically, interface the human and information technology components. Many point to the problem of overemphasis of the technological aspect at the exclusion of the human resource function. Avolio warned of the creation of information junkyards (p. 4). The essence of technology leadership is to produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and performance with individuals. To carry o this improvement in technology leadership, principals must be willing to alter existing leadership practices evidenced in most schools; and they must also be open to the probability of participating in a transformation of traditional leadership skills, knowledge, and habits of mind. Today's rapidly changing environment requires the technology leader to become involved in discovering, evaluating, installing, and operating new technologies of all kinds, while keeping teaching and student learning as the guide and driving force behind it all. Vaill (1998) issued an accompanying caution: The technologies the organization employs entail learning time to exploit their productive and economic potential (p. 45). If schools are constantly upgrading their technologies, they may never reach a productive ow of instruction, a ow on which eective teaching and learning are based. Many schools have state-of-the-art hardware, computer labs, and other technology peripherals, but are using them in ways that will do little to enhance student learning in rigorous and challenging ways. Technology leadership means much more than simply purchasing and implementing programs stued with fancy hardware and software. To really inuence reform in schools, principals as technology leaders must stay focused on the individual needs of teachers and students, rather than race to adopt the avor of the month program. Clearly, schools do not have a very good track record in sustaining signicant change. The school technology leader is in the position to make sound instructional decisions regarding technology and program implementation. It is my hope this chapter will help answer the how associated with such a daunting task Entrepreneurial Leadership for Technology Dened The term originates in the business world and can be simply dened as translating ideas into actions. More specically, Gunther and McMillian (2000) help us focus in on the concept: Entrepreneurial leaders pursue only the best opportunities and avoid exhausting themselves and their organizations by chasing after

34 26 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION every option. They passionately seek new opportunities always looking for the chance to prot from change and disruption (p. 3). This new breed of leader seems to always seek original ways of doing things with little concern for how dicult they may be or whether the resources are available. They are willing to disrupt the status quo (Grogan & Donaldson, p. 22) and have the ability to hold several opposing thoughts in their minds at once, and then reach a synthesis that contains elements of each but improves on each (Martin, 2007) Framing Leadership for Technology in an Historical Ccontext In the past 50 years, there have been as many as 65 dierent classications developed to dene the dimensions of leadership (Northhouse, 2004). Within those classications, there are several specic theoretical forms of leadership situational leadership (a dierent form of leadership for each dierent situation),transformational leadership (attention paid to the needs and desires of an organization's members to achieve their highest potential), moral leadership, and others. I agree that leaders of technology have something to learn from the study of leadership but I am reminded of a quote from a world-renowned statistician related to the many theories and models: All models are wrong but some are useful. George E.P. Box; Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin As I hope to demonstrate in this chapter, all of the traditional forms of leadership are not especially useful and applicable in today's turbulent and fast-paced world, especially in the area of technology leadership in our schools. Progressing through this brief historical context, I suggest we have a very current model before us (Martin, 2007) that is a conceptual and viable model that can help us frame entrepreneurial leadership for technology. In the early 1800s, leadership characteristics or traits were studied to determine what made certain people great leaders. For example, if we could identify the traits possessed by Abraham Lincoln, we could perhaps duplicate them in others. The trait approach was based on the belief that leaders were born with certain characteristics that made them great leaders and were dierent than others who were more passive followers. Examples of some of these traits included intelligence, self-condence, self-determination, integrity, and sociability. In the middle of the 20 th century, many researchers (e.g., Stogdill, 1948) argued that no identiable set of traits separated eective leaders from ineective leaders. Leadership began to emerge as a relationship between people and situations. This was actually the conceptual beginning of the theory we now call situational leadership Behavioral Leadership (behaviors based on structure and consideration) Researchers, after realizing that trying to identify leadership traits or characteristics was not dependable, began to study leadership behavior. In other words, they wanted to observe individuals as they were actually leading an organization or group of people. During the 1960s and early 1970s, two major research studies looked at the behavior of leaders: the Ohio State studies and the University of Michigan studies. The rst study focused on asking employees to report the number of times their leaders displayed certain kinds of behavior. Two specic types of leadership behavior surfaced: (a) behavior centered on structure and (b) behavior based on consideration. In other words, leaders provide structure for employees and leaders consider and care about the people under them. The University of Michigan studies revealed similar results, identifying two specic types of leadership behavior: (a) production oriented and (b) employee oriented. Production orientation involved completion of tasks, paralleling the structure behavior found in the Ohio study. Employee orientation involved the consideration behavior of the Ohio study. In essence, these two studies indicated that eective leaders had to concern themselves with both task orientation and relationship orientation. The studies also found that some organizations might need leaders more focused on tasks while others might benet from leadership with strong human-relations skills.

35 Situational Leadership Hersey and Blanchard (1993) are credited with the development of the theory of situational leadership. In essence, situation leadership theory involves a dierent form of leadership for each dierent situation. The contention is that an eective leader must adapt his or her style to the requirements of dierent situations. The two components of situational leadership (directive and supportive behavior) again parallel the structure and consideration constructs of the Ohio study and the production orientation and employee orientation of the Michigan study. Figure 1 shows such an alignment. As popular as the Hersey/Blanchard theory is, little research has been completed giving evidence that applying the theory really does improve performance. Critics argue that the model does not adequately address developmental levels of subordinates. In addition, situational leadership theory does not fully address one-to-one versus group leadership in an organizational setting (Northouse, 2004, pp ) Contingency Leadership (matching a leader's style with various situations) About a decade after Hersey and Blanchard presented the situational leadership theory, contingency leadership theory surfaced. This theory is also related to what the literature refers to as leader-match theory (Fiedler & Chemers, 1984, p. 23), where leaders are matched to dierent situations. So, we are basically talking about a match between a leader's style and various situations. Fiedler suggests that a leader's style is either task motivated or relationship motivated. Task-motivated leaders deal mostly with goal setting and accomplishment, while relationship-motivated leaders concentrate more on closer interpersonal relationships with employees. These styles t nicely into Figure 2 and are geared toward management and leadership behaviors. Fiedler was the rst to specically categorize situational variables: (1) leader-member relationships, (2) task structure, and (3) position power. Leader-member relations involve the condence and loyalty workers have for their leader. Leaders with appropriate task structure are very clear and specic when relating goals and objectives to members of the organization. Position power is simply the amount of authority a leader has in making decisions.

36 28 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION Path-Goal Leadership (what motivates members of an organization to perform well) In the early 1970s, House and Dressler (House, 1971; House & Dressler, 1974) popularized the path-goal theory. This theory focuses on what motivates members of the organization to perform well, and whether or not they feel appropriately rewarded for their work. So the challenge for the leader is to implement a leadership style that best meets the motivational needs of the worker. House and Dressler suggest that eect leadership requires making the path to the goal clear to all in the organization, and involves (a) appropriate coaching, (b) removal of the obstacles that make reaching the goal dicult, and (c) making work satisfying to all. Within the path-goal theory are four distinct styles of leadership: (1) directive leadership, (2) supportive leadership, (3) participatory leadership, and (4) achievement-oriented leadership. We could easily add the components of the path-goal theory to our Figure Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership theory surfaced quite recently and is credited to the work of James MacGregor Burns (1978). Burns presents two types of leadership: transactional and transformational. He perceives most of the models presented so far in this chapter to be transactional, in that they focus on what happens between leaders and their followers. Principals and superintendents who oer bonuses to teachers who successfully raise student test scores exhibit transactional leadership. Teachers who routinely give students a grade for work completed are practicing transactional leadership. In both of these examples, the exchange between the leader and follower is quite simple: You do this, and I will give you that. Leaders who practice transformational leadership, on the other hand, pay special attention to the needs and desires of the followers and try to help members achieve their highest potential. Basically, the theme is to give more attention to the follower's needs than the leader's needs. Transformational leaders often exhibit strong values and ideals and can motivate people to act in ways that support the organization above their own interests (Kuhnert, 1994) A Conceptual Framework for Entrepreneurial Leadership in Technology The technology leaders we will discuss in this chapter do not t into any of the formal leadership theories just presented. One of the purposes in presenting the historical look at leadership over the last half century is to demonstrate that technology leadership is not so much a theory in itself, but rather a product of the progression of leadership theory. School leaders can certainly benet from the work of Stoghill, Hersey and Blanchard, Fiedler, House, and MacGregor Brown. But the quiet, less visible, non-charismatic education leaders in technology presented in the last section of this chapter really spend more time and eort in an area not discussed by the authors and researchers above The Opposable Mind 2 (ability to hold conicting ideas in constructive tension) The progression of leadership theory has led us to the seminal work of Roger Martin who has spent the last fteen years, rst as a management consultant and then as a dean of a business school, studying leaders who have striking and exemplary success records, trying to discern a shared theme running through their successes. The leaders he has interviewed and studied share a common trait, aside from their talent and innovation: They have the predisposition and the capacity to hold two diametrically opposing ideas in their heads (p. 6). And then with patience and without panic or settling for one alternative or the other, they're able to produce a solution that is superior to either opposing idea. Martin calls this skill and ability, integrative thinking (the predisposition and capacity to consider diametrically opposing ideas and then produce a solution superior to either of the opposing ideas). A little more background of Martin's work is necessary to lead into the conceptual framework for entrepreneurial leadership for education technology. As Martin worked on his idea of integrative thinking, he searched for a metaphor that would give us deeper insight and meaning to the opposable mind. Human beings, he reasoned, are distinguished from nearly every other creature by a physical feature known as the

37 29 opposable thumb (p. 6). Because of the tension we can create by opposing the thumb and ngers, we do amazing things that no other creature can do write, thread a needle, carve a diamond, paint a picture, throw a 90 mile per hour baseball, and guide a catheter up through an artery to unblock it. All these actions would be impossible without the crucial tension between the thumb and ngers. Martin further reasons: "Similarly, we are born with an opposable mind we can use to hold two conicting ideas in constructive tension. We can use that tension to think our way through to a new and superior idea. Were we able to hold only one thought or idea in our heads at a time, we wouldn't have access to the insights that the opposable mind can produce. And just as we can develop and rene the skill with which we employ our opposable thumbs to perform tasks that once seemed impossible, I'm convinced we can also, with patient practice, develop the ability to use our opposable minds to unlock solutions to problems that seem to resist every eort to solve them. Using our opposable minds to past unappetizing alternatives, we can nd solutions that once appeared beyond the reach of our imaginations. (p. 7) Before investigating a conceptual framework for entrepreneurial leadership for technology in education, it may be helpful to look at Martin's working denition of integrative thinking, followed by some specic examples of integrative thinkers who have demonstrated entrepreneurial leadership for technology: The ability to face constructively the tension of opposing ideas and, instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generate a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new idea that contains elements of the opposing ideas but is superior to each. In leading technology for our schools, we are often faced with problems that appear to have two especially unsatisfactory solutions. If there is a relationship between Martin's integrative thinking and entrepreneurial leadership for technology, and I suggest there is, then we might investigate how technology leaders actually think about problems and solutions. How do technology leaders determine the many options before them in a way that leads to an intelligent and practical solution? What is it that causes them to perhaps consider both solutions A and B, but then select a new option C, which might have components of A and B, but is much more innovative and stretches from the status quo of A and B? To get at some answers to the questions posed, we need to look at Martin's framework for the process of thinking and deciding. Figure 3 combines what we already know about leadership (i.e., Figure 1 and 2) with Martin's process and steps in decision making: salience, causality, architecture, and resolution.

38 30 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION Martin captures the ow of the process: Whatever we decide, we'll arrive at our choice by considering a set of features we deem salient; creating a mental model of the causal relationships among those features; arranging those causal relationships into an architecture intended to produce a specic outcome; thereby reaching a resolution of the problem at hand. With dierent salience, causality, and architecture, we would almost certainly arrive at a dierent outcome. (p. 29) Using what we know about leadership and now Martin's work with integrative thinking, let's look at a couple of education leaders and follow their process of thinking and decision making AN OPPOSABLE MIND: Karen Symms Gallagher USC Rossier Sshool of Education Karen Symms Gallagher is the Dean of the University of Southern California School of Education. Her recent accomplishments include facilitation of the redesigned and transformed Doctorate in Education and USC. Currently, she is studying the potential learning implications of students' personal cell phones. The following is taken from her presentation to emeritus faculty at the USC Rossier School of Education on February 15, 2007, entitled Education Schools in a Flat World: Sorting Through the Choices We Face. Karen has decided on two salient questions about technology and learning and is investigating the following two questions: (1) Does the use of devices that students have for their own personal information gathering or communication needs translated into more interaction with curriculum content? And (2) Are we being seduced by the use of popular technology or being savvy about matching student learning with

39 31 I.T. capability? As cellular capacity a technology continues to expand and as ownership of cell phones becomes ubiquitous, Karen asks how can college professors ignore the potential for cellular phones to replace laptops as a teaching tool? In community colleges, for example, where students attend part-time and often have less access to more costly information technology, the availability of cable-television service delivered right to students' cell phones should be an exciting expansion of the formal classroom to the individual student level. Right now, such cell phone service is available in many cities in the U.S. This means that professors don't have to individualize lessons for students. Rather, students have the means to facilitate their own learning. Students who are at remote locations, and going to school or students who are English Language Learners and need additional practice or students who may need special accommodations because of disabilities can use their cell phones to access instructional materials. Because the ownership of cell phones is so widespread among college students at all levels, issues of equity may be less relevant than they have been when ownership of laptops is required. Karen Simms Gallagher has certainly processed through Martin's rst two components of thinking and deciding. She has decided on what she feels important or salient and she is addressing causality in thinking about ways we can make sense of the technology before us. Likely, she will now expand her integrative thinking to look at architecture, and decide and determine what tasks and in what order will be needed to produce certain outcomes. Rather than choosing one of the current dominant models and accept the limitations of it (e.g., laptop use in the classroom), Simms Gallagher is using her opposable mind to hold several models in her mind at once, consider the strengths and weaknesses of them, and then design a creative resolution of the tension between them AN OPPOSABLE MIND: Rich Baraniuk and the Rice University Connexions Project The state of technology today yields itself to more ecient means of sharing, storing, and organizing information through use of the Internet. The Connexions project, developed in 1999 by C. Sidney Burrus and Richard Baraniuk of Rice University, is one such innovative forum for collecting, organizing, and sharing educational data. The use of textbooks has become an inecient, outdated means of distributing information due to the long process of publication combined with the constant state of evolution of human knowledge. Though the use of articles and books remains valuable as learning tools, the additional benet of electronics, computer technology, and Internet allows for a continual updating process for information to be current. The idea for the Connexions Project was born when Richard Baraniuk approached fellow professor Sidney Burrus to vent frustration over the distinct separation of mathematical ideas, design methods, applications, legal and ethical implications, and business possibilities related to mechanical engineering (Burrus, 2007). Baraniuk expressed frustration about the disconnect resulting from these dierent courses taught by dierent professors, and originally proposed writing a new book that would connect all of these engineering ideas. In his response, Burrus challenged Baraniuk to design a completely new teaching tool using modern computer and informational technology (p. 20). The result of this discussion yielded the basic ideas needed to create what is now called Connexions. The Connexions philosophy involves the creation of a collaborative, educational environment by developing, sharing, and rapidly publishing scholarly content on the Internet. Furthermore, Connexions is a place to view, collect, and disseminate educational material in the format of small, knowledge chunks called modules, making learning a dynamic process (Creighton, 2008). These educational materials (modules and courses) are housed on the servers at Rice University and funded by the Hewlett Foundation, Rice University, and private donors. The Connexions project is an open source and available at: 19 Baraniuk reasoned that content should be modular and non-linear and posits that most textbooks are a mass of information in linear format: one topic follows after another. However, our brains are not linear - we learn by making connections between new concepts and things we already know. Connexions mimics this by breaking down content into smaller chunks, called modules, that can be linked together and arranged in 19

40 32 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION dierent ways. This lets students see the relationships both within and between topics and helps demonstrate that knowledge is naturally interconnected, not isolated into separate classes or books. Baranuik and Burros use their opposable minds and integrative thinking to face constructively the tension of opposing ideas, and instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generate a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new idea that contains elements of the of the opposing ideas but is superior to both. Today, Connexions is one of the most-used open-education resources on the web, employed in traditional college and K-12 settings, in distance learning, and by lifelong learners around the globe. Demand is surging; currently the Connexions servers handle over 16 million hits per month representing over 600,000 visitors from 196 countries. Volunteers are translating modules and courses into a variety of dierent languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Thai; many of these are our most popular. Connexions content development is grass-roots organized and inter-institutional. Our most active content development areas at present include education leadership, music, engineering, physics, chemistry, bioinformatics, and history Concluding Thoughts: Why Technology Leadership Must be Dierent In this chapter, I have suggested that because of the infusion of technology in our schools, leadership as we presently know it will experience further transformation. The gap between autocratic and participatory leadership must grow even wider if we are to successfully utilize technology for maximizing teaching and learning. Even in our common participatory technology leadership in schools, one often sees in-groups and out-groups regarding technology use and implementation. Leaders who create (either intentionally or unintentionally) an in-group and out-group may see the best technology system blocked from eectively creating collaboration resulting in low levels of trust within the organization" (Avolio, 2000, p. 13). In-groups are usually composed of technology consultants and coordinators partnered with teachers possessing adequate to exemplary skills and interest in using technology. On the other hand, those who either lack technical expertise or interest make up the out-group, and are not so visible, involved, or committed. Philip Schlechty (1997), in his book entitled Inventing Better Schools, specically addresses a redened leadership for implementing technology in our schools and suggests that a new way of thinking is needed: "Supporting technological change requires much more than instituting workshops; it requires as well the creation of opportunities to practice and observe, and opportunities to be coached and coach others. When the eort to install technological changes fail, it is likely that leaders have simply not appreciated and provided the quality of support and training that is needed. Or the eort may fail because of the fact that in schools, as in other organizations, technological changes often require structural changes, too." "Systemic change, calls upon leaders to do all things they must do to lead procedural and technological change and more. It also calls on them to think, to conceptualize, to see relationships between and among events that might escape others, to help others see these relationships and overcome fear, and to assure, cajole, coach, and inspire hope. Most of all, systemic change calls upon leaders to be wise and sometimes demanding but always to be supportive of and reassuring to teachers and students." (pp ) Key Principles for Leaders to Know Make certain any technology plan is focused on high-quality student outcomes. Tie technology plans to institutional mission and priorities. Avoid excessive detail and technical jargon. If change in curriculum and instructional strategies are implemented, realign technology plans CASE STUDY 1. Strategic Technology Planning for Reading One of the ESEA/NCLB (The Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind) important goals is, By , all students will be procient in reading by the end of third grade. You have

41 33 been charged by your superintendent with monitoring and addressing this goal with and through the use of technology. You are to prepare a strategic plan on how to accomplish this goal by 2010 or sooner. As part of your plan, you want to implement more innovative and eective uses of technology. Discussion: What are the salient features or components of a curriculum plan? Explain how innovative technology might help in realizing the desired outcomes. Activity: Draw a gure or framework for your entire plan, including Martin's four steps: salience, causality, architecture, and resolution CASE STUDY 1.2 Paradoxes of Technology Leadership The potential for technology presents both the greatest opportunity and the greatest threat to schools and their leaders. Successful principals as entrepreneurial leaders of technology will be those who decide to think and focus on how best to intersect technology with teaching and learning. Here are three paradoxes we face as technology leaders: 1. Technology can improve the interaction and dialogue between teachers and students, resulting in improved student learning BUT it can also isolate, marginalize, and reduce eectiveness in the classroom. 2. Technology can oer its power to all students, BUT it can also segregate and deny that power. 3. Technology can assist with engaging students in meaningful learning and promote higher-level thinking, BUT it can also mirror traditional instructional pedagogy. Discussion: Reecting on these three paradoxes discuss the following three questions: 1. Where do you want to go? 2. Why do you want to go there? 3. How will you know when you have arrived? Activity: Using your opposable minds, give examples you have observed in schools for each of these three paradoxes Web Resources International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 20 National Educational Technology Standards, 21 ISTE's National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) have served as a roadmap since 1998 for improved teaching and learning by educators. ISTE standards for students, teachers, and administrators help to measure prociency and set goals for the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to succeed in today's Digital Age. Quality Education Data, 22 Heavy investment in technology suggests that school leaders feel that it shows promise for contributing to schools' eectiveness and improvement eorts. Rice University Connexions Project: 23 Connexions: An Open Educational Resource for the 21 st Century References Anderson, R., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and eect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41 (1),

42 34 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION Avolio, B. (2000). Full leadership development: Building the vita forces in organizations. London: Sage. Burns, M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burrus, C.S. (2007). Connexions: An Open Educational Resource for the 21st Century. Educational Technology, 47(6), Creighton, T. (2008, August). The NCPEA Connexions project: Beta 1.2. Paper presented atthe National Council of Professors of Educational Administration Annual Conference. San Diego, CA. August. Feidler, F., & Chemers, M. (1984). Improving leadership eectiveness: The leader match concept (2 nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M., & Stieglebaurer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Gallagher, K. (2007, February). Education schools in a at world: Sorting through the choices we face. Paper presented at the USC Rossier School of Education, Los Angeles, California. Gunther McGrath, R., & McMillian, I.C. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously creating opportunities in an age of uncertainty. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school eectiveness: A review of the empirical research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school eectiveness. School Eectiveness and School Improvement, 92, House, R. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader eectiveness. Administration Science Quarterly, 16, House, R. & Dressler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (5 th ed.). Englewood Clis, NJ: Doubleday. Kuhnert, K. (1994). Transforming leadership: Developing people through delegation. In B. Bass & B. Avolio (eds.), Improving organizational eectiveness through transformational leadership (pp.10-25). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage. Louis, K. (1994). Beyond managed change: Rethinking how schools improve. School Eectiveness and School Improvement, 5, Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia: Laboratory of Student Success, Temple University. Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Northouse, P. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3 rd ed.). London: Sage. Schlechty, P. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership. Issues and debates. Journal of Psychology, 25, Vaill, P. (1998). Spirited leading and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ENDNOTES 1. In The Opposable Mind, Roger Martin (2007) goes beyond the question of what great leaders think to the more important and more interesting question of how they think. 2. Roger Martin is the author of The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking published by Harvard Business School Press (2007).

43 2.4 Towards the Virtual K-12 Educational Organization: An Emerging Framework with Technology Pedagogy 24 NCPEA Publications 35 note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, 25 ISBN note: This chapter has been revised and Marlena Bravender joins as co-author, authoring the video version. This chapter was derived from another publication, NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 26 Volume 12, Number 2 (October 2011)ISSN In addition to oering readers this chapter in print, authors James Berry and Marlena Bravender oer you the chapter in "virtual formatted video," Towards the Virtual K-12 Educational Organization. You may also utilize (copy/paste) this URL into your browser for viewing: Video Version of Towards the Virtual K-12 Educational Organization This media object is a Flash object. Please view or download it at < Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Authors 24 This content is available online at <

44 36 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION James E. Berry is a professor of educational leadership at Eastern Michigan University. He also serves as the Executive Director of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Berry has a wide expertise in teaching with technology and has a special interest in improving teaching and learning in K-12 schools. Marlena S. Bravender is an educational technology consultant and founder of Bravender Solutions, LLC. She is an invited presenter for national conferences and frequently lectures on teaching with technology. She has special interest in assisting organizations with the inuence of digital schooling as it evolves into the future Introduction The American educational system is about to make a transition into the future that will alter its structure as well as the core technology of teaching and learning. The potential value of technology as a tool for teaching and learning has not gone unnoticed. Gaining a better understanding about how technology integration may inuence a school district is valuable to any educational organization. The adaption of technology is spreading among school districts for any variety of reasons including the ability to exploit Internet access or as a government-funded initiative. The data gathered from this case study indicated one school district is in the formative stage of developing a virtual organizational structure based upon a convergence of high quality software, Internet connectivity, and capacity building to support digital teaching and learning. Fully supported teaching and learning will require a commitment to an organizational structure(s) that builds capacity for a more virtual school system The Legacy of Bureaucratic Education In the last thirty years a major transformation has taken place in American education. What was expected of the K-12 educational organization in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries reached its zenith at the beginning of the twenty-rst century. Until the twenty-rst century American education was successful if some students graduated with rudimentary knowledge and skill as productive members of society. In the twenty-rst century teaching, learning, and the educational system itself have been bueted by forces that challenged the traditional bureaucratic arrangement of schools with tall administrative hierarchies, centralized decision-making, and tightly controlled structures. The model of American education based upon the industrial factory is undergoing a revolution based upon emerging technologies that redene school organization as a virtual as well as a physical learning environment Research on Organizational K-12 Change This school district was being shaped as an organization by the use of technology and software to form new structures that were transforming the traditional school district bureaucracy. The educational system that required eciency and eectiveness to produce an informed and literate citizenry for the 20 th century is still a highly bureaucratic organization in the 21 st century (see, for example Callahan, 1962; Tyack, 1972). Yet, this school system was in a formative stage of signicant structural transformation that was supported by a broader and deeper application of technology. This research served as an indicator of emerging organizational change that will challenge the continued viability of traditional face-to-face classroom instruction facilitated by a teacher in a lecture/discussion format Study Parameters This research was a descriptive non-experimental case study of a school district administrative sta `s perception of the organizational capacity to improve teaching and learning through the use of technology (Johnson, 2001). Interviews of administrators were conducted during a year in which the school district had asked for community support to issue laptop computers to students in grades 7-12 (subsequently passed). This

45 37 research charted the conditions under which this educational organization was changing to address the needs of twenty-rst century learners. The leaders of the school were asked to explain the value and use of hardware and software tools that were adopted to improve teaching and learning. Nine interviews were conducted over a two-day period with central oce administrators, principals, and a member of the board of education. The goal of the research was to determine how this school district was adapting to the changing nature of teaching and learning in the emerging digital age. The specic question under study was, How does the K-12 school district adapt, as an organization, to the changing nature of teaching and learning caused by the integration of digital learning? The question required the administrative sta to consider the nature and conditions of learning within the traditional conguration of a centralized school district with teaching in classrooms congured for classroom instruction within brick and mortar buildings for face-to-face teaching in a lecture discussion format The Emerging K-12 Educational Organization This school district was actively adopting technology and software as integrated, and integral, components of the traditional bureaucratic hierarchical brick and mortar system of schooling. Not only was technology changing the nature of teaching and learning, aspects of the educational organization were being replaced by software that extended the nature of school organization into virtual management, virtual leadership, virtual pedagogy, and virtual learning that resulted in online and hybrid courses that, taken together, were an extension of the local school and school district. This study indicated that this K-12 educational organization was taking technology beyond a useful application of computers as one-dimensional tools to an emerging multi-dimensional media rich structure (or potentially structures) that extended learning into a personalized digital educational experience The Infrastructure of the More Digital K-12 Educational Organization The infrastructure of the K-12 educational organization in this school district was beginning the transition to a blended structure in support of virtual learning. This transition began to accelerate with the convergence of (1) connectivity to the Internet, (2) dynamic use of software for learning, and (3) a desire to provide high quality individualized and personalized learning. High quality software made possible, through the Internet, a more individualized learning experience. Expectations for learning were moving to a point that school administrators began utilizing laptop computers as integral tools for learning. As one administrator stated: "When you give a kid an assignment that would benet from a computer, I want that kid to have a computer available to him at that moment so he can do it. So we have the responsibility to have that... to have that available to students. And the other piece is we have to make sure that we have a connection so that it's ecient, and high speed... it's at least as good as what a kid's going to experience outside the school. We have to make sure it's working all the time." The infrastructure issue meant that in this district the computer would become on-demand for student use all day long every day of the school year. It meant that the educational organization was intending to build, and would continue to build, a structured network of servers, wires, towers, routers and personnel to maintain and support on-demand use for multiple classes of students who required Internet connectivity. The question that needed to be answered was: What must the educational organization build or implement in order to establish the capacity to support multiple users for all day every day learning? Another administrator indicated that organizational support required a rethinking of learning support. "Well, from a pure technology standpoint we need to be able to have the right kinds of access, the right kinds of speeds for broadband access, for example. We need to have a reliable infrastructure and we need to have reliable access to the tools, resources, programs that students and/or a teacher might leverage... So you can have a beautifully designed network that doesn't take into consideration the fact that three science classes might be teaching the same class at the same time down on the science wing. So, it's not just thirty kids that are going to watch that video independently at their own pace. We now have one hundred and twenty kids that are going to watch that video. So we have to take into account capacity as a part of reliability as well."

46 38 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION Consider some other structural issues that change how a school district thinks about capacity when digital learning is factored into the day-to-day process of learning: 1. Class sizewhat is the optimum number of students a teacher can work within a virtual environment? 2. Physical spacewill the brick and mortar classroom be less of a need when students and teachers use digital learning space? 3. Anytime learningwill virtual learning extend the school day for teachers and students? 4. Virtual learningdoes software replace a brick and mortar classroom and face-to-face lecture with online asynchronous individualized learning? One school leader claimed time and learning would change dramatically in the future. We are going away from Carnegie units and are heading towards standards-based masteryperiod. I know it's going. I know we're headed there The Leadership Expectation for Understanding Software The typical preparation of school administrators involves a curriculum based upon a set of standards widely accepted as representative of what school leaders should know and do to perform at high levels of skill (CCSSO, 2008; ELCC, 2011). One of those standardsstandard threerequires an aspiring school principal to manage the school organization and maintain a conducive learning environment: Education leaders ensure the success of all students by managing organizational systems and resources for a safe, high performing learning environment (CCSSO, 2008, p. 19). More specically, A building-level education leader applies knowledge that promotes the success of every student by ensuring the management of the school organization, operation, and resources through monitoring and evaluating the school management and operational systems; eciently using human, scal, and technological resources in a school environment (ELCC, 2011, p. 5). This school district had an evolving, yet increasing expectation for school principals in the area of technology and its use as an organizational system, and as a teaching and learning instrument: "I think ten years ago or fteen years ago when we were hiring principals we were looking for people who could manage a building, who could deal with parents, who could handle the management of the building. That has evolved over the course of time to be, `We want principals now who are instructional leaders and instructional leadership now means more than comfort level, an expectationa demandthat technology be part... properties of technology be part of that whole instruction." Performance as a school principal still requires the management and operation of the building. The position, however, is expanding its expectations and skill competencies to manage and lead instructional improvement within a technology rich environment: "They, some, have a really, really basic understanding. Some have a really advanced understanding. And, hopefully, the administrator/principal is going into all of those dierent classrooms and seeing the potential of how technology could be used in so many dierent ways... It's not that they need to know how to do everything, it's that they need to know that it's possible and that it could be done in this new way. They need to know that I could set my MacBook down and use the built-in camera to record a short video using the whole class, or I could have my students contacting other students in another location using Chat Client. That sort of thing." The expectations presented by the administrators of this district reected an orientation to the necessary skills and abilities as an instructional leader for the future. Leadership required an understanding of how technology changed the locus of learning from the teacher to the student: "I want a principal to know, I want a principal to be sold on the idea that a classroom has to be student centered. I want them to emphasize constantly and to understand that we're talking about learning. We're not talking about teaching. And that changes the whole dynamic for a teacher. So they need to know that technology has to be a tool to aect a kid's learning. And they need to be a source of, a resource for [a] teacher to know where to go to become better at being the classroom facilitator." In this district there was a growing awareness that software was changing the act of teaching. Thus, the position of instructional leader had to be one that understood, and had the ability to support, an emerging

47 39 approach to teaching in a high tech and high touch environment that placed more responsibility for learning on the student Teacher as Facilitator of Learning Teaching has traditionally been a job in which a captive audience of students was required to listen to teacher directed performance. Although this study sought to determine aspects of structural change due to the introduction of technology/software, teaching in this school district remained primarily a directed, didactic approach to lesson presentation. That is, the teacher served as the lter through which most of the content and information in the learning process passed. Students were recipients of a teacher-centered approach to knowledge acquisition. However, the evidence suggested in this study that introduction of a personal computerthat contained software to enhance teaching and learningproduced an organizational structural change in teaching pedagogy that carried over to student learning. Because students were able to interact with the software in ways that expected and required more self-directed learning, teachers adjusted their teaching pedagogy to a more facilitative approach. Although the teacher as a facilitator of learning can be used, and has always been used, as a pedagogical approach to teaching, it began to take on new meaning in the digital learning environment. As one administrator described teaching in a digital classroom: "To a large degree it's more of a technical support person. You know, making sure the students can navigate the various programs and they have what they need and they're being encouraged. It's dierent than when you're providing the instruction." If one contrasts the primary mode of lesson presentationdirected teachingwith administrative expectations in this district, the teacher as facilitator captures a shift in how this district was in an early stage of developing a culture that, pedagogically, shifted more learning responsibility to the learner. The administrators saw signs of this shift. "I think one, they have to be reasonably comfortable with just the technology and the interface to the technology. Two, I think they have to be comfortable enough to realize that the students know more than they do about technology and be comfortable in learning from the students around the interface to the technology. Three, they should be secure that they are the experts in the content, not necessarily the modality in which it's going to be delivered. I also think if the teachers focus on helping the student to rationalize and interpret and make decisions about the information that they're getting and learning about with the content that the teacher is the expert in, they're giving them an extremely valuable skill from the learning standpoint." If there is such a thing as the traditional role of teacher as the source of knowledge through which information is absorbed through a lecture, that role is being challenged in this district. As another administrator succinctly stated: So, the kid manages his own learning and the teacher simply facilitates it Individualized/Personalized Learning for Quality The school district in this study had a solid history of technology use going back a decade. However, prior to this study the school district piloted a project to supply a cohort of 8 th grade students with high quality laptop computers. This project served as a foundation for encouraging an interest and desire for student-centered learning. As much as the teachers moved incrementally in the direction of technology driven pedagogy to facilitate learning, the students moved even further and faster toward an acceptance and use of technology. "I think the number one impact is student engagement. They're tuned in. Students are tuning in... They're engaged. They're going to learn more. When they're thinking about what's going on, then they have questions. They're able to apply it a little bit better. So, I think that's where I see the number one impact. And, it's immediate... like immediate engagement in the learning." Another administrator viewed the adoption of the technology/software structure as a fundamental change that shifted power and control to the learner. Although this shift in power and control forced more responsibility on the student, it also changed the work of the teacher:

48 40 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION Q: Does virtual instructional delivery alter the teacher's authority and control of student learning? A: I think it does because it puts more responsibility on the student to learn and take control of their learning. In my mind it does require the teacher to help the student learn how to learn. And, I know that maybe this sounds, I don't know, too theoretical or educational, but so much of whatat least when I was in schoolwas about memorization, wasn't about the learning itself. The reason for investing in technology/software involved an overall commitment to higher quality learning across the organization. Thus, another organizational structureassessment and accountabilityappeared to be a component of a system responsibility to measure learning progress to ensure higher levels of achievement within an individualized and personalized curriculum: "I think you need a feedback mechanism for the student immediately because one, the students want to know right away if they got the answer right or where they are on the test. The teachers should know they are hitting the target with whatever percentile they're comfortable with90%, 80%, 70%.for the students to get it... for the teacher to say I've successfully got all that I could in terms of learning in the students." Organizational and Pedagogical Gap in Adoption of Technology/Software This study highlighted a lagging adoption on the part of teachers and administrators to embrace technology tools for purposes of (1) organizing a virtual structure for schooling, and (2) using software tools to facilitate learning. Whether or not the knowledge of, and uses for, software tools made sense or had validity there was a cautious acceptance in what teachers and other school leaders would readily adopt and implement in regard to technology and software innovation. The stages of Rogers' (1993) innovation-decision process outlines how teachers and administrators moved over a period of ve-eight years to the technology and software advancements in this district: 1. Knowledge occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit) is exposed to an innovation's existence and gains an understanding of how it functions. 2. Persuasion occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit) forms a favorable or an unfavorable attitude towards the innovation. 3. Decision takes place when an individual (or other decision-making unit) engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation. 4. Implementation occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit) puts a new idea into use. 5. Conrmation takes place when an individual seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision already made, but he or she may reverse this previous decision if exposed to conicting messages about the innovation. (p. 163) In this study there was recognition that the educational delivery system, as well as teaching and learning, were evolving into something dierent from what the schools, classrooms, teaching and learning looked like in the recent past. As one school leader explained, Education tends to move pretty slowly. It probably took forty years to get the overhead projector out of the bowling alley into the classroom. And, the problem isn't only one of resistance to change. It is also an incremental adaptation of the school district bureaucracy to changes in physical space, teaching, learning, and use of time to support the learning process. According to another school leader: "Whether there's a piece of technology involved or not, I think that the space has to change to reect what's going on more and more with teaching and learning and that is that people are realizing that it is a social activity and it is something that we do in a variety of modes, that we don't just sit and get but that we gather together and we reect quietly and we work on projects in small groups and we collaborate and we build and... I mean so I need space that allows me the exibility to jump from a lecture." In this school district there was an incubation period that helped parents, teachers, principals, board members, and other community leaders gain a positive perspective before an implementation decision was made.

49 41 Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2008) described the inability of present day schools to innovate and change because they have a structure that mirrors the architecture of their product (p. 207). The fundamental problem with bringing about innovation and change is that the adults in the typical school district do not have the knowledge or capacity to make the dramatic changes in that traditional bureaucratic architecture. "Whether there's a piece of technology involved or not, I think that the space has to change to reect what's going on more and more with teaching and learning and that is that people are realizing that it is a social activity and it is something that we do in a variety of modes, that we don't just sit and get but that we gather together and we reect quietly and we work on projects in small groups and we collaborate and we build and... I mean so I need space that allows me the exibility to jump from a lecture." "An architectural change for a school entails combining subjects, reordering who does what and how, imagining new roles for computers, instituting project-based work, altering the hours, and so forth. Combining the study of history and literature into a single course in which each discipline is used to examine the other is an example of an architectural innovation." (p. 208) This study surfaced the divide between how one educational organization recognized the impact of technology/software innovation upon teaching, with a lagging but growing awareness of the disruptive nature of this innovation upon the entire school system. Yet, this divide did not keep the district from moving forward with implementation A Theory of Virtual Educational Organization Drawing from the work of Mishra and Koehler (2006) who outlined the emerging digital pedagogy (Berry & Staub, 2010) it was evident that the evolution of digital teaching was being supported by the parallel development of a nascent digital school structure. Although the K-12 educational organization was encountering implementation angst caused by the disruptive innovation of emerging digital structures, it was apparent that the school district was realigning resources and shifting priorities to support digital teaching and digital learning. Structure, according to Thompson (1961) refers to the persistent qualities or given elements in the environmental conditions of choice or action which make it possible to explain and perhaps to predict action (p. 8). As the traditional organization of brick and mortar teaching and learning blended with the virtual structure of teaching and learning, a hybrid educational organization began to emerge (see Figure 1). The structure for digital teaching and learning is the collective use of software that is supported by servers, routers, wires, and technical knowledge that will explain and predict the action of teachers as they teach and students as they learn. A virtual educational organization is emerging from the traditional bureaucratically arranged organization described by Weber (1921) and Thompson (1961). Weber's description of the 19 th century bureaucratically arranged organization has been the standard by which all models and theories of organization have been compared. In general, all organizations follow the maxim that any organization is a social structure created by individuals to support the collaborative pursuit of specied goals (Scott, 1998, p. 10). However, from the mid twentieth century to the present the study of organizational characteristics has generated a body of literature and theoretical analyses of organizations as rational, natural, and open with permutations and extensive descriptions that expanded, and further rened, theories of organization as structuralist, contingent, and layered. This case study presents a theoretical description that extends the bureaucratically arranged educational organization to virtual Population Ecology: Technology Shaping Educational Organization The population ecology model of organizational change explains the external feedback loop of social, political, economic, and, in this case, educational technology pressures reshaping the American educational system. A central theme of this form of organizational change is that environments dierentially select organizations for survival on the basis of t between organizational forms and environmental characteristics (Scott, 1998, p. 115). The population ecology model extends the theoretical premise that the virtual educational organization is a more open natural system being shaped by social, economic, political, and educational technology forces

50 42 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION that require school systems to change their characteristics through adaptation over time (p. 115). Further, a culture is developing that reects the growing inuence of technology. As Schein (1985) described culture, it is the emerging assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization, that operate unconsciously, and that dene in a basic `taken-for-granted' fashion an organization's view of itself and its environment (p. 6). This organization is in the process of changing the cultural norm of teaching and learning by adopting a structure for virtual education. In this study it appeared that the virtual educational organization was emerging (causing disruption to the bureaucratic organization) as an integrated system within the traditional bureaucratic educational organization. The virtual educational organization was not an emerging entity unto itself but an emerging structure evolving and integrating with the present day K-12 school district. The Virtual Educational Organization is a system of education designed around software that will be experienced by the teacher and student as formal structures for teaching and learning. These structures are only now being designed and built by the school district as it adopts the technology and software tools for delivery of learning supported by the educational organization Recommendations Changes to the current educational system will require the adults who govern and control the system to recast it as a functional, resilient, and exible form of learning that is up-to-the-challenge of educating every child to a level of quality that is unprecedented in human history. Pink (2005) described the twenty-rst century as the rise of the conceptual age in order to create new knowledge to accelerate economic growth and quality of life. As meaningful as learning should be for students, it needs to be as meaningful for the adults involved in the great transition of knowledge transmission during the twenty-rst century. 27

51 43 It is apparent that the inuence of technology on the educational structure is a factor that cannot be ignored. It can be embraced as federal, state, and local education agencies have started to take notice of the value of technology in education. Lawless & Pellegrino (2007) noted current initiatives for educational organizations, which included items such as improving the capacity of schools to use technology and minimizing inequitable access to technology (p. 576). This glimpse into a singular school district's embrace of technology and learning software shows a progression to a state that other districts may desire to emulate. Although beginning with a lagging adoption on the part of teachers and administrators, this school district had a consistent history of technology use. This will raise serious questions for other educational leaders that now see the inuence and evolution of technology within educational settings. What might districts without this solid history consider while seeking progress toward a more virtual structure? Are the hurdles too high for districts that have not had the capacity, or intent, to implement new technologies? As the structure of the educational organization is shifting, this is an opportunity for the educational leaders to consider signicant questions. What exactly is the role of leaders in modeling and promoting the eective use of technology? How can technology change the relationship between a student and learning? How can technology assist teachers in the active engagement of students? What steps can a district take to develop the technical skill of leaders within the organization? What kind of training would be promoted? How can technology help realize programmatic goals and performance assessment? What kind of systematic evaluation plan can be implemented? Having a foundation on which to build this emerging virtual structure may assist lagging school leaders tasked with understanding and developing a plan to implement technology use Summary The emerging K-12 educational organization has a virtual structure that includes (1) connectivity to the Internet that expands the idea/denition of classroom. Teaching and learning will be virtual with connectivity to the primary learning organization (which may/may not be the traditional school district), (2) dynamic software to engage, enhance, and guide the student learning experience, (3) integration of software with an individual teacher's own approach and understanding of pedagogy and student learning, and (4) an emerging culture that blends virtual learning with the more traditional face-to-face (lecture/discussion) instructional approach. The adoption of technology in education should be understood as a slow evolution of educational bureaucracy in building capacity for how software will be used in K-12 learning. Technology, and specically software, is in a formative stage of adoption for constructing virtual organizational structures. From piecing together the evidence of how one school district is moving forward to address teaching and learning within a technology rich system: 1. The software to structure and organize a hybrid digital/brick and mortar educational organization will accelerate the development of a dierent pedagogy for teaching and a dierent (more personalized?) form of learning; 2. The slow rate of organizational change is a condition of bureaucracy. Technology adoption by school systems needs to be understood in context to the nature and condition of the educational bureaucracy as it adapts to changes in the external environment. Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2008) claim that by 2019if one looks at the logarithmic growth of online delivery of the high school curriculum50 percent of high school courses will be delivered online. In other words, within a few years, after a long period of incubation, the world is likely to begin ipping rapidly to student-centric online technology (p. 98). The signicance of Christensen's projection is based upon the accelerating acceptance and expansion of the virtual educational delivery system. This school district

52 44 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION is evolving from the brick and mortar system of educational delivery to a blended system of virtual and bureaucratic delivery... and provides evidence that Christensen's prediction is on track. The knowledge required for leading and teaching during this transition is about organizing for learning in a way that better serves children and society. The adults of the present day educational system will need to re-conceptualize the present day school system and recast it for a more student-centered form of learning in the twenty-rst century. This case study indicates that one district is moving in a more deliberate way to change how it organizes for teaching and learning in an age of technology References Berry, J. E., & Staub, N. (2010). Technology pedagogy: Software tools for teaching and learning. Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 8 (1), Retrieved from Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of eciency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class. New York: McGraw Hill. Council of Chief State School Ocers Interstate School Leaders Consortium (CC- SSO). (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC Retrieved From ELCC Standards. (2011). Building level standards. Retrieved from Johnson, B. (2001). Toward a new classication of nonexperimental research. Educational Researcher, 30(1), Lawless, K. & Pellegrino, J. (December, 2007) Professional Development in Integrating Technology Into Teaching and Learning: Knowns, Unknowns, and Ways to Pursue Better Questions and Answers. Review of Educational Research, 77 (4), Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006, June). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), Pink, D. H. (2007). A whole new mind. New York: Riverhead Books. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations rational, natural and open systems (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Thompson, V. A. (1961). Modern organization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Weber, M., In Gerth, H. H., & In Mills, C. W. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

53 2.5 Transformative Pedagogy through Advanced Technologies: A Description of Practices and Analysis of Program Integrity 28 NCPEA Publications 45 note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, 29 ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Authors Susan Korach is a Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Denver. Lyndsay Agans is a Professor of Education Technology at the University of Denver Introduction The rapid pace of change in the 21 st century requires educators to become generative in their thinking and their practices. An educational leadership preparation program that promotes generative learning rather than relying on existing knowledge and practice must be embedded in the context of practice so educators can continually connect their theoretical knowledge with the practical knowledge that they gain from their families, students and communities. It requires the program to be grounded from an inquiry stance (Cochran- Smith and Lytle, 2009) rather than an expert stance. An inquiry stance requires faculty to recognize the 28 This content is available online at < 29

54 46 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION intellectual capacity of practitioners and facilitate learning through a rigorous examination of practice and data while promoting continual question and reection. The underlying assumption of an inquiry stance is "a core part of the knowledge and expertise necessary for transforming practice and enhancing students' learning resides in the questions, theories, and strategies generated collectively by practitioners themselves and in their joint interrogations of the knowledge, practices and theories of others." (Cochran-Smith & Lyttle, 2009, p. 124) Advanced technologies are a powerful tool to facilitate an inquiry-based learning space that promotes generative learning through an inquiry stance. This idea frames the delivery methodology for a blended online principal preparation program. The blended online program was designed upon the foundation of an innovative university-district principal preparation program that was created from an inquiry stance and featured collaborative facilitation, eld-based learning and constructive practice as the pedagogical model. The university-district principal preparation program was created in 2002 when a private university and an urban district collaborated on the development of core leadership values for school leaders and worked together to examine the district's existing needs and goals. The program content was built from an apprenticeship perspective based on the leadership needs of the participants and their schools (Korach, 2005). The delivery model consists of a facilitation team composed of university faculty and district leaders that build content and learning experiences for participants to engage in during a multi-day retreat and weekly six hour classes over four quarters. The work of this collaborative program created its own entity or third space with equal relationships between the academic/practitioner and university/district perspectives. Hora and Millar (2010) describe this third space of partnership work as a place where individuals from the dierent home organizations navigate their dierent pre-existing cultural dynamics as they develop the policies and repertoires of practice appropriate for the new partnership (p. 12). The inquiry stance allowed the third space to emerge as a safe and neutral setting to interrogate and critically analyze the knowledge, practices and theories of the participants and their work environment. The third space in this universitydistrict collaborative program existed when the participants and faculty met during the retreat and weekly classes. This paper describes the creation of a blended online program based on the university-district principal preparation prototype. The generative learning continued through eld-based inquiry experiences and the creation of a new 3 rd space through the interactions of participants and faculty through the online environment and in-person workshops. The transformation of the organic and generative pedagogy to an online environment made the approach of generative learning through the interaction of theory and practice broadly accessible and adaptable to individual and multiple school contexts. Initial feedback and evaluation results of the blended online program reveal that the advanced technologies and online learning environment successfully replicated the 3 rd space approach to leadership learning. Findings from this model of principal preparation show school leaders who are engaged in access and equity work and facilitating school cultures that support just outcomes. Three technology-facilitated practices were integrated to bring about a successful transformation of the program from ground to distance. Those three instructional technologies include: high-participation threaded online discussions, the use of digital portfolios for project management and evaluation, and the establishment of cohorts or online communities of inquiry. The implementation and impact of these practices will also be discussed Background In addition to the university-district partnership program, the university oered a traditional course-based program that was experiencing declining enrollments and unsatisfactory student evaluations. Several professors had experience with applying advanced technologies and managing online learning environments. The need to change the existing course-based preparation program, and the success of the district-university program were levers that opened the box of traditional coursework and allowed an exploration into the benets of discrete courses vs. eld-based projects. As the transition from classroom-based to online delivery continued, the potential of utilizing the core project-based structure of the partnership program as the focus of online modules, rather than transitioning the traditional courses into separate and discrete online mod-

55 47 ules, emerged. The university-district partnership program was personalized and built around the power of developing a strong network and learning community. Would it be possible to replicate the pedagogy and outcomes into a blended online model? Is it possible to develop strong learning communities in an online delivery model? The development of the project-based online modules was conceptually simple because the faculty had experience developing project criteria; however, the capacity of this online derivation to transform candidates' thinking and develop a powerful learning community was met with skepticism from university faculty Conceptual Framework of Blended Online Program Design The transformation of this university-district partnership program to a blended-online program embraced the spiral process that used eld experience in schools to ground the theoretical and conceptual learning from the coursework. The place of connection for the theory and practice became the online learning environment rather than the weekly classes, and the context for application was the participants' schools in multiple districts rather than one school in the partnership district. As the online learning community emerged through the combination of two in-person workshops per quarter and weekly online discussions the power of the inquiry projects to promote leadership learning was revealed. This application of innovative technologies was grounded in a project-based and integrative learning environment that used the participants' context as the unit of analysis and site for critical inquiry and a leadership practice eld. The utilization of technology actually enhanced the work because the interaction of participants was not limited by time and proximity. Both the university-district partnership program and blended online programs share a common evaluation framework and project design, and this consistency oered a unique opportunity to explore the impact of the utilization of advanced technologies in the delivery of a professional preparation program. Initial ndings revealed that program participants in both programs report similar outcomes. Regardless of the delivery system, aspiring school leaders in these programs were engaged in the real work of school leadership and culture building and a reection process that allowed them to be able to critically examine their experiences and evaluate their practices. Three technology-facilitated practices were integrated to bring about a successful transformation from ground to distance. The framework utilized in the program design was intended to engage program participants through technology-based teaching and learning. The instructional technologies critical to the success of the program (online communities of inquiry, online threaded discussions, eportfolios, and reection journals) will be discussed. Finally, we will present the analysis of the impact of the program and elucidate the implications for professional preparation programs with particular consideration for blended or online programs. The design of the program is informed by an adult learning framework which postulates three key pedagogical elements that should be incorporated in 21st century classrooms, (1) utilize collaboration (i.e., groups or teams); (2) are problem or project-based; (3) have a practical or real-life (authentic) focus. This framework is also referred to as relate create donate (Kearsely & Shneiderman, 1998). The implementation of online threaded discussions, digital portfolios, and communities of practice follow this theory of relate create donate. The purpose of the innovative technologies is to allow for the third space of critical thinking, selfawareness, and praxis to occur for principal candidates. Program outcomes conrm that this third space that is critical to the development of eective school leaders transcends delivery mode and is attainable through design and pedagogical techniques be it through traditional or distance delivery mechanisms. Furthermore, the third space becomes truly transformational when not only critical thinking of leadership is attained by students, but also a self-awareness about what is informing, shaping, or possibly biasing their beliefs as a school leader. This higher order cognition can be understood as a metacognitive process that is principal candidates are prepared to think about how and why they are thinking what they are thinking Assessment For both learning outcomes and assessment of student learning, individual portfolios are used; the University portfolio system is utilized in the introductory course of the program and used throughout for evaluation

56 48 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION and representation of the student learning outcomes in the form of a capstone. The online program takes our usual program evaluation data a step further by enabling more frequent data collection and, we believe, better continued connections with students after graduation. We assess student learning via benchmark activities from key projects that are reviewed across students for program evaluation purposes; course evaluations by students (quarterly); satisfaction surveys of students (quarterly); feedback forms from Cohort Instructors about the type and quality of student work and interactions with the Internship Supervisors; capstone portfolios; and exit interviews with graduating students. These data are reviewed quarterly where possible by program leadership to catch potential issues early. The full array of assessment and program evaluation/student satisfaction data are collected and analyzed annually at the end of each cohort's program, and reviewed by the full group of instructional personnel in order to identify and implement changes and updates in content, instructional processes, assessments, and program support services that are needed to improve the program for the next cohort. Similar data are collected for the university-district program, so that comparisons can and will be made to ensure that similar quality is present across all of our delivery models. The online program took our program evaluation data a step further by enabling more frequent data collection and, we believe, better continued connections with participants after graduation. Figure 1 illustrates the major components of the multi-dimensional assessment plan for the blended online program and the continuous growth nature of participant and program evaluation. Figure 2.1: Assessment Activities Mixed-Methods Analysis of Program Integrity A mixed-methods analysis of program integrity was conducted to compare the university-district and blended online cohorts. A one-way ANOVA was conducted among three cohorts to compare any signicant dierences in program outcomes based on student end of course evaluations. Next, the voices of blended online program participants, cohort instructors and course professors have been gathered as the program has developed.

57 49 The implications of end of course program evaluations suggest that the core program values were maintained in the transformation of the program from ground to distance. The richness of the program impact are discussed and presented through participants' voices via qualitative inquiry. The following themes emerged through a comparison of these qualitative data: acquisition of a leadership lens and persona, comfort with ambiguity, reective and critical thinking, and knowledge of systems and the capacity to analyze data and diagnose organization ANOVA Findings The end of quarter course evaluations from Fall 2010 for three cohorts with a sample size of 44 was evaluated using a one-way ANOVA. ANOVA results revealed 9% or one out of the eleven question had a p-value <.05; indicating a signicant dierence between the groups. The question: (1) I found course objectives and assignments to be clearly stated and easily understood, with a p-value <.05; F(2, 41) = 4.33, p <.05 indicated a strong dierence between groups. Follow-up analysis of this dierence reveals a consistent outcome for university-district cohorts with a signicantly lower mean for the blended online cohort. These results may be attributable to the dual learning curve incumbent upon the blended online cohort students. Not only were students introduced to an innovative, eld-based program (tending to dier vastly from the pedagogy of their previous educational experiences) but they were also expected to adapt to distance learning environment. The majority of students had no experience with online or distance learning prior to their enrollment in this program. It will be possible to test this hypothesis with continued evaluation of student learning outcomes across all three programs. The ten remaining questions had a p-value >.05 indicating no signicant dierence between the groups. Two questions showed unusually high delity among the three cohorts: (2) I was engaged with the content and material being studied in the course and (5) The way in which this course was taught required me to think in new and dierent ways. The impact of the courses on students' perception of engagement and their thinking provides initial evidence that the result of the transformative pedagogy is consistent across delivery models Leadership Lens and Persona Graduates of the university-district program and participants in the blended online program report similar experiences and outcomes and state that their principal preparation program has changed their way of thinking. The work of the projects required participants to examine their school through a leadership lens. One blended online participant commented on this in one of her journal entries: In moving out of my comfort zone from thinking like a teacher to thinking like a principal, I engage as many stakeholders as possible through projects, conversations, team meetings, formal/informal collaboration and encouraging them to share their ideas with me. I have communicated my goals to those colleagues that carry strengths in the areas that I need growth in. Engagement of others is pertinent to being a strong leader. (personal communication, November 9, 2010) Their data and experiences were brought to the cohort faculty and participants for collective review and feedback. This dynamic process of analysis and reection through multiple perspectives forces program participants to think like leaders. It also creates a strong community of learners where participants felt safe to express issues without judgment. One graduate of the university-district program stated that when I'm in district meetings I'm afraid to tell others I'm struggling because others will think less of me. I know that when I talk with individuals who have participated with the...program that they will help me clarify my thinking and not judge me (Korach, 2005). During a workshop day for the blended online program, a participant stated, I can't look at my colleagues at school in the same way because I have an understanding of the greater system (personal communication, September 25, 2010). These comments indicate that the interrogation of thinking without personalization and judgment that occurred through the program became a habit of mind for program participants. Another blended online participant demonstrated that she was deliberately making preparation for the principalship from the results of the project work, Once I am in a principal position, I will evaluate the data collection system in place and decide if it has the capability to

58 50 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION disaggregate the data in a multiple of ways so we can look at it by students and teachers more easily than we can now (Personal Communication, October 10, 2010) Evidence of Generative Thinking Both programs begin with the most comprehensive and ambiguous project, Organizational Diagnosis, that required participants to acquire a critical and analytical perspective on the work of their school. There are no answers to this work, and the data they gather only generates questions and uncovers multiple systems with many dimensions. This project simulates the work of principals as they enter new environments and immerses participants into the ambiguity of leadership. A blended online participant reected on the experience of beginning the program: After day one of the workshop, I felt empowered, yet intimidated. I feel that I am the youngest and least experienced in the program...do I have what it takes? During the discussions in the workshop, I realized I wasn't making the same connections between readings, even though I had read and thought about them thoroughly. My conclusion to all of this...i will listen and learn from others experience. I may not have as much experience, but I have a dierent type of experience and contribution. (personal communication, March 23, 2011) Graduates of the university-district program stated that throughout the course of the program they began to honor struggles and saw learning as not having the answers but having the right questions. Participants in the blended online program shared an increase in their level of comfort with ambiguity as the program progressed: I have nally come to a place where knowing here is where you are, and here is where you need to be - now you have to gure it out. My cohort instructor said sitting with disequilibrium is something that you always have to sit with so get comfortable with it. (personal communication, March 28, 2011). This comfort with ambiguity promotes the capacity of the participants to think generatively rather than rely on others to provide answers Reection, Critical Thinking, and Metacognition Program participants become conscious of their assumptions and the impact assumptions have on their actions through examples and the analysis of their language. The programs are rooted in the organizational theories of Chris Argyris and Donald Schön (1978) and use the ladder of inference (Argyris, 1990 & Senge, 1990) as an analytical lens. Program participants report that they almost unconsciously identify assumptions that they and others make. Graduates of the university-district program have noted the power of recognizing assumptions so they can explore more dimensions of problems and arrive at more equitable solutions. Graduates and participants in both programs stated that the process of self assessment and reection became a habit because they were able to bring their reections and issues to their learning community. In the university-district program, this occurred through a ritual at the opening of each weekly class called Open Frame. This process consisted of an hour devoted to listening to and interacting with the voices of program participants as they shared issues and experiences that emerged in their work at their schools. The blended online program provides access to an open frame through the online community of inquiry. Several participants also stated that the requirement to bring their reections and issues to their learning community through their weekly discussion threads and journal entries made the spiral process of self assessment and reection a personal habit. The online community of inquiry provided a vehicle for reective and critical thinking that was accessible by all participants at all times serving to reinforce the dynamic, iterative approach of the inquiry framework employed throughout the program CONCLUSION The alignment of the survey and qualitative data of participants is remarkable. The online environment seemed to create a space where a community of inquiry was formed and authentic leadership learning occurred. In many ways the online space was a more powerful catalyst for deep reection and leadership

59 51 learning than that of the partnership program. The university-district program is nested in the context of one district and the in person structure promoted the development of a community that was dependent upon and inuenced by the relationships between and among the participants. The online environment decreased the capacity for individual voices to have more power and inuence over others. The online expectations for participation were explicit and equal for all participants. These conditions helped promote an equitable environment for learning. The ongoing building of relationships among students, cohort instructors, and course professors where all were seen as simultaneously teachers and learners was another important factor in the transformative inquiry pedagogical process. Throughout this process and because of the importance of communication and exchange, relationship became an integral part of the online learning experience. Critical to the success of a distance learning professional preparation program is the intentional reciprocation of roles among cohort members, modeled by the faculty team from the very beginning of the program during the rst in-person workshop. The implication for a participatory praxis of adult education online is simple: it is found in the authentic voices of the learners as they collaboratively create knowledge and self-determine personal growth within their community of peer learners (Tisdell, et al., 2004). The post-modernist turn in leader preparation means taking space to think about underlying power structures, biases, prejudices, and mental models. This thinking about thinking or metacognitive awareness allows for a deconstruction of the positivistic notion of knowledge serves to transform leadership from compliance to inquiry. A number of strategies can be utilized to develop metacognitive behavior, including: connections to previous knowledge, dialogue and reection on the process of thinking, deliberate selection of thinking strategies, and self assessment (Dirkes, 1985; Hartman, 2001). Indeed, the awareness of thinking and inquiry of self should become a normative part of the inquiry stance of school leaders. This awareness is enriched by an understanding of social power structures and inter-group communication and meaning-making suggesting that awareness of the personal and public contexts should be a part of the metacognitive reection process. The public display of work on the eportfolio provided an accountable forum that simulated the political nature of leadership and fostered sensitivity and awareness of multiple perspectives. The documentation through online threaded discussions and reection journals provided an eective means of promoting critical inquiry and assessing the progression of leadership learning. In short, the use of online technologies allowed for the enhanced explicitness of three essential elements: equity, assessment, and critical inquiry. Online displays of dialogue, work, and reective spaces allowed participants and instructors the space to critically reect not only on the outcomes of participant work, but also on the processes themselves. This exposition allowed for a granular understanding of the critical nature of the participants' inquiry which in turn aorded a more nuanced and richer picture for faculty to assess participant learning outcomes References Angelo, T. A. (1995). Beginning the dialogue: Thoughts on promoting critical thinking: Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 6-7. Arend, B. (2009, January). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The Journal of Educators Online, 6 (1), Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Brooks, P. (1998). Cohort communities in higher education: The best example of adult education. from: Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance. New York: Teachers College Press. Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dede, C. (1995). The transformation of distance education to distributed learning. In- TRO.

60 52 CHAPTER 2. CHALLENGING THE ONLINE ASSUMPTION Dirkes, M. A. (1985, November). Metacognition: Students in charge of their thinking. Roeper Review, 8(2), EJ Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for eective asynchronous online learning: the role of reective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction, Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Harri-Augstein, S. & Thomas, L. (1991). Learning conversations: The self-organixed learning way to personal and organizational growth. London: Routledge. Hartman, H. J. (2001). Teaching metacognitively. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice. Boston: Kluwer. Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002) Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hora, M. T. & Millar, S.B. (2011). A guide to building education partnerships: Navigating diverse cultural contexts to turn challenge into promise. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum: Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1), Korach, S. (2008, November). The link between pedagogy and practice: Intra-institutional research to evaluate the eectiveness of principal preparation. Presentation at the University Council of Educational Administration Convention. Orlando, Florida. Korach, S. (2005, November). Pioneering leaders promoting change: The impact of an aspiring principal preparation program. Presentation at University Council of Educational Administration Convention, Nashville, Tennessee. MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 4, Nelson, C. E. (1994) Critical thinking and collaborative learning, in: K. Bosworth & S. Hamilton (Eds) Collaborative Learning and College Teaching. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA. Orr, M. T. (2011) Pipeline to preparation to advancement: Graduates' experiences in, through, and beyond leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, Senge, P. M. (1990). The fth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Strohschen, G. & Heaney, T. (2000). This isn't Kansas anymore, Toto: Team teaching online. In M. J. Eisen & E. Tisdell (Eds.), Team teaching and learning in adult education (pp ). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 87. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tisdell, E. J., Strohschen, G. I. E., Carver, M. L., Corrigan, P., Nash, J., Nelson, M., Royer, M., Strom-Mackey, R., & O'Connor, M. (2004). Cohort Learning Online in Graduate HigherEducation: Constructing Knowledge in Cyber Community. Educational Technology &Society, 7 (1), Wheatley, M. J. (2001). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

61 Chapter 3 Acknowledging the Changes to Teaching 3.1 Game Changers: Developing Graduate Faculty for a Technology- Rich Learning Environment 1 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech 1 This content is available online at < 53

62 54 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING About the Authors Kimberly Kappler Hewitt (PhD) is Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership and Cultural Foundations Department, at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, North Carolina. She serves in an elected position on ASCD's (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) Leadership Council. Dr. Hewitt specializes in the ethical and ecacious use of data to inform change and on leadership for curriculum and instruction. She published Dierentiation is an Expectation: A School Leader's Guide to Developing a Culture of Dierentiation (coauthored by D. K. Weckstein, Eye on Education, 2011). Carl Lashley (EdD) is Associate Professor, Educational Leadership and Cultural Foundations Department, at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. His areas of interest include education law and policy, technology, and community-engaged scholarship. Dr. Lashley is active with local schools and districts in projects that focus on technology integration as a catalyst for school transformation. He currently serves as President-Elect of the North Carolina of Professors of Educational Administrators. Carol A. Mullen (PhD) is Professor and Chair, Educational Leadership and Cultural Foundations Department, at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She will serve as President of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) in Dr. Mullen specializes in mentoring, diversity, and innovations in learning and professional development in the leadership eld. Books forthcoming in 2012 are The Handbook of Formal Mentoring in Higher Education (coedited by S. Fletcher, SAGE) and Educational Leadership at 2050: Conjectures, Challenges and Promises (coauthored by F. W. English, R. Papa, & T. Creighton, R&L Education). Ann W. Davis (EdD) is Clinical Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership and Cultural Foundations Department, at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She is a leader in mobile computing for PK12 school districts. She was recognized by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) as a recipient of the North Carolina's High School Principal of the Year award. Dr. Davis specializes in school transformation with technology-infused curriculum, instruction, professional development, and change leadership. Authors' Acknowlegement This work was supported by a funding agency, the details of which are: Mullen, C. A., & Davis, A. W. (Co- Principal Investigators). (2011). IMPACT V: 21st-Century school and classroom leadership. Enhancing Education Though Technology (EETT), Title II-Part D and NCLB funds from the State of North Carolina; North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI), NC [grant funding # ]. (Lashley, C., Project Director; Hewitt, K. K., Professional Development Coordinator) Game Changing in Higher Education The pedagogical game is changing in institutions of higher education in Westernized countries. As teaching faculty in educational leadership, we can feel the ground dramatically shifting and buckling underneath us. The traditional model most of us have experienced was a regimen of courses delivered face-to-face (f2f) over an entire semester and held in a physical building space, such as a lecture hall or conference room. This model of education is quickly becoming anachronistic. The infusion of new instructional delivery technologies and online/virtual congurations for enhanced classroom practice and student satisfaction are game-changing catalysts. A new era of technology learning and prociency in higher education has been ushered in: Based on the rising pressure for schools of education to oer distance education and hybrid courses online, with funding clearly focused in that arena, technology adaptations for professors are inevitable (English, Papa, Mullen, & Creighton, in press). Teachers in universities and schools are expected to adapt, innovate, and model the integration of social learning technologies in interactive learning environments (English et al., in press). For many of us in higher education, this is a newly established norm for sound pedagogical practice, program relevance in a rapidly changing, globalized society and shrinking economy, and the reality of personal and institutional survival.

63 55 The use of technology has been identied as a crucial pedagogical competency for teaching in doctoral leadership programs. This competency has been described as a process whereby meaningful, blended learning experiences are created using the variety of delivery modes available such that each mode is used according to the strengths of the media and the nature of the learning activity (Hyatt & Williams, 2010, p. 60). While endeavoring to maintain academic rigor in the online learning environment, we are being greatly challenged by an insidious appetite for fast-food education, which controls program content and delivery (Ritzer, 2004). Ritzer argues that the capitalist model has fundamentally changed the purpose of education by overvaluing extrinsic rewards, subsequently lowering academic standards. Applied-knowledge disciplines like educational leadership and teacher education that prepare future leaders, teachers, and other practitioners have seen the game change, with mounting competition from less qualied providers. Some established preparation programs have turned into fast-moving, online diploma mills, believing that they will otherwise be put out of business. Dialogue around these changes is imperative for deepening our readiness for promising practices in online learning. We are reinventing ourselves, refusing to sacrice our high program standards of education as we work closely together to invigorate our graduate leadership programs at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG). We use existing and emerging technologies such as video conferencing, blogs, wikis, and electronic portfolios that have educational relevance for helping us to address the changes envisaged for society in the next decades (Hyatt & Williams, 2010, p. 55). But, we want to be mindfully critical of the inuences that are shaping our work, and we also want to have the power and autonomy to monitor those monitoring us. Where purposefully utilized, online learning provides not only the challenge but also the opportunity to be cutting-edge, future-oriented, and empowered. Projecting outward to the mid-century, learning technologies may be inextricably bound to standardized accountability goals, but creativity and entrepreneurial learning cannot be highly controlled, and students will not be obedient subjects (English, et al., in press). Learning technologies will allow for much more dynamic learning interactions that reect new literacies of power, with students in the driving seat of learning and innovation (Creighton, 2011) Exploring Faculty Professional Development in Technology-Infused Learning The educational leadership program that we focus on here is a fully online Specialist in Education (EdS) in educational leadership, commonly known as the 6th year degree, which is selective with respect to student eligibility and experimental regarding pedagogical delivery, team approach, and partnerships with schools, districts, consortia, and agencies. While the traditional version of this program has long existed and remains active and popular, the fully online version was launched in Fall 2011 after a year of planning for innovation. State funding, school district-university partnerships, and cross-departmental collaboration are supporting the 2-year EdS online program that is statewide and cohort-friendly. IMPACT V (formally IMPACT V: "Building 21st Century School Leadership") is a fth in a series of instructional technology projects in North Carolina supported with state and federal funding by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). The intent of IMPACT V is to build leadership capacity in the State's middle and high schools with the highest need, as captured in Figure 1.

64 56 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING Figure 1. IMPACT V Model While we continue to face myriad hurdlesprogrammatic, ethical, strategic, and institutionalto the implementation of this new program, we have tasked ourselves with rising to each and every challenge together as seasoned professors and practitioners alike to proactively anticipat[e] issues that need to be addressed (Hackmann & McCarthy, 2011, p. 284). Most of the literature on online/virtual programs is geared toward adapting the environment for today's learners and on pedagogical breakthroughs and barriers as well as institutional challenges (Cornelius, Gordon, & Ackland, 2011; Orr, Williams, & Pennington, 2009; Park & Choi, 2009; Sansone, Fraughton, Zachary, Butner, & Heiner, 2011). We are pursuing a dierent direction in contributing to the paucity of literature that addresses the professional development of faculty in moving from traditional to technology-infused teaching (Ambrosino & Peel, 2011; Gomes & Mullen, 2005; Horvitz & Beach, 2011; Papa & Papa, 2010). While we recognize the necessity and importance of the more prevalent dialogue for improving preparation programs and the leadership eld more broadly, we highlight this dierent dimension. Our contribution is unusual in that our professional development orientation is team-based, our recognition as graduate faculty innovators of technology-rich learning environments is already established, and our reection on pedagogical innovation is at the program, not course, level where we together create, implement, and evaluate. As such, in this collaborative reective essay we explore our shared learning within the Educational Leadership and Cultural Foundations Department where we construct meaningful professional learning opportunities in graduatelevel online environments. We include consideration of this kind of eort for the broader work of leadership preparation programs. On a deeper level, our context for this professional development involves the revitalization of ourselves as a community of scholar-practitioners in disciplined renewal. In order to write this reection, we have elicited each other's understandings of the initial phase of the 2-year IMPACT V project. By doing so, we have put into action the intention of the grant project to engage consciousness, develop skills, and reect dialogically around professional development through community-based, technology-infused, 21st-Century teaching and

65 57 learning. It is not enough to design or oer an online leadership program with the hope that it will somehow y simply because of its intrinsic merits of accommodating students at a distance, adult learning pedagogy, and so forth. The development of online degree/licensure programs in educational leadership is about more than translating what we do as instructors in a f2f format to an online learning interface and platform. We are learning that creating impactful and successful 21st Century online programs entails radically redesigning teaching and learning. As such, we recognize that like many faculty we need ongoing, collegial support to develop the skills and dispositions to enable this transformation to occur. Our current funded project provides this support through multifaceted, dierentiated professional learning opportunities, although takeaway ideas and applications are possible for dierent contexts. In this joint reection we ask, how do educational leadership faculty adapt to and transform the online learning environment within a changing culture that is itself entrenched in bureaucracy? Background Context of the Degree Program As four full-time professors who belong to a departmental culture of 13 faculty members, we have recently participated in a strategic planning process in our university, school, and Department. Within the Department, we arrived at a consensus that our core values include innovation and entrepreneurship that cultivate scholarly inquiry and professional development in our work. To our educational leadership team, this value gives deepened credibility to the promise of innovative approaches to online learning. In this vein, we are also committed to a learner-centered approach to our social justice work, which means that we aim to focus our teaching, scholarship, service, and community engagement on equity, excellence, relevance, high quality, and the best interests of students. For us, a game-changing ideology includes changing people's minds about technology-infused 21st Century preparation in educational leadership as a social justice issue and quality issue. By renewing ourselves as faculty, we can take action to revitalize educational learning and leading with scholar-practitioners from urban and rural school districts in North Carolina. We contend that integrating technology into teaching, research, and service not only changes professorial knowledge, skills, and dispositions; technology integration must also be a vehicle for improving program outcomes, expanding leadership preparation opportunities, and furthering commitments to educational equity and social justice. Ecacious technology integration transforms skills, mindsets, expectations, and outcomes to address educational justice and equity issues as they exist in the diverse, rapidly developing, chaotic, global 21st Century A Three-Pronged Targeted Perspective on 21st-Century School Leadership As educational leadership professors who are developing ourselves, we ask the ip side of the earlier question, which is: How can faculty build capacity for school and classroom leadership in schools with the highest need? Building 21st Century School Leadership (IMPACT V) reects our commitment as scholars and practitioners to work with 12 such schools across North Carolina. Our goals as a faculty leadership team with respect to the conceptualization of this project focus on 21st-Century public school leadership development. We see the purpose of schooling as rewriting the script of accountability as democratic accountability, the tenets of which are innovation, diversity, creativity, critical thinking, and empowerment. As a faculty body located at a High Research Activity Carnegie institution, we take seriously the preparation of practicing school leaders more innovatively. The IMPACT V grant positions technology integration as a catalyst for school improvement and leadership: "The IMPACT model, comprising a fully funded media and technology program, including personnel, resources, and access, recognizes that eective school library media and instructional technology programs support both eective teaching and learning. These programs are essential to making education relevant. The model is... aligned to national standards for media and technology programs. Based on valid research and reecting the recommendations of the revised North Carolina Educational Technology Plan ( ), the IMPACT model... assures that the media and technology resources and conditions necessary to support the teaching and learning process are present. The Enhancing Education Through Technology grant is intended

66 58 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING to provide the funding and technical assistance to support Local Education Agencies in implementing the Impact model in one of their middle or high schools." (NCDPI, 2003, para. 1) Our project includes 13 administrators from 12 high-need (see Endnote) schools across North Carolina in an online EdS program. We have developed a three-pronged curricular perspective on curriculum that underscores this online leadership preparation initiative in order to reach our desired target of building 21st-Century leadership. Three overarching concepts or target arrows of this program innovation are (1) to engage in leadership development through coursework, institutes, and enrichment activities within a social justice framework (Normore, 2008), (2) to promote through the internship experience practice-based leadership coaching to increase school team/democratic decision making and empowerment in schools (Papa & Papa, 2010), and (3) to anchor these two major goals through school improvement specically aimed at technology leadership at multiple levels (Schrum & Levin, 2009). (see Figure 2) Figure 2. Three Pronged Targeted Circular Design The NCDPI-supported IMPACT V grant endorses the thinking behind our three-pronged perspective. The education agency provides substantial funds for the K12 public schools involved to secure 21st-Century technology and media tools for supporting and catalyzing school improvement eorts. As a prerequisite for qualifying for the grant program, schools had to be identied as high needs based on socioeconomic criteria, including a lack of technology facilitator support personnel. Interested districts then completed an extensive visioning and planning process that took 4 months. The Impact V model involves school teams comprised of the principal or assistant principal, four teacher leaders representing core curricular areas, and one media specialist. The district level media/technology director also constitutes the team. The core curricular teachers are currently participating in a fully online Masters of Instructional Technology program at another university in North Carolina while the practicing administrators are earning the EdS degree through our new online program, which functions informally as a cohort. These school teams are guring out how to work collaboratively to develop a school improvement action plan and provide professional development for their schools while seeking support and resources from their district oce. As the NCDPI Division Director expressed, "By implementing the IMPACT model, these districts will join a network of model schools across the state [that spearheads] collaborative planning among teachers, media coordinators, and technology facilitators... This particular IMPACT model initiative will focus on building 21st-Century school and classroom leaders, and will rely upon a cohort of cross-curriculum teachers to provide the `just-in-time' and formal professional development normally provided by technology facilitators. We look forward to learning how other schools can aect technology- and media-related professional development through this model." (as cited in NCDPI, 2011, para. 4) In addition to substantial funding for the school teams' graduate programs, professional development, and technological equipment, the grant provides modest funding to support some teaching components of our faculty professional learning initiative. We have situated this project in support of student-centered learning principles and social constructivist theory more generally Framing Professional Learning as Social Constructivism In the technology interventions reported in the literature, students in higher education and public schools have made gains through environments designed to foster student-centered learning using principles of social constructivism. In a current study, Berry and Staub (2011) reported that 8th graders advanced in a learning environment in which they were guided to take responsibility for their development through the creative

67 59 and dynamic use of software tools in multimedia learning. The graduate student part of this equation that focuses on the leading and learning of adult learners has also been introduced in the literature (e.g., Papa & Papa, 2010). We see the professional learning initiative reported here (described in the next section) as a dierent type of example in which the focal point is the constructivist self-study learning of another adult learning population, the instructors themselves. We draw on action-oriented principles that foster learning that is collaborative, dialogic, and reective; online development that is critically immersive for all participants; and constructions of understanding that include power, privilege, and paradox. We are committed to advocating for eective and just practices in online learning while leading our university in this initiative, even though we nd that we must work to resolve bureaucratic, power-laden obstacles. In one such case, we were ensnared in a high-stakes contradictory situation that played out over an entire year. At rst, the fully online program was deemed an extension of the traditional EdS degree program for which no approvals or permissions were needed. Months later we learned from the same authorizing body that it had somehow been identied as a separate program after all (that is, from the traditional EdS program in our Department), thus requiring ocial paperwork, approvals, and authorizations from both inside and outside the university in order to stay in compliance. The faculty team worked through a holiday period in order to satisfy all compliance requests, nding it necessary to rely on the political and procedural knowledge we have built in other program areas, as well as our collegial trust, in order to satisfy the escalated requirements from compliance bodies. The success of our ability to function as a highperforming team was tested as we relied on each other to satisfactorily navigate a series of unknowns in an eort to avoid obstructionist complications involving planned program delivery, online congurations, and student progress. We are probing the taken for granted assumption that educational leadership professors collegially explore their own learning as we construct knowledge in a technology environment against a highly inuential backdrop of conservative forces, compounding dynamics, and political machinations. We believe that a team-based approach to critical reection, dialogue, and connecting new learning to prior learning and experience makes the dierence. Our IMPACT V project is fuelled by the idea that learners and leaders socially mediate as well as negotiate knowledge together (Stears, 2009). In real time, we are learning that our survival occurs best in a collaborative social environment that is mutually and actively created (Stears, 2009, p. 399) and that we open up to interrogations of prevailing logic (Hirtle, 1996). When approached critically, online learning environments can exhibit a revolutionary, transforming power for disrupting hierarchical boundaries by embracing a multiplicity of perspectives and experiences. These environments must conform to high-stakes compliance requirements, which elicit power struggles over who is responsible for the curriculum being created and delivered and who is deciding what is best for students and other constituents. Since empirical research on the eects of e-learning and virtual learning is in its infancy (Berry & Marx, 2010), self-study investigations such as ours can play a real role in understanding the faculty work environment involving increasingly complex power-over/power-with dynamics Faculty Professional Learning Initiatives Professional learning and development in the academy was viewed as a decit area needing attention in a national study conducted by educational leadership faculty, not outside critics whose intentions tend to be suspect. According to Hackmann and McCarthy (2011), almost a quarter (23%) of educational leadership respondents reported no professional development for faculty members within their departments or universities. Of those reporting professional development, the primary venue was workshops and seminars (31%); to a lesser extent, technology training, attendance at state conferences, and grant-writing workshops were noted. No mention was made of collaborative, ongoing, department-based professional learning opportunities. While this certainly does not mean that such opportunities do not exist, it does suggest they are not terribly prevalent. Our faculty team members and other colleagues, by virtue of participating in our departmental learning initiative, appear to be taking the road less traveled. Eective professional development includes such features as a focus on content, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation (Bausmith & Barry, 2011, p. 176); as such, our professional learning

68 60 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING initiative incorporates these elements into our four-part learning project. Our eorts to revitalize ourselves as a graduate faculty and prepare for eective online teaching and learning consist of four components: semiannual retreats; a professional learning community; 90-minute monthly tech labs; and participation in instructional technology conferences (as illustrated in Figure 3). Our Departmental colleagues have provided input into the development of these components at a faculty meeting and retreat in Fall Once the planning was complete, our team produced a short video to introduce our colleagues to these opportunities and invite their further participation (see Endnotes). To enlist their service, we ironically learned the importance of stressing that all of the learning opportunities are voluntary and that faculty can participate in as many (or as few) of the opportunities as they choose. Figure 3. IMPACT V Professional Learning Model and Activities The rst component of our professional learning program for online excellence involves semiannual retreats. The daylong fall retreat is held on campus; the 3-day spring retreat is held at a conference center a short drive from our university. These retreatsbecause they require substantial time and because we are cloistered at an osite locationprovide an intensive opportunity for deep discussion. We have already experienced progress on the revitalization of shared knowledge and the cultivation of a position on and vision for online programming. Professional learning communities (PLCs), sometimes known as faculty learning communities in higher education, are collaborative collegial groups of faculty and other teaching sta who are interested in and committed to the improvement of their teaching to accommodate a diverse student population through group discourse, reection, and goal setting (Ward & Selvester, 2012, p. 112). PLCs are dialogic spaces in which existing assumptions about teaching and learning are challenged and critiqued (Bausmith & Barry, 2011, p. 175). Our professional learning community (PLC) meets monthly for 2 hours to interrogate pedagogical assumptions. The seven core members who are departmental faculty colleagues selected The Flat World and Education (Darling-Hammond, 2010) to serve as the centripetal force of the group's focus. Our secondary texts, which are jigsawed by members of the group, are Essentials of Online Course Design (Vai & Sosulski,

69 ), emoderating (Salmon, 2011), and Teaching Online (Ko & Rossen, 2004). We gravitated to Darling- Hammond for the discussion of critical issues of equity, access, power, and impact of technology and to the other texts for their specic and practical considerations for eective online teaching and learning. The PLC also utilizes two Critical Friends (Cushman, 1998) protocols: the consultancy protocol and the tuning protocol. These protocols are frameworks or processes used to critically reect on and examine our practiceindividually and collectivelyin order to best serve and challenge students. The consultancy protocol is a process that utilizes critical reection and collaborative dialogue for problem solving. The tuning protocol involves collegial analysis of a document or artifact (e.g., student work samples, course syllabus, online course content). Because improvement of teaching practice develops through inquiry and dialogue that is critical, reective and constructive, taking place in social contexts with supportive peers (Ward & Selvester, 2012, p. 112), Critical Friends' protocols are an eective way for our PLC to advance our teaching practices. The purposes of the 90-minute monthly technology labs are to build faculty comfort and skill regarding online learning tools and provide instructors with the opportunity to explore these tools by messing about with them in a relaxed, collegial context. Colleagues internal and external to our Department and university facilitate the labs. Lab topics include the ins and outs of Blackboard, Blackboard Collaborate, Web 2.0 tools, online collaboration, and developing class culture and connections via distance learning. While the PLC involves in-depth exploration of professional learning over time, participants of the technology sessions gain structured support for immediately implementing the new learning. As program faculty, we present at various technology-friendly conferences and share our learning with the group through retreat sessions, tech lab sessions, and PLC conversations. These sessions are a productive way for faculty to gain a sense of what the trends are in the use of technology for learning, best practices in online learning, and innovations in the eld. A benet of voluntary learning opportunities is that faculty participants who are not core team members genuinely contribute and engage in change initiatives (Hewitt & Weckstein, 2011) and their own learning, which in turn has the eect of building a critical mass for change (Reeves, 2009) Formative Challenges to Our Online Learning Culture Challenges to our online learning culture have arisen in informal but scheduled faculty conversations since 2007, and they are an application of issues related to change in faculty members' work that emerge when any new initiative is discussed in a graduate department. A constellation of events such as grants and oversight compliance bodies drew us into program-wide conversations about distance learning, technologybased curriculum, and our professional development. We record our ongoing dialogue in such media forms as electronic exchanges, eldnotes, and videotapes of professional development sessions. We have faced various challenges in developing professional learning opportunities around online learning Isolation and the Status Quo Our Department shares a common and cohesive identity that has been documented over time and in multiple formats, particularly (1) a Statement of Commitmentsthe faculty's vision statement that underscores our collective commitment to the social construction of knowledge and of inquiry-based learning communities for the purpose of social transformation and social justice in vigorous support of an equitable, just world ( (2) a strategic plan, and (3) covenant vision (Mullen, Bettez, & Wilson, 2011). We regularly revisit our commitment to each other and our students and constituent groups, with technology-based equitable curriculum taking prevalence. In 2011, we worked with our departmental colleagues to create a document that reects where we are currently with respect to our commitments, translating the strategic planning process required of us into our own living artifact of core values. We have made a commitment that we will continually strive to create vibrant and intellectually enriching programs dedicated to the development of citizen-educators who are committed to social justice, moral inquiry, and innovative and inclusive teaching/learning practices (UNCG, 2012, p. 1).

70 62 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING Nonetheless, our Department is not exempt from stymying inuences that have the eect of perpetuating faculty identity not as an interdependent collective but rather as a collection of independent actors. As such, changing this culture of isolation and reorienting ourselves as a faculty towards collaborative inquiry and learning proves both challenging and exhilarating as we actively seek out opportunities for a shared identity as mutually supporting entrepreneurs Programmatic Conquer and Divide Our Department oers cultural foundations (PhD) and educational leadership (MSA, EdS, and EdD) degrees. While faculty teach across the divide, tension occurs around resources, status, and primacy allotted to the program areas (Mullen, Bettez, & Wilson, 2011). While IMPACT V grant resources are being invested in professional development for the entire faculty, including faculty in other departments, there is sensitivity around this being an educational leadership project that lacks relevance for the PhD program. That said, cross-fertilization of ideas occur in this context, with the participation of some cultural foundations faculty in the PLC and tech labs Time and Other Resources Time is perhaps the scarcest of resources as we struggle to create opportunities to expand our capacity to invest ourselves as a faculty in additional commitments beyond those we have already made to our teaching, scholarship, and service. As such, our PLC is sensitive to claims we make on faculty members' time. Toward this end, we have conducted a survey of the faculty to determine interestinstead of presuming this would be a worthwhile exerciseair ideas, and decide best times to meet for professional learning activities The Faculty's Struggle Over Expected Involvement Early on, our faculty as a whole debated whether these professional learning opportunities should be expected or voluntary. Some departmental colleagues felt that because the importance of new directions in online programming aects the entire Department, everyone should participate in learning and dialogue around this topic. Others felt that learning opportunities should be voluntaryfor reasons varying from the philosophical (academic freedom) to the practical (the opportunities would likely be more productive if not populated by people expected to participate). We, the organizers, were somewhat taken aback by these discussions, presuming the voluntary nature of this project and thus departmental buy-in of the professional learning approach taken to online teaching. We learned that we needed to underscore that this work and all of the associated activities such as survey completion, video debrieng, book reading, retreat participation, joint presentation, and coauthored publication would be voluntary, educative, and supportive of the Department's social justice commitments Dening the Faculty Retreat's Scope Our initial retreat was framed as the Brave New World of 21 st Century Teaching and Learning. The scope was intentionally broad and we considered new trends, discourses, opportunities, and possibilities in teaching, learning, and curriculum. Early on in the day, however, the conversation quickly veered to online learning. As a faculty, we debated whether to keep the scope broad or to narrow it to online teaching and instructional technology. Given the framework of the IMPACT V grant and capacity (in terms of time and faculty participation), our planning group decided in favor of the latteronline teaching and instructional technology Foreignness of Department-wide Collaborative Learning While our faculty has regularly held daylong retreats over the years, and while all faculty attend professional conferences routinely and work on projects in small groups, a multifaceted, ongoing, department-wide collaborative learning initiative such as this is foreign for us. Additionallyand ironicallywhile each of us

71 63 is familiar with the literature on PLCs and have even published in major venues on this topic with our departmental colleagues (e.g., Mullen, 2009), and while we advocate PLCs in our courses and in the schooling domain, our Department had not functioned internally as an across-the-board PLC itself. The foreignness of these eortscompounded by signicant cultural changes within the broader school and university contextled some to feel as though they were overwhelmed by isolation and foreignness Real and Perceived Threats We feel the pressure of competition coming from multiple sources, including for-prot programs like the University of Phoenix, which we quip are the puppy mills of higher education, as well as the convenience of all-online programs within the State. We perceive these as inferior to our own programs while threats of program consolidation and elimination loom, initiated by university-wide academic program review processes. Colleagues of ours who are educational leadership faculty across the United States seem concerned that such external and internal pressures are generating administrative mandates to move entire graduate programs solely online. We want to underscore the paradox that this high-priority area does not seem to be strongly attached to eective university-based support structures that directly help faculty or to regard for academic freedom in the creation, delivery, and oversight of high-quality leadership programs. These constitute major challenges in our work and compelling reasons for focusing our professional learning more persistently and innovatively. As next described, learning about online learning enables faculty to be proactive about radically changing program delivery Some Initial Developments in Professional Learning While this professional learning initiative is in the early stage, key insights are forming Appreciating Collaborative Professional Learning Opportunities Based on a survey form we created to collect feedback from our participating departmental colleagues at the faculty IMPACT V retreat in Fall 2011, we learned that they viewed the professional learning opportunities as refreshing and rewarding. Additionally, they appreciated the cultivation of organic conversations, and reported that these collaborative learning opportunities help them to think out of the box more. Additionally, they described value and richness in the experience of engaging in ongoing dialogue with their own colleagues Adapting University-based Leadership Preparation to Changing Times We share a general sense, along with faculty members in other universities, of what Hackmann and McCarthy (2011) describe as a game-changing reality for educational leadership: "... educational leadership units in U.S. institutions of higher education... face increasing external pressures as states contemplate reducing or eliminating licensure requirements for school leaders. The virtual monopoly that universities enjoyed in providing leadership preparation is no longer assured. School districts are growing their own administrators, and professional organizations and entrepreneurs are providing alternative tracks for individuals to become school leaders." (p. 269) Budding Excitement about Technology-Infused Learning As a faculty body, we have never been students ourselves in a high-quality online course and thus have no experience to draw upon in this respect or touchstones from our background that we bring to these new opportunities. While faculty colleagues in our workplace mostly focus on the challenges and limitations of online learning, there is some recognition of its strengths and capacity for serving diverse students from across the State by, for example, connecting them through quality networks and with knowledge specialists from around the country and world.

72 64 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING Translating Current Pedagogy to an Online World At this point, we have generated more questions than we have answers about online learning/programming. How do we make an online environment bend to what we need it to do? Can online learning/programming sharpen our competitive edge? Will online learning undermine the human element of teaching? How does the best of what we do translate to online learning? What are the major perils and benets of online learning? How can we embrace technology and retain our valued idiosyncrasies? To what extent and in what ways does online learning work for diverse groups? These questions orient and ground our ongoing discussions within PLC sessions and retreats. We have also established these four goals for continuing with our professional learning. (1) Creatively rethink time, space, and resources. As an educational leadership faculty, we are beginning to see possibilities and opportunities for redesigning our programs. Examples include incorporating intensive 2- or 3-week, on-campus summer sessions with academic year online learning; utilizing sites beyond our campus for periodic, in-person group sessions and activities, such as team-building activities at a ropes course; beaming in experts from around the country to guest-facilitate using online, synchronous learning sessions; and utilizing Web 2.0 tools for online collaboration and student construction of course content. (2) Establish a directional compass for online learning while upholding faculty values. We recognize that the professional learning and dialogue generated from our collaborative learning initiative will inform strategic planning and visioning and that such eorts will nurture our shared departmental values of equity and inclusiveness; collaboration and partnership; innovation and entrepreneurship; integrity and trustworthiness; engagement; learner centeredness; open-mindedness; renewal; and academic freedom. (3) Empower faculty, empower ourselves. Faculty comments gained at our Fall 2011 retreat reect a sense of empowerment that can come from being proactive by developing our own knowledge base and engaging with dicult questions regarding online learning. At the retreat, we discussed that we are being asked to do more with less while expanding technology-delivered courses and programs, in accordance with the President of our university system's public announcement. We acknowledged that our external funding (IMPACT V) places us in more of a negotiating position than many other campuses facing a decit in resources. We contrasted this reality with the competitive pedagogical prowess of other institutions in North Carolina that have a fully online capacity for their educational leadership programs, Western Carolina and East Carolina in particular, which pose a threat to our longevity. Being proactive about online learning by engaging in collaborative professional learning the way we are helps us to advocate for what we believe as a faculty is good practice and sound policy with regards to online programming while distinguishing us as learning-centered collaborative leaders. As innovators of 21st-Century teaching and learning, we are not allowing ourselves to be relegated relics of a bygone era or recipients of university mandates. (4) Transform current programming. Early on in our professional learning, the discourse was framed around how best to transplant or translate what we do in an online world. There is a growing sense, as reected in our work together, that online learning requires radically reworking our programming, as opposed to tinkering with it, as we make this shift to an online environment. We realize that online courses cannot be replicas of f2f, adaptations of f2f, or alternatives to f2f. In many cases, the practice has been to translate a traditional course syllabus for online learning. Many faculty felt that simply making their syllabus available online meant that they were teaching online. We are coming to understand the many dierent nuances that inform how dierent the online learning environment is from the physical classroom, no matter how hard course management systems try to make it seem familiar. The online environment oers many possibilities for learning, but some attributes of the classroom, with which faculty and students take for granted such as non-verbal communication (e.g., eye contact, active listening) do not have a literal translation online or at least vary considerably. To

73 65 excel at online learning, we will need to be able to transform the environment for learners as well as change faculty perspectives about instructional delivery and content presentation. The online courses we are teaching were initially, in most cases, an attempt at replicating or adapting f2f, but we have found that to be unsatisfactory. With our IMPACT V faculty professional development experience, we are changing the game and, to the extent possible, playing it on our own terms Game Changers, Audibles, and Rejuvenated Pedagogies As game changers, we recognize that we are in the middle of building our technology and team skills and literally testing our skills as we develop them. We are immersed in our professional development while writing about the capacities we are using in an eort to communicate these to our faculty and student colleagues and constituents. We are having the experience of time and space being compressed, so we must be able to think and move quickly in order to respond to learner needs and system failures (e.g., university servers). The well-established model of reection and the time for reection on reection are greatly changed. The need to be extremely proactive in responding to learner needs, technology adaptations, and institutional mandates has moved the fore, which further exacerbates our sense of urgency. In our professional development as faculty colleagues we are not talking about the minor changes and adjustments that one makes to one's courses to enable them to go live. Instead, we have tried to evoke a sense of a major change in the way the game itself is being played. Analogous to this phenomenon is that while the Wright brothers could be identied as the initial breakthrough in ying, the collective that enabled jet ight is not as readily known or remembered. In our genuine interdependence as teaching faculty, we are not striving to be the rst wave of changethe Wright Brothers. Our goal is not to y a few hundred feet across the sand dunes at Kitty Hawk. Instead, we want to be at the wave of innovation where air travel is the norm. We imagine transporting our students from one destination to another smoothly and eectively so they can transact the business of transforming schools to become just, equitable, democratic, and innovative centers of learning. This means re-setting our game plan. As support systems for game changers, the academy needs to provide a highly responsive and adaptive infrastructure that allows faculty and students to excel at online learning, which means time, equipment, and resources. Institutions are demanding innovation in learning and teaching and yet what is sorely lacking is a dynamic and reliable network that enables people to do their jobs in new ways. The kind of support we are talking about is not based on highly specialized knowledge and roles so much as well-resourced networks that function at an increased level across entire university and school systems. Interdependent people such as instructors, faculty teams, and technology support personnel would be working together to produce highquality instruction on behalf of a larger cause, such as successfully educating future leaders to lead eectively in high-need schools and low-income areas. Online programming is here to stay in educational leadership and while some of us have already adapted to it, we also face issues of program quality in the face of inconsistent and unreliable support: "The growth of online programs undoubtedly is of concern to the professoriate, because over half of the respondents in 2008 cited this issue as a... serious problem. A challenge for educational leadership units is to develop rigorous and engaging online oerings so that quality is not compromised for convenience." (Hackmann & McCarthy, 2011, p. 284) In order to oer online programming that is rigorous and engaging, educational leadership faculty must rely on each other by engaging in collaborative professional learning and working closely with other team-based providers, such as instructional technology and administrative sta. A goal is to develop the dispositions and skills for best practices in online learning as well as to be advocates for what is equitable, engaging, and eective practice in online learning. Our professional development project, we have found, is inextricable from reections on our Department's identity and collective vision. As such, this ongoing dialogue is imperative to not only build our readiness and skills to greet this game changer of online learning but also to rework our sense of who we are as educators and as a Department. In fact, the process is circular. In the 21st Century, the pervasiveness of technology means that any discussion of program quality, delivery, or availability must include a discussion of the possibilities

74 66 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING technology brings to the educational process. And in turn, technology utilization raises questions of program quality, delivery, or availability as scholar-practitioners work to make their practice respond to the needs of students and the community at large. The spirit of rejuvenation that such interactions engender gives us hope and motivation to continue forward into uncharted territory. We are learning that eective online programming requires us not to transplant or translate our existing f2f programming but to transform what we do now into what best serves students in an online environment. This work takes a great investment of time, energy, and creativity, and we are committed to being at the forefront of these eorts to respond to the rapid technological advances in the external environment (Hackmann & McCarthy, 2011, p. 284). And like the quarterback (i.e., a type of game changer) who changes a play at the line of scrimmage, we occasionally have to audiblethat is, we have to change direction quickly in order to assure that we reach our preferred goals. We eagerly accept the challenge of envisioning the future for 21st Century learning as it pertains to faculty development and educational leadership preparation programs. This dialogue is imperative for deepening our readiness for promising practices in online learning and intentionally reinventing ourselves as contemporary entrepreneurs in the process of renewal. The 21 st Century challenges us to new levels of preparing leaders for just, equitable, and democratic schools. Just as their work forecasts our collective future, our work at changing the game in leadership preparation will serve to exemplify how innovation serves socially valuable purposes. Endnotes 1 Schools met eligibility requirements based on federal high poverty criteria and technology need. 2 The video can be accessed at References Ambrosino, R., & Peel, J. (2011). Professional development to support online teaching. Journal of Faculty Development, 25(2), Bausmith, J. M., & Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 40(4), Berry, J. E., & Marx, G. (2010). Adapting to the pedagogy of technology in educational administration. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 4, Berry, J. E., & Staub, N. (2011). Technology pedagogy: Software tools for teaching and learning. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 8 (1), Retrieved from JSP_Spring2011.FINAL.pdf Cornelius, S., Gordon, C., & Ackland, A. (2011). Towards exible learning for adult learners in professional contexts: An activity-focused course design. Interactive Learning Environments, 19 (4), Creighton, T. (2011). Entrepreneurial leadership for teaching. In R. Papa (Ed.), Technology leadership for school improvement (pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Cushman, K. (1998). How friends can be critical as schools make essential changes. Coalition of Essential Schools. Retrieved from Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The at world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press. English, F. W., Papa, R., Mullen, C. A., & Creighton, T. (in press). Educational leadership at 2050: Conjectures, challenges and promises. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleeld Education. Gomes, N. D., & Mullen, C. A. (2005). Facilitating faculty development through mentorship: From traditional to technology-enhanced teaching. In F. K. Kochan & J. T. Pascarelli (Eds.), Creating successful telementoring programs. Perspectives in mentoring, volume III (pp ). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Hackmann, D. G., & McCarthy, M. M. (2011). At a crossroads: The educational leadership professoriate in the 21st Century. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Hewitt, K. K., & Weckstein, D. K. (2011). Dierentiation is an expectation: A school leader's guide to building a culture of dierentiation. New York: Eye on Education.

75 67 Hirtle, J. S. (1996). Coming to terms: Social constructivism. English Journal, 85(1), Horvitz, B. S., & Beach, A. L. (2011). Professional development to support online teaching. Journal of Faculty Development, 25(2), Hyatt, L., & Williams, P. E. (2010). 21st Century competencies for doctoral leadership faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 36(1), Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2004). Teaching online. New York: Routledge. Mullen, C. A. (Ed.). (2009). The handbook of leadership and professional learning communities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mullen, C. A., Bettez, S. C., & Wilson, C. M. (2011). Fostering community life and human civility in academic departments through covenant practice. Educational Studies, 47(3), Normore, A. H. (Ed.).(2008). Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through inquiry and reective practice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). (2003). IMPACT model schools. Retrieved from North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). (2011). IMPACT V grants awarded. Retrieved from Orr, R., Williams, M. R., & Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional eorts to support faculty in online teaching. Innovations in Higher Education, 34, Papa, R., & Papa, J. (2010). Leading adult learners: Preparing future leaders and professional development of those they lead. In R. P. Papa (Ed.), Technology leadership for school improvement (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors inuencing adult learners' decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results. Arlington, VA: ASCD. Ritzer, G. (2004). The McDonaldization of society (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salmon, G. (2011). emoderating: The key to teaching and learning online. New York: Routledge. Sansone, C., Fraughton, T., Zachary, J., Butner, J., & Heiner, C. (2011). Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: The importance of who, why and how. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), Schrum, L., & Levin, B. B. (2009). Leading 21st Century schools: Harnessing technology for engagement and achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Stears, M. (2009). How social and critical constructivism can inform science curriculum design: A study from South Africa. Educational Research, 51(4), The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG). (2012). ELC-UNCG strategic plan, January 2012 to August Retrieved from Vai, M., & Sosulski, K. (2011). Essentials of online course design: A standards-based approach. New York: Routledge. Ward, H. C., & Selvester, P. M. (2012). Faculty learning communities: Improving teaching in higher education. Educational Studies, 38(1),

76 68 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING 3.2 Challenges to Maintaining the Human Touch in Educational Leadership 2 NCPEA Publication note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook on Virtual/Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN This manuscript is a revision of an article accepted for publication in the TCPEA School Leadership Review, Spring About the Author Dr. Sandra Harris is professor and Director of the Center for Doctoral Studies in Educational Leadership at Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas. She is widely published in the areas of human relations and social justice. Her chapter here is a result of her selection as a "Living Legend" by NCPEA in Introduction Participating in professional organizations, such as NCPEA, UCEA, AERA, NAESP, NASSP, and AASA has been a valuable experience for me as the relationships that have been fostered through these associations have enabled me to grow personally and professionally. This has led me to consider some of the issues facing educational leaders today and in the years to come, specically that of focusing on the notion of how to eectively maintain human relationships. While few leaders agree on everything, there is no doubt that we all agree this is a complex time for our schools. My focus of this article is to consider three of the challenges before us to maintain the human touch in our profession: Identifying appropriate responses to the dilemmas that are occurring due to technology advances which include movement to hybrid/blended and fully on-line teaching venues, Establishing covenant communities in our diverse classrooms and beyond, and Nurturing our professional relationships as educational leaders. While these three topics might seem unrelated, I believe they all are connected to our shared humanity and all have the potential to develop or diminish the human touch. 2 This content is available online at <

77 3.2.2 Identifying Responses to Technology Dilemmas Matthew Militello (2011) argues that technology in schools today has the potential to be that of a disruptive force or to have a transformational impact (p. 15). The determining dierence, he suggests, does not lie in the technology, but in the humans who control the technology. To illustrate his point, he cites Kurt Vonnegut's 1952 book, Player Piano, the story of a world created where technology begins to control every aspect of life, thus taking away creativity and ultimately individual freedoms. Reading this article caused me to consider the player piano. How exciting it must have seemed at the beginning; what an awesome piece of technology... but after the tunes in its repertoire had been played and played and played and the new had worn o, where was the ability to create a new tune, to sing a new song? That was invested only in human capacity. Technology has opened up avenues for online learning throughout the world. For the past seven years online enrollments have grown at rates far in excess of the total higher education student population with over 5.6 million students taking at least one online course during the fall 2009 term - an increase of nearly one million students that were reported the previous year (Allen & Seaman, 2010). In Texas, The Higher Education Coordinating Board is encouraging schools to provide online degrees and Commissioner Raymund Parades has suggested this could result in a statewide digital university (Texas universities may increase..., 2011). In fact, in August, 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed an executive order that instructs state agencies to cooperate in establishing the Western Governors University Texas, an online school that would provide an aordable, exible way for Texans to earn university degrees without a need for state funding. However, Aoun (2011) argues that while online education will ultimately become an important component part of a system, it is not the silver bullet that leads all of education. Instead, he argues that both online and place-based (face-to-face) delivery systems must come together to eectively meet the needs of students. I am not against the increasing use of technology, nor am I against online teaching and learning. I am reminded of the rst time we tried to feed solid food to our little grandson, Austin. He closed his lips, shook his head and there was no way that spoon with its delicious rice cereal was getting into his mouth. The next day, we had a similar encounter. However, he must have gotten a little taste, because over the next few days he grew to actually look forward to his cereal and any other food that accompanied that spoon. Today, at three years old, he is a conrmed chocoholic! What he was afraid of at rst, he now is learning to appreciate. My reaction to online teaching/learning which currently assails all of us at our universities is not unlike Austin's reaction to that rst spoonful of solid food. At one time I was totally and completely opposed to online teaching/learning all I could do was shake my head violently and scream, No, No! This made me think I was clearly not in the right place; but was instead in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now, I realize that being in the right place at the right time does not preclude living in the midst of inner chaos. Today, while I may not fully embrace online learning, I am becoming more comfortable with this notion. Enough to rationally consider the potential it brings to education. After all, the enemy of education is not online programs. Instead, our enemy is not building these programs on sound research-based principles. Because it is so new, there is still much to be learned regarding online or virtual learning. While I have few answers, I am beginning to search the literature and am pondering the questions we should be investigating in order to use new technology wisely in our university classes. Some of the questions we should be asking include: How do we provide blended programs that balance online/virtual learning with some component of face-to-face? [Allen & Seaman (2010) noted that a greater portion of public institutions reported an increased demand for both face-to-face and online courses than did for prot institutions.] Do we exclude all face-to-face encounters for student convenience? [By the way, according to the research company Eduventures, over l/3 of online students live within 50 miles of their institution, and almost 2/3 live in the geographical region of the university (Aoun, 2011, p. 3)]. How do we accommodate the student who needs personalization and dierentiation in a fully online environment? How do we build a climate where students network and form lasting relationships in the virtual venue? 69

78 70 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING What is the appropriate class size when a course is fully online? [Burruss, Billings, Brownrigg, Skiba, & Connors (2009) found that successful experiences in these classes are impacted by class size and this varies depending on the level of the student whether undergraduate or graduate. They also suggested that class size inuences the quality of faculty and peer interactions, connectedness and social presence]. Jackson (1968) wrote The greatest intellectual challenge of our time is not how to design machines that behave more like humans, but rather, how to protect humans from being treated more like machines (p. 66). We must protect humans from being treated like machines. Thus, we must control technology, rather than let it control us or we diminish the human touch Establishing Covenant Communities Whether teaching and learning are conducted in face-to-face, blended or fully online delivery models, we must consider the human aspect of education. I cannot say this is more important today than in prior years, but it seems that with the world's complexities and changing demographics putting a human face to the challenges we face is especially important. One way to do this is to facilitate the development of covenant communities that encourage rich cultural conversations with educational leaders. Sergiovanni (1996) addressed the covenant idea as a way to create a community of learners that Respects and values diversity, Develops shared values and beliefs, Serves the common good by endeavoring to promote unity, and Supports people helping one another achieve common purposes, Having these cultural conversations is a critical component of preparing them for leading in our increasingly diverse schools of today (Okun, 2010). Ken Young, Carol Mullen, and I have been investigating this challenge of creating covenant communities where dicult cultural conversations can take place with diverse groups of doctoral students in a face-to-face program (Young, Mullen, & Harris, 2011). The doctoral students who participated in our study indicated the importance of participating in dicult conversations because this helps them see other points of view, provides proactive practice, challenges their current thinking, and provides opportunities to learn. Students emphasized they participated because it was a safe, trusting environment they felt the presence of a covenant community. As professors, we know that this safe, trusting covenant environment did not happen by accident. Instead, professors were purposeful and intentional in building this covenant climate where potentially dicult cultural issues could be discussed in a safe, trusting setting. It is dicult at best to establish covenant communities in a face-to-face or place-based environment. Aoun (2011) argues that since learning happens inside and outside the classroom it is not possible to replicate in a virtual environment the range of human interactions inherent in place-based education (p. 3). Yet, somehow we must navigate our way through this diculty to strengthen peer-learning environments in all delivery models. The following are questions we should be asking as we work to establish covenant communities in our classrooms: How can we arm the human need for a covenant community? How do we create covenant communities that nurture greater understandings of our diverse society? What intentional steps must be taken to be assured that our students recognize the covenant presence that allows dicult conversations to ourish? This establishment of covenant communities in our classrooms has the potential to provide the human touch and build a foundation for deeper dialogue in many settings, such as our universities, communities and beyond.

79 3.2.4 Nurturing Professional Relationships Technology which has spawned the growth of online/virtual delivery models is indirectly contributing to harming professors' professional and even personal relationships. At a time when university budgets are strained, the competition for students is erce. Distance Education programs are able to draw students from hundreds of miles away, while just a few years ago they were limited to drawing students only from their geographic areas. Students may now select programs they could never have considered before because they were simply not accessible. Now, through technology advances they may seek out universities for a variety of reasons, such as for their outstanding programs, well-known professors, creative models of delivery, semesters to completion, lower tuition and fees, and sometimes general convenience (number of face-to-face meetings or no meetings at all). Today all of these variables may be considered by students as they select the program where they will earn their degree. Consequently the environment in Higher Education is now more entrepreneurial and competitive than ever before and this has had a clear impact on the professional relationships of professors. In my own experience as a young assistant professor, it was often professors at other universities in Texas and beyond who mentored and encouraged me. In fact, one of the rst articles that I published as a young assistant professor emphasized collaborative writing eorts when professors were from dierent schools. These professors became my writing partners, presentation partners, and invited me to participate in their studies and contribute to their book chapters. Their support was invaluable and made a direct contribution to my career in Higher Education. The professional relationships which bind us together as human beings with common interests in educational leadership are invaluable to our profession as we come together to share ideas and resources. This is less likely to happen when we are competing for the same students and the same dollars. Thus some of the questions we should be asking include: How do we contribute to the scal health of our universities and maintain quality of our programs? [After all, it is still most education departments that are the Cash Cows for their university. Consider the following: Smith and Mitry (2008) found that university administrators will not see the full potential of e-learning until they adhere to the higher academic standard of full-time faculty expertise.] How do we maintain relationships with sister universities in this competitive setting since geographical boundaries are diminishing? How do we mentor, support, publish and present with our colleagues in the Academy when competition gets in the way of our collaborative eorts? Unfortunately, I have seen and experienced how this new competitive environment, can create disharmony and dissonance within the Academy. In order to maintain supportive professional relationships, we need to nurture our own covenant community where collaborative relationships with professors at all universities might ourish and thus expand our human currency Concluding Remarks As educators we have a major goal: supporting students in their learning to be knowledgeable, creative, problem solvers, and thinkers. A machine can only do what a human has programmed him to do and sometimes this is truly amazing... but it begins with a person. The world is increasingly complex which means we need to provide today's students with in-depth, complex learning that is an outgrowth of critically reective thinking. We must support face-to-face, blended, and fully online/virtual learning environments where students are challenged to go beyond mastery of concepts to synthesize information into learning units and then reect, create, explore, and investigate. With today's technological advancements resulting in a diversity of learning modalities our questions must focus on the challenge of maintaining the human touch: How do we respond to technology with balance in order to support students in growing their human capacity and connecting with other people to build positive, arming relationships? 71

80 72 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING How do we create a covenant community that emphasizes trusting environments where students' stories put a human face to teaching and learning issues and thus develop our human capacity? How do we nurture professional relationships in a growing competitive market where we can embrace our shared responsibilities to one another? Our legacy as educators begins with teaching, and should culminate in an embrace of learning that encourages lifelong wonder and an appreciation of our humanity. Learning is really not about answers it is about asking the right questions that lead us to understanding more about the human condition. We need more research to understand the positive and negative eects of technology. We must understand ways to develop covenant communities in our place-bound and virtual classrooms and beyond to encourage rich dialogue that leads to greater understandings of our diverse population. We must recognize the importance of building supportive relationships with our colleagues that transcend today's competitive environment by participating in our professional organizations. Our goal as educators should not be to leave a legacy, but to live a legacy... This means that while we lead in life-long learning we must live the process of continued interrogation to nd ways to respond to technology with balance, establish covenant communities, and nurture professional relationships in ways that nourish the human capacity in a time when the human touch is so needed References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010, Nov.). Class dierences: Online education in the United States, Needham, MA: Babson Survey Research Group: The Sloan Consortium. Available: 3 Aoun, J.E. (2011, May 8). Learning today: The lasting value of place. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available online: Lasting-Value/127378/ 4 Burruss, M., Billings, D.M., Brownrigg, V., Skiba, D.J., & Connors, H.R. (2009). Class size as related to the use of technology, educational practices, and outcomes in web-based nursing courses. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25(1), Jackson, P. (1968). The teacher and the machine. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Militello, M. (2011, Summer). Learning to play a player piano. UCEA Review, Okun, T. (2010). The emperor has no clothes: Teaching about race and racism to people who don't want to know. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smith, D.E. & Mitry, D.J. (2008, January/February). Investigation of higher education: the real cost and quality of online programs. Journal of Education for Business, Texas universities may increase the use of online learning. (2011, Feb. 22). Education Today. Available at: 5 increasethe-use-of-online-learning/ Vonnegut, K. (1952). Player piano. New York, NY: Dell. Young, K., Mullen, C., & Harris, S. (2011). Social justice as cultural conversation within covenant communities. Paper presented at the annual conference of NCPEA, August 2-5,

81 3.3 Online Course Oerings: Issues of Retention and Professional Relationship Skill Development 6 NCPEA Publications 73 note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Authors Mark J. Weber serves as a faculty member in the department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Tarleton State University, Texas A&M University System. He teaches in the education leadership M.Ed. and principal certication programs at Tarleton, and has published on a variety of topics in educational leadership. Tod Allen Farmer serves as the Director of Teacher Admissions and the Certication Ocer of Tarleton State University, Texas A&M University System. He teaches in the principal and superintendent certication programs at Tarleton, and has published a variety of books and articles on educational leadership topics. 6 This content is available online at <

82 74 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING Relationship Skills Johnson (2006) believed that, there is no way to over emphasize the importance of interpersonal skills and their use to build constructive and eective relationships. He dened interpersonal skills as the sum total of your ability to interact eectively with other people (p. 398). Research involving the concept of relationship building and maintenance is well established. Thomson (2006) explained that: "The Michigan leadership studies (1950s) took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. Under the general direction of Rensis Likert, the focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations: an employee orientation and a production orientation. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job" (p. 4). Relationship skills are vital for educational leaders. Leaders must use relationship skills to build consensus, develop social capital, and shape the critical mass that is necessary to aect change in the school setting. Relationship skills are also necessary to shape organizational culture. Sharif (2007) found that social relationships directly inuenced quality of life. Eective educational leaders use relationship skills to form mutually benecial professional working relationships whose needs are aligned with organizational objectives. These professional relationships can then collectively and collaboratively inuence organizational culture and thereby enhance the quality of life for members of the organization. Leadership preparation programs should include instructional activities designed to develop professional relationship skills. The articulation of dening relationship oriented behavior varies. For instance, Gorton, Alston, and Snowden (2007) dened relationship oriented behavior as behavior valued by leaders who concentrate not only on the task at hand but also on their relationship with their subordinates. Lunenburg and Ornstein (2004) dened relationship behavior as leadership that engages in two-way communication by providing social-emotional support, psychological strokes, and facilitation behaviors (p. 143). In general, education leadership preparation programs place great emphasis on the development and maintenance of interpersonal relationship skills. Harris (2006) emphasized that in the world of education leadership, relationship building is vital (p. 79). Fullan (2003) pointed to the campus principal as the person who must establish a climate of relationship trust within the organization to eectively tackle tough issues. Bryk and Schneider (2002) also focused on the school principal as the key person in developing relational trust with his/her campus faculty and sta. They identied four dimensions or criteria on which they based their measure of relational trust. The four were respect, competence, personal regard for others, and integrity. The traditional higher education classroom uses various teaching techniques to allow students to experience relationship building activities while in the classroom and during planned eld experiences. Many education leadership textbooks contain activities that are designed to promote relationship building and maintenance techniques. For instance, discussion groups are often formed to allow student expression or reaction to topics presented in a verbal or written format with classmates. Students actively participate in debates, present research ndings, use questions to both inquire and inspire, react to practitioner's scenarios, create vision statements, plan together, form consensus, explain and demonstrate a concept, collectively work through the decision making process, use dialogue and non-verbal language to work through common situations experienced by practicing educational leaders, and more. These activities are designed specically to expose personal traits such as those described by Johnson (2006) as follows: 1. Disclose yourself to others to let them recognize you as a distinct and unique individual. 2. Build trust between yourself and others. 3. Communicate your ideas and thoughts eectively. 4. Communicate you feelings verbally. 5. Communicate your feelings non-verbally. 6. Listen to others' problems constructively and respond in helpful ways. 7. Face conicts with the other person and resolve them constructively. 8. Manage anger and stress in constructive ways.

83 75 9. Value diversity and build relationships with individuals who are dierent from you. 10. Overcome the internal barriers to relating eectively with others (p. 389). The overall goal of educational leadership classes is to allow students to participate in activities designed to replicate practical learning experiences while preparing for their future as eective school administrators Those Who Say No to Online Course Delivery Can these interpersonal activities be implemented as eectively if delivered to students via the on-line format? There are those who would resoundingly say no to this question. For instance, Noble (2002) criticized online learning as a method of education that is turning post secondary learning into an impersonal commodity he calls commodication that benets educational producers and distributors, but not its recipients, the students (p. 2). Brown and Green (2003) reported that opponents of online course delivery have suggested that it lowers the quality of academic standards. Others have viewed the online course delivery as a cash cow as reported by Yang and Cornelious (2005). Brandt (1996) expressed concerns that include the changing nature of technology, the complexity of networked systems, unstable online environments, and the limited understanding of how much students and instructors need to know to successfully participate. Gallick (1998) opined that online instruction threatens to commercialize education, isolate students and faculty, reduce standards, and devalue university degrees Those Who Say Yes to Online Course Delivery Conversely, Schank (2001) believed that online course delivery is pedagogically superior to traditional course delivery. Ascough (2002) and Rosie (2002) agreed that online courses can promote student's critical thinking skills, and they can encourage collaborative learning and problem solving skills. Proponents also argue that online courses can encourage non-discriminatory teaching and learning practices since all students must participate with equal access to fellow students and instructors. The combination of traditional and online instructional delivery, called the blended approach, is emerging as a mode of delivery most preferred according to Eijil, Pilot, and Voogd (2005). Rovai and Jordan (2004) explained that the hybrid or blended type of course delivery can give students the reassurance they need to see the instructor and ask questions in person. A study by Allen and Seaman (2003) revealed that a majority of academic leaders (57%) already believe that the learning outcomes of online education are equal to or superior to those of face to face instruction. Nearly one third expect that learning outcomes for online education will be superior to face to face instruction in three years. The belief that online delivery of instruction maintains a high degree of credibility is becoming quite popular The Demand for Online Course Delivery is Increasing According to Allen and Seaman (2008), the number of students taking online courses has risen from 1.6 million in 2002, to 2.3 million in 2004, and 3.5 million in This trend toward online learning is expected to continue, especially as more traditional institutions add online components to their programs. Jones (2003) added that at the same time, enrollment in higher education is expected to grow at 16% over the next decade. The forecast for rising online enrollment is due in large part to the projected increase in online program oerings (Allen & Seaman, 2004). Howell, Williams, and Lindsay, (2003) concluded that educational institutions are responding to the changes by oering online versions of a number of traditional campus based programs, and in some cases creating a virtual campus. In addition to the general positives that online instruction oers for students, such as exible scheduling and virtually no travel costs, other benets of attending online courses include students' ability to enroll in multiple institutions, sometimes simultaneously, temporarily stop-out, or have multiple transfers between institutions (Johnstone, Ewell, & Paulson, 2002). Shaik (2005) wrote, with the simple click of a button students are able to shop for courses and programs that best accommodate their schedules and learning styles (p. 2).

84 76 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING Study Results Comparing Online to Traditional Methods of Delivery Studies by Tucker, (2001), Phipps and Merisotis, (1999), Johnson, Aragon, Shaik and Palma-Revis (1999) and others were conducted to determine if dierences exist in the area of student outcomes between online education students and traditional face to face education students. Gubernick and Ebeling (1997) stated that online education students scored from ve to ten percent higher on standardized achievement tests than did students in the traditional classroom setting. Tucker's (2001) study found that online education can be just as good as traditional face to face education. She found that there were no signicant dierences between pre-test scores, homework grades, research paper grades, and nal grades. However there were signicant dierences between online education students and traditional face to face education with regard to age, posttest scores, and nal exam scores. Online education students scored higher in all three categories. Tucker (2001) went on to say that this is not sucient evidence to conclude that distance education is superior to traditional education (pp. 6-7). Guillot's (2003) research revealed that there was general agreement among online instructors that online teaching and face-to-face teaching were very dierent. An example of the dierence was presented in a thematic analysis conducted by Nation (2006) which revealed that the technology skill levels of both online instructors and their students inuenced course content and teaching practices. Research conducted by Ledbetter (2003) supported the belief that online instructors could be successful in demonstrating transformational leadership by: (1) trusting their students; (2) developing personal relationships; (3) assigning interdependent group projects; (4) building rapport; and (5) emphasizing meaningful application during the teaching and learning process. Additional studies indicate students' attitudes dier toward online and traditional instructional delivery. Cicco, using (2007) analysis of variance (ANOVA), reported that an online student group clearly possessed more positive attitudes toward online instruction than a student group that received instruction in the traditional face to face setting. There is additional empirical evidence pertaining to online students having expressed a desire for online instructors to provide more clearly stated guidelines among things that faculty could have done more of to assist their online learning (Guillot, 2003). Szucs Werner's (2009) research involving online nursing students revealed that online students perceived a connection with their instructors and the university equal to that of nursing students attending class. However, students attending class had a stronger connection with other students on campus Student Retention Issues Associated with Online Education Nitsch (2003) stated, Retention of adults in online programs is a persistent and perplexing problem for providers of adult education (p. 3). With online learning, there is a greater likelihood that a student will not complete courses and stay enrolled in an online program than in an on-campus course (Pallo & Pratt, 2003). Student drop-out rates in online courses are as high as 35% to 50% (Lynch, 2001). Nitsch (2003) summarizes the reasoning behind the high attrition rates for online learners as follows: "The online learner is isolated from much of the social activities of learning (White & Weight, 2000). The online student lacks immediate support of peers and instructors, an important element of student success as described in Tinto's model of attrition (Tinto, 1993). In this model, several factors that impact attrition are explained with emphasis placed on the need for social integration as part of the learning process. Lonely people tend to be less involved in the learning process (Pugliese, 1994). With this lack of physical proximity, there is a decrease in the motivation to succeed in the online courses. Where many of the students seek out online learning because of its exibility, this exibility puts a student in the position of having to depend only on oneself to maintain the desire to complete a course. Without an adequate support system, a student could easily lose sight of the reasons for completing the program and decide to drop out" (p. 7). Fjortoft (1995) found that students with high levels of perceived intrinsic benets were more likely to succeed in an online program. The University of Illinois oers a list of student proles that could be used to demonstrate the skills needed to be a successful online learner. They are: 1) Are you able to work independently?

85 77 2) Will you sacrice personal time to complete assignments? 3) Can you write clearly and articulate your thoughts coherently? 4) Are you a self starter? 5) Are you able to manage time? 6) Do you have strong study skills? 7) Do you need direct lecture to understand materials? 8) Are you comfortable asserting yourself in a group? 9) Are you computer literate? Student level of satisfaction regarding course delivery has also been found to be an important factor in retaining students in online courses. Herbert (2006) revealed that the data from his study showed that almost without exception, successful completers were more satised with all aspects of an online course. Carr (2000) maintained that gifted instructors can always work around problems encountered with online course delivery. The literature reveals some online teaching strategies that may increase student retention levels and in turn strengthen the online course experience for students. Among the many teaching techniques highly valued include: 1) Training of educators on how to teach online classes is very important (Serwatka, 2002). 2) It is crucial for instructors to let students know how much time and computing skill is necessary to be a successful distance education student (Carr, 2000). 3) Engage students as early as possible and keep them engaged. Successful distance education professors their student frequently and respond to messages promptly, hold regular oce hours, and develop personal touches to make contact with their students, such as posting photographs of themselves (Carr, 2000). 4) Herbert (2006) echoed Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson's (1997) belief that A critical issue in retention in online courses is related to a student's sense of belonging (p. 2). The instructor should strive to create a sense of community among the students so they care about one another and are interested in what others have to say. This can be done by providing an online informal discussion area where students can share information about each other, debate topics and share points of view. This is sometimes called a discussion board (Serwatka, 2002). 5) Yang and Cornelious (2005) warned that instructors should understand that online education is not merely uploading teaching materials, sending and receiving messages, and posting discussion topics onto the Internet. More importantly, it provides an arena for an interactive, deep collaborative, and multidimensional thinking and learning environment (p. 7) Conclusions According to WebSiteOptimization.com (2004) the number of U.S. households that had Internet access was 18% in 1997, 41% in 2000, and 75% in As stated earlier, Allen and Seaman (2008) reported the number of students taking online courses currently exceeds 3.5 million. These statistics are the foundation for the recent increase in demand for online delivery of course instruction. To meet the demand, higher education institutions must restructure their programs to accommodate, that is, unless they want to risk declining enrollment. There will always be traditionalists who argue that online courses will never be able to supply the personal interaction that some students crave in order to be successful (Carr, 2000). They maintain that personal relationship building and maintenance can only truly be accomplished in the physical presence of others. However, recent studies support online course delivery to be just as eective as traditional course delivery and in some cases more eective, regarding student outcomes and scores on standardized tests. Many would argue that a combination of the two delivery methods may be the best compromise for all, while others maintain that totally online delivery will eventually be the norm in our ever changing society. Regardless,

86 78 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING online learning is here to stay, and it will be a determining factor in the success of education leadership programs for many years to come References Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. Sloan Consortium, Needham. Retrieved from 7. Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States Sloan-C Series Books ononline Education. Retrieved from 8. Ascough, R. S. (2002). Designing for online distance education: Putting pedagogy before technology. Teaching Theology and Religion, 5(1), Brandt, D. (1996). Teaching the net: Innovative techniques in Internet training. Paper presented at the 11 th Annual Computers in Business Conference, Washington D.C. (ERIC Document No. ED ). Braxton, J.M., Sullivan, A.S., & Johnson, R.M. (1997). Appraising Tinto's Theory of College Departure. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: Agathon. Retrieved from 9 Brown, A., & Green, T. (2003). Showing up to class in pajamas (or less!): The fantasies and realities of online professional development. Clearing House, 76(3), Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage. Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from 10 Cicco, G. (2007). A comparison of online instruction, and in-class instruction as related to graduate students' achievement, attitudes, and learning style preferences. Retrieved from Eijil, P., Pilot, A., & Voogd, P. (2005). Eects of collaborative and individual learning in a blended learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 10 (1-2), Fjortoft, H. (1995). Predicting persistence in distance learning programs. Paper presented at the Mid- Western Educational research Meeting, Chicago, IL. Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gallick, S. (1998). Technology in higher education: Opportunities and threats. University of California at Los Angeles. (ERIC Document NO. ED ). Gorton, R., Alston, J., & Snowden, P. (2007). School leadership & administration: Important concepts, case studies & simulations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gubernick, L., & Ebeling, A. (1997). I got my degree through . Forbes, 159(12), Guillot, F. A. (2003) Teacher and student perceptions of online instructional methodology in higher education: An explanatory mixed methods study. Retrieved from Harris S. (2006). Best practices of award winning secondary school principals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the course: A study in online student satisfaction and retention. Online Journal of Distance learning Administration, 9(4). Retrieved from distance/ojdla/winter94/herbert94.htm distance/ojdla/winter94/herbert94.htm

87 Howell, S., Williams, P., & Lindsay, N. (2003, Fall). Thirty-two trends aecting distance education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4 (3). Retrieved from distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html 13. Johnson, D. (2006). Reaching out: Interpersonal eectiveness and self actualization. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, S., Aragon, S., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (1999). Comparative analysis of online vs face to face instruction. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (ERIC Document NO. ED ) Johnstone, S., Ewell, P., & Paulson, K. (2002). Student learning as academic currency. ACE Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved from Jones, R. (2003). A recommendation for managing the predicted growth in college enrollment at a time of adverse economic conditions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6 (1). Retrieved from distance/ojdla/spring61/jones61.htm 15. Ledbetter, T. W. (2003). Leadership: Practices used by online instructors in higher education. Retrieved from Lynch, M. (2001). Eective student preparation for online learning. Retrieved from 17 Nation, D. L. (2006). A study of the eects of faculty knowledge of educational technology on online classroom faculty leadership practices. Retrieved from Nitsch, W. (2003). Examination of factors leading to student retention in online graduate education. Retrieved from Noble, D. F. (2002). Technology and the commodication of higher education. Monthly Review, 53(10), 1-8. Pallo, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the dierence? A review of contemporaryresearch on the eectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Pugliese, R. (1994). Telecourse persistence and psychological variables. The Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), Rosie, A. (2002). Online pedagogies and the promotion of deep learning. Information Services & Use, 20(2/3), Rovai, A., & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and a sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved from 20 Schank, R. (2001). Revolutionizing the traditional classroom course. Communications of the ACM, 44(12), Serwatka, J. A. (2002). Improving student performance in distance learning courses. The Journal,29(9), Shaik, N. (2005). Marketing distance learning programs and courses: A Relationship marketing strategy. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2). Retrieved from distance/ojdla/summer82/shaik82.htm 21. Sharif, B. A. (2007). Social capital and health in a digital society. The Health Educator, 39(1), distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html distance/ojdla/summer82/shaik82.htm 79

88 80 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING Sloan Consortium. (2008). Retrieved from 22 Szucs Werner, L. J. (2009). Analysis of online learning and community. Retrieved from Thomson, G. (2006). Leadership theories and studies. Retrieved from 24 Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Tucker, S. (2001). Distance education: Better, worse, or as good as traditional education?. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(4). White, K., & Weight, B. (2000). Online teaching guide:a handbook of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom. Boston: Allen and Bacon. WebSiteOptimization.com. (2004). Retrieved from 25 Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. (2005). Preparing instructors for quality online instruction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8 (1), Retrieved from distance/ojdla/spring81/yang81.htm Leading Adult Learners: Preparing Future Leaders and Professional Development of Those They Lead 27 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN note: This manuscript is reprinted in its original form (no third party contribution) from the previous publication, Leading Adult Learners: Preparing Future Leaders and Professional Development of Those They Lead, authored by Rosemary Papa and Jessica Papa, serving as a Chapter in Technology Leadership for School Improvement, Rosemary Papa, Editor, and published by Sage Publications (2011), ISBN distance/ojdla/spring81/yang81.htm 27 This content is available online at <

89 81 Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Authors Dr. Rosemary Papa is the Del and Jewel Lewis Endowed Chair in Learning Centered Leadership and Professor of Educational Leadership in the College of Education at Northern Arizona University. Her record of publications includes numerous books, book chapters, monographs and referred journal articles. In 2011 she published two books, Technology Leadership for School Improvement (Sage Publications, Editor and chapter author) and Turnaround Principals for Underperforming Schools (Rowman & Littleeld, coauthored). Ms. Jessica Papa is a master's degree student in Liberal Studies from The University of Oklahoma. Her interest in the adult learner undergirds her research in visual literacy from a cultural anthropological perspective Introduction Two key questions begin this chapter: What are the changing dynamics for faculty teaching today that prospective educational leaders need to know? And, what are the primary challenges prospective administrators face in professional development and optimally managing teachers who are utilizing technology in their respective settings? It is critical for those faculty instructing prospective educational leaders to understand the adult learner to maximize teaching and learning. In this chapter adult learning theories (theories about how adults learn) and how we engage adult learners (adults in a learning environment) sets the stage for managing and utilizing technology in subsequent chapters. Learning is the acquisition of knowledge through experiences with the result of a change in behavior. Learning theories focus on how one learns. Learning theories originated rst focused on the study of childrento-adolescents and more recently on adult learning. It is common today to think of learning as being lifelong: from the cradle to the grave. The maze of learning theories provides no single answer to dene how one learns but, does permit a substantial perspective to the process of learning. Some learning theories are more appropriate to adult learning and pedagogy (teaching strategies for how adults learn). The following questions are addressed in this chapter: What can leaders do to acknowledge the learners motivation and interests? How can leaders learn to mentor the adult learner? How can leaders give professional development choices in planning training activities for optimal learning experiences? How can leaders provide problem centered activities for professional training activities? How can leaders lead using dierent approaches and strategies?

90 82 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING Learners of All Ages Attention and motivation (degree with which the learner approaches learning) and how we utilize these are critical to understanding how we approach classroom experiences for our learners. If we know how a learner approaches the acquisition of knowledge then we can arrange classroom strategies that will enhance their learning. Various theories focus on the motivations of the learner: are they internal or external in their locus of control? What motivates a person to want to learn? External motivation in the early years of schooling requires children in most countries to attend school and so the motivation to be there is one of rst family approval and expectation and legal requirement. As one ages through middle and high school to college, the motivation to attend schooling unto itself becomes the motivation. Externally, the factor may be to get a well paying job or gain respect from our families. Internally, we may seek greater knowledge because we are inquisitive and curious. It can also be a combination of both external and internal factors. As is the case with children that begin life with their ever expanding curiosity to learn about the world, this individual nature to learn re-emerges with passion when adults are no longer required to attend school and yet choose to keep learning. So, now that we have them in their seats how do we keep their attention? Often in the learning cycle, we as educational leaders forget that just because students are required to be in front of us during the elementary to middle school or until high school we often fail to see the student as a complex learner dierent from the other students. We tend to focus on delivering the content usually following the latest fad in education tied to knowledge standards established by our countries policy makers which inuences the textbooks we use. In adult education, the similar conundrum may also exist. How we then approach the years from high school to the lifelong learner becomes quite complex, both from a social-political perspective and learning theory choice. With no clear road map of acceptance by research and theory, we will hope to persuade the reader that strategies from a variety of learning perspective should be of benet to the educational leader that seeks to be the best they can be. Of course, from our perspective, the best educational leader is the educational leader that has foci on their managing, leading and teaching the adult learner as an individual. As the saying goes, when' the learner stops being attentive, I am no longer leading nor teaching.' Is the 18 to 23 year old similar to the 30 to 40 year old? Or, the 50 to 60 year old? Common sense tells us that life experience through our lifetime greatly inuences our motivation, ability to learn, and the attention we choose to give learning. From the time we exit mandatory schooling and transition to learning that we choose, such as continuing into college or working at a job we are happy with, we begin adult learning. Adult learning is learning done on a continuum from the adolescent-adult stage forward Adult Learning Theories How we learn and help others to learn is the sub-context for this chapter. Some tie learning to personal motivators, ala, Bandura, Brown, Bloom, Dewey and Glasser. Others focus on innate individual dierences, ala, Gardner, and Guilford. And for others behaviorism or learning as cognitive constructivism (learners construct knowledge based on previous knowledge) is the prime importance to dening learning. Learning-based theories describe the learner from a variety of key points. Presented in Table 1 are the learning theories by category listed by the key researcher and the approximate time their theories were developed. Table 1: Learning Theories and Timeline of Theory Development

91 83 Table 1 (continued)

92 84 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING Behaviorism Beginning with Behaviorism, Watson and subsequently the famous B.F. Skinner believed that behaviorism was the key to learning through the use of positive or negative stimuli. Behaviorism is limited in its range for addressing adult leaner needs as it does not consider cognitive and aective processes Cognitive Constructivism Numerous perspectives have contributed to cognitive constructivism. Piaget viewed cognitive construction as having 4 stages. For the purposes of the textbook, we are focused on stage four, Formal Operations for ages 11 to 15 which assumes that this age reaches adult cognition and conceptual reasoning abilities. Knowledge from this point forward is constructed through individual experiences. Some credit the work with children that Piaget did, as the inventor of the eld of cognitive development (Gardner, 2006). Criticism of Piaget has been found in his lack of acknowledging individual dierences and in minimizing cultural, social, and ignoring motivational factors. Bruner is considered to have been one of the original thinkers in cognitive constructivism. Learning is an active process. Learners construct new ideas based upon their existing knowledge. Bruner (1983) stated, Knowing how something is put together is worth a thousand facts about it (p.183). Parallel to Piaget and Bruner, personality theory from the mid 1950's in adult research began to take the view that all learning does not end with adolescence. In personality theory, Erik Erikson's eight stages of life expanded Freud's view of ve stages and challenged the notion that development ended with adolescence. Erikson took Freud's original ve stages and expanded them to eight to include adult development. These additional stages are: Stage 6-young adult (late teens through twenties) characterized by intimacy vs. isolation, seeking partners and friends; Stage 7-middle adult (thirties to fties) characterized by generativity

93 85 vs. self-absorption, seeking a meaningful home and workmates; and, Stage 8-old adult (sixties and beyond) characterized by integrity vs. despair. Bloom's (1965) contribution to learning was to dene the cognitive (knowledge) domain in unison with the aective (attitudes, beliefs, values) domain. His taxonomy for educational objectives is widely used today for developing and helping students categorize test questions. Lave and Wenger (1991) have dened their learning research as adult learning theory. They have recently identied that as we grow older engaging in communities of practice increases our ability to analyze our experiences. They call this intentional reection. This is a commonly used process today in adult learning Social Constructivism For Vygotsky (1978) learner development occurs rst at the social level and later on an individual level. Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development is the potential for learning when children participate in social behavior. His work which began in the 1920's was embraced during the later part of the 20 th century for its contribution to cultural understanding in how we learn. Approaching it from another perspective Bandura's (1986) observational learning has motivation at the heart of the theory. His four steps are attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation Humanist Humanistic learning theory focuses on the emotional and aective aspects of the learner. Maslow's research was centered on the need for experiential learning. Experiential learning emphasized ones ability to choose, encouraged our creativity, values, and self realization. Personal dignity in learning was at the heart of this theory. Rogers also believed that learning should be at the personal level. Learning should include ones feelings and emotions along with the cognitive. Overemphasis of the cognitive was not conducive to good learning Motivation Motivation impacts learning in interesting ways. Glasser's (1990) Control Theory is a theory of motivation that ties learning to what a person wants most at any given time. Brown (1996; 1990) identies the internal or external motivators that drive a person's locus of control. This locus of control impacts how a person attributes success or failure and thus, what their motivation is to learn. Dewey's (1938) theory found experiential learning leads us to more learning. Experiential learning motivates us to learn. Rogers (2004) stated that motivation is the single most important factor for the learner. She said, Unless you are motivated you will not and cannot learn, (15). Adult learning combined with personality psychology continued to expand during the 1980's. Levinson's seminal work (1978) Season's of a Man's Life andcarol Gilligan's In a Dierent Voice brought further attention to adulthood relative to age, gender, and culture. Female development up to this time had been researched as though complete adult development was inaccessible to the female by virtue of gender characteristics. These studies countered that thinking and elevated that girls do learn dierently than boys Intelligence Guilford (1950) believed that the intellect was comprised of operations, content and products. His interest was focused on creativity and how one develops this ability. Creativity and how we engage the learner is supported by Gardner's (1983) multiple intelligences theory. He has to date identied nine intelligences: Verbal/Linguistic: reading, writing, speaking, and listening Logical/Mathematical: working with numbers and abstract patterns Visual/Spatial: working with images, mind mapping, visualizing, drawing Musical/Rhythmic: using rhythm, melody, patterned sound, song, rap, dance Bodily/Kinesthetic: processing information through touch, movement, dramatics

94 86 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING Interpersonal: sharing, cooperating, interviewing, relating Intrapersonal: working alone, self-paced instruction, individualized projects Naturalist: spending time outdoors, sorting, classifying, noticing patterns Existentialist: wondering people, philosophical, seeking the bigger picture Gardner's work continues to redene the learner and what attributes he has identied has led to specic learner strategies. Inuences from Bruner and Piaget are found in Gardner's work Adult Learning and Pedagogy The founding father of adult learning is often attributed to Knowles. Knowles (1990) uses the term andragogy for adult learning distinguished from pedagogy which is children based. Knowles suggested an endpoint to adulthood, as noted by (Rogers, 2002) that adulthood is attained when individuals perceive themselves to be essentially self-directing. Knowles (2002) identied the following principles: Adults need to participate: plan and evaluate their instruction Experiential learning activities should be provided Topics must be relevant to their jobs or personal life Learning for adults should be problem-centered vs. content-oriented. Cronbach and Snow (1977) identied attitude at the heart of their theory. Learning they said is best achieved when strategies are geared directly to the learners specic abilities. Their theory is called Attitude Treatment Interaction. Adult learning contains critical reection characteristics which require analysis for the learner (Freire, 1972) and are action based for the learner (Knowles, 1990). As stated by Alan Rogers (2002), Freire...suggested that learning is accomplished by critically analyzing experience and acting on the basis of that analysis... [and for] Knowles...action is an essential part of the learning process, not a result of the learning process, (107). Patricia Cross's Characteristics of Adults as Learners model (CAL) wrote guidelines for adult education programs. These guidelines are practical and situational on adult learning with attention to characteristics such as, full time versus part time; required (compulsory) or voluntary, etc. Cross's three principles to adult learning are: (1) Learning should capitalize on one's experience; (2) Age of the learner is a factor; and, (3) Challenge the adult to continue to grow. Choices on how the learning is organized are important to the adult learner Engaging Adult Learners All the learning theories mentioned in the preceding brief summary have impacted the evolution of adult learning and pedagogy: some to a greater degree than others. Cognitive and social constructivisms are strong underpinnings to adult learning, as are Humanist and Motivation-Personality Theories. Figure 1 depicts the relationship of learning theories to adult learning and pedagogy. Figure 1: Learning Theories Evolution to Adult Learning

95 87 As Figure 1 depicts the evolution of learning theories that have lead us to where we are today. Understanding adult learning and pedagogy requires us to know the adult learner diers from the child development theories and that adult motivations and experiences require us to know dierent strategies to keep adults attention. The best adult strategies are found foremost in the work of Knowles, Cross, Lave and Wenger, and Cronbach and Snow. The evolution of these theories can be found in the cognitivists, social constructivists, motivation theory, intellect theory and humanism. Today, adult learning can only be studied through a complex arrangement of factors. Learning styles and the psychological theories of learning allow us to acknowledge that learning is neither stagnant for adults nor easy to describe by a single learning theory. How we lead the adult learner is greatly impacted by both knowledge of the context and of the learner themselves. Contextual understanding by the educational leader is as critical as the transfer of knowledge and how it is transferred through strategies and activities. Our skill and ability as an educational leader is tested now by both knowledge of how adults learn and the tools we have available today that we did not have even ten years ago Mentoring (the most complete human skill to acquire) Adult Learners The former role of the educational leader, the benevolent authoritarian, is now being transformed to the mentor/coach. Papa (Papa-Lewis, 1987; 1983) has researched extensively as an organizational theorist how mentoring adults inuences their learning. Mentoring, teaching, coaching, facilitating and other such similar descriptors describe a process for adult learning. Building upon the work of Maslow, Rogers, Lave, Erikson, Glasser, Levinson, Gilligan and Vygotsky cultural, linguistic, and gender nuances are additional factors that comprise the adult learner and that the educational leader must understand when working with adults. In understanding the communication patterns of the individual the following eight stages represent in descending order of ability how adults communicate both at work and in their personal lives: Mentoring; negotiating; supervising; diverting; persuading; speaking-signaling, and serving. Mentoring is considered

96 88 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING the most complete human skill to acquire immediately followed by negotiating and instructing (1983; 1987; 2002). Papa's research combines adult learning, Knowles and Cross, and characteristics of mentoring in the following manner. Adults are motivated to learn as they develop needs and interests that learning will satisfy. The adults (protégé's) needs and interests are an appropriate starting point for mentoring. Adult orientation to learning is life or work centered. The appropriate frameworks for organizing mentoring are life or work related situations rather than theoretical subjects. Experience is the richest resource for adult learning. The approach for mentoring involves active participation in a planned series of experiences, the reection of those experiences, and their application to work situations. Adults have a deep need to be self-directing. The role of the mentor is to engage in a process of inquiry, reection and decision making with the protégé, rather than transmit knowledge and then evaluate the protégé's conformity to it. Individual dierences among adult learners increase with age, gender, culture, language, and experience. Mentoring must make optimum provision for dierences in style, time, setting, and pace of learning. Shifting the educational leader's role from passive to engagement of the learner forces the educational leader to understand the role of mentoring adults. Papa (2002b) has adapted Knowles' work on how adults learn best: some adults learn best by listening and taking notes: some adults learn best by group work with other students; some adults learn best by reading rather than listening to lectures; and, some adults learn best by doing specic assignments based on the material covered. When combined with mentoring skills the educational leader should (Papa, 2002a): (1) Provide alternative models, showing how a problem can be approached from a variety of ways: (2) communicate questions, to aid in comprehension of the issues; (3) try to give a sense of the various strategies they rejected as well as those they adopted, as one sometimes imagine that educational leaders lead without reference to situation, context, people involved, etc.; (4) share your intentions. How do you analyze the problem? What are you trying to accomplish? Why are you adopting this strategy? Don't just let them observe you, explain in advance the context, what you understand the problem to be, what you expect to accomplish, what obstacles you anticipate, etc.; (5) Mutual debrieng, with the leader willing to share mistakes as well as successes; (6) An opportunity for both of you to learn; (7) Work at the relationship. It does not just "happen;" (8) Provide successful experiences for those involved; (9) Recognize this is not cloning. You must preserve a fundamental respect for the views, experiences, and sensitivities of those you are leading; and, (10) Develop mutual trust and befriending. Peer-to-peer instruction or mentoring based leadership are skills the educational leader should practice Teaching-Leading Adult Learners Great teaching is dened by the ability to inspire learners. Motivate the learner and you will grab their attention. Keeping their attention is more dicult. Educational leaders need many strategies at their ngertips to keep other's attention. Adult learners by the nature of their characteristics will learn best when in a mentoring environment. In this environment the educational leader acknowledges that they are a learner as well. Figure 2 describes how adults can be taught reaching all learners. This chart has the educational leader understand that by changing the strategies for the learner, all adult learners are engaged. Hearing something said, saying something, doing something and seeing something acknowledges that adults learn dierently. The goal is to keep the learners attention: to optimize engaged learners demands the use of strategies and techniques that support the varied learning styles of adults. To say one leads the way we were lead is not entirely true. More precisely, we lead the way we learn best. How we learn best keeps our attention. It may not keep the attention of those we are trying to lead. Introducing concepts from a variety of strategies ensures all learners are engaged. Papa's practices (2000b) for adult learners are easy to remember: See the concept; hear the concept; say the concept; and apply the

97 concept. The following table describes the strategies that can be used for each of these four areas. Hear It focuses on the learner that needs to read and write the concepts in order to learn the content. See It oers a visual for the learner, such as writing on a board or using power point. Say It refers to learners that must talk about the concept and are frequently those that ask a lot of questions. This strategy is good for peer-to-peer work and group work. Do It is the hands-on application that allows for trial and error. It is especially important that we discuss mistakes. Figure 2: Adult Learning Characteristics Conclusions This chapter has focused on the adult learner, how we learn and the need for educational leaders to understand these dynamics. What are the multi-media applications which connect to the visual, auditory, verbal and kinesthetic learner? How do the changing technology practices impact the learner? The answers to these questions are found in the remaining chapters of this book Key Principles for Leaders to Know Experiences of the adult learner continue to be the rich backdrop the educational leader can build upon. It also requires having educational leaders that are trained in learning theory from a variety of perspectives, as found in this chapter. Key principles for educational leader to understand are: Acknowledge the learners motivation and interests Mentor the adult learner Consider strategies to have them participate in their learning Utilize their life experiences in the activities provided Give them choices in planning their learning Explore their expectations for learning: work and/or personal related Provide problem centered activities

98 90 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING Analyze each individually for their learning characteristic Lead using dierent approaches and strategies Create socialization opportunities in your activities Demand their attention through inspirational leadership Leading should be learner centered not educational leader centered CASE STUDY: Applying Adult Learning Theories It is the rst day back from summer break. As the new principal, you desire to know more about the teachers in the school. You decide to do a learning activity with the teachers that will help to begin to know them and therefore, to lead them better. You ask them to think about their summer break. Did they travel? Did they teach summer school? Did they work at another job? Did they take ying lessons? Learn to scuba dive? Etc. You ask them to respond to a specic open-ended question. Choose one style from the following four listed that most closely ts your style (that appeals most to you): 1. If you are a cognitivist combined with intellect theory, you might ask to describe how they learned something new from previous knowledge they already had. When did they realize they were constructing new ideas? Think outside the box? You would ask them to provide rich detail in what they believed they learned. 2. As a humanist, you might ask to describe the most emotional day they had this summer and tell why it was emotional. What was the outcome? How did you feel? What did you learn from the experience? 3. If you are a social cognitive constructivist and motivation theorist, you might ask them to describe what they learned from their peers and how they personally felt about it. Did you go along? Did you resist doing what your peers did? Why did you join in or decide not to join in? 4. An adult learner theorist might ask them to describe something they learned this summer and what were the steps that they did to learn? What strategies did they use or have to learn? What skills did they master? Were they successful in learning it? If so, why? If not, why not? Discussion: Which of the four styles listed above best describe your style? Why? Refer back to Table 1 to help explain your answer. Activity: Utilizing Table 3, identify the most likely type of learning style(s) you have by examining your answer to the above discussion. Reect on the types of strategies that best reect your style CASE STUDY: Self-Reection and Professional Development By identifying how adults learn, administrators are better able to arrange approaches to meet the learning styles of those they lead and arrange for professional development in their respective school settings. This insight will serve us well when we are seeking by-in for new multi-media applications that will improve management aspects of the workplace and especially student success for all. Focus on a professional development situation in which you were a learner: a situation in which you were asked to learn a new concept. What was the concept? What was the setting in which you were to learn? Discussion: In a group, discuss how you as the learner would respond to the following questions. How key was attention to the learning and the act of learning? What optimized your attention? What maintained your attention? What role did peer or personal motivation play? How much control as the learner did you have? Was it enough? How much did interest or need aect (your) learning? Activity: Now plan a professional development activity by focusing on the following issues:

99 91 How key is maintaining the attention of the learner in the act of learning? What would you do to optimize attention? What would you do to maintain attention? What role does peer or personal motivation play? How much control for the learner do you think is necessary? How much does interest or need of the learner aect your training? Web Resources Adult Education Quarterly, 28 Adult Learning, adult-ed/jenny/learning.html 29 Adult Learning Activities, California Distance Learning Project 30 Community Partnerships for Adult Learning 31, U.S. Department of Education, 32 Educational Technology Clearing House, 33 How Adults Learn, 34 ISTE: International Society for Technology in Education 35 Mentor Information and Materials, 36 Iowa's Professional Development Model 37 Teaching Tips Index, 38 The U.S. Department of Education's Oce of Educational Technology 39, References Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bayard, J.P. & Papa, R. (2003). One learning model. Sacramento, CA: Center for Teaching and Learning. Bloom, B.S. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives. London, UK: Longman. Brown, R. (1990). The construct and concurrent validity of the social dimension of the Brown locus of control scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, Note: In-class Hand-out. Brown, R. & Marcoulides, G.A. (October, 1996). A cross-cultural comparison of the Brown locus of control scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 5, Bruner, J.S. (1983). In search of mind: Essays in autobiography. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Cronbach, L. & Snot, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington. Cross, K.P. (1981). Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass adult-ed/jenny/learning.html

100 92 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Erikson, E.H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues,1, 1. Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Felder, R. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23 (5), Retrieved December 2000, from Felder, R. (1996). Matters of style. ASEE Prism, 6(4), Retrieved December 2000, from Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st century, New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). The Disciplined Mind: Beyond Facts And Standardized Tests, The K-12 Education That Every Child Deserves, New York: Simon and Schuster. Gardner, H. (2006). The development and education of the mind: The selected works of Howard Gardner. London, UK: Routledge. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a dierent voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Gregorc, A., & Butler, K. (1984, April). Learning is a matter of style. VocEd, Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Clis, NJ, Prentice-Hall. Knowles, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. New York, NY: Association Press. Knowles, M.S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, D.J. (1978). The season's of a man's life. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Levinson, D. J., & Levinson, J. D. (1996). The seasons of a woman's life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. McCarthy, B. (2006). The 4-MAT system: Teaching to learning styles with right/left mode techniques. Retrieved on September 9, 2006 from: 43 Papa-Lewis, R. (1983). The mentoring relationship between major advisors and doctoral degree advisees. Dissertation Abstracts. Papa-Lewis, R. (1987). The relationship of selected variables to mentoring in doctoral level education. International Journal of Mentoring, 1 (1), Papa, R. (2002a). The art of mentoring. Sacramento, CA: Center for Teaching and Learning. Papa, R. (2002b). How we learn. Sacramento, CA: Center for Teaching and Learning. Papa, R. (2004, October). Social studies and elementary education: An annotated review of literature. New York, NY: Macmillan McGraw-Hill, Publishers. Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In P. Mussen (ed) Handbook of child psychology, 1. New York, NY: Wiley, Rogers, A. (2002). Teaching adults, 3rd ed. London, UK: Open University Press. Rogers, J. (2004). Adult learning, 4th ed. London, UK: Open University Press. Skinner, B.F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Random House, Inc. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

101 93 Watson, J. (1928). The ways of behaviorism. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers Pub. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

102 94 CHAPTER 3. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES TO TEACHING

103 Chapter 4 Focusing on the Twenty-First Century Learner 4.1 Implementing Webfolios in School Leadership Internships: "Pluses and Pitfalls" 1 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University 1 This content is available online at < 95

104 96 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Authors Marjorie C. Ringler, Associate Professor and Coordinator of the Masters of School Administration Program, Department of Educational Leadership, East Carolina University Lane Mills, Associate Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, East Carolina University Randy St. Clair, Assistant Principal at Wellcome Middle School in Greenville, NC. Received MSA from East Carolina University Introduction Whether stored on paper or in bytes, portfolios provide a means for individuals to showcase work that demonstrates reection and progress over time (Montgomery, 2001). Webfolios, one format of electronic portfolios, reect the web-based or online version of a portfolio which can range from a simple web page to a complex application with processes such as data entry, storage, retrieval and reporting in a standardized fashion with multiple levels of user access. Helen Barrett, a recognized leader in educational usage of electronic portfolios, provides that interactivity is a key characteristic of the Web 2.0 iteration of electronic portfolios, referring to them as eportfolio 2.0, blog-folios, wiki-folios, or iportfolios-where these type of portfolios have the potential to change with the pedagogy of interaction (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 173). With the current conversations from national groups such as the Partnership for 21 st Century Skills (2004) that propose a need for the development and mastery of information, media and technology skills and incorporate technology-enhanced assessment, the incorporation of webfolios for online assessment and reection is an important topic for principal preparation programs to consider in their delivery systems North Carolina Context The Department of Public Instruction in North Carolina, like several other states, has begun to integrate the components of the Framework for 21 st Century Learning within the public school curriculum (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2004) and its standards for evaluating school leaders. With these new standards, Institutions of Higher Education in North Carolina have been required to revise their principal preparation programs to not only meet the usual national standards but to also prepare future leaders to integrate these 21 st century learning skills. One innovation for North Carolina university systems will be the development and implementation of webfolios portfolios in the revisioning of their principal preparation programs. East Carolina University (ECU) is the largest producer of school leaders in North Carolina. Its output is critical to the state due to its geographic location east of the I-95 corridor where the majority of school districts are rural with high levels of poverty and a growing number of English language learner students (NCDPI, 2007). Upon graduation, most of the students enrolled in ECU's principal preparation program return to their local districts. In conjunction with the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction's (NCDPI) focus on revisioning principal preparation programs, ECU has added an additional assessment tool the use of webfolios that contain evidences and artifacts of graduates' prociency at the pre-service level for school leaders. Incorporating portfolios as evidence of student outcomes that align to state and national education standards is a widely used approach to meet the accreditation requirements of programs and institutions (Strudler & Wetzel, 2005). For North Carolina's universities, the requirement of program webfolios per student will be a mandate in the near future. In anticipation of the program webfolio requirement the faculty in the principal preparation program at ECU initiated the use of webfolios fall At ECU, as in many institutions, internship portfolios have been used to house artifacts that make connections to standards and student learning (Strudler & Wetzel, 2005). Therefore, the internship was a logical place for the initial integration of webfolios due to the fact that a portfolio was an existing requirement that could seemingly become an electronic folio. In addition, the internship had requirements for students that called for collections of artifacts and evidences that met the North Carolina School Executive Standards.

105 97 This descriptive study presents the initial implementation process of selecting and using a webfolio for a principal preparation internship. In addition the evaluation of the implementation for the academic years , , and will be described Method Sample Faculty (n=12) supervising interns and all interns (n=279) for the school years , , and used TaskStream for their webfolio. A supervising faculty member was selected to coordinate the development and implementation process for the program. The year-long internship was completed during the nal year in the Masters of School Administration (MSA) program. Faculty and students received instructions on utilizing webfolios through a variety of formats including: handouts, demonstration, overview sessions in computer lab, and individual appointments. During the yearlong internship students met once a month for internship seminars and webfolio instruction. Upon completion of the internship, students and faculty were asked to complete a survey on the use of the webfolio. In addition, the webfolio application also generated several reports used to compare student use of the webfolio and learning during the internship. Faculty perceptions of the usability of the webfolio were also assessed Facets of implementation of the webfolio Selection of webfolio tool. There are two venues to webfolio development: o-the-shelf tools such as Microsoft Oce and Web-based systems such as TaskStream (Strudler & Wetzel, 2005). After researching available venues the faculty selected TaskStream as the webfolio application. One reason for the selection of TaskStream was the technical support oered by the Web-based system. The support was immediate and uninterrupted. Another reason for selecting this application was the cost factor. At the time the faculty decided to take initiative and use webfolios, there was (and still is) no funding for the implementation of this innovation. TaskStream did not incur any additional costs to the department or the faculty. The cost associated to this Web-based system was to the students upon subscription. In order to not overburden students, the faculty decided not to require textbooks and in place of the textbook students subscribed to TaskStream. A nal consideration that led to the selection of TaskStream was the fact the Web-based system provided storage and tools to manage and generate reports specically aligned with accreditations standards. This also meant that there would not be a need for a technology commitment from the university to maintain les. Implementation process. The faculty coordinating the implementation of TaskStream translated the existing internship portfolio outline into a Web-based format. Faculty and students received instructions on utilizing webfolios in many ways that included handouts, demonstration, overview sessions in computer lab, and individual appointments. During the year-long internship students met once a month for internship seminars and webfolio instruction. In addition, faculty would provide individual help during their school observation visits. Change is complex and takes time (Hall & Hord, 2001) and this case was no dierent. Faculty members were willing to try the new Web-based application yet many times commented on the challenge to learn a new venue. Students also made similar comments along the way in addition to expressing diculty in accessing the internet in many rural areas of the eastern part of the state. The key to the success of the implementation was appointing one faculty to facilitate the process. It was comfortable and important for all of those involved to turn to a person that would be available to help and in this case it was the university faculty. As the year progressed, the familiarity with the application helped with the process of uploading evidences and artifacts. By the end of the school year all students completed their webfolios and all faculty evaluated the webfolios via the Web-based system Results Upon completion of the internship, students were asked to complete a survey on the use of webfolios adapted from a survey developed by Dr. Helen Barrett at the University Of Alaska Anchorage School Of Education.

106 98 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Data was collected over three internship periods (i.e., , and ) to look for patterns and trends within and across cohorts. The number of interns and the response rate for the survey across the three years of data collection was 74 (87%), 122 (77%) and 99 (85%) respectively Reports of usage The majority of students in the cohorts reported spending an average of 100 hours or less on the development and completion of their webfolios during the internship (61%, 53% and 51% respectively). From a TaskStream report, students typically shared their work 24 times during a 9 month period with the faculty supervisors assigned to support and evaluate their internship experience. This number decreased to 18 times during 2009 and 12 during Student reports on the process Several dierent survey questions were incorporated in the evaluation process to gather feedback regarding students' perceptions of the incorporation of the webfolios. Following a ve point Likert scale, an average agreement score was computed from the coding of the response categories of primary purpose, very important but not primary, important purpose, less important, not the purpose with values ranging from 1-5 respectively. With lower responses indicating a more primary purpose for the webfolios, the intern cohorts reported the greatest support for the webfolio as serving as a means to develop a reective school administrator (Table 1). Average Agreement Score Regarding the Primary Purpose for the Webfolio To implement a growth plan for the internship To develop a reective school administrator To support formative assessment To provide an assessment management tool for formal summative assessment of the internship To create a presentational portfolio showcasing educational leadership continued on next page

107 99 N=74 N=122 N=99 Table 4.1 Students were asked to provide feedback to the question Now that you are nished, how do you feel about your webfolio? These narrative responses were analyzed and placed into response categories as presented in Table 2. Students' narrative responses could be categorized as very positive toward the webfolio usage across all three cohorts. Counts of Categorized Responses of Interns Towards their Webfolios Student expressed relief, satisfaction, or gave positive feedback about the overall experience. Student expressed the idea of learning a lot or the experience as a good tool for the future. Student expressed preferring the webfolio over a traditional method. Student expressed preferring the traditional portfolio method. Student expressed a variety of negative issues regarding the experience No Response N=74 N=122 N=99 Table 4.2 Regarding the application of the webfolio in actual practice, students were asked to respond to the item In the future, how do you think you will use or adapt the webfolio? Narrative responses were analyzed and placed into response categories as presented Table 3. Across all three cohorts, the majority of the students' responses were categorized as indicating that the webfolio would be used primarily as a reference/resource in seeking a leadership position in the schools. Counts of Categorized Responses of Interns Towards Future Usage of their Webfolios continued on next page

108 100 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Student expressed they didn't know how they will use the webfolios in the future. Students expressed to burn their portfolio onto CD or publish it on to the web. The student expressed they will use the webfolio as a reference, resource, or in the interviewing process. Student expressed the desire to continue to add to the portfolio. Student expressed the idea of continuing re- ecting and developing their professional growth plan using the portfolio method No Response N=74 N=122 N=99 Table Resources that Support Webfolios With the transition to a webfolio over the last three years, there was a need to identify areas of support for the application to support its implementation and success for the students. Table 4 provides the interns' responses to a survey question that highlights the most frequently indicated response for each item. Over the three year period, all cohorts indicated that the full time availability of laptop computers, handouts provided by the University Supervisor and one-on-one meetings with the university supervisor were the most useful resource in the creation of their portfolios. The usage of the online tutorials oered by TaskStream was the least useful. Percentages of Usefulness of Resources for Creating Portfolios Did Not Use Use-But Was Not Useful Somewhat Useful Very Useful Could Not Have Completed Portfolio Without It continued on next page

109 101 Full time use of laptop computers Handouts provided by university supervisor Seminar Sessions in computer lab One-on-one meetings with university supervisor Internetbased tutorials oered by TaskStream continued on next page

110 102 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Help from a friend or relative Table Student Feedback Students were also asked to provide feedback concerning improvements and problems with the webfolio development process for the next group of interns. Their narrative responses were analyzed and placed into response categories as presented in Tables 5 and 6. While the initial cohort implementing the webfolios indicated an opinion that the process will improve with future implementations and the need for streamlining information, subsequent cohorts consistently reported greater need for more presentations and professional development for interns. These data are reported in Table 5. Counts of Categorized Responses of Interns Towards Improvements with their Webfolios Students expressed the process will improve with time and the need for streamlining information. Student emphasized importance of time management. Student expressed the need for more presentations and professional development for interns. Students expressed the need for interns to be tech savvy and keep hard copies continued on next page

111 103 Student expressed they like the webfolio. Students expressed need for additional formative assessments or possible change of formats. Student emphasized the professors and site supervisors make the difference in successful experiences No response N=74 N=122 N=99 Table 4.5 Table 6 provides information about specic problems that interns encountered with the webfolio process. While the overwhelming majority of students in the rst cohort that implemented webfolios indicated that technology issues were the greatest source of problems, subsequent cohorts report very few issues impeding their usage of the tools. Specic Problems Interns Encountered Student expressed information confusion or frustration with process not being streamlined. Student expressed technology issues as problem or general future of technology in general. Student expressed the need for more support and training. Student expressed dif- culty with time constraints and workload continued on next page

112 104 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Student expressed the process had no problems. Student expressed the need for more prompt feedback from professor or site supervisors No response N=74 N=122 N=99 Table Discussion and Lessons Learned Overall, interns indicated positive opinions about the usage of webfolios and viewed the application as an important part of the evaluation of their internship experience and see value in its use towards seeking employment as a school leader. Technology support was often cited as a key variable in the implementation of the project and the need for more presentations and professional development were cited as essential to their successful completion of the process. While the interns' feedback provided one view of the webfolios introduction, a discussion of the lessons learned from the faculty viewpoint oers additional areas of focus One point of contact and time Initially, the idea of implementing webfolios was widely accepted by the faculty. Once the idea became a reality, faculty hesitated. After discussions on postponing the implementation one additional year, faculty decided to continue as planned with the condition that one faculty among them coordinate implementation and instructions for use with students and faculty. Having one faculty coordinating the process was an eective tool for full implementation. One reason was that students and faculty felt they had a point person to contact with problems. Another reason was that one faculty coordinator could keep ongoing notes of implementation issues and incorporate needed changes for the second year of implementation. A lesson learned was that even though there was no monetary investment in implementing webfolio there was a large and unexpected time commitment from the faculty coordinator who also was also supervising interns. Therefore, having one point of contact for the application is helpful but release time might be needed Change takes time and courage All faculty need to be familiar with the application and its usage and support. In this pilot study, faculty was learning to use webfolios alongside students but the learning perspectives were dierent. Students learned to create webfolios while faculty learned to review and provide feedback. Therefore when students looked for their supervisors for technical support the standard approach was to connect students with the coordinator. A lesson learned was to allow time for practice and to provide very clear expectations and processes for the use of the online tool Technology issues Many students completing the principal preparation program at this institution live in rural regions of North Carolina where access to the internet is dicult. Therefore, faculty and students addressed obstacles in order to access adequate levels of technology and support. One particular obstacle was encountered at the monthly seminars held at a local high school. Meetings were typically held in the media center where access to the internet was limited due to the small number of computers and in addition the need for a password to access

113 105 the internet. Thanks to the collaboration with the school administrators the faculty was able to obtain a temporary password to log on to the internet however there were small numbers of terminals to access. A lesson learned from this experience is the need to meet in a location where Wi-Fi is accessible and where each student has access to a computer. At this point, the faculty is strongly recommending students to bring their laptops with them. In addition, the meeting locations must have computer labs with internet access Conclusion The principal preparation program in this study initiated and designed webfolios for submission of evidences of internship learning experiences during the pilot year , and over the past two years ( and ) has seen the process evolve from one that was challenging technically and in implementation to one that is highly reective and useful for student interns and faculty. Implementation and evaluation results over the past three years indicated full implementation by both students and faculty. To evaluate the use of this process over the years student interns and faculty shared their perceptions of the process they experienced. What's been learned is that this process is continuing to improve, especially in the area of technology and professional development for interns. However, interns are nding that the benets of this process stem far beyond simple completion of the task and translate into exponential growth as a professional. Current students will also be evaluated and perceptions will be compared to that of the prior groups References Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Montgomery, K. K. (2001). Authentic assessment: A guide for elementary teachers. New York: Allan & Bacon. Partnership for 21 Century skills. (2004). Retrieved from st 2 Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (Summer 2005). The diusion of electronic portfolios in teacher education: Issues of initiation and implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37 (4), pp

114 106 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER 4.2 Online Internships: A Successful Model 3 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Autthors Douglas M. DeWitt serves as Program Director for the M.E. in Educational Leadership at Salisbury University in Maryland. Carolyn B. H. Rogers is the faculty chair of Curriculum & Instruction, Leadership in Educational Administration and Special Education Leadership at Capella University out of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Through online distance education she uses her experiences in K-12 and higher education to works with educators across the United States and abroad. She has written a number of articles on online teaching and the internship Introduction The administrative internship has long been a vital and integral component of principal and superintendent preparation (Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill, 2005); preparation that is necessary because it provides an opportunity for exposure to real life experiences and situations that leaders face in today's schools and districts. As a result of the focus on accountability for educational leaders, now, more than ever, it is becoming increasingly 3 This content is available online at <

115 107 dicult to attract and train quality candidates in school administration (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007; Sutton, Jobe, McCord, T. Jordon, & K. F. Jordon, 2008). As such, it is critical to provide a variety of delivery methods for certication. Online education has come of age (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009; Walling, 2003; Marx, 2006; Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009). More and more postsecondary institutions are providing distance learning options as a regular choice in their oerings (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics). Many candidates are attracted to the exibility that online education oers. According to Ko and Rossen (2003), online learning oers more freedom...the convenience of learning online applies...to adult candidates, students from educationally underserved areas, those pursuing specialized or advanced degrees...no longer must they drive to school, nd a parking space, sit in a lecture hall at a specic time, and take nal exams in a stuy room (p. 3). Along with the advent of online education, there have been numerous calls for improvement in administrator preparation programs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Fry et al., 2005; Orr, 2006; Wilmore & Bratlien, 2005). At a time when educational leadership is a primary focus of education reform, schools of education have come under considerable scrutiny (Orr, 2006, p. 492). As a result, many administrative preparation programs have revised and reshaped their programs to address this concern (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2005; Fry & O'Neill, 2006; Orr, 2006). This paper will discuss one component of the administrative certication program: the administrative internship. As much as 15 years ago, internship experiences in leadership preparation were the focus of signicant research on competency development, supervision, and mentoring. In recent years, internships and eld experiences have become a more extensive part of many programs... (Orr, 2006, p. 496). The internship has specically come under criticism for its lack of relevance and connection to the rest of the administrative preparation program. At most institutions, internships are disconnected from course work and do not provide ongoing, in-school translation of key concepts and strategies or opportunities to apply new knowledge to solving real-world problems and improving school and classroom practice (Fry & O'Neill, 2006, p. 58) Background Capella University, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is an online postsecondary institution that serves over 28,000 undergraduate and graduate learners. Founded in 1993, Capella is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA). Capella is comprised of eight schools: business, information technology, education, human services, public health, public safety, and psychology, as well as bachelor's degree programs in the elds of business, information technology, and public safety. Over 80% of Capella's learners are in a graduate program. The Capella School of Education oers programs leading to a Masters, Education Specialist, Doctorate of Education, or Doctorate of Philosophy in Education. The Leadership in Educational Administration (LEA) specialization, the largest program in the School of Education, serves graduate learners striving for administrative licensure. The Capella administrative certication programs are approved in Arizona and Minnesota (Arizona State Board of Education, 2008; & State of Minnesota Statutes, 2006), with licensure oered for superintendents, principals, and directors of special education. The School of Education is currently preparing for its initial visit from the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Program The administrative internship is a two quarter experience modeled most closely after the requirements for the State of Minnesota. The internship serves as a demonstration of what was learned in the course work and provides the opportunity to apply academic learning to real-world situations in the form of eld experiences. It also allows the candidate to sharpen and rene the professional skills that they acquired as a result of the knowledge and experiences gained from completing course discussions and assignments. Candidates are enrolled in a course and participate in an online course room (WebCT/Blackboard format) with an instructor and an average of 15 participants. Candidates in the specialist and doctorate programs

116 108 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER are required to log a minimum of 320 eld experience hours over a six month period and/or two quarters, and masters degree programs are required to log a total of 250 over the same period of time. Further, per the requirements in the state of Minnesota (State of Minnesota Statutes, 2006), candidates must prepare a portfolio demonstrating entry level competency in a variety of areas. The internship reects Capella University's seven specialization outcomes and corresponding sub-competencies for principals. These outcomes and sub-competencies represent the best nationally recognized and respected professional standards for school administrators, including the Technology Standards for School Leaders, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) and Minnesota's Principal Competencies. In Arizona, the goal of the internship is to provide signicant opportunities for candidates to synthesize and apply knowledge and to practice and develop the skills identied in national leadership standards (i.e., CCSSO, 2008) as measured by substantial, sustained work in real settings, planned and guided cooperatively by university and school district personnel (Arizona State Board of Education, 2008, p. 4). Each administrative intern has a committee comprised of the Capella University internship instructor and the local site supervisor. They work closely to ensure that the internship meets state and professional standards. Candidates are required to develop an internship proposal that must be approved by both the Capella University internship instructor and the site supervisor. During the two quarters, the candidate constructs and maintains a portfolio that is designed to demonstrate entry-level competency in each area required by the statute. The portfolio is reviewed and discussed during a conference at the end of the second quarter Best Practices Because Capella is an online university, the composition of the candidates in a course can span the country and sometimes even the globe. It is not uncommon to have an instructor in Arizona facilitating a course that has candidates from Georgia to Alaska and from Hawaii to Maine. Additionally, a course may have candidates from territories outside the US mainland or foreign countries. This requires a dierent paradigm for delivery of the course and alters the traditional quality control criteria. An online `interaction'... takes on a dierent shape than its face-to-face counterpart. A talented lecturer or workshop leader is nely attuned to the nuances of his or her audience. But in the virtual world, there is not body language from which the instructor can gauge the interest of the participants and, consequently, adjust the tone or pace of the presentation (Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, & Tinker, 2000, p. 1). By combining the requirements of two states (State of Minnesota Statutes, 2006; Arizona State Board of Education, 2008), the ISLLC standards (Arizona State Board of Education, 2008), and best practices for online education, Capella had developed a unique system of delivering a quality internship experience that is facilitated in an online environment. The following best practices are implemented in the Capella internship program. Assessment. Perhaps the single most important aspect of the online internship is a viable and credible means by which to assess the learning and work of the intern. Eective assessment starts with a clear understanding of expectations. Capella utilizes a series of specic rubrics and checklists to measure the intern's progress and performance. These tools are provided to the intern prior to beginning the rst quarter of the internship so that they can be taken into account as the intern develops the internship proposal that has to be submitted to and approved by the committee. The intern is provided with a detailed explanation of each rubric and checklist and for the portfolio components. The internship instructor also is available either through the course room or via electronic communication ( , telephone, etc.) to answer any questions and clarify any points. Communication. First and foremost, good communication is the key to a successful online internship program. Not surprising, many online management issues involve communicationbetween you and your students and among the students themselves. Designing an eective communication system and monitoring it are key steps in teaching online (Ko & Rossen, 2003, p. 197). It is critical that eective communication occurs between the intern, the internship instructor, and the site supervisor. Frequent phone conferences need to (and do) transpire. Web based communication tools such as Skype and Breeze are two of the tools

117 109 used eectively to maintain a constant ow of communication. These tools when used with webcams simulate face-to-face interactions and compensate for the lack of physical proximity. As such, they assist in enhancing eective collaborative engagement. Because the internship instructor will most likely be hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away, it is critical that frequent and engaging interactions transpire between the instructor and the site supervisor. A trust and rapport have to be developed and maintained throughout the internship process. The site supervisor must be willing to critically and accurately assess the progress and performance of the intern. Conversely, the internship instructor must trust what the site supervisor is reporting and counsel the intern accordingly. This type of communication is vital to the intern's success. Demonstration. It is essential that the intern demonstrate their readiness to enter an administrative position by having gained entry level competency in the areas set forth in the national and state standards (CCSSO, 2008; State of Minnesota Statutes, 2006; Arizona State Board of Education, 2008). With the advent of new technologies has come a variety of ways to present material over great distances. In the case of Capella, the creation of an eportfolio is required of candidates. The Capella eportfolio is proprietary; however, there are multiple software programs and options on the World Wide Web that make the creation of an electronic portfolio practical and simple. By creating the electronic portfolio, the candidate can enter everything in one place and share it with both the site supervisor and the internship instructor without the added inconvenience of assembling and mailing a hard copy. The eportfolio review is ongoing in an eort to avoid surprises at the conclusion of the internship, and to redirect the candidate at the point of confusion in the process. Internship supervisor. Proper supervision of the candidate is essential to proper training. As such, Capella internship supervisors are former or practicing principals and superintendents with proven leadership skills. Their role as internship supervisor is to use a variety of strategies and best practices that they have used in their P-12 setting. This approach is used during the conferences that are held throughout the internship, as a means for enhancing the candidate's critical thinking skills necessary for school leadership. Organization. Key to the success of the online internship is the organization of the three team members. While this may seem like an obvious point, it cannot be over emphasized. While the major onus is on the candidate, the site supervisor and internship instructor must maintain records to ensure the candidate meets outcomes of the program. The candidate is responsible for constructing the portfolio, maintaining a log and/or a blog, and keeping the communication ow moving between themselves and the instructor and supervisor. Record keeping by all three is paramount to ensure an accurate accounting of the experience. Planning. The internship plan is a critical component to the internship. It is at this point that the knowledge gained through the program's course work is applied in the eld. Field experiences and internships that connect the academic study of school leadership to the problems of improving schools and that provide opportunities for aspiring principals to work with skillful mentors don't happen by chance (Fry & O'Neill, 2006, p. 58). Self Assessment. In addition to the internship instructor's assessment, the candidates also self-assess their knowledge, skills, and demonstrated prociency of the specialization outcomes and sub-competencies. The pre-internship self-assessment provides the candidate with an opportunity to reect upon their understanding of the specialization outcomes and sub-competencies, and to analyze their understanding and abilities within each one. The ultimate goal of the pre-internship self-assessment is to identify areas within the portfolio that need to be strengthened, and then use the internship hours to ll these gaps with new artifacts and demonstration of skills. At the completion of the internship, a nal self-assessment will be completed to ensure competencies have been addressed and mastery will be demonstrated that presents a strong representation of applicable abilities, knowledge, and skills for each of the specialization outcomes Conclusion As more and more institutions of higher education deliver courses and programs through distance learning, it will become increasingly important for them to have a clear understanding of how to adapt to a new delivery system. While the old cliché think outside the box would seem to apply here, it may be more appropriate to lose the box all together. Frequently, we are prisoners of our own inability to embrace inevitable change. As

118 110 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER inescapable as change is in today's world, we still hope that change will avoid us personally and professionally (Hall & Hord, 2005, p. 3). Yet, based on reoccurring trends and changes in education, educators cannot be so optimistic. Therefore, it is imperative that the schools of education and educational leadership programs prepare themselves for the changes that will occur. Delivering administrative internship programs through distance education, and specically in an online venue, may not be inevitable for every educational leadership program; however, what is inevitable is that we will no longer be able to conduct business as usual. Multiple reports call into question the eectiveness and credibility of many educational leadership programs throughout the United States. Something must change. Principal preparation programs, and specically administrative internship programs, have been taken to task for not connecting content gained in course work to practical application in the eld. As increased demands for new and dynamic school leadership emerge, administrative preparation programs must equip the next generation of school leaders with the skills necessary to lead schools in a rapidly changing global society. This paper has presented on online university's eort to embrace that change. By oering state approved licensure programs in educational administration, including the internship, Capella University has attempted to eliminate the box. The internship program is designed using the latest national standards with the needs of tomorrow's schools in mind. The commitment is to develop competent and dynamic leaders to lead those schools. By implementing a series of best practices that are based on current state and national standards, and by implementing a thorough and comprehensive planning and assessment program for the internship, Capella University has taken seriously the need to connect class room instruction and academic knowledge to the application of leading schools in the 21 st Century. Further, by oering this program in an online delivery system, Capella has embraced new and emerging technologies and provided a model for both its graduates and other institutions of higher education References Arizona State Board of Education. (2008). Statewide framework for internship programs for school leaders. Phoenix, AZ. Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Eective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood. Council of Chief State School Ocers (CCSSO). (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008 as adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals. CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Fry, B., Bottoms, G., & O'Neill, K. (2005). The principal internship: How can we get it right leadership initiative. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Fry, B., & O'Neill, K. (2006). Schools can't wait: Accelerating the redesign of university principal preparation programs. Leadership Preparation Initiative. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2005). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon. Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2003). Teaching online: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Miin. Marx, G. (2006). Sixteen trends, their profound impact on our future: Implications for students, education, communities, countries, and the whole of society. Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence based practices on online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning systems. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

119 111 Orr, M. T. (2006). Mapping innovation in leadership preparation programs in our nation's schools of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(7), State of Minnesota Statutes. (2006). Licensure of school personnel. Oce of the Revisor of Statutes, to Sutton, C. M., Jobe, M. P., McCord, R. S., Jordon, T., & Jordon, K. F. (2008) State of the superintendency mini-survey: Aspiring to the superintendency. Arlington, VA: AASA Center for System Leadership. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: Washington, DC: Author. Walling, D. R. (Ed.). (2003). Virtualschooling: Issues in the development of e-learningpolicy. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Wilmore, E. L., & Bratlien, M. J. (2005). Mentoring and tutoring within administrative internship programs in American universities. Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(1), Developing and Implementing An Eective Online Educational Leadership Internship Revisited 4 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech 4 This content is available online at <

120 112 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Introduction Graduate students seeking to be educational leaders in today's high-demand society require more than lectures and textbooks to learn the requisite leadership skills. They must also have the opportunity to develop and test job skills in an on-the-job environment. Future leaders need the opportunity to grapple with the dilemmas principals face (Southern Regional Education Board [SREB], 2007). This is best accomplished in an internship under the guidance of a fully involved site mentor and a university mentor working in tandem with the graduate student. There has been continuous interest among many leadership preparation program faculty to learn which preparation approaches more eectively prepare their candidates as principals and district leaders. The problem universities face as school leadership programs migrate to the online environment is how to construct a meaningful online internship an internship that provides accountability, exibility, and one that is based on accepted national and state standards Considerations in Developing an Online Internship The Stanford Educational Leadership Institute (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007) found the following elements in exemplary leadership preparation programs: A comprehensive and coherent curriculum aligned with state and professional standards, in particular the ISSLC standards, which emphasize instructional leadership; A philosophy and curriculum emphasizing instructional leadership and school improvement; Active, student-centered instruction that integrates theory and practice and stimulates reection. Instructional strategies include problem-based learning; action research; eld-based projects; journal writing; and portfolios that feature substantial use of feedback and assessment by peers, faculty, and the candidates themselves; Faculty who are knowledgeable in their subject areas, including both university professors and practitioners experienced in school administration; Social and professional support in the form of a cohort structure and formalized mentoring and advising by expert principals; Vigorous, targeted recruitment and selection to seek out expert teachers with leadership potential; and Well-designed and supervised administrative internships that allow candidates to engage in leadership responsibilities for substantial periods of time under the tutelage of expert veterans. (p.6) The internship or practicum is a purposeful eort to connect theory and practice. The Southern Regional Education Board (2006) ve-year study of school leadership preparation noted four core conditions for principal preparation: (1) university/district partnerships; (2) standards and research based practices with practical learning experiences; (3) authentic eld experiences integrated throughout the program with student, university faculty, and site mentor support; and(4) an assessment plan designed to provide reliable evidence about the eectiveness of the program. The third core condition targets the internship.

121 113 The SREB's call for integrated internship experiences must not stop at integration. The experiences must also involve conceptual thinking. Bransford, Brown, & Cocking (2000) noted that beginners in a eld, tend to think more factually. On the other hand, experts in the eld problem solve utilizing overarching ideas. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking's (2000) observations support the need to pair aspiring leaders with proven leaders. This is best accomplished through a team approach. The team being comprised of the aspiring leader (student), a site mentor, and the university mentor (SREB, 2007). The site administrator selection greatly inuences the quality of the internship experience. The amount of time the site administrator spends with the aspiring leader strongly inuences the quality of the internship. Ideally the site mentor will make arrangements for the student to have additional release time from teaching duties to participate in internship activities (McCreight & Kaiser, 2004). Erickson (2007) noted that, "Conceptual thinking requires the ability to critically examine factual information; relate to prior knowledge; see patterns and connections: draw out signicant understandings at the conceptual level; evaluate the truth of the understandings based on the supporting evidence; transfer the understanding across time or situation; and often, use the conceptual understanding to creatively solve a problem or create a new product, process, or idea (p. 19). Conceptual thinking is at the heart of the internship experience. Interns must have experiences that require them to relate their prior knowledge to situations so they can evaluate the truth of their understandings. It is only then that deep learning occurs.

122 114 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Level of Complexity The Texas Depth and Complexity Model (Fig. 1) lends itself well in dening the experiences that need to be incorporated in the internship. This model combines Bloom's taxonomy on the y-axis with Erickson's Structure of Knowledge on the x-axis. By combining Bloom's taxonomy and its level of depth with Erickson's Structure of Knowledge complexity dimension, quality internship experiences can be identied. These experiences fall within the box in the upper right-hand quadrant of Figure 1. Students must develop the deeper understanding that occurs with experiences that fall within this box. Experiences outside of the box, while educational, will soon be forgotten. Reection must be coupled with the eld experience. Rose (1992) stressed the importance of collaboration in the reective process. Reection must demonstrate a full knowledge and understanding of the learning experience and its learning objective. It must communicate the rationale for selecting the internship experience and must demonstrate achieving the learning outcome. If a reection does not communicate learning, then it is not a successful reection. A reection should communicate knowledge and understanding of the learning outcome, choice of the artifact, alignment, organization, and development Expected Outcomes McREL identied 21 school-level leadership responsibilities with statistically signicant correlations to student achievement. These 21 responsibilities do not represent all of the important responsibilities principals are expected to fulll but do represent leadership responsibilities that when fullled skillfully, positively impact student achievement. (Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005; Waters & Grubb, 2005). Leadership Responsibilities

123 115 Responsibilities The extent to which the principal... Fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community & cooperation Establishes a set of standard operating procedures & routines Protects teachers from issues & inuences that would detract from their teaching time or focus Provides teachers with materials & professional development necessary for the successful execution of their jobs Is directly involved in design, implementation, & assessment of curriculum, instruction, & assessment practices Establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the forefront of the school's attention Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction and assessment practices Has quality contact & interactions with teachers & students Recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments Establishes strong lines of communication with teachers & among students Is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders Involves teachers in the design & implementation of important decisions & policies Recognizes & celebrates school accomplishments & acknowledges failures Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers & sta Key feature Culture Order Discipline Resources Curriculum & Instruction Focus Knowledge of curriculum Visibility Contingent rewards Communication Outreach Input Armation Relationship continued on next page

124 116 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Is willing to & actively challenges the status quo Inspires & leads new & challenging innovations Communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs about schooling Monitors the eectiveness of school practices & their impact on student learning Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation & is comfortable with dissent Is aware of details & undercurrents in the running of the school & uses this information to address current & potential problems Ensures that faculty & sta are aware of the most current theories & practices & makes the discussion of these a regular aspect of the school's culture Change agent Optimizer Ideals/beliefs Monitors/evaluates Flexibility Situational awareness Intellectual stimulation Table An Examination of the Abilene Christian University Educational Leadership Internship The internship is just one component of the ACU Student-Centered Learning Model. Before examining the internship in detail, an overview of the ACU Student-Centered Learning model is oered in order to contextually place the internship within the learning model.

125 117 Figure 2: ACU Student-Centered Learning Model The two-track e-portfolio (Internship and course), the capstone, and the interactive resume are integrated components of the student-centered approach to teaching and learning that is central to the ACU experience. Using portfolios to showcase and assess learning is not a new idea. Portfolios have been used in the arts for many years. What is new, however, is the power of the computer for portfolio assessment. The e-portfolio enables students to creatively use their strengths to demonstrate learning by sharing authentic examples of academic work and achievements. These examples are called artifacts. The e-portfolio process allows individual learners to develop a stronger sense of identity by reecting on how the artifacts demonstrate mastery of course learning outcomes. At the completion of the program, the e-portfolio will contain collected and organized examples of the student's learning and represent the full spectrum of academic and professional experiences. As a nal requirement, each student creates a capstone experience, using the e-portfolio to creatively demonstrate accomplishments by integrating authentic examples of learning into an Exhibition. The Exhibition is a student-centered and student-directed presentation, which allows the student to creatively mix evaluative styles and artifacts to demonstrate learning strengths. The e-portfolio also allows the student to use authentic learning examples to create a web-based interactive resume or vita. Potential employers can access resumes containing authentic work examples. Students will have the capability to retain and update their interactive resumes throughout their careers. To access the e-portfolio students select the My Portfolio link in Moodle where they see ve tabs at the top of the page Student Folder, Course Matrix, Internship Matrix, Capstone Area, and Career Folder. Student Folder A secure, designated storage space in which students can create sub-folders, upload, delete or move items. Students each have one Student Folder that will stay with them throughout their program.

126 118 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Course Matrix The Matrix is a graphic representation of the student's e-portfolio. A list of courses for the program is located in the left column of the matrix. To the right of the courses is a clearly visible Key that informs the student what has and has not been submitted. By selecting the Key the student will get clear instructions on how to submit items and receive feedback from the instructor. Internship Matix If a student is required to complete an internship or practicum with their program the Internship tab will be active. The look and feel is very similar to his Course Matrix. In place of the courses a list of Internship Experiences will be listed down the left side. To the right of the Experiences is a clearly visible Key that informs the student what has and has not been submitted. This will allow the student to easily determine what they have completed. Capstone Area In this area students will be able use a WYSIWYG editor to assemble items form their Course Matrix, Internship Matrix or Student Folder to a web-based presentation. Only the student and the instructors of the Capstone will have access to this area. Career Folder In this folder student will be able to use a WYSIWYG editor to assemble items from their Course Matrix, Internship Matrix or Student Folder and create a web-based resume. The student will have the ability to send the URL for this resume to future employers. They can update this folder at any time. Given this brief introduction to the ACU Student-Centered Model it is now appropriate to focus on the internship element of the model. Many leadership programs have a one-semester internship at the end of the preparation program. These internships have proven to be neither instructionally eective nor cost-eective (Sid W. Richardson Foundation [SWRF], 1997). The ACU internship is integrated throughout the program. The internship consists of ve components: an internship orientation, an action research project, national standards based activities, an e-portfolio, and a capstone experience Action Research Students examine action research in the program's second course. Students collaborate with their university and site mentors to develop a plan for a signicant school research project. The research project plan is developed to insure the project is implemented in an orderly and timely manner. Progress checkpoints are embedded throughout the program. Students have approximately one and one-half years to conduct their research project Internship Orientation During the break between the program's second and third course, students attend a mandatory internship orientation webinar detailing the online internship. Students actively participate in the webinar's presentation and discussion. Students have the opportunity to submit questions and make comments during the webinar, either orally or via text messaging using a chat box Internship Activities & Management System The School Leadership Internship 2nd Edition by Martin, Wright, Danzig, Flanary and Brown (2005) is the internship text. This book oers 38 skill sets based upon national standards. Each of the national standardsbased 38 skill sets oers the intern a menu of one to nine activities. While this book is an excellent internship text, further action was required to match instruction with technology to function optimally in the online environment (Strehle, Whatley, Kurz, & Hausfather, 2001). ACU contracted with a rm to develop intern-friendly software to manage the 38 skill sets and their multiple activity options as well as other components of the online internship text. Internship Matrix software was developed to make managing of the internship easier for the mentors and the students. This

127 119 matrix is key to a smooth implementation of the online internship. Color was incorporated in the grid's deign to enhance its user-friendly requirement. Each of the 38 leadership skill area activities cells begin with no ll. Figure 3 depicts The Internship Matrix as a student initially sees it. It should be noted that this gure is not the nal product but is a representation of the matrix's concept. Activity Vita Assessment Assessment Assessment Goals Assessment Summary ACU Internship Matrix Menu 1 A B C D * 2 A B C D E * 3 A B C * 4 A B C D E F G * 5 A B C D * 6 A B C * 7 A B C D E F G H * 8 A B C D E * 9 A B C D E F G H * 10 A B C D E F * 11 A B C D E F * 12 A B C D E F * 13 A B C D * 14 A B C D E F * 15 A B C * continued on next page

128 120 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER 16 A B C D E F * 17 A B C D * 18 A B C D E * 19 A B C * 20 A B * 21 A B C D * 22 A B * 23 A B C D E F * 24 A B C D * 25 A B C D * 26 A B C D * 27 A B C D * 28 A B C D * 29 A B C * 30 A B C D E * 31 A B C D E * 32 A * 33 A B C D E * 34 A B C D E F * 35 A * 36 A * 37 A B C * 38 A * Action Research Project Table Demonstration of the Internship Matrix Dr. Howard is a professor in the Leadership of Learning program and oversees the internship for twenty-ve students. Dr. Howard logs into his ACU Moodle port and sees within the list of courses he instructs, the Leadership Internship. He opens the course and sees on the right hand side an eportfolio block, with the link Internship Matrix inside the block. Dr. Howard clicks the link and is taken to a new page that displays the Matrix for the Internship Matrix (Figure 2). The Internship Matrix details all the internship requirement activities as well as the internship experiences and learning outcomes. At the top of the page, Dr. Howard clicks a drop down box that allows him to select any one of the twenty-ve students that he oversees. Dr. Howard selects Ernest Bass from the list and when clicked, Ernest's Internship Matrix appears with the requirements, the activities, and the learning outcomes that he has completed so far. Dr. Howard notices that when he scrolls the mouse cursor over the internship activities, that a tool tip appears giving him the title and description of each activity. Dr. Howard received notication from his student, Ernest Bass, that he uploaded an artifact and reection for his rst internship activity. Dr. Howard enters Ernest Bass's Internship Matrix and sees Experience 1C

129 121 changed color to light blue indicating that Ernest Bass chose 1C to demonstrate mastery of experience 1. Dr. Howard clicks on cell 1C and a pop-window opens giving Dr. Howard the following options: Dr. Howard opens both the artifact and reection documents. After reviewing, Dr. Howard now wants to add his feedback. Dr. Howard writes his feedback in a word document and saves it to his C drive. Dr. Howard then goes back to the Internship Matrix and clicks the link Add Feedback and a pop-up window appears. Dr. Howard clicks the button Browse and a le directory is opened from which he can select the feedback document. Once Dr. Howard attaches the document and clicks Submit he is taken back to the Internship Matrix view. Dr. Howard sees that the Add Feedback title has been changed to View Feedback. Dr. Howard now clicks the Lock checkbox and clicks submit. Dr. Howard returns to the Internship Matrix where he sees that 1C has changed to Dark Blue and has a padlock icon that indicates it is now locked. 1 A B?C D * Table 4.9 View Artifact (Title of artifact shown) View Reection (Title of reection shown) Add Feedback Lock (Check Box) Capstone Experience The capstone experience is the nal component of the online internship. Although students register for this experience as their nal course, they have been working toward the capstone experience since the internship orientation webinar after the second course. Students reect on their experiences throughout the degree program. This self-reection includes reviewing the 38 internship activities and the other artifacts on the Internship Matrix and how they support the student's mastery of the program outcome and the national standards. Students are encouraged to involve their site mentor in this self-evaluation process. The student prepares a 45 to 60 minute presentation with these required elements: (1) address the site mentor's nal assessment of the student's fulllment of internship activities; (2) an informal self-evaluation of the student on his strength and weaknesses as well as the perspective of the site mentor; and (3) demonstrate mastery of the program and national standards using artifacts chosen by the student from the 38 skill sets. The capstone experience can occur in a variety of formats chosen by the student. These include face-to-face presentation, webinar conference, podcast, or any other format approved by the university mentor Conclusion As online courses and programs proliferate across our country, is it essential for educational leadership faculty to embrace the advantages of new technology versus fearing the cyberspace divide. The program developed at Abilene Christian University found greater communication between mentors and interns and a means to better supervise progress, assist student interns with immediate questions or concerns, and collect data on learning outcomes. Although technical experts were needed in the development of the model and much initial time spent by the professors, the benets to interns were worth the eort. And we sincerely hope that the advancements made to the online internship will ultimately benet the children they lead and serve References Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Committee on Developments n the Science of Learning and Committee on Learning

130 122 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Research and Educational Practice, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Council of Chief State School Ocers. (1996, November 2). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author. Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Executive summary. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Erickson, H. L. (2007). Concept-based curriculum and instruction for the thinking classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gray, T. (2001). Principal Internships: Five tips for a successful and rewarding experience. Phi Delta Kappan, Martin, G. E., Wright, W, F., Danzig, A. B., Flanary, R. A., & Brown, F. (2005). The School Leadership Internship (2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). Scholarship that works. Aurora, CO.: Mid- Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). McCreight, C. (2004). Handbook for practicum students and interns in educational administration. Mequon, WI: Stylex. Orr, M. T. (2003). Evaluating educational leadership development: Measuring leadership, its development and its impact. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Pallo, R.M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rose, A. (1992, January). Framing our experience: Resarch notes on reective practice. Adult Learning, 5. Salmon, G. (2004). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Sid W. Richardson Foundation (SWRF). (1997). Principals for the schools of Texas: A seamless web of professional development. Fort Worth, TX: Author. Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2007). Schools need good leaders now: State progress in creating a learning-centered school leadership system. Atlanta, GA: Author. Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2006). Schools can't wait: Accelerating the redesign of university principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA: Author. Strehle, E.L., Whatley, A., Kurz, K.A., & Hausfather, S.J. (2002). Narratives of collaboration: Inquiring into technology integration in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10 (1), Texas Education Agency. (2005). Instructional Leadership Development: Moving Texas forward. Austin, TX: Author. Waters, J.T., & Grubb, S. (2005). Leading schools: Distinguishing the essential from the important. The Australian Educational Leader, (3), 1013, 4648.

131 4.4 Interactive Case Study Simulations in Educational Leadership 5 NCPEA Publications 123 note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Author Thomas Valesky is a professor of educational leadership at Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers, Florida. He is widely published in the areas of school nance and school-based decision making. His simulations have been viewed and used by thousands of professors and students across the world. These simulations will work on both Macintosh and PC computer types. No special software or hardware is needed to use these simulations. The three simulations were developed for a class at Florida Gulf Coast University by professor Thomas Valesky. They can be used by a professor in either a large class setting or with small groups of students in cooperative learning groups. It is recommended that professors supplement the discussion questions that are posted in the simulations with questions and discussion items that are of local importance in your state and local school districts. CLICK HERE 6 or go to to access and use Thomas Valesky's interactive case study simulations. Professors, doctoral students, and practitioners will benet by downloading the Manual for Interactive Case Study Simulations in Educational Leadership (version 1.0). Be sure to read this EXCELLENT MAN- UAL 7. You may go to this link to access the manual if you are reading a hardcopy version of this chapter This content is available online at < See the le at <

132 124 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER 4.5 Case Studies: Developing Decision Making Skills in Diverse Simulated Environments 8 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Author Samuel Smith is an Associate Professor at Liberty University where he teaches courses in education administration and works with schools in the preparation of school leaders. He was instrumental in the eld testing of the ETIPS initiative Educational Theory into Practice Educational Theory into Practice Software (ETIPS) is an online case study program intended for use by professors of education administration. The program was developed by Sara Dexter and Pamela D. Tucker of the University of Virginia and was tested by various other universities throughout Virginia. The author, a member of the testbed group, outlines in this chapter the theoretical framework, elaborating on the advantages of interactive, authentically contextualized online case studies over traditional print scenarios. Emphasis is given to the outcomes of the program, which are to strengthen candidates' skills in data analysis, 8 This content is available online at <

133 125 problem solving, and collaborative decision making. ETIPS enhances practical leadership skills for those who serve on the frontlines. With the rapid growth of online principal preparation programs, this tool clearly represents a change in preparation. Readers will learn not only from the testbed study itself but will gain valuable information to maximize the use of traditional print case studies as well. Considering the bleak analysis of the state of educational-administration university programs oered in Arthur Levine's (2005, March) report entitled Educating School Leaders, developments such as ETIPS serve as a tting response. Levine concluded in his critique that the curriculum in university programs was irrelevant and desperately lacking in meaningful experiences connecting theory to practice. Within weeks of these scathing statements, Levine (2005, April) wrote the following comment in The Chronicle of Higher Education: Whether or not university-based school-leadership programs choose to clean their own houses, change will occur. The simple fact is that those programs are being replaced. Yet my hope is that universities and their educational-administration programs will embrace change rather than watch the states and the marketplace take away their franchise. (p. 20) Levine is correct that universities must embrace change rather than to curse the proverbial darkness or to justify outdated methods. The ETIPS project is an eort to embrace that change, to invigorate the educational-leadership preparation process, and to provide a meaningful tool to transition from university classrooms to eld experiences. Although primarily intended for and presently being tested in university settings, ETIPS was designed to perform just as eectively in non-university preparation programs. The framework for these online cases answers Levine's concerns by being grounded in research related to complexity, contextualized knowledge, and self-regulated learning. Unlike linear print cases, which have become standard in both business and school administration university programs (Zuelke & Willerman, 1995), the virtual yet realistically complex school settings provided in ETIPS simulates the multifaceted schools in which principals serve (Putnam & Borko, 2000). The structure of the case studies requires candidates to rely on all forms of knowledge: experiential, declarative, procedural, and contextual (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Additionally, the problem-solving processes employed within the cases advance self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2000). Although traditional text-based cases can certainly provide meaningful decision-making simulations, they are inherently bound by a number of limitations. A most obvious limitation is that of a linear presentation restricted by chronological, lock-step progress through the scenario with the problem posed and the data under consideration being prescribed by the text. The type of thinking required of such traditional cases is retrospective in nature, reacting and contemplating only past events and circumstances. The problem is situated in a single school context with limited data about that particular school. The procedural scaolding is modeled, managed, and coached by the professor. In contrast, the ETIPS model transcends traditional text-based cases. The online case studies aord a decision-making experience that includes a non-linear presentation, prospective thinking, multiple contexts, numerous data, and scaolding driven by the environment. While the case focus is established by the professor, it is an ill-structured situation that intentionally does not identify what the specic problem is. The initial step in preparing the case for the students is for the professor to select a topic and subtopic; there are ten potential subtopics from which to choose: CASE TOPICS & SUBTOPICS Cases and Subtopics continued on next page

134 126 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Instructional Leadership Organizational Leadership Relational Leadership - Student Sub-Group Achievement - School Excellence & Future Direction - Cultural Sensitivity & Responsiveness - Instructional Innovation - Resources & Mission Alignment - School & Family Engagement - Positive School Culture - Self-Study for School Improvement - Professional Development Planning - HR Stang & Development Table 4.10 Once one of the 10 subtopics is selected, the professor then contextualizes the issue in any of the 9 schools; a possibility of 90 dierent scenario combinations exists. At this point, the professor may plan to have an entire class address the same topic in the same school or may assign dierent cases to groups. A greater variety of scenarios within the class will enrich discussion and will serve to illustrate how the same scenario in a dierent context is handled. Multiple issues exist within each of the schools; it is from among these multiple issues that the learner is to identify the main underlying concern to be addressed. The 9 schools from which the professor may contextualize the issues are as follows: Scenario Schools ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Roosevelt Elem Sch Seneca Elem Sch H. Usher Elem Sch Low Performance Average Performance High Performance Rural Suburban Urban MIDDLE SCHOOLS Reyes MS Santiago MS Cold Springs MS Average Performance High Performance Low Performance Rural Suburban Urban HIGH SCHOOLS Rainer HS Stromburg HS Underwood HS High Performance Low Performance Average Performance Rural Suburban Urban Below is an example of an ill-structured scenario: Table 4.11 Topic: Organizational Leadership Subtopic: School Excellence and Future Direction School Context: Seneca Elementary School, suburban, mid-performing academically Case Scenario: Imagine that you are a member of the leadership team at Seneca Elementary School, in a suburban location. A new principal has just been hired who connected well with individuals in both the central oce sta and the local community during the interviews. Many people viewed the school as simply drifting along and expressed a desire for her to take the school to the next level. During the

135 127 rst administrative team meeting, the new principal has asked for opinions from team members on future directions that would be shared and supported by the community. Your task is to identify the primary issue(s) that need to be addressed and the action steps to take in order to develop areas of excellence within the school. The specic problem itself is identied by the learners as they explore the content on both the ctitious school's public website and internal intranet. The school's website includes 34 data sources, and the intranet includes 10. Once students know the topic, subtopic, school context, and case scenario, ETIPS prompts them to plan a strategy for analyzing the data. They are asked to click on 8 of the following 44 data sources that will reveal valuable information related to the scenario: Website Data SCHOOL WEBSITE About School the Students Sta Curriculum & Assessment Technology Infrastructure School Community Connections Professional Development Mission Statement Demographics Demographics Standards Schoolwide Facilities Family Involvement PD Plan School Improvement Plan Performance Mentoring Instructional Sequence Classroombased Facilities Business Involvement Resources Facilities Schedule Leadership Computer Curriculum Community Facilities Higher Education Involvement Leadership Student Leadership Faculty Schedule Classroom Pedagogy & Assessment Technology Support Sta Community Resources Learning Community Faculty Meetings Policies Rules & PD Process Goals Faculty Contract Technology Committee Technology Survey Results Technology Plan & Budget Table 4.12

136 128 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Intranet Data SCHOOL INTRANET Student Data Sta Data Policies Financial Records Discipline Supervision & Evaluation Instruction Budget Attendance Teacher Improvement Goals Personnel Grades & Achievement Sta Assignments Leadership Team Prole Table 4.13 The experience of selecting 8 of the 44 data sources simulates the complexity of an authentic problemsolving situation in which administrators are required to have an awareness of what data will best assist them in the decision-making process. As the students explore the data, they also can click on icons that will reveal teacher discussions about the topic in a chat-room environment. This exposes them to both the formal data and also the informal interpretation and reception of it by the faculty. In addition to the non-linear, learner-determined exploration of content, the process is prospective in natureconsidering potential, likely, or expected conditions based upon trends, faculty concerns, and present conditions. Thus, forward thinking is much more a component of the complex ETIPS cases than of traditional text-based cases. Building on Vygotsky's (1986) theory of mediated learning, the concept of scaolding in the student's zone of proximal development is integrated into the cases. Procedural scaolding is provided by the task's structure and process. The structure of the 44 data sources serves to develop habits of mind. As students repeatedly return to the data sources to learn more about the school and its issues, they formulate patterns of awareness regarding which data sources will best inform them on certain issues. The decision-making process integrated throughout also serves as a scaold as students complete the following steps: Identify the key underlying ISSUE that needs to be addressed. Acknowledge guiding principles and CRITERIA for decision-making. These criteria are to be drawn from the school's mission statement and goals, from the administrator's dispositions, and from declarative professional knowledge that relate to the issue. Explore ALTERNATIVES and their associated opportunities and constraints. Select the best DECISION and create a plan of action. Because the ETIPS cases are aligned with Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards, candidates who progress through the decision-making model are provided multiple opportunities to display their competency in the standards. They also increase their ability to perform well on the School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA). More importantly, practice using these case studies strengthens thought patterns for problem solving and collaborative decision making that candidates will take with them into the eld. The ETIPS program is available to all professors of educational administration at the following website: References Levine, A. (2005, March). Educating school leaders. Retrieved from Levine, A. (2005, April). Change in the principal's oce: The role of universities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(32),

137 129 Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. Handbook of Self-Regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934). Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the eect of leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: MCREL. Retrieved from Leadership.pdf Zuelke, D. C., & Willerman, M. (1995). The case study approach to teaching in education administration and supervision preparation programs. Education, 115, APPENDIX Case Studies: Decision-Making Model Use the following model and rubric to guide you in developing your case study responses. Ensure that your response follows this format. (This model and rubric were retrieved 7/22/2008 from 10 ) Steps in the Decision-Making Process Identify the ISSUE that needs to be addressed Consider many possible explanations of what is happening, including inherent assumptions within each Deduce fundamental underlying nature of problem Seek an appropriate amount and nature of data in order to make the decision Identify the desired goals that dene the scope and scale of necessary decision Deduce additional data needed Identify team of people who should become involved Identify the guiding principles you will apply as CRITERIA to the decision making process Identify appropriate guiding professional (declarative) knowledge Identify appropriate guidance to be derived from school goals and mission Identify dispositions that inuence thinking Identify ALTERNATIVES with associated opportunities and constraints and analyze their merits using the guiding principles Consider alternatives that address problem/issue Allow for new and creative ideas Identify opportunities and constraints for each alternative Analyze alternatives using guiding principles and stakeholders' perspectives Select the best alternative DECISION for the context and create a plan. Select alternative most consistent with guiding principles Create a plan of action Questions for Discussion 1. Describe what you determined to be the fundamental issue in this case and how you arrived at that interpretation. Who were the other people you thought should become involved in addressing this issue? What data sources did you consider key and how did you make sense of them? 10

138 130 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER 2. Summarize the criteria you selected regarding the school goals and mission, professional (declarative) knowledge, and dispositions. Explain how these will guide your decision making. 3. What school- or community-based programs, practices, tools, structures, procedures, policies, systems, and so forth create opportunities and constraints in the consideration of alternative solutions? 4. How did the facts of the case and your criteria come together in how you formulated your next steps to (1) set direction, (2) develop people, and (3) make the organization work? 5. Did your conception of the issue change throughout the case? If so, what factor inuenced the change? How could systems of the school be established or what could become more routinized to improve the ability of the school to deal with this issue in the future? What values drove the decision-making process? Case Scoring Rubric Scoring Rubric Criteria Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Issue: Explains the central issue in the case Criteria: Identies guiding principles in the case that aect the decision Alternatives: Analyzes a range of alternatives that address the problem, noting their advantages and disadvantages Decision: Selects the best alternative to address the challenge and includes strategies to Set Direction Does not present an understanding of the central issue Does not identify guiding principles in the case that aect the decision Does not present an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages for various alternatives Selects an alternative that is inconsistent with guiding principles and/or lacks any strategies for developing, communicating and supporting a vision for the school Presents a vague or supercial understanding of the central issue Identies a limited number of guiding principles in the case that aect the decision, including relevant aspects of the school mission Presents an incomplete analysis of advantages and/or disadvantages for various alternatives Selects an alternative that is consistent with guiding principles and identies limited strategies for developing, communicating and supporting a vision for the school Clearly articulates an understanding of the underlying central issue Identies multiple sets of inter-related guiding principles that aect the decision, including relevant aspects of the school mission Presents a detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages for various alternatives Selects an alternative that is consistent with guiding principles and describes detailed strategies for developing, communicating and supporting a vision for the school continued on next page

139 131 Decision: Selects the best alternative to address the challenge and includes strategies to Develop the People Selects an alternative that is inconsistent with guiding principles and/or lacks any strategies to support and develop sta members in achieving the stated goal Selects an alternative that is consistent with guiding principles and identies limited strategies to support and develop sta members in achieving the stated goal Selects an alternative that is consistent with guiding principles and describes detailed strategies to support and develop sta members in achieving the stated goal Decision: Selects the best alternative to address the challenge and includes strategies to Make the Organization Work Selects an alternative that is inconsistent with guiding principles and/or lacks strategies to create a positive organizational culture and manage people, time and material resources to achieve the sated goal Selects an alternative that is consistent with guiding principles and identies limited strategies to create a positive organizational culture and manage people, time and material resources to achieve the sated goal Selects an alternative that is consistent with guiding principles and identies detailed strategies to create a positive organizational culture and manage people, time and material resources to achieve the sated goal Table Technology Assisted School Counselor and Principal Collaboration 11 NCPEA Publcations note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University 11 This content is available online at <

140 132 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Authors Russell A. Sabella is currently a Professor of Counseling in the College of Education, Florida Gulf Coast University. Russ has also trained and consulted with thousands of school counselors, educators, parents, and organizational leaders throughout the country. Dr. Sabella is past president ( ) of the American School Counselor Association. Thomas Valesky is a Professor of educational leadership at Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers, Florida. He is widely published in the areas of school nance and school-based decision making. His simulations have been viewed and used by thousands of professors and students across the world. Presently, he serves as Program Leader for the Post Master's Programs, EdS and EdD. Madelyn Isaacs is a Professor of Counseling at Florida Gulf Coast University. She teaches and trains school and mental health counselors and has been very involved in multidisciplinary collaboration, advocacy, and school counselor accountability; especially making use of technology to enhance counselor work Introduction The disconnect between school counselors and building leaders has been noted and explored in depth by a unique partnership among the College Board, the American School Counselor Association, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. The resulting report (Finklestein, 2009) provides great insights into the areas of common interests as well as the barriers and areas of disconnection between counselors and principals. However, that report provided little help to move forward with practical strategies to overcome the barriers and implement their shared vision and goals in the best interests of student achievement. School counselors are trained specialists who support academic achievement for all students using methods of counseling, consultation, collaboration, and curriculum development and delivery. They focus on the academic, personal/social and career skills and development of their students (ASCA, 2005). Building leaders also support the academic achievement of all students by providing instructional leadership, human resource development and supervision, and management of the learning environment, within the context of district priorities and curriculum standards. Both have a particular skill set that make them natural collaborators as they both (a) share common interests in academic achievement among students, (b) have exible schedules, (c) have advanced training in research methods and assessment as part of their professional preparation, and (d) also collaborate with other educators and stakeholders in the system (e.g., teachers, parents, and community members). According to Broughton (2005), despite dierences in professional preparation and orientation, there is ample evidence that collaboration among administrators and counselors results in more eective programs and services that positively impact student academic, personal, and social growth. In fact every year since 2004 the American School Counselor Association recognizes programs for eectiveness and excellence in schools where counselors and administrators have forged strong collaborative relationships (Past RAMP Recipients, n.d.) Such collaboration is a critical issue to meet student needs eectively and ensure that all schools are going to empower all students to achieve. Today's at, high-tech, multicultural, and fast paced world requires high levels of collaboration, exibility and responsiveness within any system (e.g., family, economic, corporate, school, or social) to best meet its needs and fulll its mission. This is also certainly true of our educational systems and, in particular, our school counseling programs. No individual alone can achieve what is required to provide a high quality and comprehensive education among our students.

141 133 In targeting barriers to relationships in their survey, respondents identied what they considered to be the most important aspects of an eective relationship between principals and counselors (College Board National Oce for School Counselor Advocacy, 2009; Finkelstein, 2009). Among other behaviors perceived as important to collaborating, both principals and school counselors ranked as second most important Open communication that provides multiple opportunities for input to decision making. The highest rated element was Mutual trust and respect between the principal and counselors. Another noteworthy nding is that both school counselors and principals saw time as being the biggest barrier to collaboration between them. The focus of this article is to provide a practical overview of how technology can assist school counselors and administrators collaborate, communicate, and share information for decision-making more eectively, eciently, and perhaps more enjoyably in the context of their unique roles and obligations. (NOTE: For the remainder of the article, collaboration will refer to the processes of collaboration, communication, and shared decision-making. Included throughout are various practical examples about how school counselors and administrators collaborate and make decisions using technology The Nature of High-Tech Collaboration Over electronic networks, educators can communicate and collaborate with students, teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and other educators with greater convenience and eciency than ever before. While you are reading this, thousands of educators enjoy the convenience of corresponding, consulting, and collaborating with each other via social networks, , text messages, discussion forums, chat rooms, instant messaging, and VOIP (i.e., voice over internet protocol) to name a few. Collaboration in particular is a process by which people work together on an intellectual, academic, or practical endeavor. In essence, they co-labor toward a common mission or goal. In the past, the process of collaboration occurred in person, by letter, fax, or on the telephone. Today's high-tech collaboration connects individuals and/or groups over an electronic network (e.g., internet, intranet, cellular network, closed circuit television) using tools that are becoming increasingly cheaper, powerful, and more easily accessible. Working over an electronic medium allows collaborators to communicate and work together anytime, from anywhere, and from virtually any place on the planet. People from dierent parts of a building, school district, state, country, or continent can, for example, exchange information and, together as a team, develop documents, ponder ideas, discuss issues, reect on their own practices, make decisions, or collate data. Collaborators can now work at a distance and accomplish just about anything that they at one time could only do if they were actually together in the same room at the same time. The limitations of space, pace, and time have been dissolved with today's anytime, anywhere, on-demand work spaces and high-tech tools designed to help us synergize our talents and passions. For example, William P. Pepin, Guidance Department Chairperson at North Smitheld Junior-Senior High School in Rhode Island writes: "I am a strong proponent of technology and its benets in the North Smitheld School District. Our school counselors and administrators use technology as a tool to collaborate on numerous issues. We use and district wide servers to frequently work on projects together and to help organize schedules and meeting times. We have a separate folder on a shard drive that the counselors, technology sta, and administrators can use to share documents. We have been updating our graduation requirements with a draft that has been to the school admin, district admin, myself, and the RI Department of Education." "Our new student information system, Innite Campus, has allowed individuals with proper access to use data on both small and large levels. We can now examine data and make data based decisions in a way that we were never able to before. We are still implementing the system, but I look forward to using it to make better decisions." (personal communication, July 13, 2009) Overcoming Limitations of Space (or Distance) By using appropriate technology, school counselors and administrators can collaborate with others from all over the world providing a body of resources and professional colleagues that would not otherwise readily present themselves. Collaborating with others on an international scale can also provide educators with a

142 134 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER sense of belonging, a sense of camaraderie within a larger community. Using technology to collaborate, counselors and administrators can actively and interactively contribute to exploring innovative ideas and share best practices. With electronic collaboration, the adage "two heads are better than one" could just as easily be "two hundred heads are better than one." One person's provocative question can lead to many creative, exciting solutions. By sharing what they know with others, participants advance their own knowledge and the collaborative community's knowledge Overcoming Limitations of Pace (or Eciency) Typically, during the school day educators are pressed for time and lack opportunities to stop and reect on their work experiences or move beyond on-the-y brainstorming that often happens by chance in the hallway (Finkelstein, 2009). The asynchronous nature of electronic collaboration allows participants to contribute to the conversation when it's convenient and to reect on what others have said before responding. In addition, having to articulate professional struggles and suggestions in writing forces writers to take time to be thoughtful and reect carefully about new ideas and pathways (Koufman-Frederick, Lillie, Pattison- Gordon, Watt, & Carter 1999) Overcoming Limitations of Time Most educators are accustomed to short-term professional development seminars and workshops that provide nite information. Similarly, traditional collaboration occurs mostly during dened and time limited meetings convenient to all parties involved. Electronic collaboration allows for a sustained eort where participants can propose, try out, rene, and shape ideas themselves using a combination of live and electronic media or venues. For instance, counselors and administrators could attend (at the same time, dierent times; from one location or dierent locations) an online seminar (better known as a webinar) about, say, how to identify achievement gaps by disaggregating student data. They can then later interact over a follow up discussion board where participants share how they have demonstrated what they learned at their own schools. As they continue, they may identify a sister school to work more closely with and schedule a video conference to partner and further collaborate Electronic Collaboration Activities Collaborating electronically can take many dierent forms. Koufman-Frederick et al. (1999) proposed several types of activities which includes discussion groups, data collection and organization, sharing documents, synchronous communication, and participating in online courses or workshops. Rivka Stein, a counselor at Hebrew Academy Community School in Florida writes about how she and her principal are able to use technology to diminish barriers of space, pace, and time: "At our school, I have developed a strong collaborative relationship with the principals. Technology has denitely become a cornerstone of our information sharing. In between regularly scheduled meetings, it is easy for us to "touch base" using when timely issues surface. On our internal network, there is a secure, shared le called "counselor" that only the principals & I can access. In that le, I store all sensitive documents that are important for both the principals and myself to access. We have accommodation plans for students with special needs. I maintain a list of referral sources for counseling, psychological testing, speech therapists, tutors, etc. I also maintain a le of the agendas that I create for my meetings with the principals. In these agendas are brief notes/comments updating status of many issues. Additionally, in a separate secure area of the network, the principals keep disciplinary logs on students which I can access to support my work with students." "We have recently set up a new system of tracking documents, which teachers can access, in which there is a place for brief highlights (& "low-lights") on student academic performance, standardized testing, internal & external services oered/received (e.g., Title 1, Private School Services for ESE through the public Schools, evaluation on le, Educational enhancement groups, etc.) There is also a section for behavioral & academic strategies that have been successful." (personal communication, July 16, 2009).

143 135 Dr. Mary O'Reilly, College Counselor at Josephinum Academy in Chicago captures how she uses technology to help her, the principal, and students understand and make data-driven decisions regarding college admission: Administrators frequently ask for data on our students relative to college admission decisions; I enter all data on PrepHQ & can produce summary data, plus (my favorite) scatter grams on our students' success based on GPA & ACT. Granted there are certainly other factors involved in college admission decisions, however, the scatter grams are useful to students so they can determine if they are "in the ballpark" or near the ballpark and need to make sure they have an excellent essay, personal statement, activity record, etc. to be competitive. PrepHQ ( 12 ) is similar to Naviance except it is free. It reports numbers/percentages for students applying to public/private colleges, in-state/out-of-state schools, 4 yr/2 yr institutions, competitive/non-competitive, religious aliation, HBCU, monthly trac, scholarship winner totals, test score history, etc. As yet, we don't use all the features PrepHQ has available, but the ones mentioned are valuable & time saving. If an administrator needs some information, I can produce it in say...about 5 minutes! (personal communication, July 13, 2009) Electronic Collaboration Tools To better conceptualize the wide ranging potentials for how technology can help school counselors, Sabella (2003) provided a useful categorization scheme which can help readers manage how they think about and implement technology, in this case, for collaboration. Technology can help educators in one or more of four areas: 1. Information/Resource: In the form of words, graphics, video, and even three-dimensional virtual environments, the online environment remains a dynamic and rapidly growing library of information and knowledge. Information is relational in that one piece of information may be linked to other pieces of information by the author. Or, more recently, computer systems have designed algorithms to help automatically generate links to information that is deemed related to the information you are currently accessing. Counselors and administrators can co-create and/or point to information that takes advantage of their unique perspectives. 2. Communication/Collaboration: Chat rooms, bulletin boards, virtual classroom environments, video conferencing, webinars, electronic meeting services, , social networking, application sharing the web is now a place where people routinely connect, exchange information, and make shared decisions. 3. Interactive/Productivity Tools: The maturing of software and web-based programming has launched a new level of technological tools which has seemingly come o the shelves and landed on the Internet (also known as cloud computing). These high-tech tools can help counselors and administrators create anything ranging from a personalized business card to a set of personalized website links. Interactive tools available online can, for example, help school counselors and principals to process data and manipulate information (e.g. calculating a GPA or dierences in student performance over time), convert text to speech, create a graph, or maintain a shared to-do list. 4. Delivery of Services: Although relatively still in its infancy, yet growing in popularity, is how educators use the web to meet with students, deliver lessons, or provide guidance and counseling services in an online or virtual environment. Below, we focus on the rst three of these four categories which are most applicable to school counselor and administrator collaboration Information/Resource Sharing information and resources is really what the Internet was designed to do and today, this endeavor remains its specialty. This vast network allows people to now share, not only text and links, but a dizzying array of multimedia that includes video, audio, photos, charts, and more. Anyone with a web-enabled device 12

144 136 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER or computer can contribute to the universe of knowledge. The shift from institution generated knowledge to individually generated knowledge has proliferated to the degree that we now consider the web to have entered its rst major upgrade Web 2.0 described as: "The term "Web 2.0" is commonly associated with web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows its users to interact with each other as contributors to the website's content, in contrast to websites where users are limited to the passive viewing of information that is provided to them. Examples of Web 2.0 include web-based communities, hosted services, web applications, social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, mashups, and folksonomies. The term became notable after the rst O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users utilize the Web." (Web 2.0, 2010) Tim O'Reilly, the founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media, Inc., thought by many to be the best computer book publisher in the world, wrote: "Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network eects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences." (O'Reilly, 2007). Following are several online services that specialize in helping content providers and readers share their expertise and awareness Collaborative Bookmarks Search engines such as Google, Yahoo!, and Bing have been able to index billions of web pages across the globe. However, they have not indexed all known pages. And, there exists so many good resources today that even some valuable resources may not make their way to the top of a search engine's results list. Plus, search engines do not typically specialize in providing results that best reects one profession such as counseling or education. Human review and recommendation of resources is still quite valuable. Many services exist that allow the members of a profession (or any community) to share, review, and recommend (or not) a list of web sites or bookmarks. Among many, examples of such services include: Delicious is a social bookmarking service that allows users to tag, save, manage and share web pages from a centralized source. Users can also build stacks a collection of links built around a common theme Digg is a website where people can collectively determine the value of content and share with other consumers. Once something is submitted, other people see it and Digg what they like best. If your submission is popular and receives enough Diggs, it is promoted to the front page of the website Diigo is two services in one it is a research and collaborative research tool on the one hand, and a knowledge-sharing community and social content site on the other Google Bookmarks is an online service that lets you save your favorite sites and attach labels and annotations. Unlike the bookmark feature from your browser, bookmarks are stored securely online, so they are accessible even if you're using other computers StumbleUpon uses ratings to form collaborative opinions on website quality. When you stumble, you will only see pages that friends and like-minded stumblers have recommended

145 Collaborative Videos I think most people forget that, at one time not very long ago, posting a video (or even a photo) online was a complicated and time consuming procedure. Denitely not today. One can capture video through their cameras, video phones, or webcams and almost instantly begin uploading to one of many video hosting sites. In addition, these online video warehouses have become social networks that provide the tools for people to connect while reviewing, commenting, or sharing videos. Videos can now also easily be embedded on any web page so that the videos, in practice, are syndicated throughout the web. Although many video sharing sites exist, the most popular include: 5min is a place to nd short video solutions for practical questions and a place for people to share their knowledge Blip.tv is a free videoblogging, podcasting and video sharing service Google Plus Hangouts allows up to nine friends, watch Youtube videos, in real-time, from anywhere SchoolTube provides students and educators a safe and free media sharing website that is nationally endorsed by premier education associations. All student created materials on SchoolTube must be approved by registered teachers, follow local school guidelines, and adhere to our high standards TeacherTube is a video sharing website that is very similar to YouTube in layout and function, with one crucial dierence: it's entirely devoted to educational videos. The site monitors inappropriate materials, so it's safe to use in the classroom WonderHowTo hand-selects and curates the best instructional videos from over 1,700 web sites. Explore the largest collection of free how-to videos anywhere Vimeo is a video hosting and sharing site. Users can upload as much as 2GB of video a month, including high-denition video that plays in a wide-screen player YouTube allows people to easily upload and share video clips on and across the Internet through web sites, mobile devices, blogs, and TTV (Teacher Training Videos) is a site that provides excellent videos and other resources free of charge for training and links to technology tools Collaboration Portals A collaboration portal is a one-stop destination, usually on the Web, where collaborators can co-create a page of resources, links, and even tools (also known as gadgets or widgets) to share and manage content. The following are a few popular ones: At Pageakes you can easily customize the Internet and make it yours using `Flakes small, movable versions of all of your web favorites that you can arrange on your personal homepage. You can also participate in the Pageakes community, sharing your page as a Pagecast with a private group or with the world, and connecting with other users across the globe Google oers the ability to create a personalized igoogle page that gives you at-a-glance access to key information from Google and across the web. This page is personal and not

146 138 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER shared among others with one exception igoogle users can easily create Gadgets (see 28 to share text, graphics, and more with others who install those gadgets on their igoogle page Netvibes is a free web service that brings together your favorite media sources and online services. You can share your favorite netvibes content with colleagues, friends, and other netvibes users Ning is a service for developing personalized social networking sites Anglea Marsaglia 32, currently a teacher from Collier County, Florida writes about how she helped her school better communicate: "At my school in Illinois, I created a site from NING (ning.com) for my administrator because she was unsatised with the interaction among teachers at faculty meetings. We decided to try this site (after I had used it with my high school students) with the faculty for several reasons: many were afraid to speak up in meetings, many had very little technology experience, and many had great ideas that never surfaced in meetings. On our NING I created a chat box and several discussion groups and assigned teachers to each discussion group. After even only the rst use of NING the administrator loved it, as did the teachers (even the reluctant teachers said it was very cool and kind of fun). All teachers participated in the discussions and oered valuable insight that never before was oered. It was a fabulous experience because it was unintimidating and helped get the more "traditional" teachers to use technology. We liked it so much that everyone logged on every morning and announcements/info could be shared all day long. It was much easier and quicker than !" Communication/Collaboration An obvious tool for communicating and collaborating a staple of business, industry, and education is electronic mail or . Whether ing one person or thousands of colleagues, is still an eective way to query others, share resources, and even provide each other with timely encouragement (Myrick & Sabella, 1995; Sabella, Poynton, & Isaacs, 2010). Valerie Johnson, School Counselor at Collier Elementary School in Alabama wrote about the advantages of from her perspective: "I've found that technology helps me greatly in working with my principal. When she is not available, I simply shoot her an and she responds when she has a minute. This has saved me hours and hours of time! Also, my principal is very visually oriented. She is always impressed when I create graphs or a PowerPoint presentation to get my point across to her or to faculty members." (personal communication, July 10, 2009). Similarly, Dean Collins, Director of Guidance at Madison Area Memorial High School in Maine, writes: "Technology has allowed better presentations to students, parents and sta members. Allowed us to better communicate with parents on certain issues and at the same time keeping our administrators and others concerned in one , thus not having to reiterate the discussion over and over again. I have found s most useful in timely communication when people are tied up with other meetings or out of district but they still access s." (personal communication, August 11, 2009) However, anyone who uses on a daily basis can readily tell you about the disadvantages of communication which include: For some, typing can be slow and tedious; The absence of nonverbal communication such as gestures, facial expression, or tone of voice can sometimes lead to mistaken interpretations of an message;

147 139 Although relatively very secure, sending an over the internet may not be completely private. For instance, if you send an using your school's equipment, the may be subject to review by school personnel and/or may be accessed via a public records request or court subpoena. In some cases, s that discuss educational progress among students may be protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). However, realize that your may be accidentally forwarded to other individuals and, for all intents and purposes, syndicated among various communication technologies as it is passed on. If not careful, educators can receive too many messages which may lead to time and organizational management challenges. In this sense, counselors must be smart consumers of information and determine how much one reads, digests, discards, and to which messages one should respond. As kids will eagerly tell you, however, is so old school. More powerful tools exist to get information and resource to our collaborators either from one individual to many or many individuals to one. Let's now explore a few: Blogs A blog (a portmanteau of the term "web log") is a type of website or part of a website. Blogs are usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order. "Blog" can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog (Blog, 2011). Google owned Blogger.com describes a blog as, "A blog is a personal diary. A daily pulpit. A collaborative space. A political soapbox. A breaking-news outlet. A collection of links. Your own private thoughts. Memos to the world." The technology that allows individuals to write one's own blog is so relatively simple and inexpensive that it is no surprise that blogs have proliferated the Web as fast as they have. Anyone can create a basic blog for free, and most of these toolsets have additional features available for a price. Here are just a few of the services available that would be most appropriate for educators seeking more eective collaboration: Blogger is a free, automated weblog publishing platform in one easy to use website TypePad is similar to blogger, another blogging service although this one has a minimal cost LiveJournal is free although users can choose to upgrade their accounts for extra features Moveable Type is another popular web publishing platform and community host Posterous. This website lets you post things online fast using WordPress. Here you can start a blog in seconds without any technical knowledge. One of the authors of this article uses WordPress in a graduate class to have students upload clinical supervision videos, view one another's videos, and comment with their observations Twitter. People are eager to connect with other people and Twitter, often considered a microblog, makes that simple Consumers of blogs, in this case, our educational stakeholders, have several ways that they can learn about new updates or additions to your blogs (e.g., see Feed 101, n.d.). First, they can periodically visit your blog and look for any updates which is easy to do since entries are listed in chronological order. Second, if your

148 140 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER blog allows it, they can sign up to receive notication of any new information. Or, third, they can subscribe to the blog if the blog host oers RSS (Real Simple Syndication) feed capability which is a basic feature of today's blogs. In this case, you simply click on a link that designates add to reader or copy the website address of the feed into a feed reader (also known as feed aggregator). Anytime the blog is updated, you automatically receive a copy of it right in your reader Podcasts According to Valesky & Sabella (2005), podcasting, in its basic form, involves creating audio les (most commonly in MP3 format) and making them available online in a way that allows users to automatically download the les for listening at their convenience (i.e., they subscribe to the podcast). After subscribing to the podcast, future broadcasts automatically download to your computer, which can then be transferred easily to a smart phone, tablet PC, or ipod. In essence, anyone with a computer, Internet access, free software, and a microphone can turn their computer into a personal studio and produce their very own radio show/program. School counselors and principals can collaboratively develop a podcast that provides vital information to all stake holders. Co-creating a podcast can be achieved by using free or almost free web-based podcasting services which greatly simplies the process. Several popular web based podcasting services include: Blogger. One can use your Blogger account to make a Podcast feed that can be downloaded into itunes and other "podcatchers." 40 liberated syndication (libsyn) will help you to start podcasting, get your podcast in itunes and even turn your show into an App Podbean.com. This site has a user-friendly interface which allows you to upload, publish, manage and promote your podcasts with just a few clicks of your mouse Posterous.com. This website lets you quickly post les online using Examples of school counselor and administrator podcasts include: ASCAway. School counseling issues, trends and interviews from the American School Counselor Association School Counseling Today" Podcasts from the Missouri Center for Career Education Elementary School Counselor Podcast from Rob Ortega CounselorAudioSource.net The National Association of Secondary School Principals feature podcasts in their Administrator Knowledge Center The National Association of Secondary School Principals feature podcasts in their "Administrator Knowledge Center 49 The National Association of Elementary School Principals has their NAESPRadio

149 141 The American Association of School Administrators has their AASA Radio Online or Virtual Meetings School counselors and administrators can use online web meetings to present information, share applications, train, and/or collaborate on projects with colleagues around the globe as easily as if they were side by side. Some online meeting services are free with limitations on the number of participants that can log in and others charge fees. With most online meeting services, you can schedule meetings in advance or start an instant meeting with the click of your mouse. Or, you might send invitations via or instant messaging. Most services also allow you to speak to each other over the internet using VOIP or they may include a telephone number that participants can use to connect and conference. Following are several free or low-cost solutions for online meetings: Elluminate is considered a unied learning and collaboration suite GoToMeeting is an online meeting service that enables individuals and organizations to easily, securely and cost-eectively collaborate, present information and demonstrate products online oovoo. Similar to Skype, oovoo allows for video/audio conferencing, le transfer, and instant messaging Mikogo is an easy-to-use cross-platform desktop sharing tool, ideal for web conferencing, online meetings or remote support Skype is free software that allows one to video/audio conference with others and includes instant messaging and le transfer Webex. WebEx delivers a robust suite of on-demand collaborative applications Vyew. With Vyew you can give a presentation to a hundred people online or post a document you've been working on for review by your colleagues at their convenience Windows Meeting Space enables face-to-face collaboration among small groups of Windows Vista users and gives you the ability to share documents, programs, or your desktop with other people whose computers are running Windows Vista Yugma. Yugma is an easy-to-use web conferencing service that allows users to host or attend online meetings on Windows, Mac or Linux computers James Gaparino, principal at Pelican Marsh Elementary School in Naples Florida, lists ways his school and district use technology to facilitate meetings, make decisions, and communicate: "I receive electronic newsletters from ASCD, NAESP, and FASA on a daily and weekly basis to stay informed of state and national issues. I often receive surveys from these groups to share my thoughts and information regarding our school." "Our technology teachers participate in a website called Mimio Connect which serves a clearinghouse for technology lessons."

150 142 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER "I nd it much more ecient to use electronic communication wherever possible in lieu of meetings, especially if it is more informational in nature and doesn't require discussion or feedback. All daily bulletins are done electronically instead of using paper." "We have a schoolwide "EDUSHARE" Drive on our computer system. This serves as a means to provide access to all sta members on curricular issues, lesson plans, School Improvement process, schedules, the new teacher evaluation system, and pretty much else that needs to accessible to our teachers. Any sta member may put information on this drive to share with others." "We use PowerPoint, webcasts, and videos to share information." "Our school district has been using technology to have virtual meetings to avoid travel time away from buildings for administrators." "This may be the most signicant impact technology has had on our school. Our district maintains a Data Warehouse which has current and past testing data which we are able to disaggregate by levels, lower quartile students, race, socioeconomic staus, ESE, ELL, etc. This information is shared with the entire school, grade levels, and I meet with each teacher to review their student's performance, look at trend data, and discuss instructional implications. The information is monitored throughout the year." Interactive/Productivity Tools This category of technology tools helps educators to make their collaborations more fruitful in the form of creativity and productivity. Administrators and school counselors can co-create documents, collect data, use project task management applications, and more all online without barriers of space, pace, or time. Following are description of such tools for various purposes: Online Collaboration Suites Imagine that a common productivity suite such as Microsoft Oce was available to you online. And, what if users could log in and work together on one or more of the dierent aspects that a productivity suite oers such as creating documents, organizing a calendar, communicating with others, collecting and analyzing data, managing projects, etc. That is what online collaboration suites such as the following are designed to do: 37 Signals This online set of collaborative tools includes the following components: Backpack. Gather your ideas, to-dos, notes, photos & les online. Cell phone reminders Basecamp is an online project management and collaboration suite. According to the website, Projects don't fail from a lack of charts, graphs, stats, or reports, they fail from a lack of clear communication. Basecamp solves this problem by providing tools tailored to improve the communication between people working together on a project Campre. Simple and easy web-based group chat Highrise. This customer relationship management helps you to keep track of who you talk to, what was said, and what to do next Ta-da List is the web's easiest to-do list tool. Make lists for yourself or share them with others Also see (Remember the Milk at 67 )

151 143 Writeboard is a shareable, web-based text document that lets you save every edit, roll back to any version, and easily compare changes Google Docs ( 69 ). Well known for its search engine, Google also provides a free suite of online collaboration and productivity tools. Google docs allows users to choose who can access your documents, invite others to either edit or view your document, spreadsheet or presentation, and even view a presentation together. Also, you can save your documents and spreadsheets to your own computer in DOC, XLS, CSV, ODS, ODT, PDF, RTF and HTML formats. And, Google docs allows easy publishing of documents online with one click, as normal-looking web pages, without having to learn anything new. You can publish to the entire world, just a few people or no one it's up to you. (You can also un-publish at any time.) Similarly, once you've created a document, you can post it to your blog. Following is a description of several of the many and various tools included in Google docs: Google Sites One-stop sharing for all types of team information Google Docs Create and share documents, create online surveys, spreadsheets and presentations Google Mail or Gmail comes with helpful features to make more useful, like award-winning spam and virus ltering, up to 7 GB of storage per account, powerful search to nd messages as fast as you can search the web, and instant messaging built right in. The Gmail web application is accessible from anywhere, and you can even sign in from your mobile phone. Or if you prefer, you can access from your favorite mail client like Outlook or Thunderbird using POP or IMAP at no additional cost Google Calendar Arrange meetings, set schedules, and publish event information (also see Sabella, 2008b). Google Talk Instant message (video and audio) with co-workers and make PC-to-PC voice calls for free Start Page Preview your calendar and docs, add gadgets and search the web from one place Microsoft Oce Web Apps ( 76 ) has recently made available "Oce Web Apps" which includes online versions of Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel and Microsoft PowerPoint. Zoho ( 77 ). Similar to Google docs, Zoho is another popular suite of online collaboration tools. Most of Zoho's products are free or oered at a fraction of the cost of other similar products. Sometimes, you don't need a full collaboration suite because you simply want to get a group of people to pool their knowledge and create documents in the form of hyperlinked web pages. You probably want to create a wiki. A Wiki is a type of website that allows a group of people to add, remove, and sometimes edit the available content. This ease of interaction and operation makes a wiki an eective tool for collaborative authoring such as with handbooks, group project reports, presentation handouts, etc. Wikis are often used to create collaborative web sites and to power community web sites. The collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia is one of the best-known wikis. Common wiki platforms, especially among educators, includes:

152 144 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Wikidot. Publish content, share your documents, collaborate with friends or coworkers, create a place for your community Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Wikipedia's articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information wikispaces, similar to the others, allows users to create simple web pages that groups, friends, & families can edit together Collecting Data Getting feedback from others, conducting program or student assessment, and, in general, collecting information is part of a group process that is vital to eective group decision making, monitoring progress, and being accountable. Technology has made data collection incredibly easy and fast. Polling. One counselor, Theresa, described how she is able to use the voting feature of her program to gain consensus on a particular purchase (Sabella & Stanley, 2008). She wrote: "I had never used [Microsoft] Outlook in this fashion but I thought it might be useful. In one instance, I had a video tape called Bud and Dud on loan for a month from the company. Bud and Dud was a video series in which a dog gave tips for taking tests to students via 5-minute clips show during the morning announcements. The deadline for making a decision was quickly approaching and our school budget, like many, was very tight. We needed to decide if we should buy the program or send it back. Many of the students and teachers seemed to love it but one person was outspokenly against it. I wasn't sure if we should buy it because it was a talking-dog-thing and seemed a little corny but I didn't want make the decision without more concrete feedback. So, I used the Microsoft Outlook voting feature which allows the user to send a survey-type messages with voting buttons to a group of recipients. By clicking a button, each respondent can express a preference and generate a response message to vote. Outlook logs vote messages to the original message's tracking page (visit 81 for more details). The results were impressive. Over 95% of the respondents were in favor of purchasing and using the lm. The principal saw the data and decided to purchase the program. The students and sta loved it and ask for it each and every year. Interestingly, the person that was originally against purchasing the program later told me that her students took a surprising liking to it. The Microsoft Outlook voting process was a simple feature that summarized the data in a matter of seconds. What would have required several hours otherwise only took seconds with this technology, a true positive impact on my productivity." In addition to using Microsoft Outlook for conducting a poll, school counselors and administrators can use one or more of the following methods: Use one of a multitude of online poll creation web sites. Once a poll is created, the user then simply sends (usually via or listserv) the poll URL out to intended recipients. Results are usually tabulated automatically. Several popular polling sites include 82, 83, 84, and Create a simple survey or form to collect poll data such as with Google Docs ( 86 ) Survey Monkey ( 87 ), Question Pro ( 88 ), or Zoomerang ( 89 )

153 145 Twtpoll is a feedback tool that helps you to create and distribute polls/surveys on Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed or on any other social media site twittpoll.com is the opinion channel of twitter Accountability. Accountability can become a time consuming endeavor given the vast amount of available data and sometimes unfriendly software that currently exists to help make sense of it. However, more sophisticated student information systems (SIS) are now available to schools for making the accountability process much more manageable. Some school districts have even invested in developing from scratch the SIS they need. SIS software has grown in complexity, normally integrating into other systems such as communication, scheduling, grade book, discipline, accounting, and report writing. Many forces have been converging from within the counseling profession, within educational practice, and from external sources in government over the past 10 or so years that have brought us to the necessity of incorporating accountability into school counseling practice as well (Isaacs, 2003). As a result, the school counseling profession has witnessed an increased number of available tools that are customized to more easily and quickly organize, interpret, and report data. For instance, Sabella (2009) described the following: Future Challenges New technologies become available every day, and although many are alluring, only a few will truly result in great benets to a counselor's professional and personal productivity. Every technology must be carefully evaluated for its merit. As smart consumers of technology, counselors and administrators must ask questions such as (Sabella, 2003): How much are the initial costs for purchasing any needed software or hardware? Will available computers run the software or will I need to upgrade (e.g., add more memory or purchase a new peripheral, therefore adding to the overall cost of the new application)? If I choose to purchase new software or hardware, what will it cost to maintain it in the form of upgrades and especially in the form of human resources, specically paying someone for upkeep, training, or consultation? How user-friendly is the technology? How much time might it require to adequately learn and apply the new technology? Can I do this on my own or will I need to spend even more money for training? Is the company that provides the technology reputable and stable? Or, will the technology lose longterm support because of a eeting company? How well will the new technology work with other already adopted computer applications? How compatible is the new technology to already existing technologies? That is, will others be able to share and collaborate with someone who uses the new technology? Is the new technology convenient and enjoyable to use? Ultimately, the main question is, will this technology provide me with a signicant return on investment (ROI)? That is, will an initial and anticipated investment of nancial and human resources provide me with a long-term and desired level of benet to my work? If the ROI for a technology is signicant, then one might more easily make the decision to learn and use it. If the ROI is poor, then one might only spend the time to understand the technology to better make informed decisions about its use. Other challenges exist such as those described by Tyler & Sabella (2004): Simply nding the time to learn the skills (professional and technological) necessary to keep up. In almost every profession where a certicate or license is required for professional practice, the right to practice comes with an obligation to maintain currency in the eld. Another challenge for all professionals to address relates to the nancial impact of rapidly changing technology. Purchasing a computer and learning to use it was and remains, a short-term investment

154 146 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER For most users, by the time a computer is purchased, set-up and operated for several months, it has been replaced in stores by newer hardware and software with improved features. Finding ways to create the enthusiasm among others to support our use of technology. Some colleagues may not always understand the benets to be gained from technology. Many individuals choose not to even consider using technology any more than mandated simply because they lack skills or believe that learning and implementing new systems and procedures will be too time consuming. In many environments, individuals have seen so many changes occur over time that they believe technology, like many other initiatives, will simply go away if it is ignored long enough. In seeking support from colleagues we need to remember that comfort and knowledge levels vary widely. In the past, during training and early work experiences, educators in general are warned not to "take their work home." A healthy level of professional detachment or strong boundaries was advocated to allow for personal space. This was seen as a necessary component of the care giver taking care of the self. Technology is making that task more dicult. Because technology blurs boundaries, we may easily nd ourselves working at home and playing at work. Educators must establish ways to appropriately disconnect from professional obligations to allow for personal growth and renewal. While technology has a tendency to allow professional activities to creep into our personal lives, it also can creep into our professional lives in a way that creates an increased pace of business. This increase in pace may actually rob us of opportunities to reect, relax, and prepare for future tasks. The metaphor of the worker as machine seems more applicable today than ever before. We must continue to nd ways to respond to the increased pace of professional life. A healthy focus and sense of balance is critical to the longevity and long-term success of the educator in today's high-tech world. Especially important is to keep a steady course of comprehensive (i.e., physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, etc.) creative relaxation and needs fulllment. Finally, yet another challenge we face as technologies become faster, cheaper, and more powerful is to make certain that these tools do not get in the way of our educational mission. Educators must battle against the dark side of technology including cyberbullying, cyberaddictions, and the proliferation of highly inappropriate content to name a few (Sabella, 2008). The conclusion of one research study about collaboration among counselors, counseling students, and university faculty captured quite well the importance and positive implications of collaboration (Dimmitt, 2003): "The collaborative research process helped to foster a culture of inquiry in both the school counseling partnership and the larger school context. When the goal is generating information, people become interested in asking questions and less invested in their own answers. It is easier to challenge assumptions in such a culture, and counselors are a powerful voice in this context. In order to eciently and eectively gather data and disseminate the ndings we also needed extensive collaboration among counselors, Administrators, and university faculty. For this process to work well, we had to have ongoing communication about needs and expectations as well as the implicit assumption that we all are working to make our schools the best they can be for the students in them. Working together on this project allowed all the constituents to develop new perspectives on what is occurring in the school. Administrators gained greater understanding of the partnership's goal of advocating for academic success for all students. Counselors gained knowledge about the process of data-gathering. Counselor educators gained greater understanding of the challenges of creating change in schools." "One of the most important outcomes of this research collaboration has been the increased support and excitement on the part of the school board and Administrators at all levels about gathering student achievement data. The high school Administrators want to evaluate the eectiveness of interventions, and the elementary and middle school administrators want to gather data about initial identication of student diculties and early intervention eorts." (p. 348) Current and emerging technology can make the collaboration process more eective, ecient, and enjoyable. As a result, students stand to gain in the form of greater academic achievement, enhanced responsibility, and advanced citizenship. By using technology, school counselors and administrators can work more closely together to advance the educational mission without historical barriers of space, pace, and time.

155 4.6.8 References ASCA. (2005). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (2 nd ed). Alexandra, VA: Author. Blog. (n.d.). Retrieved June 11, 2011, from Wikipedia: 92 Broughton, E. (2005, December). Minimizing conict, maximizing collaboration: Principals and school counselors. The Principals' Partnership, p. 2. Retrieved from 93 College Board National Oce for School Counselor Advocacy. (2009). Finding a way: Practical examples of how an eective Principal-Counselor relationship can lead to success for all students. New York, NY: The College Board. Retrieved from 94 Dimmitt, C. (2003). Transforming school counseling practice through collaboration and the use of data: A study of academic failure in high school. The Professional School Counselor, 6 (5), Feed 101. (n.d.). Retrieved from Google Feedburner: 95 Finkelstein, D. (2009). A closer look at the Principal-Counselor relationship: A survey of principals and counselors. New York, NY: The College Board. Retrieved from 96 Huey, W.C. (1987). The principal-counselor partnership: A winning combination. NASSP Bulletin, 71(499), Isaacs, M. (2003). Data-driven decision making: The engine of accountability. The Professional School Counselor, 6(4), Koufman-Frederick, A., Lillie, M., Pattison-Gordon, L., Watt, D.L., & Carter, R. (1999). Electronic collaboration: A practical guide for educators. Providence, RI: The LAB at Brown University. Retrieved from 97 O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 17 (1), 17. Retrieved from 98 Past RAMP Recipients. (n.d). Retrieved from Sabella, R.A., & Myrick, R.D. (1995). Peer helpers confront sexual harassment. The Peer Facilitator Quarterly, 13(1). Sabella, R. A. (2003). SchoolCounselor.com: A friendly and practical guide to the World Wide Web. (2nd ed). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation. Sabella, R. A. (2008a). GuardingKids.com: A practical guide to keeping kids out of high-tech trouble. Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation. Sabella, R. A. (2008b). Technology tools for calendaring. Retrieved from Sabella, R. A. (2009, November 1). Stay on track. ASCA School Counselor, Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association. Retrieved from Sabella, R. A., Poynton, T.A., Isaacs, M.L. (2010). School counselors perceived importance of counseling technology competencies. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (4), Sabella, R. A., & Stanley, T. (2008). School counseling and technology: An overview. In Allen, J. M

156 148 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER (Title to be determined). Austin, TX: ProEd, Inc. Tyler, J. M., & Sabella, R. A. (2004). Using technology to improve counseling practice: A primer for the 21st Century. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Valesky, T., & Sabella, R. A. (2005). Podcasting in educational leadership and counseling. Paper presented at the conference of the Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration, Atlanta GA, October 28, Retrieved from Web 2.0. (2010, June 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:25, June 4, 2010, from Webopedia (Retrieved June 4, 2010). Blog. Available online: Webopedia (Retrieved June 4, 2010). Web Based Training. Available online: Universal Design for Access and Equity 106 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University This content is available online at <

157 149 Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Author Dr. Susan Asselin is Professor and Chair, Department of Teaching and Learning, School of Education at Virginia Tech. Dr. Asselin is nationally recognized for her research and service aimed at improving the lives and futures of youth with disabilities as they transition from school to work and higher education. Her most recent research interests include universal design and use of assistive technologies Introduction Institutions of higher education are experiencing major shifts in pedagogy with teaching approaches that focus on student centered learning and increased access for learners who face challenges due to social, economic and cultural pressures. The traditional lecture based, face-to-face classroom is not as viable in light of information technology and learning tools oered by online instruction. More learners are participating in expanded learning communities unrestricted by geographical location and time restraints with more exible access to content anytime and anywhere. The demographic composition of the college student population is shifting in response to economic, social, educational, health and political changes in the United States. In addition to students with disabilities, English language learners, and ethnic and racial minorities, other forms of diversity need to be considered in the classroom including gender, class, age, employment status, race and culture and family and work related responsibilities. Meeting the needs of these students is critical to insuring they have equitable access and opportunities to participate in higher education Online Distance Education With the advent of the worldwide web and information technology and multimedia tools, online learning oers great potential for reaching increasing numbers of learners. It is estimated that by 2014, 22 million students will be enrolled in online courses, compared to 12 million students in 2009 (Adkins, 2011). The U.S. Department of Education (2011a) reports that over 22% of undergraduate and graduate students in enrolled in distance education courses, while 9% completed an entire graduate degree through distance education. College students nd online learning more popular and actively seek online programs. As a result, the growth of online enrollment in higher education is actually 10 times higher than traditional face to face course enrollment (Allen and Seaman, 2010). Distance education courses that employ live or interactive audio or video conferencing, webcasts, discussion forums, videos, or internet, computer based management systems oer student opportunities for synchronous and asynchronous learning tailored to their needs. In addition online learning models allow users to participate at their convenience. Instructional experiences for students in distance education courses oers more control over the nature of content knowledge and level of interaction with peers, teachers and digital resources. Instructional technologies used in online instruction support traditional models of expository instruction as well as active and interactive learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b) An overwhelming number of individuals access the internet daily to build communities without geographic or place-based restrictions, however students with disabilities or those with limited nancial resources have less access to Internet resources (KirkHart and Lau, 2007). Even with access internet based applications have created barriers as a result of web-based design embedded media. Adaptable technology can increase access and exibility in the digital campus community (Slatin, 2002). Online instruction oers students a unique opportunity to secure physical and intellectual access to a rich digital learning environment in higher education. Rowland, Mariger, Siegel and Whiting (2010) expand the notion of universal design for digital environments which includes electronic services - web pages, electronic materials, media, publications, simulations, games, social networking and online environments. Engagement in higher education and academic life is shaped by sharing and receiving information, learning, teaching, collaborating with others.

158 150 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Designing and delivering instruction to diverse learners requires faculty to understand learning needs of their students before they design an accessible, exible learning environment. Universal design oers higher education faculty and curriculum designers with a model that promotes access, and participation to 21 st century digital learning environments. Before we examine universal design and various models of eective practice, it is important to understand the legislative basis for providing access and examine selected populations of diverse learners in higher education Legislative Background Universal design for education was rst dened in the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 as a concept or philosophy for designing and delivering products or services that are usable by people with the widest possible range of functional capabilities, which includes products and services that are directly accessible (without requiring assistive technologies) and products and services that are interoperable with assistive technologies (29 U.S.C 3002, 20 U.S. C 1401[35]). The 1998 Assistive Technology Act (ATA) gave impetus to the creation of universally designed curriculum and the development of assistive technologies and services which were mandated in the 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). THE IDEIA adopted the same denition as ATA but promoted inclusion of students with disabilities in general education. The IDEIA not only focused on creating accessible curriculum in general education but provided funding to use technology, including technology with universal design principles and assistive technology devices to maximize accessibility to the general education curriculum for children with disabilities (20 U.S.C. 1412[a][16][E]). The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2004 provided a denition of UDL extending the notion of meeting the needs of the widest range of students to include English language learners as well as students with disabilities. This denition provides guidance to faculty and instructional designers in institutions of higher education as they implement UDL in all courses. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) means a scientically valid framework for guiding educational practice that (A) provides exibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (B) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English procient. [HEOA, P.L , Ÿ103(a) (24)]. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), a civil rights law for persons with disabilities, promotes equal access and opportunity to participate, live and work independently in their communities. The mandates under ADA prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, public services, public accommodations and telecommunications. Individuals must receive reasonable accommodations based on their abilities and employers must meet design and accessibility guidelines in public spaces, buildings, transportation and facilities, employment practices. Accessibility to an education is guaranteed as individuals are provided with accommodations to fully participate and benet from instruction (P.L ,104 Stat.328,42 U.S.C Ÿ12101 et seq.). In the 1998 amendments to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of added requirements that provided electronic and information technology be accessible to individuals with disabilities in federal government which as extended to state entities in 1999 and assured by the ATA of Section 508 web access standards (World Wide Web Consortium W3C) are available to help users evaluate their websites (Edmonds, 2006). The Telecommunication Act of 1996, Section 255 mandates telecommunications equipment and services including cell phones and plans oer accessibility features. These pieces of legislation designed to provide electronic and information technology accessible to persons with disabilities have laid the groundwork for creating an inclusive learning and living community for all learners. Many of the eective practices designed for teaching individuals with disabilities can be expanded to provide access to students who represent diverse life circumstances. For the purposes of this chapter, we will examine diversity by focusing on understanding challenges faced by students with disabilities, students from racial and ethnic minorities and international students. While this discussion is limited to these populations, the reader will recognize applications across other diverse student groups.

159 4.7.4 Diverse Students Students with disabilities Over the past 10 years, enrollments of students with disabilities entering colleges and universities have nearly doubled. The enrollment of college students with disabilities was 11.3% undergraduate and 7.6% for graduate. The largest percentage of students reported learning disabilities (31%), attention decit disorders (18%), mobility impairments (11%) and psychiatric conditions (15%) (U.S. Department of Education, 2011 a & b). For faculty, it is important to understand that these capable students are of average or above average in intelligence, have met the criteria for entry into college, and are seeking a post-baccalaureate degree. These students provide documentation of their disability to university disability services oce to verify that accommodations are needed. Faculty work with the disability services and other student services programs to provide these accommodations. The most common accommodations provided include additional exam time, classroom note takers, written course notes or assignment, study skills instruction or use of assistive technology Ethnic and Racial Minorities Nearly 38% of all undergraduate enrollments and 36% of graduate enrollments were composed of racial and ethnic minority students, more specically, 12% Black, 6.4% Hispanic, 6.8 Asian/Pacic Islander,.6 American Indian and 10.7 % Non-resident alien (U.S. Department of Education, 2011a). The Council of Graduate Schools (2011b) provided a more detailed breakdown of 2010 Education enrollments which were comprised of 10.5% Black, 9.6% Hispanic, 3.6% Asian/Pacic Islander,.5% American Indian, and 10% two or more races or unknown. While these students enter colleges with diering educational backgrounds, cultural and life experiences, this diversity is highly valued. Higher education is focusing eorts to recruit and retain these underrepresented students, to enhance opportunities for success, and insure their student populations reect demographics of society. We understand that broadening participation, challenging stereotypes have a positive impact on student cognitive and personal development. A college degree is still viewed as an avenue to economic and social mobility. Students who enter college regardless of race or ethnicity and language barriers face serious challenges due to limited nancial aid, the need to work while in college, and inadequate career counseling to insure the student will have employment upon completion of their degrees International Students International students account for 12% of the overall enrollment and only 3.3% in the eld of Education. The Council of Graduate Schools (2011a) reported increasing numbers of students from China, India, the Middle East and Turkey. When these students enroll in US colleges and universities they encounter similar barriers experienced by ethnic and racial minority students. In addition to language and cultural barriers these students are challenged by understanding expectations for success, the college climate, student support services, family support from a distance, and teaching styles of college faculty. It is critical that we address barriers to learning for these students by oering a exible curriculum Universal Design One of the promising practices in higher education is the use of the Universal Design Framework in planning and delivery of instruction. The report, Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) recommends that educators use design principles and technology tools that reect research in neuroscience, cognitive science, education and social science regarding types of learning - factual and procedural knowledge and motivation and engagement. This framework for instructional design considers the environment and the learner including ALL students regardless of challenges due to disability, ethnicity, culture, age, class, gender or other life circumstances. The concept of universal design is rooted in the eld of architecture as products and environments intended to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, and without adaptation or specialized design (Center on Universal Design, 151

160 152 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER 1997; Universal Design Alliance, 2010). The principles of universal design for the built environment laid the foundation for universal design approaches in education. Researchers developed universal design models focusing on instructional practices for learners. There are actually two lines of research that focus on either learning or instruction. The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) extended this concept to the learning environment in K-12 education and promoted it as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Rose and Meyer, 2002), while McGuire, Scott and Shaw (2004) developed Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) for postsecondary education. The UDL principles in K-12 education focus on the design of instructional materials and methods that oer exibility to meet individual needs of a wide range of learners. UDI expands upon the architectural principles and oers applications in higher education related to design of the learning environment. Both concepts will be discussed and applications for online courses described Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) Universal design provides faculty with methods and strategies for planning and delivering instruction that addresses the needs of increasingly diverse learners. While some students with disabilities might require accommodations to make instruction more accessible the universal design principles are built-in thus reducing the need for adapting instruction or retro-tting the learning environment. Given the nature and range diverse learning needs of students with disabilities we can never totally eliminate the need for accommodations; however, application of universal design principles can reduce the number of accommodations provided. Using these methods and strategies to create inclusive learning environments, access for other diverse learners is enhanced. Universal design principles, based upon the architectural and built environment model are expanded in UDI approach with the addition of two principles, specic to the learning environment in higher education. Universal design for instruction principles include a) equitable use, b) exibility, c) simple & intuitive, d) perceptible information, d) tolerance for error, e) low physical eort, and f) size and space for approach. Researchers expanded these principles to include, g) community of learners, and h) instructional climate (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2004; Palmer, 2003). Scott, McGuire and Foley (2003) further described the principles of universal design for instruction and delineated specic strategies which are presented in the next section. Equitable Use. Universal design for instruction involves anticipating varying needs and circumstances, respectful of diversity with high expectations for all learners. Intrinsic to this idea is that students can access the course and nd it a fair and safe learning environment. This principle is so central to addressing student needs that it is sometimes even equated with the concept of universal design. At its heart is a commitment to remove barriers to accessing (i.e. "obtaining") course materials and taking part in essential activities. Selected strategies include: Provide class notes or power point presentation or graphic organizer Provide course materials on CD Use course website to post syllabus, assignments, readings and notes Oer all readings as documents on website rather than linking to original sites Assign exercise requiring students to use all features of the course website Discuss netiquette for discussions and online interaction Explore computer operating system's accessibility features Flexibility. Universal design for instruction involves overcoming confusion, coordinating all parts of the curriculum, and clarifying communications. This principle itself, perhaps deceptively simple to understand can be dicult to implement. However, what we know about learning from study skills professionals is in general a tremendous help. Selected strategies include: Oer choice among assignments, formats and deadlines Supplement video lectures with notes, or closed captioning Use varied methodologies to convey information Provide lecture as a concept map or graphic organizer

161 153 Select textbooks with electronic format and web links to supplemental reading Simple and Intuitive. Universal design for instruction involves oering options in order to enable physical use, allow fuller participation, and permit suitable demonstration of mastery of course requirements. This principle, perhaps more than any other, requires imagination. The result, however, can create richer learning for all involved, including students exercising their options, to the benet of themselves, their classmates and the instructor. Selected strategies include: Clarify expectation for level and frequency of participation Design a comprehensive course syllabus and assignment guide Use a vocabulary list of terminology related to the course Provide a well organized course website Reduce unnecessary clutter and minimize non-critical tasks Use textbook as framework for organization of course Use textbook support materials including study guides, vocabulary and additional assignments Provide calendar in course outline for assignments and due dates Develop grading rubrics for assignments Perceptible Information. Universal design for instruction involves maximizing all communication media, without presumption that students are physically or cognitively enabled for all media. This principle calls for a two-pronged review of course materials, resources and delivery. At rst glance, explicitly presented seems to imply readily perceived, but there is a dierence. For example, imagine a clearly spoken lecture in a poorly lighted room with a hearing-impaired student in the back row. Selected strategies include: Use digital formats for texts and supplemental materials Insure access to print materials for use with technology (assistive technology such as screen readers) Oer visual and auditory approaches to retrieve course content Highlight key concepts and terms Provide examples for each concept Use ALT (alternative text) tags for images on web pages Tolerance for Error. Universal design for instruction is perhaps above all else an inclusive approach that embraces, welcomes and encourages diverse student needs. This principle calls for attitudes and actions that demonstrate respect for students as adults, contributing to the learning of all. Questions and comments are encouraged and individual needs are respected. In all likelihood, all instructors believe this is a worthy goal. Taking specic steps within a course can however call for subtle adjustments. Selected strategies include: Oer online practice exercises Involve students in self and peer assessment Monitor student progress Comment and provide detailed feedback on assignments Oer opportunities to provide drafts and resubmission of assignments Develop study guides Provide grading rubrics for all assignments Oer examples of exemplary assignments Suspend grammar, spelling and punctuation requirements for online discussions to promote participation Use point based grading to allow self monitoring and as an incentive Low physical eort. Universal design for instruction recognizes that students will be of a wide range of ages, backgrounds, physical characteristics and personal circumstances. This principle calls for considering the physical eort required to complete the course and systematically eliminating or at least adjusting anything that is unnecessary. The learning should be about the material not the physical place called "class". Selected strategies include:

162 154 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Use computer based media for testing and written assignments Provide reading material in digital form Encourage students to use assistive technology for disability accommodations Check for understanding and monitor progress Size and Space of Approach. Learning space accommodates student and methods considering approach, reach, manipulations and use based on student physical, mobility and communication needs. Selected strategies include: Consider physical and attention requirements of assignments Plan for access to materials, equipment, and media Support the use of assistive technologies for access to learning materials Use computer technology including camera and microphones as needed Insure student has access to accommodations for physical access Monitor pace and transition to new units Community of Learners. Interaction among students and faculty promotes a positive learning environment which can be a challenge when learners are working in isolated settings. There are a variety of strategies to promote contact in distance environments. Selected strategies include: Ask students to introduce themselves, share relevant experience and respond to one another Form small groups for study or collaborative group work selected by students themselves Establish ground rules for interactions Value peer interaction and communication Rotate group member roles (facilitator, note taking) during group sessions Create rubric for responding to classmates' discussion forums Oer access to oce hours and individual meetings Oer learners opportunities to participate in social networking groups or online discussions Set up , chats, blogs and wikis Structure activities so students progress through the course at the same rate Invite previous students to participate as guest lecturers Instructional Climate. The learning environment is designed to be welcoming and students feel a sense of belonging and inclusiveness. Selected strategies include: Include university non-discrimination and ADA accommodation statements Introduce yourself with personal statement and contact information. Describe your teaching philosophy and expectations Present yourself as approachable and accessible Communicate course purpose, goals and expectations Arm and state the need to value and respect diversity in course interactions Value and encourage accommodations as needed Solicit student feedback throughout course Ask students to articulate personal goals for course, current skill levels and concerns Create unstructured course conferencing session for unexpected issues or questions Oer online oce hours for chats Collect student information about education, work and learning background Learn student names Oer student support or assistance if needed As faculty design courses the principles of Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) oer a framework for learning and teaching that address diverse needs of students. Instructional strategies are clearly student centered, and by anticipating student diversity, distance courses will not need to be retrotted or adapted for individual students. While some students with disabilities may require assistive technologies for learning, using UDI principles may reduce the number of accommodations requested.

163 4.7.6 Universal Design for Learning (UDL) All learners possess functional strengths and limitations that determine how they acquire information and demonstrate content mastery (Meyer and Rose, 2005). This model focuses on the strengths and needs of the individual engaged in learning and how they process content through recognition, strategic and aective networks. Neuroscience is providing opportunities to examine brain activity during the learning process. Researchers report that these learning networks are interconnected and each individual possesses dierent characteristics and skills that can be used to design learning experiences. The cognitive processing model is complex and involves multiple modalities, working in parallel structures along a continuum of abilities. UDL is a functional approach to learning based on Vygotsky's learning theory (1962/96). Recognition networks help learners to process information by assigning meaning to patterns, and to understanding and identifying ideas and concepts. Strategic networks enable executive functioning skills of planning, implementing, monitoring and adjusting actions in the learning environment. Finally, aective networks assign emotional signicance and importance of actions or objects in connection to the world (Rose and Meyer, 2002). This network is most signicant for diverse learners who bring emotional experiences related to challenges due to culture, self perception, family support, nancial considerations and responsibilities, language, and perceived abilities and disabilities. Each student brings a series of skills, preferences and needs across these three networks which can assist educators in considering appropriate curriculum materials and instructional methods. The basic premise of universal design for learning is the creation of a exible curriculum through varied methods and materials that enhance learning for ALL students. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) model contains three curriculum based principles. The rst principle, multiple methods of presentation, supports learners who have preferred modes of acquiring factual knowledge. It is critical that student build usable knowledge from a variety information sources. For example, students may comprehend by reading, listening, participating in hands-on demonstrations or simulations or using manipulatives. The second principle, exible methods of expression, recognizes that students use a variety of procedural strategies to acquire knowledge. As student encounter the learning process they enact content related and learning related strategies. As students process information they use a variety of learning skills or techniques to interact with content. The third principle, exible methods of engagement, relates to individual levels of motivation and involvement in learning. Students are more willing to learn if they are interested in the topic. These vary according to student background experiences, skills levels and interest in the content. Students may demonstrate what content they have learned through visual, written, oral, or modeling modes (Rose and Meyer, 2002; Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley and Abarbanell, 2006). Universal design for learning oers educators with a curriculum model that aligns learner networks - recognition, strategic and aective, and principles - exible presentation, representation and engagement to increase the potential for increased access to learning in a digital environment. Scheer, Terry, Doolittle and Hicks (2004) in a synthesis of strategies for eective distance education reported instructional design principles which includes a) assess learner goals and instructional contexts, b) align clearly dened instructional objectives with learning outcomes, c) select media and materials appropriate to learner outcomes, d) provide opportunities for practice, feedback and interaction, e) design evaluation and assessment to address outcomes. Consideration of online course design involves decisions regarding goals and objectives, learning materials and methods and evaluation. Specic examples of UDL course design that align principles with student networks are provided in the next section Representation This principle oers opportunities to present information in multiple ways to insure equal access of knowledge and skills to the widest range of learners. Examples of strategies include: Ensure all class information posted on course website meets accessibility guidelines Oer choices among assignments Institute a cooperative learning community 155

164 156 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Use alternate forms of materials e-textbooks, graphics, audio, accessible web-based materials, Braille, or digital source les Ask students to post notes and display for classmates Oer captioned lectures and provide printed guided notes or sign language interpreters Use graphs and images over text on lecture slides Use visual representations as as interactive concept maps, data displays and timelines Use natural supports such as peer note takers, study groups for all assignments Include captioned audio-video, you tube or lm clips Assign small group exercises, simulations, games or case studies Use graphic organizers to highlight critical features, and relationships among concepts Use digital simulations or modeling tools Provide multiple assessment choices research papers, texts, objective tests, take home assignments, media Develop a visual framework for course goals, objectives, assignments and evaluation Oer examples of products, assignments, or projects that demonstrate learning Explore availability of digital versions of textbooks Expression Students are provided with multiple and exible means of demonstrating what they know and have learned. Examples of strategies include: Use rubrics and establish roles in small group assignments Provide scaolding as new concepts are acquired Use digital tools and multi-media presentations Oer power point presentations as visual or graphic organizer Assign mentors and peer supports to respond to questions and clarify assignments Oer options and choices to demonstrate outcomes oral presentation, written report, video Provide guidelines and rubrics for all assignments and activities Oer students the option of using assistive technologies to express knowledge Engagement Students are provided with multiple and exible opportunities to participate that are both interesting and motivating. Students will utilize prior learning to showcase skills and maintain a sense of control by personalizing their own learning. Examples of strategies include: Use cooperative dialogue and reection Tailor assignments to student culture and life experiences Break tasks into small steps leading to long term goals Monitor student progress and reward achievement Oer students a choice for optional assignments and to be involved with classmates Challenge and support individual learners Develop assignments for in and out of class environments Provide clear, specic and timely feedback Encourage students to resubmit work as appropriate Provide support system through university student services Universal design focuses clearly on the learning process and supports necessary to achieve learning outcomes that are accessible and inclusive to a wide range of people. Using what neuroscientists know about the learning brain, the role of educators is to consider curriculum goals and objectives, teaching methods, learning

165 157 materials, and evaluation strategies to insure the most exible, barrier free instruction is designed. Potential barriers to learning are addressed initially and eliminated thus reducing the need to make individual adaptations Additional Universal Design Resources Other web resources are available that oer faculty with additional strategies and ideas related to implementing universal design principles. The follow websites are oered as a beginning point to explore universal design in more depth. ˆ Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) ˆ TRACE Research Center ˆ National Universal Design for Learning Task Force ˆ Equal Access to Software and Information (EASI) easi 110 ˆ FacultyWare: Tools for Universal Design of Instruction ˆ National Center for Technology Innovation ˆ Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITEd) ˆ DO-IT ˆ Universal Design Alliance ˆ National Center on Universal Design for Learning ˆ MERLOT ELIXR Conclusion Online learning aords students who face challenges in the traditional classroom with an opportunity to control and personalize learning activities. By directing their own learning students are provided with continuous and lifelong access to furthering their education. Furthermore, it allows students to bridge the informal, community based settings and formal educational settings and bring their unique learning preferences and strengths as they acquire, process and demonstrate content knowledge if universal design principles are integrated into curriculum methods, learning materials and assessments. Access to technology is critical to insure full participation in our global society as well as access to employment, communication, social networks and community living. Universal design acknowledges diversity of learners and how they learn, and use exible, innovative curricular approaches. Universal design challenges higher education faculty and instructional designers to re-examine their own practices and focus on a more inclusive curriculum (Jehangir, 2003) References Adkins, S. (2009). The US market for self-paced elearning products and services: forecast and analysis. Ambient Insight. Retrieved from - by-2014.aspx easi

166 158 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2010). Class dierences in online education in the US. Babson Survey Research Group Sloan Consortium: Needham, MA. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No , 104 Stat.328,42 U.S.C Ÿ12101 et seq. Assistive Technology Act of 1998, Pub. L. No , 29 U.S.C. Ÿ3002 et seq. Center for Applied Special Technology (2010, November). What is universal design for learning? Retrieved from Center on Universal Design (1997). Environment and products for all people. Raleigh NC: North Carolina State University. Retrieved from Council of Graduate Schools (2011a). Findings from the 2011 CGS international graduate admissions survey, Phase III: Final oers of admission and enrollment. Washington DC: Author Council of Graduate Schools (2011b). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2000 to Washington DC: Author. Edmonds, C.D. (2006). Providing access to students with disabilities in online distance education: legal, technical and practical considerations. Southeast Disability and Business Technical Assistance Center. Retrieved November 11, 2006 from Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Pub.L. No ,122 Stat.3078 Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004, Pub.L. No , 20, U.S.C. Ÿ1400 et seq. Jehangir, R.R. (2003). Charting a new course: Learning communities and universal design. In E.Go & J.L. Higbee (Eds.) Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation (pp ). KirkHart, A. & Lau, J. (2007, July). Helping our youth with disabilities succeed: What is broadband got to do with it? (Digital Opportunity for Youth, Issue Brief No. 2). Santa Monica CA: The Children's Partnership. McGuire, J.M., Scott, S.S., & Shaw, S.F. (2004). Universal design for instruction: The paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), Palmer, J. (December, 2003). Universal Design Implementation Guide, Guelph, Ontario, Canada: University of Guelph. Rose, D.H. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Rose, D.H., Harbour, W.S., Johnston, C.S., Daley, S.G. & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design for learning in postsecndary education: Reections on principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), Rowland,C.,Mariger, H., Siegel, P.M. and Whiting, J. (2010) Universal design for the digital environment: Transforming the Institution. Educause Review, November/December. Scheer, S.B., Terry, K.P., Doolittle, P.E. & Hicks, D. (2004). Online pedagogy: Principles for supporting eective distance education. Journal for Excellence in College Teaching, 15(1/2), Scott, S.S., McGuire, J.M., & Foley, T.E. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education, 36(1), Slatin, J. M. (2002, Spring). "The Imagination Gap: Making Web-based Instructional Resources Accessible to Students and Colleagues with Disabilities." 120 Currents in Electronic Literacy 6. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011a). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES ). Washington DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011b). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary institutions. NCES U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011c). Learning at a

167 159 distance: Undergraduate enrollment in distance education and degree programs. Stats in Brief, NCES U.S. Department of Education, Oce of Educational Technology. (2010a). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education, Oce of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2010b). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington DC: Author. Vygotsky, L. (1962/1996). Thought and language (Rev. Ed.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press Universal Design Alliance. (2010, November). What is universal design? Retrieved from

168 160 CHAPTER 4. FOCUSING ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEARNER

169 Chapter 5 Considering Practices Impacting Program Development 5.1 Hybrid Course Delivery: A Good Fit for Education Leadership Preparation Programs 1 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University 1 This content is available online at < 161

170 162 CHAPTER 5. CONSIDERING PRACTICES IMPACTING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Author Mark J. Weber serves as a faculty member in the department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Tarleton State University, Texas A&M University System. He teaches in the education leadership M.Ed. and principal certication programs at Tarleton, and has published on a variety of topics in educational leadership Importance of Physical Presence of Leadership Physical presence of leadership is an elemental component of an eective learning organization. While the element of physical presence of leadership is regarded as most obvious, it frequently remains overlooked. Hall (2005) contended that leadership's presence, physical and otherwise, yields more dividends than would seem reasonable. One of these dividends involves developing productive professional working relationships. He stated; No matter the exact locale, and no matter the content, a present principal is one with whom all members of the school community can build a relationship. And relationships, when dealing with a profession that is (or should be) 98 percent human interactions, are of utmost importance (p. 3). Traditionally the physical presence of leadership is highly regarded. Reavis (1976) described the importance of the physical presences of eective supervision as a long-term, eld based cyclical process called Clinical Supervision. Goldhammer (1969) described clinical supervision as: "that phase of instruction which draws its data from rst hand observation of actual teaching events, and involves face to face...interaction between the supervisor and the teacher in the analysis of teaching behaviors and activities for instructional improvement." (pp ) Sergiovanni (2009) agreed, that the campus principal's physical presence is necessary for instructional leadership to be eective, and while present, the principal should address the following: What is actually happening in the classroom? What is the teacher and what are the students actually doing? What are the actual learning outcomes? What ought to actually be going on in this classroom, given the overall goals, educational platform, knowledge of how children learn, and understandings of the structure of the subject matter to be taught? What do these events and activities of teaching and learning mean to teachers, students, others? What are the personal meanings that students accumulate regardless of teacher intents? How do teacher and principal interpretations of teaching reality dier? What actions should be taken to bring about even greater understanding of teaching and learning and better congruence between actions and beliefs (p. 282) Sergiovanni (2009), Fullan (2003), Glickman (2010), Beach and Reinhartz (2000) and others have contributed signicantly to the prevalence of literature focusing on eective instructional leadership practices requiring the physical presence of leadership as an essential element of eective school supervision. However, the current general appearance of educational leadership preparation programs in higher education reveal a movement away from learning experiences requiring students' face to face interactions, instead moving toward fully digital or online learning experiences Fully Online Program Growth Kern, (2010) reported that approximately one fourth of the 19 million students enrolled in higher education were enrolled in at least one online course during the fall of She adds that this is a 17 percent increase over the previous year's totals. Today, more than 3,300 of the roughly 4,500 colleges and universities oer at

171 163 least one online course. The Babson Survey Research Group (2009) reported that more than 1,700 schools oer fully online programs. Schank (2001), Ascough (2002), and Rosie (2002) believe that online course delivery is pedagogically superior to traditional course delivery. They profess, when prepared correctly, online courses promote student's critical thinking skills, and encourage collaborative learning and problem solving skills. Proponents also argue that online course delivery encourages non-discriminatory teaching and learning practices since all students must participate with equal access to fellow students and instructors. Online learning environments can allow educators and students to exchange ideas and information, work together on projects, around the clock, from anywhere in the world, using multiple communication modes. They argue that it permits a full range of interactive methodologies, and instructors have found that in adapting their courses to online models, they are paying more attention to the instructional design of their courses. As a result, the quality, quantity, and patterns of communication students practice during learning are improved. Not all agree that fully online course delivery is the best preparation method for students in higher education. Evan and Haase (2001) found that many online learners are moderately lacking in computer prociency and, since e-learning is centered around computer technologies, it is a barrier to those learners without good computer skills. In addition Evan and Haase (2001), O'Regan (2003), and Rovai and Jordan (2004) found that online learners face limited physical interactions among themselves. Opponents also point to high student attrition rates as the Achilles' heel of fully online course delivery. Student drop-out rates in fully online courses have been reported as high as 35% to 50% (Lynch 2001). Nitsch (2003) summarized the reasoning behind the high attrition rates for fully online learners as follows: The online learner is isolated from much of the social activities of learning (White & Weight, 2000). The online student lacks immediate support of peers and instructors, an important element of student success as described in Tinto's model of attrition (Tinto, 1993). In this model, several factors that impact attrition are explained with emphasis placed on the need for social integration as part of the learning process. Lonely people tend to be less involved in the learning process (Pugliese, 1994). With this lack of physical proximity, there is a decrease in the motivation to succeed in the online courses. Where many of the students seek out online learning because of its exibility, this exibility puts a student in the position of having to depend only on oneself to maintain the desire to complete a course. Without an adequate support system, a student could easily lose sight of the reasons for completing the program and decide to drop out. Ward and Druade (2010) posited, It is not very hard to nd the arguments against totally online classes, however. Faculty and students alike voice opinions that they miss the face to face exchange of ideas. Online, facial expressions go unseen and messages in body language are lost. Dialogue that is spontaneous and meaningful often occurs in the presence of classmates. Faculty can actually see students' responses to help them know whether or not an important concept is understood (p. 1). Thus the paradox of fully online delivery of education leadership preparation courses designed to produce leaders who excel in the physical presence of others. Thus, the niche for blended or hybrid course delivery in education leadership preparation programs is exposed Hybrid Course Delivery Dened The common denition of hybrid course delivery includes: Courses in which signicant portions of the learning activities have been moved online, a combination of traditional classroom and Internet instruction. Time traditionally spent in the classroom is reduced but not eliminated. The goal of hybrid courses is to join the best features of in-class teaching with the best features of online learning to promote active independent learning and reduce class seat time. Using computer-based technologies, instructors use the hybrid model to redesign some lecture or lab content into new online learning activities, such as case studies, tutorials, self-testing exercises, simulations, and online group collaborations.

172 164 CHAPTER A Need for Hybrid Course Delivery CONSIDERING PRACTICES IMPACTING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Today's higher education students want it all. They desire the exibility that online course presentation oers, yet they want exposure to experiences that will mold them into candidates for leadership roles they can assume with condence. Many institutions of higher learning agree. Graham Spanier, President of Penn State University, believes "Hybrid instruction is the single greatest unrecognized trend in higher education today. Research concerning the eectiveness of hybrid course delivery compared to both face to face and online delivery is limited. However, results from a University of Central Florida study revealed initial comparative outcomes that are dramatic and consistent. Students enrolled in hybrid courses had the highest success rate. These rates were higher than face-to-face courses and higher than fully online courses (Sorg, Juge, & Bledsoe, 2003). Sorg, Juge, & Bledsoe (2003) maintained that for some students and subject matters, the most eective mix will be as much as 90% face-to-face and only 10% Internet-based. For other circumstances, the most eective mix will be as much as 90% Internet-based and 10% face-to-face. Usually the optimum mix will be between and If is to become the gold standard, a key role for institutions will be to assure that face-to-face students have adequate Internet support. And, the best distance learning programs will be supported by periodic regional gatherings of course participants and by get-to-know-and-trust-you retreats (p. 2). Delaney (2008), associate dean and CIO of New York University (NYU) School of Law revealed, Law school students enrolled in hybrid programs outperform those who study exclusively in one environment. The Department of Education (2009) reported blended or hybrid instruction as more eective at improving student achievement across a variety of subject areas than purely online or face to face instruction Benets of Hybrid Course Delivery The Teaching-Learning Center (2010) reported hybrid course delivery as providing the following benets: Maximizing Physical Resources Enrollment Growth: Limited Classroom/Computer Lab Space Budget Issues/Equipment Maximizing Student Learning ˆ Flexibility: Both students and instructors liked the greater convenience aorded by the hybrid course model. ˆ Develops/enhances time management, critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills. ˆ Enhances computer skills, increasing opportunities for academic and professional success. ˆ Promotes self-directed learning. ˆ Because of the highly text-based nature of websites and , hybrid courses become de facto writingintensive courses. ˆ Instructors reported that the hybrid course model allows them to accomplish course learning objectives more successfully than traditional courses do. ˆ Allows an instructor to teach to subject mastery without traditional class time constraints. ˆ Encourages integration of out-of-class activities with in-class activities to allow for more eective use of traditional class time. ˆ Most faculty noted increased interaction and contact among their students and between the students and themselves. ˆ Better able to approximate a "real world" writing environment, including collaboration. ˆ Faculty participants almost universally believe their students learned more in the hybrid format than they did in the traditional class sections. ˆ Instructors reported that students wrote better papers, performed better on exams, produced higher quality projects, and were capable of more meaningful discussions on course material.

173 ˆ Additionally, by sequencing assignments so that they move students from signicant discussion/responding online, through written reections about their responses and the reading, to group or individual projects that are posted to a common learning space, such as a website or discussion board, for discussion and elaboration, teachers can have students engaged in doing, rather than just experiencing or reading. ˆ Students can view and review prerecorded lectures and access course notes and other materials such as course syllabus, assignment schedule, task sheets, grades, and so on. ˆ Students who rarely take part in classroom discussions are more likely to participate online, where they get time to think before they type and aren't put on the spot. ˆ Presents materials in a range of formats can help make sure every student is fully engaged in at least some class activities. Allows for auditory, visual, tactile learners. ˆ Research shows that student success rates in hybrid courses are "equivalent or slightly superior" to face-to-face courses, and that the hybrid courses have lower withdrawal rates than do fully online courses Conclusion Literature pertaining to eective education organizations assumes that physical presence of eective leadership is essential. As our current education leadership organizations continue to grow in a fully online course delivery format, the question of course participants experiencing activities requiring the physical presence of leaders comes into question. Do fully online programs adequately prepare education leadership students for a profession predicated predominantly on personal face to face interactions? Those who promote online learning will argue that the fully online experience not only is adequate, but exceeds the face to face classroom experiences traditionally oered. Opponents of fully online instruction contend that preparation of future eective school supervisors requires the elemental ingredient of personal interaction with peers. The growth of fully online education leadership programs is evident. The implementation of blended or hybrid course delivery is viewed by many as an eective compromise oering both the convenience of online course delivery and personal interactive learning experiences oered during face to face classroom meetings References Ascough, R. (2002). Designing for online distance education: Putting pedagogy before technology. Teaching Theology and Religion, 5(1), Babson Survey Research Group. (2011) Conducting regional, national, and international research projects, including survey design, sampling methodology, data integrity, statistical analyses and reporting. Retrieved from abson-survey-research-group.aspx 2 Beach, D., & Reinhartz, J. (2000) Supervisory leadership: Focus on instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Delany, T. (2008). The future of higher education: How technology will shape learning. Retrieved from 3 Department of Education. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from df 4 Evans, J., & Haase, I. (2001). Online business education in the twenty-rst century: an analysis of potential target markets, Internet Research: Networking Applications and Policy, 11 (3), Re- 2 abson-survey-research-group.aspx df

174 166 CHAPTER 5. CONSIDERING PRACTICES IMPACTING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT trieved from ticleid=863717&show=pdf 5 Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Glickman, C. (2010). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8 th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hall, P. (2005, December). Voices from the eld: The principal's presence and supervision to improve teaching. Leadership for Learning. Retrieved from 6 Kern, R. (2010). How to maximize an online education program. Retrieved from education-program 9 Lynch, M. (2001). Eective student preparation for online learning. Retrieved from 10 Nitsch, W. (2003). Examination of factors leading to student retention in online graduateeducation. Retrieved from 11 O'Regan, K., (2003), `Emotion and e-learning'. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (3), Retrieved from Pugliese, R. (1994). Telecourse persistence and psychological variables. The Journal of Distance Education, 8 (3), Retrieved from 12 Reavis, C. (1976) Clinical supervision: A timely approach. Education Leadership, 33, Rosie, A. (2002). Online pedagogies and the promotion of deep learning. Information Services & Use, 20(2/3), Rovai, A., & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and a sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved from 13 Schank, R. (2001). Revolutionizing the traditional classroom course. Communicationsof the ACM, 44(12), Sergiovanni, T. (2009). The principalship: A reective practice perspective. (9 th ed.). Boston, M: Allyn & Bacon Sorg, S., Juge, F., & Bledsoe, R. (2003, July). Asynchronous Learning Networks for DistributedLearning. UCF Virtual Campus. University of Central Florida. The Teaching-Learning Center. (2010). Hybrid classes: Maximizing resources and student learning. Retrieved from 14 Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Ward, K., & Druade, B. (2010). Instructional design for hybrid courses: Deliberate design for the best of both worlds. Retrieved from 15 White, K., & Weight, B. (2000). Online teaching guide: A handbook of attitudes,strategies, and education-program 8 education-program 9 education-program

175 167 techniques for the virtual classroom. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 5.2 Multi-Dimensional Recruiting: Electronic Evidence Breaking Traditions 16 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Authors Dr. Watkins has been a Missouri educator for over thirty years working in P-12 schools as teacher, building administrator, and elementary director. He is currently a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling at Southeast Missouri State University. He has been with University for twelve years since leaving the public schools. Dr. Ruth Ann Roberts is currently a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling at Southeast Missouri State University and the Director of the Educational Doctoral Program. Prior to her position at Missouri State, she served as a teacher, principal, and curriculum director, for the Missouri public schools. 16 This content is available online at <

176 Introduction CHAPTER 5. CONSIDERING PRACTICES IMPACTING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Each year retirements, transfers, or resignations make it necessary for school administrators to search for and evaluate candidates who can skillfully ll vacancies. Determining quality organizational t as well as professional aptitudes for working with students by simply poring over resumes, reading what is shared on application blanks and reviewing how they posture at the interview can be misleading and misinterpreted. Discovering true teacher quality can better be evaluated by using online tools that provide expanded media. Such tools allow the principal to see inside a candidate's process of reecting on, planning for, and assessing learning. Use of electronic portfolios as well as conducting teaching episodes is already standard practice in many teacher education programs. All that is left is for students to use such tools to market themselves as quality candidates and for principals to use such powerful in-depth information to critically review a prospective candidate. An electronic performance portfolio can lift a candidate o the resume page and on to a virtual stage. Because it is ubiquitous and electronic, a variety of media can be uploaded, organized, and presented both showing and telling the qualities of the candidate's teaching ability, knowledge and skill. Video downloads, capturing an innovative instructional project, interaction with students, or even colleagues, can bring life to an otherwise lifeless resume page. Further, the electronic demonstrations can be opened on the computer in the oce, at home, or anywhere there is an Internet connection. They are available at any hour convenient to the administrator or team conducting the search. Easy navigation within the presentation moves the administrator around the portfolio, nding relevant information immediately, saving valuable time and eort. Internet portfolio platforms both streamline and inform personnel decisions with a simple key stroke. A principal can literally watch as the teacher candidate performs on the classroom stage. The Internet, a curiosity in the 80s, has now become the way modern commerce nds, moves, and learns. It is commercial, scholarly and social. Further, it has changed the way we experience our world. It is now becoming the way school leaders can assess applicants to teach their children, lead their reforms, and reach their communities. How prevalent are Internet recruitment presentation portfolios? Approximately 62 percent of the students graduating from Missouri teacher preparation programs electronically maintain a performance portfolio. Such a portfolio development veries that teacher candidates meet state-wide and national standards. The electronic portfolios, particularly those hosted by commercial vendors, have templates that help organize standardized teaching performance, host a variety of media evidence, and allow the teacher to set review dates for administrators to examine the portfolio of teaching performance. Further, phone interviews of eld directors in Missouri teacher education programs indicate 87 percent now use an electronic form of evidence demonstrating teaching eectiveness and of that 87 percent, half use an Internet server to host performance portfolios produced by teacher candidates. Graduates from these programs, as a result, know well the production value of their electronic presentations. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the value of an online electronic portfolio when searching for highly qualied and deeply committed teachers with the talent and skill that will help move a school beyond the average. While little research is available (Sullivan 2004), this research will help inform principals and other administrators regarding the use of electronic portfolio to assist their recruiting and critical hiring decisions Dimensions of Teacher Quality School administrators continually face dicult choices that are clustered around human relations, budget, or curriculum. Selecting the best teacher candidates from stacks of resumes no longer has to be among those complex choices. Online portals now transport principals into a candidate's professional thinking, behavior, and practice. Electronic portfolios available through these portals can show, as well as tell, the professional ability teachers will bring to the organization. Kennedy (2006) identies three dimensions (hypotheses) for what a qualied competent teacher should be. The rst dimension tells us that our best teachers are charismatic, personality types who are innovative, curious, and warm. Another dimension says teachers must hold to strong values of integrity, personal

177 169 industry, and looking past self-interest toward the general good (York-Barr, J., Sommers, W.A., Ghere, G. S., & Montier, J., 2006 & Gardner, H., 2008). The nal hypothesis holds that good teachers are the product of their content knowledge, and they are able to demonstrate their competence by meeting professional standards and passing professional competency tests. All of these hypotheses hold some truth, but they are dicult to assess by reading a resume, college transcript, or conducting interviews. When principals try to nd a good teacher who ts with their school learning environment, they must have reliable, unvarnished assessments of teachers. To a great degree electronic performance portfolios on the web have the capacity to demonstrate Kennedy's three dimensions. First, teacher charisma is more demonstrable with the portfolio than with at resume sheet of paper. The electronic portfolio allows multimedia (audio, video, and still photography) to demonstrate innovation of instruction and the intellectual connection with student in the classroom. Such a production can be invaluable for a principal to see. Video clips demonstrating how the teacher presents a lesson become more revealing than merely telling about the teaching act in an interview. In addition to lesson presentation, charisma and personality are qualities often suggested as critical to eective teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Kennedy, 2006; National Academy of Education, 2005). How can an administrator know if that teacher submitting a resume or sitting before them has the traits of creativity, empathy for students, or intuition of heart that moves students to question, evaluate, and create knowledge beyond rigid rules and tables for memorization? The electronic portfolio provides a glimpse into the heart and thinking of a teacher candidate. A well-structured portfolio reects on developing stronger pedagogy, and reaching the diversity of learners in more relevant and meaningful ways. Along with these reections are lesson plans and other media that provide evidence of teacher creativity and personality. Such positive traits underpin the portfolio as evidence of professional and personal ethics and aect in the classroom. Integrity (Gardner, 2008) and empathy toward students (Fullan, 2003) evolves through the various artifacts that can be uploaded in the portfolio. Once again teacher candidates are able to demonstrate dispositional attributions related to caring and considerate teaching. Video demonstrations oer the visual representation, but more importantly teacher reection provides the principal with considerable insight. Many states require teacher preparation programs to help graduates frame professional practice in personal reection. Answering the critical question about constant improvement and internalizing best practices reveal interior thinking that often remains just below the surface in any selection process. Reection on professional practice is not a random behavior [Campbell, 1997). Teacher education and state certication agencies have for some time recognized the importance of teacher reection (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), 2009; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), 2009; & Schlechty, 2002]. As a result of these requirements, it is not unexpected to see electronic portfolios linked to candidate reection that would help establish insights to the person's professional values and ethics. Content mastery is a hypothesized criterion often attached to No Child Left Behind as a key indicator of a highly qualied teacher (Desimone, Smith, & Frisvold, 2007; Walch, 2001). Certainly knowledge of content is important if one is to be successful in the classroom. The electronic portfolio provides the principal a demonstration of a candidate's command of subject matter. Unit and lesson plans are linked to the portfolio which places content at the heart of instruction. An electronic portfolio should be goal driven and organized around standards (Campbell, 1997). Some may use content standards such as those published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), and others. INTASC Standards or those developed by the National Boards oer generic standards for teacher excellence. Candidates addressing professional standards oer quality assurance that they have an awareness of high expectations and will likely demonstrate them through content delivery. Understanding and interpreting student assessment results is a fourth criterion that holds tacit relevance to content mastery. Knowing content and delivering it are only two pieces of an incomplete formula. Assessment of student learning completes the equation. The electronic portfolio allows principals to examine the candidate's ability to assess learning and base instructional decisions on results. These skills are not found by evaluating traditional recruitment materials.

178 170 CHAPTER 5. CONSIDERING PRACTICES IMPACTING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Assessing students in today's environment has meaningful and lasting consequences. Accreditation, careers, and reputations are on the line if test scores consistently drop below expectations (Rothstein, Jacobsen, & Wilder, 2009). Darling-Hammond (1997) captured the importance of testing in twenty-rst century schools when she said, Testing methods inuence teaching so intensely because test scores are increasingly used as arbiters of administrative decision in U. S. schools (p. 58). Candidates using the electronic demonstrations are able to dramatically show how they can develop, use, and interpret test results. In addition, planning documents show a teacher's ability to modify instruction to meet student needs based on those results (Popham, 2008). Content knowledge aligned with assessment is a key dimension important to teacher quality. Administrators lling classroom vacancies cannot aord to ignore the importance of teacher assessment skill in their content area. Electronic portfolios, as we have now seen, oer a three dimensional view of a potential teaching candidate. Candidate personality in the classroom, empathy for learners, and knowledge of content and its assessment all come alive for administrators as they move through electronic media online or on hard drive School Principal Survey Results Research for this article revealed principals are knowledgeable of web based sites for recruitment but many are not aware that candidates have a web-based portfolio that can help them better assess their job candidacy. However, the research results revealed that principals would welcome such technology. Over 50 percent of the administrators surveyed for this study indicated willingness to download online media to evaluate a teacher's classroom performance. Of these administrators 74 percent agreed that downloading video clips of the teaching performance would help them make decisions about hiring a candidate. Administrators want teachers who relate in meaningful ways with students. One administrator surveyed said, I want to see their teaching presence. Do they have condence..? Another revealed that teachers should have a healthy rapport with students. One administrator echoed a similar concern that any teacher hired must nd a connection with the students. All of these comments testify that charisma, integrity and empathy are truly the qualities in teachers that administrator look for in possible teacher hires. Many of the remarks also supported the importance of content knowledge: I want someone [who] can easily and smoothly dierentiate the instruction to meet the needs... of learners. Another example was this comment, I would, of course, want to see good content knowledge and a command of varied teaching/learning strategies. Content knowledge shares equal inuence with the quality of charisma and poise in the classroom. One relies on the other in meeting the demands of high-stakes testing and motivation for learning. The survey results from administrators conrmed that they are looking for the quality dimensions in teacher candidates such as candidate personality in the classroom, empathy for learners, and knowledge of content and its assessment. They also demonstrated a willingness to look online for richer evidence of teaching. At this time, however, they continue to pull this rich evidence of quality from resumes, applications and interviews. Unfortunately these tools render only limited evidence of quality. Administrators are left with only a cardiac decision, I just know in my heart this will be a good teacher for the school. Such a leap of faith has greater credibility if modulated through performance found in electronic portfolios. Principals, human resource ocers and superintendents have a powerful tool with access to an electronic portfolio. A recent article from the Harvard Business Review by Claudio Fernandez-Araoz, Boris Groysberg, and Nitin Nohria (2009) found hiring practices among private sector companies was lacking in objective, innovative hiring practices. By extension many schools also suer from personal preferences that rarely question traditional practice and often make decisions on false assumption about teacher quality. Using video, assessment planning and reective artifact from an online platform better inform and better dene hiring criteria Conclusion As the production of e-portfolios grows among university graduates, veteran teachers wishing to nd new positions will discover electronic presentation portfolios that support their resumes. Practitioners supplying

179 171 only resumes cannot compete with professional electronic presentations. The multifaceted electronic portfolio allows too much variety of evidence and depth to understanding for teaching, something a two-page resume cannot do. In summary the online performance portfolio works for both the teacher candidate and the employer. The candidate shows quality practice using the four dimensions dened earlier. The potential employers have concrete evidence of a candidate's personality in the classroom, empathy for learners, and knowledge of content and its assessment. Employers and hiring authorities have the ability to examine content knowledge and a candidate's ability to use assessment results to inform instruction. The at one dimensional resume and the self-promoting interview are things of the past References INTASC ten standards. (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2009, Campbell, D. M., Cignett, P. B., Melenyzer, B. J., Nettles, D. H. & Wyman, R. M. Jr. (1997). How to develop a professional portfolio: A manual for teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Desimone, L., Smith, T. M., & Frisvold, D. (2005). Has NCLB improved teacher and teaching quality for disadvantage students? In A. Gamoran (Ed.), Standards based reform and poverty gap. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institute. Fernandez-Araoz, C., Groysberg, B., & Nohria, N. (May, 2009), The denitive guide to recruiting in good times and bad. Harvard Business Review, Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Onterio: Corwin Press. Gardner, H. (2008). Five minds for the future. Boston. MA: Harvard Business Press. Kennedy, M. M. (2006 March) From teacher quality to quality teaching. Educational Leadership, 63, NCATE unit and program standards. (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2009, Popham, W. J. (2008) Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rothstein, R., Jacobsen, R. & Wilder, T. (2009). From accreditation to accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, Schlechty, P. C. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teachers, principals and superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sullivan, J. H. (2004). Identifying the best foreign language teachers: Teacher standards on professional portfolios. The Modern Language Journal, 88, The National Academy of Education Committee. (2005). A good teacher in every classroom preparing highly qualied teachers our children deserve. Ed. Linda Darling-Hammond & Joan Baratz-Snowden. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Walch, K. (2001). Teacher certication reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. The Abell Foundation, Retrieved York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghere, G. S., & Montie, J. (2006). Reective practice to improve schools: An action guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

180 172 CHAPTER 5. CONSIDERING PRACTICES IMPACTING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 5.3 Revisiting the Four Cornerstones to Mentoring Adjunct Faculty Online 17 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook on Virtual/Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Authors Dr. Carolyn Rogers is Associate Dean of P-12 Programs at Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota. She in a national and international speaker on online learning and school leadership. She has presented nationally and internationally on ethics and online learning, as well as published in the areas of school leadership, online learning and parenting. Dr. Melissa McIntyre is Associate Faculty in P-12 Leadership Programs at Capella University in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She has presented internationally on P-12 learning and written leadership styles, online learning, and school climate. Dr. Michael Jazzar is Part-time Faculty in Curriculum and Instruction at Capella University in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He has written multiple book and articles on school leadership, online learning, school strategies, and school climate. 17 This content is available online at <

181 5.3.1 Introduction The face of 20 th century higher education has changed with adjunct faculty members today totaling more than 500,000 out of every three postsecondary instructors (Bakia, Caspary, Wang, Dieterie &Lee, 2011). This number is projected to continue to increase in the 21 st century. As a result, the time has come for higher education institutions to reach out to their adjunct instructors dierently. The need to identify and provide support to educational leadership adjunct faculty for the perpetuity of higher education can no longer be optional. As higher education institutions reach out to adjuncts, they will need to listen carefully and respond armatively to what their instructors are saying. Higher education institutions will need to support the mission of the National Sta Development Council to ensure eective professional development is provided for each and every educational leadership adjunct faculty member (National Sta Development Council, 2001; Dalsgaard & Paulsen, 2009). The authors did just that - they went straight to the source adjunct faculty members. Their discovery resulted in ndings of importance to the success of 21 st century higher education, particularly, for online teaching. To illustrate, Lee Monroe, adjunct professor and former college president for more than 20 years, asserted that an experienced mentor is critical to the support and success of adjunct faculty, with particular attention given to new adjuncts. Phyllis Wilson, adjunct at Capella University, suggested that if colleges and universities are to maintain quality in educational programs, they must support adjuncts professionally in their development. Historically, adjuncts were made to feel detached from their departments, schools and universities (Edelstein & Edwards, 2002; Eney, Davidson, Dorlac, & Whittington, 2005). Denise Weems, adjunct and full-time professor, has found varied degrees of support from school to school. She is often unsure of who she needs to go to for support, particularly in her work online. While she does not complain about the level of support, she sometimes thinks adjuncts fall into the category of out of sight, out of mind. This supports the need for an adjunct mentoring program that would help to unify adjunct professors with their full time counterparts. Arazolla Session echoes the importance of mentoring programs for online adjuncts. She sees the need for mentoring programs, which include on-going professional development as very important to the success of an adjunct instructor. Lee, Phyllis, Denise and Arazolla were not alone in their desire for eective mentoring programs to include professional development for adjunct faculty. Laura Jenks, when she was new to the world of online adjunct, emphasized that mentoring programs need to instill eective communication. In addition, Douglas DeWitt pointed out that adjunct online professors need guidance and support in building balance into their lives, because online teaching does not mean on-going teaching. This point is important, because the propensity to work long hours online where other needs of life are neglected is a hazard of the profession (Lyons, 2007). In addition to professional development, eective communication and guidance for building balance, forming relationships was perceived as a vital part of a mentoring program. Educational leadership adjunct faculty member Carolyn Anderson posited that the forming of relationships with their colleagues is the glue that makes adjunct instructors stick to their institution. The participants of this study expressed their needs and desires for eective mentoring programs for adjunct online professors repeatedly. Mentoring programs need to include high quality professional development, eective communication, building balance, and forming relationships. These four needs serve as the cornerstone of what comprises an eective mentoring program for online adjunct faculty. Online adjunct faculty participants asserted that they would gravitate to the institutions that provided mentoring programs which address these needs. As such, the examination of each of these cornerstones ensues Professional Development Programs Professional development must be aligned to the mission and vision of the higher education institution, with the ultimate goal of training faculty to carry out the vision of the organization. With a well designed mentoring program aligned to the mission and vision, adjunct faculty will become an active part of the system. Therefore the immediate mission of these faculty members is to discover and support their institutions' goals and beliefs. To that end, the higher education institution values will be part and parcel of a professional development program (Biehl, 1996; Eib & Miller, 2006; Kelly, 2004). Such values may include 173

182 174 CHAPTER 5. CONSIDERING PRACTICES IMPACTING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT diversity, globalization, technology and the like, with the ultimate design on training and performance. This comprehensive professional development program is the foundation for eectively mentoring adjuncts online. Orientation programs often comprise the rst professional development opportunity for new adjunct faculty members. Many times there is a deep learning curve for online adjunct faculty members because there is a great deal to learn in relatively a short period of time with orientations often lasting four weeks (Lynch, 2002). The mere geography of a learning platform - inclusive of learning drop boxes, discussion boards, communications chambers, and a myriad of other online features - underscore the importance of a comprehensive, thoughtful and friendly orientation sessions and continued professional development opportunities for adjunct online instructors. Professional development creates and oers online growth opportunities to overcome obstacles such as planning teaching strategies, working with college and university students, and integrating everyday technology into the curriculum (Powers, 2006). Pallo and Pratt (2011) maintain that well trained online faculty is critical to excellent instructional strategies. As such, they suggest that professional development for online instructors needs to establish presence, create and maintain a learning community, and provide support for facilitating online courses. This list is only a partial representation of the needs of adjunct instructors who continue to be distanced from the everyday discussions of full time faculty members (Muirhead, 2006). Additionally, online tutorials were considered advantageous. Online companies oer a wide range of development opportunities to adjuncts, such as modules, web seminars, podcasts, streaming video, Webinars, and Breeze conferences (Lyons, 2007). Because of these training opportunities, higher education institutions have a high retention rate of quality educational leadership adjunct faculty. Due to the increased number of online adjuncts professors, it is apparent that colleges and universities will need to continue to provide support for the steady growth associated with online learning. Other aspects of professional development programs deemed important by adjunct faculty members were establishing professional libraries, encouraging access to virtual adjunct department and college meetings, providing links to supportive materials, and making resources available on best online practices (Boylan, 2005). Others expressed that the etiquette of online teaching needs to be included in professional development agendas. The professional development needs will continue to increase as the tools of technology are upgraded and transformed Eective Communication The cornerstone of mentoring support for adjunct online faculty members is based on the foundation of eective communication (Eney, Davidson, Dorlac & Whittington, 2005). To be eective, communication needs to be constant and ongoing. Adjunct online faculty need to receive weekly and/or monthly updates (Canton & James, 1999). In today's technological world, the opportunities to reach out and make contact are almost immediate. However, the traditional forms of communicating remain a means of interaction that bring faculty much closer together. Therefore, a combination of both should be considered when providing support for adjunct faculty members. One of the most eective means of communication is via the telephone. The eect that the spoken word has on people continues to be powerful, especially when it is laced with words of support and comfort. Telephone calls from mentors and other colleagues are especially powerful, as online adjunct faculty members often go without ever hearing the sound of their colleagues' voices for long intervals of time, and in some environments, they never hear a spoken word. Telephones are also valuable in that they can foster a feeling of connection with other faculty within the school and serve as a reminder that they have support should the adjunct faculty need it (West, 2010). Another form of communication that remains eective is face-to-face interaction. Face-to-face interactions support adjunct faculty's sense of aliation and collegiality with the institution (Dolan, 2010). Although this method is preferred, it is not always possible because of the nature of the work taking place in an online setting. Adjunct faculty need to receive updates to keep them abreast of what's going on within the organization. Sending out bi-weekly newsletters that contain teaching strategies and resources (Meixner & Kruck, 2010) as well as updates about changes within the organization help to keep them informed. Brief news bulletins

183 175 reporting the achievements of faculty members, announcements of energy outages, job postings, and communications of new personnel are important forms of communication that help keep adjunct faculty members informed and connected to the school. The most eective communication is two-way. Although it may not be practical for colleagues across the nation and throughout the world to see each other in person, two way communications using video cameras, Skype, blogging, or telephone conferencing add life and meaning to educational leadership adjunct faculty communications. Two-way communication allows the adjunct faculty to benet from the face-toface communications while mitigating the distance challenge that is often encountered in online universities. The feeling of caring that is gained from two-way communications is particularly important as the work of an adjunct professor is often done in isolation (Wallin, 2004). Spontaneous feedback from others is another benet of two-way communications that strengthens its necessity as a part of successful mentoring programs Building Balance When it comes to teaching in a virtual world, it is important for adjuncts to maintain balance in their lives. The online environment never shuts down; so, adjunct faculty needs to learn that they cannot possibly be all things to all people (Wallin, 2005). As the worldwide Information Age continues to gain momentum at accelerated rates, the adjunct faculty member should not portray the sage on the stage. Educational leadership adjunct faculty members must learn that maintaining good health and having a passion for online teaching is best produced from a balance of work and non-work related activities in their lives. Teaching online can be totally life consuming if adjunct instructors do not learn how to develop organizational skills and eectively manage their time, how to monitor telephone calls, how to set aside specic times for reection, and how to simply take care of self (Penner, 2001). This means not allowing the problems of others to consume them to the degree that they become distractions and negatively aect their productivity. To achieve a healthy balance in their lives, educational leadership adjunct online faculty members should create timelines that contain due dates and outline realistic goals. They should also maintain a calendar of events, meetings and other engagements involving students, faculty and administration (Muirhead & Min, 2002). There is simply no time to procrastinate because doing so may place the adjunct faculty member in a never ending chase where quality and thoughtfulness are adversely impacted. In the nal analysis, developing balance in one's life is the cornerstone that will ensure longevity in this virtual world. When the plan is focused on providing balance in life, the adjunct faculty member will nd opportunities for increasing the capacity to improve time management, and discover ways to ensure teamwork is a constant (Penner, 2001). The out to save the world attitude, often self imposed by adjunct faculty members, needs to be overcome with a focus on setting meaningful and realistic expectations if a balance of life is to be maintained. In the nal analysis to achieve balance, adjunct faculty members need to know that working as a team truly works! Forming Interpersonal Relationships Education, more so than any other enterprise, must remain human and humane. As such, it is of the utmost importance in the isolated online teaching world to examine, i.e., forming interpersonal relationships. This is especially challenging for online adjunct professors who rarely see their students, colleagues and administration. Professional development opportunities for online adjunct professors need to provide ample opportunity for the development of networks, establishing collegial relationships and encouraging teamwork (Fullmer-Umari, 2000). Above all else, the mentor-protégé rapport holds the potential for a meaningful relationship. Relationships formed by adjunct online professors should embody core values such as honesty, respect, trust, condentiality, dependability, and empathy. The powerful tools of technology are not a substitute for core values that form foundations for meaningful relationships (Carnevale, 2004). Some of the essentials of meaningful relationships are more challenging to demonstrate in the absence of one another. When developed eectively, the relationships formed online by adjunct faculty members with students, colleagues, and administrator can be the unifying factor for longer tenures and teaching enjoyment.

184 176 CHAPTER Conclusions: The Last Word or Two CONSIDERING PRACTICES IMPACTING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT In retrospect, the success of adjunct online instructors is dependent upon the eectiveness of mentoring programs. Eective mentoring programs are based upon the quality of the cornerstones professional development, eective communication skills, building balance and forming relationships. Whether 21 st century higher online education colleges and universities meet the needs of their increasing educational leadership adjunct faculty members through eective mentoring programs will determine the excellence of instruction and the knowledge of this millennium's graduates. As each person thinks about mentoring programs and its importance, the words of John Crosby must be remembered, Mentoring is a brain to pick, an ear to listen, and a push in the right direction References Babb, D. & Mirabella, J. (2007). Make money teaching online. Hoboken, NJ: Sam Wiley & Sons. Bakia, M., Caspary, K., Wang, H., Dieterle, E., & Lee, A. (2011). Estimating the Eects of Online Learning for Secondary School Students: State and district case studies. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Biehl, B. (1996). Mentoring: Condence in nding a mentor and becoming one. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman. Boylan, H. R. (2005). Consulting report on the Title III and Smart Start Program at Kodiak College (Report). Kodiak, AK: Title III Project, Kodiak College. Carnevale, D. (2004, April). For online adjuncts, a seller's market. Part-time professors in demand, ll many distance-education faculties. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(34). Dolan, V. (2010, Feb). The isolation of online adjunct faculty and its impact on their performance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12 (2). Retrieved from Edelstein, S., & Edwards, J. (2002). If you will build it, they will come: Building learning communities through threaded discussions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5 (1). Retrieved from edelstein51.html 18 Eib, B. J. & Miller, P. (2006). Faculty development as community building. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7 (2). Eney, P., Davidson, E., Dorlac, A., & Whittington, R. (2005, March). Building a program for adjuncts: Help them soar! Paper presented at the National Association for Developmental Education Conference, Albuquerque, NM. Kelley, L.M. (2004). Why induction matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), Lynch, M. M. (2002). The online educator: A guide to creating the virtual classroom. NY: Routledge Falmer. Lyons, R. (2007). Best practices for supporting adjunct faculty. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Meixner, C. & Kruck, S. E. (2010, Oct-Dec). Inclusion of part-time faculty for the benet of faculty and students. College Teaching, 58(4), Muirhead, B. (2006, January). Creating concept maps: Integrating constructivism principles into online classes. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 3 (1). Retrieved from Muirhead, B., & Betz, M. (2002). Faculty training at online university. USDLA Journal, 16(1). Retrieved from National Sta Development Council. (2001). Standards for sta development (revised). Oxford, OH: Author. Pallo, R., & Pratt, K. (2011). The excellent online instructor: Strategies for professional development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Penner, R. (2001). Mentoring in higher education. Direction, 30(1). Powers, E. (2006, August). Online training for adjuncts. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from /08/22/adjunct 18

185 177 Wallin, D. L. (2004). Valuing professional colleagues: Adjunct faculty in community and technical colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, Wallin, D. L. (2005). Adjunct faculty in community colleges: An academic administrator's guide to recruiting, supporting, and retaining great teachers. Bolton, MA: Anker. West, E. (2010). Managing adjunct professors: Strategies for improved performance. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(4), Enhancing Online Instruction in Higher Education: Professional Development Strategies That Work 19 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, 20 ISBN In addition, at the end of this manuscript, author Shinsky provides readers a PowerPoint presentation entitled, Implementing an Eective Technology Training Program in Higher Education: 10 Do's and Dont's Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Author John Shinsky is a professor of Educational Leadership at Grand Valley State University in Michigan. 19 This content is available online at < 20

186 Introduction CHAPTER 5. CONSIDERING PRACTICES IMPACTING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT The implementation and use of technology is changing education on a daily basis. Students are using technology to access information from a broad base of resources that were never available in the past. This inux of access to information is requiring faculty and sta in higher education to respond to a student population that views technology as a natural part of their world. However, many instructors in higher education are not as comfortable with the use of technology and the understanding of how to eectively integrate it into their instruction. This paper addresses this problem by focusing on two key areas, using eective professional development strategies and highlighting what good online professors do when teaching. There are an array of methods and techniques for technology training; however, the strategies emphasized in this paper were derived from an ongoing eort to build a support structure that best met the needs of the faculty members who are presently working at our university. In addition, it was important to create a foundation for training that would be sustainable over time. The intent was to establish a culture that valued professional development, emphasized the importance for the training, and built in support structures that were available, responsive, respectful, and created a community of learners. This work is extremely important because it focuses on the faculty and sta needs, with the intent of empowering them to learn in a safe and supportive environment that enhances teaching and promotes learning for students. It also equips the faculty with the 21 st century skills that best prepare their students to survive and ourish in a global society that is undergoing signicant transformation. The rst key aspect of this professional development program was to develop a structure that addressed immediate needs, but was adaptable for long term sustainability. Therefore, we began with some of the fundamental structures that reected our philosophy, why we thought technology training was important, and professional development practices that formed the foundation for ongoing training. The following highlights some of the key components of an eective technology training program that we embraced Key Components of an Eective Technology Training Program in Higher Education University professors who plan to be eective in their eld need to equip themselves with the knowledge and skills necessary to transition from face-to-face teaching to high-quality, online-accessible, 24/7 education for their students. This is extremely important because technology is an evolving industry that requires ongoing training and application for maximum prociency. It is particularly important for university professors, because most of them have grown up in an environment where technology was in its infancy. Technology is now an integral part of our students' daily lives and is essential to the growth of education and our society as a whole. Higher education professors must engage in ongoing technology training so they can appropriately respond to the needs and learning styles of current students. Technology training must include a comprehensive approach to teaching utilizing all the technology tools available to move beyond web conferencing technology to an all-inclusive instructional approach that promotes engagement, collaboration, communication, and performance. In addition, technology training must include critical dimensions that engage faculty taking into consideration their schedules, the university environment, and the importance of building a learning community that promotes ongoing personal growth. Some of the key components of a technology training program that has proven to be successful that ensures ongoing learning and application of skills include the following. The professional development program: Addresses integration of technology in the context of the conceptual framework for the college (Gretchen, 2003). Has full and open support of the institution; and is exible and very professional (Weaver, Robbie, & Borland, 2008). Has an established technology infrastructure that provides technology resources, training, and ongoing support

187 179 Have mechanisms in place to address technical issues with hardware, software, and technology challenges. Has a balanced combination of pressure and support (Gretchen, 2003). Is delivered by sta with recognized expertise and credibility in online teaching (Weaver, Robbie, & Borland, 2008). Establishes working relationships among faculty and sta which is a powerful factor in the implementation and continuation of eorts at change (Gretchen, 2003). Builds capacity by increasing the number of faculty and sta participating in the change (Fullan, 2001). Provides opportunities for faculty and sta to present examples of how they have used technology in their courses and discuss the details of development, implementation, success and challenges. Oers multiple options of ongoing support. The second area of focus of our training highlighted the qualities of an eective online instructor. It was hoped that these principles would be incorporated into teaching and that they would ultimately become a natural part of our culture. The professional development activities provided emphasized these principles and served as the foundation for faculty discussions, presentations, and training. In addition, emphasis was placed on the value of creating a learning community by sharing common strategies that could be used across all courses. The information highlighting the qualities of an eective online instructor follows Qualities of an Eective Online Instructor in Higher Education To be eective, online professors need best-practice strategies to facilitate meaningful learning and take into account the broad diversity of student knowledge and experience regarding content and use of technology. The following list oers strategies that help to create what Reushle (2006) refers to as an environment that sustains motivation in a climate that is positive, supportive, safe, tolerant, respectful, nurturing, and participatory. An eective online professor: Facilitates learning as opposed to being the center of learning (Pasco & Adcock, 2007). Understands online learning, the structure of the learning environment, and relationship building with learners; promotes learner self-regulation; summarizes student learning by asking thoughtful questions; builds connections with prior learning and future practice; elicits reective thinking; and promotes problem-solving (Norton & Hathaway, 2008). Creates high-quality course materials and assignments that are professionally meaningful; assures there is high-quality feedback and communication (Tricker, Rangecroft, Long, & Gilroy, 2001). Has good written communication skills, carefully designs activities that promote discussion, and gives timely feedback (Spangle, Hodne, & Schierling, 2002). Provides instruction that is adapted to student needs, shares meaningful examples, motivates students to do their best, facilitates the course eectively, delivers a valuable course, communicates eectively, and shows concern for student learning (Young, 2006). In addition to best-practice strategies, professors who are teaching online need to incorporate guiding principles into their course design in order to establish a culture for learning. Reushle (2006) dened guiding principles of a quality online program. The following nine principles serve as a foundation for quality online instruction. Under each principle is a brief description that reects how the principle can be implemented into a higher education course. Establish the CHE factor: Connectivity, humanness and empathy. An in-depth conversation should occur about the purpose of using online learning; its technical components, exploratory aspects, and value; potential technical issues that could arise; and how to be a supportive community of learners. A communitybuilding activity should take place at the beginning of the course, where students introduce themselves to each other and share their current positions, educational history, and interest in the course. Small virtual group activities provide students an opportunity to meet and carry out some initial activities so experienced and inexperienced learners can support each other.

188 180 CHAPTER 5. CONSIDERING PRACTICES IMPACTING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Promote a learner-centered online environment. Ongoing discussions can take place about the value of learning from each other, the unique expertise each student brings to the course, and how students can collaborate eectively on project development and problem solving. Help students immerse and reect. Students can be provided with authentic, challenging situations as part of various experiences in the course such as journal and discussion board activities. These activities require dialogue along with individual and group problem-solving, analysis, and reection. Make learning a community activity. Students can be required to complete an authentic project as part of a collaborative team. Every member of the team has a role and all are required to work together using technology to successfully complete the project. Show how educators and learners both lead and learn. Authentic project teams are encouraged to identify an overall team leader. However, leadership for various project responsibilities can be delegated to individual team members who have the skills or interest. Maintain VIP communication: Visible, instant, and permanent. All presentations, assignments, reading, deliberations and work completed online, including formal and informal discussions, should be maintained in permanent, available-on-demand formats. This creates signicant learning opportunities allowing students to have 24/7 and ongoing access to all course information. Interpret and respond to signs of change. Discussions can take place about the pedagogical changes that are occurring based on the use of technology and the change of venue from face-to-face to online. Students can be asked to provide ongoing feedback about their perceptions of change and ways that it could be enhanced to make it an even more meaningful process. Lead by example and create a model experience. An online course should be planned in great detail to avoid any types of problems that might reect poorly upon the use of the technology. Also, it is important to model the use of technology and demonstrate its potential benets for the course and the students' work environments. Students should be reminded that technology has its aws and that the inevitable mishaps are an opportunity for learning. Build, manage, and revise the online learning environment. Discussions should occur with students about how online learning technologies are at the beginning stages of implementation and that there will be challenges that need to be worked out. Student feedback is highly encouraged, providing them with ongoing opportunities to have input into their learning. All student suggestions should be used as a resource for revising and improving courses. Motivate and prepare students. Establishing a climate of support, respect, risk-taking, collaboration, and ongoing nurturing is integral to establishing trust and building the students' enthusiasm to embrace technology both in the course itself and in their work environments. Another area that is signicantly emphasized as part of eective online course design is the importance of creating a learning community that is respectful, supportive, and encourages risk-taking. There are a number of ways to create a learning community in a course. However, when teaching online, this becomes even more important because face-to-face contact among the students is limited. Therefore, a top priority is to establish quality relationships as quickly as possible so the students can focus on the critical aspects of learning. Five strategies found to be eective for building a cohesive community of learners are: (a) focus on the person; (b) establish norms; (c) begin relationship building; (d) develop rigor; and (e) continue to build the total community. Each of these areas is highlighted below with brief descriptions of how they can be implemented into a course. Focus on the person. Foster a sense of belonging and value by letting students know how important their input and contributions are to the learning community. Communicate routinely about the design of the online course and how it is an ongoing process that will improve with their participation and feedback. Finally, engage students in meaningful and thoughtful conversations about course content. This is especially important because online courses can promote isolation unless the instructor encourages participation. Establish norms. Online courses are a new experience for many students. While the norms for an online course are similar to those of a face-to-face course, the instructor must be sensitive to the dynamics of what is taking place. The way students interact online, without being able to visually read facial and/or body language, can signicantly aect their satisfaction, retention, and learning. Some key norms include support

189 181 and respect where members are encouraged to participate and contribute individually and collectively, everyone's opinions are valued, and all students have a responsibility for learning. Begin relationship building. All classes should begin with a relationship-building activity. This activity should be designed to share something personal, seeking the common interests that build connections among students. Initially, students can be asked to post information on the discussion board describing what they do, their interests, their hobbies, what they like to read, trips they have taken, and their aspirations. Develop rigor. Students should be provided with some thought-provoking questions that challenge their thinking and help them begin to stretch their learning. Video clips can be used to stimulate conversation on the discussion board, followed by thought-provoking questions Conclusion The strategies highlighted in this paper are part of an ongoing eort to improve classroom teaching, while equipping faculty and students with the technology tools they need to ensure that their classroom experience is meaningful and applicable to a changing educational environment. The professional development components listed have been very helpful in establishing a foundation for creating a quality learning community. As a result, we have had a signicant increase in faculty participating in professional development activities and the use of varying technologies that have greatly enhanced the teaching and learning that has been taking place in the classrooms. The qualities of an eective online instructor have also been an exceptional resource for enhancing the quality of teaching provided for a range for students who have varying abilities regarding the use of technology. As we continue into the future, we expect that each of the qualities of an eective online instructor will improve signicantly due to the ongoing emphasis and sharing as a learning community. However, the critical piece that needs to be continually reinforced is to build a strong shared leadership component within the college which ensures that the motivation and inspiration for professional development and personal growth comes from within the organization and drives what takes place in the future. That will be the critical piece that denes the long term sustainability of these eorts. Click here to view Implementing an Eective Technology Training Program in Higher Education: 10 Do's & Dont's 21 For best viewing, SAVE as a PowerPoint le to your desktop References Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). NY: Teachers College Press. Gretchen J., (2003, March). Research on educational change as a way of understanding the integration of technology into a teacher education program. Poster session presented at the SITE Annual Conference, City College of the City University of New York, USA. Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2008). Exploring two teacher education online learning designs: A classroom of one or many? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), Pasco, B., & Adcock, P. (2007). New rules, new roles: Technology standards and teacher education. Educational Considerations, 34(2), Reushle, S. (2006). A framework for designing higher education e-learning environments. Retrieved from 22 Spangle, M., Hodne, G., & Schierling, D. (2002). Approaching value-centered education through the eyes of an electronic generation: Strategies for distance learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED474581) Tricker, T., Rangecroft, M., Long, P., & Gilroy, P. (2001). Evaluating distance education courses: The student perception. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(2), Weaver, D., Robbie, D., & Borland, R. (2008). The practitioner's model: Designing a professional development program for online teaching. International JI. On E-Learning, 7(4), Young, S. (2006). Student views of eective online teaching in higher education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), See the le at < 22

190 182 CHAPTER 5. CONSIDERING PRACTICES IMPACTING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

191 Chapter 6 Practicing New Pathways of Student and Program Assessment 6.1 A Study of the N/A/R (Narrative/Analysis/Research) Rubric as an Assessment Tool and its Impact on Learning with Online Assignments 1 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, 2 ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors 1 This content is available online at <

192 184 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Author Dr. Robert Thiede is Chairperson of the Educational Administration Department at Ashland University in Ashland, Ohio. In addition to the chair's duties, he teaches School Law, Leadership, Human Behavior in Administration, and Human Resources in Administration. Dr. Thiede spent 25 years as a superintendent in Ohio before coming to Ashland. He has published in several national and international journals and has presented papers at state and national conferences, including the NCPEA Conferences the last 3 years Literature Review Numerous studies have been conducted on various facets of online education focusing on e-learning and dierent methodologies used with online courses. However, the examination of the assessment of student's work completed online has been limited and sporadic. With online education generating the fastest growth among student enrollment in K-12 and universities, research needs to be conducted regarding the best instructional practices. As online education moves into the mainstream educational world, a key question needs to be answered, How do I know what my online students have learned? There are no easy answers, but with a little creativity and exibility, it can be discovered that the online learning environment opens up a host of new educational assessment possibilities. Meyen, Aust, and Issacson (2000) reiterate while assessment in an e- classroom continues to develop, with a host of advantages and disadvantages, it must be explored to provide assistance to instructors so that students receive optimal feedback. Assessment is no longer the periodic formal process of exams and graded activities, which may or may not be discussed with the class; it is now in the context of a one-on-one relationship with the e-instructor and each student in an online course (Meyen, Aust, & Issacson, 2000). A large amount of investigation and development is currently underway at the university level regarding the possibilities for eective and ecient online assessment. There are numerous reasons for online assessments being studied. Many academies are seeking to diversify assessment tasks, broaden the range of skills assessed and provide students with more timely and informative feedback on their progress. Others are wishing to meet student expectations for more exible delivery and to generate eciencies in assessment that can ease academic sta workloads. All sta involved in such initiatives are discovering they face a large number of educational issues (Online assessment from the Centre for the Study of Higher Education, 2002). In reviewing the literature, some studies have centered around the identication of key issues related to assessment of students' performance in online education. In Dereshiwsky's (2001) study, she stated that assessing student performance online is an admittedly challenging aspect of instruction. Often equal parts of art and science, it can cause anxiety for students and instructors alike. Are the assignments a valid reection of the course curriculum? Is there an equitable and clearly understood evaluation and feedback system in place? Above all, it should be asked, is the assessment genuinely meaningful and useful to students in terms of their academic growth? Research has shown that appropriately designed assessment helps to facilitate these positive learning opportunities and outcomes for students. Brown, Race, and Smith (1996) proposed that how we assess our students has a profound eect on what they learn, and on the ways in which they learn. If our choices of assessment provide systems under which students are goaded into activities that provide short-term memory, information recall and surface learning, we should not be surprised if the outcomes are exceedingly poor in terms of learning gains (Assessment for learning, 2010).

193 185 According to Hemby et al (2004), the online instructor must evaluate current assessment tools to identify the most appropriate assessment for the learner outcomes. The assessment must match the project so that e-students are aware of the key components that will be evaluated in the assignments. With a review of current assessment techniques comes the demand for taking the time to adapt assessment so that appropriate and timely feedback may be provided to the online students. When converting traditional classroom activities to the online learning environment, instructors should remember that these activities require assessment tools to be developed and/or modied from traditional classroom assessments. Discussion postings, projects, papers, and student-led discussions are important in the engaged learning environment but assessing students' participation and work product necessitates the development of discussion analysis tools, team assessment tools, and reective self-assessments (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004) Pallo and Pratt (2003) developed the following principles for student assessment in an online learning environment: Design learner-centered assessments that include self-reection. Design and include grading rubrics to assess contributions to the discussion as for assignments, projects, and collaboration itself. Include collaborative assessments through posting papers along with comments from students to student. Encourage students to develop skills in providing feedback by providing guidelines to good feedback and by modeling what is expected. Use assessment techniques that t the context and align with learning objectives. Design assessments that are clear, easy to understand, and likely to work in the online environment. Ask for and incorporate student input into how assessment should be conducted. The core principles of assessment are outlined in the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Assessment Policy. The policy stated: Online assessment has the potential to increase the diversity and exibility of assessment for sta and for students and to provide students with prompt and individually targeted feedback. It can also serve as a particularly valuable form of self assessment as there is software, that is readily available, that enables students to monitor their progress by accessing randomly allocated quizzes at a time that is convenient to them. Care needs to be taken, however, to ensure that online assessment is closely related to course aims and learning outcomes, and that it does not encourage students to focus on low-level cognitive skills (Core principles of assessment, 2009). Dereshiwsky (2001) stated the online environment has fostered increasingly creative applications of multiple assessment procedures and tools. Thus, the use of creative assessment tools, such as, the N/A/R Rubric must be recognized. Huba and Freed (2000) illustrated how rubrics can be used to judge thinking processes and the aective components of learning. A rubric that was developed to address critical thinking of university students illustrates how this tool can be used to guide and evaluate higher-order thinking skills. This seven-dimension critical thinking rubric was developed at Washington State University through the Critical Thinking Project. It was found that 92% of student writers within a Writing Portfolio course demonstrated writing prociency but `surprisingly low critical thinking abilities'. Dramatic improvements were found as a result of the introduction of the Critical Thinking Rubric whereby students' critical thinking scores increased three and a half times as much in a course that overtly integrated the rubric into instructional expectations, compared with performances in a course that did not. The Critical Thinking Rubric allowed the faculty to make a shift in our academic culture and has proven useful as a diagnostic tool for faculty in evaluating their own practices and testing the outcomes of dierent approaches objectively. (Critical Thinking Project, 2003) Rubrics should communicate the instructor's expectations to meet the standards of the course's assignments. Furthermore, a rubric may be used to dene the expected performance levels for online discussions. The N/A/R rubric diers from one used to measure performance in the traditional classroom. While the creation of rubrics can be time consuming, students and teachers are better able to understand expectations for an assignment when evaluation criteria are provided at the time a task is assigned. Conrad and Doanld-

194 186 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT son (2004) emphasized a rubric clearly species the expectations for the activity and the eort required by the student to achieve a desired score. The importance of feedback through online assessment must be part of this review. In examining the literature concerning online assessment, Dereshiwsky (2001) stated that online assessment is characterized by timely, ecient, and detailed individual feedback to students. Furthermore, Hatlie (1999) felt assessment has such a signicant impact on e-learning that it has been described as the most powerful single moderator that enhances achievement. A study of the core principles of assessment indicate that to benet student learning, assessment feedback needs to be: Constructive that is, in addition to highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of a given piece of work, it needs to set out ways in which the work can be improved. Timely that is, it needs to be given while the work that has been assessed is still fresh in a student's mind and before the student moves on to subsequent tasks. Meaningful that is, to target individual needs, to be linked to specic assessment criteria, and to be received by a student in time to benet subsequent work (Core principles of assessment, 2009). Feedback follows these points, aiding students to think analytically regarding their work and to reect on what they need to do to improve it. It can encourage students to see their learning in new ways and to gain increased performance and satisfaction. In a general context, whether in the online or traditional classroom environment, assessment drives learning. What is needed is continued exploration of online education as a means of facilitating instruction, constructing knowledge and skills, and assessing learning in order to improve the online classroom experience (Henry et al, 2004) Methodology Participants in the survey study were students in educational administration (EDAD) online courses at a small private university in the Midwest. These participants were graduate level students who had taken the EDAD courses as part of their completion of the Masters of Education degree program or the course fulllment for their principal's license. Ninety-one students were sent the online survey. Thirty-nine students completed the survey for a return percentage of 43%. The study was designed to examine the EDAD student's perceptions regarding the Narrative/Analysis/Research (NAR) Rubric as an instructional tool in online courses. The following questions guided the research: 1) Do students perceive the NAR Rubric to be a benecial assessment tool? 2) What student learning was achieved with the use of the NAR Rubric when assessing online assignments? The purpose of these questions was to provide insight and answers concerning the eectiveness of the NAR Rubric. The data should provide conrmation of its benecial utilization and suggestions for future use. The survey instrument used in this study was developed by the author after discussions with EDAD faculty, students currently enrolled in the EDAD program, and reection and analysis by the author related to the teaching and learning occurring in the online classes. This survey consisted of three sections. The rst section contained 13 forced response questions in which 5 of these questions related directly to the students' perceptions of the NAR Rubric. The forced response questions were set up on a ve point Likert Scale ranging from strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree. The second section had 2 open-ended questions regarding the students' views of the course. These open-ended questions were: 1) What did you like least about the online course? 2) What changes would you make with the online course?

195 187 The nal section was made up of questions asking demographical information on the survey's respondents. The survey was sent electronically to the students' addresses. Included with the survey was a cover letter explaining the reason for the survey. The participants were assured of the condentiality of their responses. Survey results were submitted through the Zoomrang program. Through this program, results were compiled and set up according to the questions Results The respondents of the study's survey were diverse. Of the 39 EDAD students who responded to the survey, 59% were female and 41% were male. Most of these graduate students were teachers at 69% of the total sample population, while 26% were administrators, and 5% were in other job positions. The breakdown of the educational levels for the participants was 51% at the high school level, 8% at the middle school level, and 41% at the elementary level. Finally, the graduate students' years of experience were quite varied with 18% with 1-3 years of experience, 51% with 4-10 years of experience, 18% with years of experience, and 13% with 20 + years experience. The purpose of the study was to retrieve the student's perceptions and viewpoints concerning the NAR Rubric and the learning outcomes attributed to the Rubric's criteria. Some of the questions asked pertained to the NAR Rubric as a benecial teaching and learning tool and other questions were concentrated on the learning outcomes of the student. To understand the distribution of responses to the survey items, frequency tables were set up to organize and summarize data. Frequency distribution results in Table 1 show the students' perceptions to survey questions focusing on the NAR Rubric eectiveness. 3 Table 1 reveals the student's viewpoints were positive and accepting of the NAR Rubric. The students clearly indicated that the NAR Rubric provided direction in completing online assignments with 87% of the respondents agreeing that the rubric provided this direction. Only 6% of the respondents felt the rubric did not provide direction and guidance. In survey item #9 found in Table 1, the students indicated that the assessment feedback based upon the NAR Rubric was very benecial with 82% agreeing with statement. When the respondents were asked to rate what were the most meaningful and helpful learning activities in the online course, the NAR Rubric was the second most desired learning activity with 19 students. Only case studies ranked higher. Another set of survey items in Table 2 showed some learning outcomes were generated in online courses because of the key criteria found in the NAR Rubric. Table 2 3

196 188 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The EDAD student's perceptions of the learning outcomes generated from online assignments were clear and evident. The students believed that they conducted more research for the assignments in the online courses than in the face-to-face courses (survey item #6), and they did more analytical thinking and work for the assignments in the online courses than face-to-face courses (survey item #7). Seventy-two percent agreed with more research being conducted and 64% of the students agreed that additional analytical thinking was produced in online courses. Again, online instruction has the potential to provide opportunities to promote reective thought and critical thinking through realistically integrating and applying principles learned. Online instruction, such as a simulation, thrusts learners into a learning experience, increasing involvement and providing activities that actively engage learners to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information while constructing knowledge (Driscoll & Carliner, 2005). Two of the three key criteria found in the NAR Rubric are research and analytical thinking. Thus, a large number of survey respondents perceived that research and analytical thinking are completed in the online assignments by the utilization of the NAR Rubric. In the 2 open-ended questions, respondents expressed what they liked least about the online course (Survey item #14) and what changes they would make in these courses (survey item #15). When responding to what they liked least or what changes they would make in the hybrid courses, no student expressed dissatisfaction with the NAR Rubric. In summary, a large percentage of students perceived the NAR Rubric to be benecial and meaningful when completing the online assignments. Also, they felt that the key criteria found in the NAR Rubric helped produce more research eorts and analytical thinking with the online assignments Discussion Helping faculty members design assessment tools and practices for online student assignments are paramount. Bauer (2002) identied the emergent problem with online learning as being that of assessing students with traditional assessment measures. The results of this study demonstrate that students perceive the Narrative/Analysis/Research Rubric as a good assessment tool to guide students in completing online assignments. It is important to note that students thought the NAR Rubric signicantly provided direction and feedback in completing online assignments. In fact, students indicate in the study's survey that it is one of the most helpful items used in the online courses they had taken. Research suggest that students may need additional guidance in an online course which does not meet in a traditional, face-to-face format. The NAR Rubric was specically developed for online assignments in order to act as an instructional guide and also to provide constructive feedback to students. When students 4

197 189 were asked which learning activities were the most meaningful and helpful, they identied the NAR Rubric above discussion boards, e-portfolios, videos, power-point presentation and several other learning activities. Even though the NAR Rubric provides instructional guidance with online assignments, students perceive its greatest importance comes from the feedback provided by the instructor. This feedback comes in the form of fullling the three main components of the NAR Rubric: the narrative in addressing the assignment's question(s), the inclusion of analytical reasoning, and the support of research and references with the assignment. Dereshiwsky (2001) agreed that properly designed web course assessment can produce more detailed feedback for students, more individual assessment of student's work, greater student engagement, and a clearer direction in what is required with the assignments. Harasin, Hiltz,Teles, and Turo (1996) in discussing online learning, stated In keeping with a learner-centered approach, evaluation and assessment should be a part of the learning-teaching process, embedded in class activities and in the interactions between learners and between learners and teachers. The students perceive the NAR Rubric cultivates critical thinking and research with online assignments. Overall, the results indicate students conducted more research and more analytical work in the completion of assignments. The reason for this increase in these two learning outcomes is that the students seem to follow the NAR Rubric's Analysis and Research criteria. Thus, a rubric can not only be a teacher/instructional tool, but a rubric is a learning tool (Designing rubrics to t assignments, 2010). Students should see rubrics as red ags that highlight the important components of a paper. Rubrics remind students what to watch out for, what to revise if necessary, and what will be considered in the assignment of the paper (Smithson, 2001). It seems many of the students recognize and appreciate the need to follow the three criteria of the NAR Rubric in order to achieve the expected learning outcomes. The NAR Rubric became a major instrumental guide to their learning outcomes in the areas of research and analytical thinking. In the open-ended questions, one student commented there was denitely an emphasis in the readings and research with the assignments Conclusions As online education continues to grow at a rapidly increasing pace, sound teaching and learning practices in these courses need to be implemented. It is important for faculty members to understand the best practices of online education and be cultivating the higher order thinking skills in this type of instructional environment. The NAR Rubric described in this paper was investigated by the author related to students' perceptions of its eectiveness in online courses. Overall, the data from this study indicate that the rubric is a benecial tool for students and their learning. The NAR Rubric provides direction in completing online assignments. With no face-to-face classroom contact (in online courses) to introduce and/or thoroughly explain the assignments, the rubric becomes the guiding tool to work through the assignment and emphasizes the key components in the paper. These key components are: a comprehensive narrative that answers the assignment's directions/questions; analytical comments and thoughts interwoven and supporting the narrative; and evidence of research and references embedded in the narrative. Students in this study felt their learning was enriched and expanded concerning research work to complete an assignment and the generation of critical thinking incorporated into the assignment. Contrary to some thinking, current online college courses are not alienating, lock-step programs. They are a labor-intensive and intellectually challenging forum which elicits deeper thinking on the part of the students and which present more individual communication between instructor and student. Future research is encouraged to explore: 1) Students perceptions of other forms of assessment with online assignments; and 2) The comparison of student's achievement and learning outcomes between courses using the NAR Rubric and not using it. Faculty members teaching online courses may benet from a review of the NAR Rubric found in this study. With the increasing number of courses going online, there needs to be best practices studied in order to aid instructors in optimizing learning outcomes. The NAR Rubric would provide this help and guidance for faculty when introducing and assessing assignments in online courses.

198 190 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Appendix Rubric to Evaluate Assignments References Assessment for learning. (2010). Retrieved from 6 Bauer, J. F. (2002). Assessing student work from chatrooms and bulletin boards. In R.S. Anderson, J. F. Bauer, & B.W. Speck (Eds.), Assessment strategies for the on-line class: From theory to practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 91. Brown, S., Race, P., & Smith B. (1996). 500 tips for assessment. Kogan Page, 15. Core principles of assessment. (2009). Retrieved from 7 Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction. Jossey-Bass. Centre for Learning and Professional Development Assessment Tools (2010). Retrieved October 6, 2010 from 8 Dereshiwsky, M. (2001). A is for assessment: Identifying online assessment practices and perceptions. Ed at a Distance Journal, 15(10), 12. Designing rubrics to t assignments. (2010). Retrieved from 9 Driscoll, M., & Carliner, S. (2005). Advanced web-based training strategies. Pfeier Harasin, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turo, M. (1996). Learning networks. MIT Press

199 191 Hemby, K. V., Wilkinson, K., & Crews, T. B. (2010). Converting assessment of traditional classroom assignments to the e-learning environment. Journal of E-Learning, 16 Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Allyn & Boen. Kandlbinder, P. (2004). Developing Assessment Performance Indicators. Paper presented at the Closing the Loop: Evaluations and Assessment Conference, Brislane. Meyen, E. L., Aust, R. J., & Issacsin, R. E. (2002). Assessing and monitoring student progress in e-learning personnel preparation environment. elearning Design Lab. Retrieved from 10 Online assessment from the Centre for the Study of Higher Education. (2002). Retrieved from 11 Pallo, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A prole and guide to working with online learners. Jossey-Bass. Rubistar. (2006). Create rubrics for your project-based learning activities. Retrieved October 10, 2010 from Evaluation of an Online Technology Leadership Master's Program 13 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors This content is available online at <

200 192 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Authors Diane R. Mason (Ph.D.) is Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership and Technology, at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas where she teaches administrative leadership and technology coursework for Master's and Doctoral candidates enrolled in fully online programs. She obtained a Ph.D. through the University of New Orleans. Research interests include technology and administrative leadership, online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development. Additionally, she is currently involved in an international electronic portfolio research initiative for the Coalition for Inter/National Electronic Portfolio Research. L. Kay Abernathy (Ed.D.) is Associate Professor and Coordinator, Educational Technology Leadership, Lamar University. She holds an Ed.D. in Educational Administration from Texas A&M University. Her research interests include leadership in Web 2.0 tools, online learning, technology professional development, and implementation of electronic portfolios in PK-12 schools. A special project focuses on research within the Cohort VI of the Coalition for Inter/National Electronic Portfolio Research. Sheryl R. Abshire (Ph.D.) is an Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership and Technology at Lamar University. She teaches graduate students enrolled in educational administration and technology programs. As a graduate of the University of New Orleans with a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership and Administration, her research interests include school law, school funding, Web 2.0, online learning, administrative and technology leadership and technology professional development. Additionally, she is engaged in an international research project with the Coalition for Inter/National Electronic Portfolio Research. Cynthia Cummings (M.Ed.) is a clinical instructor, Educational Leadership and Technology, at Lamar University. Her areas of research interest include technology leadership with an emphasis on the use of Web 2.0, online learning, and technology professional development in PK-12. In addition, she is currently conducting research on the use of electronic portfolios in PK-12 schools as a part of the Inter/National Electronic Portfolio Research project. Xinyu Liu (Ph.D.) is Assistant Professor, Industrial Engineering Department at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. He obtained his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in His research and teaching interests include micro-manufacturing and application of statistical tools in experimental design, quality improvement, etc. He is currently involved in the data analysis component of the international electronic portfolio research project with colleagues in the Educational Leadership and Technology Department, Lamar University Introduction Concerns have arisen about the eectiveness of online graduate programs compared to more traditional approaches in higher education settings. This research study investigated the eectiveness of an online Educational Technology Leadership (ETL) master's program to advance graduates' leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development in PK-12 schools. A review of the literature indicated agreement that leadership is vital to continuous school improvement, and the quality of teachers directly impacts PK-12 student learning (Podmostko, 2001). Furthermore, building the leadership of technology using teachers appeared to be of signicant interest to ensure all PK-12 students receive high quality instruction using 21st century technology tools. Moreover, graduates expressed interest in expanded career options in leadership roles as administrators, district technology coordinators, and technology professional development providers.

201 6.2.2 Background and Literature Review Educational leadership has been a critical component to providing an environment conducive to eective teaching and learning. Candidates in an Educational Technology Leadership master's program were provided with the leadership skills necessary to implement changes required for 21st century teaching and learning. These change leaders learned how to determine the procedures and processes that create the conditions necessary for organizational improvement. The literature relevant to this study included educational leadership with a focus on teacher leadership to administrative leadership, the use of online learning for personal learning and student learning, the use of Web 2.0 tools for teaching and learning, and the use of eective professional development for changing professional practices Educational Leadership Possibly, the most important single factor of an eective learning environment has been educational leadership (Daugherty, Kelley, & Thornton, 2005). Second only to quality curriculum and teacher instruction, leadership has been considered important in student learning (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). Change leaders must have determined the procedures and processes that created the conditions necessary for organizational improvement. In addition, skillful leaders had a shared responsibility to provide vision for future needs and empowered others to share and operationalize the vision (Daugherty, et al.; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). Historically, school districts have continually struggled to attract and retain highly qualied candidates for leadership roles (Knapp, Copland & Talbert, 2003). According to Leithwood and Riehl (2003), a current approach was to share leadership between administrators and teacher leaders. Administrators oered a more formal approach to leadership, while teacher leaders presented an informal approach. Glendinning (2005) reported that schools sought leaders who understood teaching and learning. Since classroom teachers routinely possessed those skills, it made sense that administrators tended to evolve from those classroom teachers. With the nearly 40% of principals' positions that became vacant in 2010, it became crucial for schools to invest in the leadership capacity of their teachers (Ballek, O'Rourke, Provenzanom & Bellamy, 2005). Ledesma (2006) contended that when teaching teachers, certainly, skills training was necessary, but a more critical component was leadership development. As teachers learned new skills, there was a clear opportunity to build leadership and professionalism. As teachers learned new strategies, it was imperative that they embraced opportunities to teach other teachers and share with others at a faculty meeting, district or regional meeting. This practice was essential in helping teachers realize their potential beyond the classroom and the rst step in creating teacher leader/mentors. Sparks (2004) states: Skillful teaching in every classroom requires skillful leadership by principals... high- quality teaching in every classroom depends on principals who make the success of all students their highest priority, nurture continuous improvement in teaching, and create energizing, interdependent relationships among all members of the school community. (p. 1) Evidence suggested that school leaders played a crucial role in shaping how schools created an environment where students can eectively learn (Davis, Darling-Hammond, Lapointe & Meyerson, 2005). There was agreement regarding what eective leaders needed to know and be able to do (Leithwood, Seashore, Anderson & Sahlstrom, 2004). Davis et al.(2005) identied several university program features essential in the development of eective school leaders. These included eld-based internships, mentoring, cohort groups, tight collaboration between university programs and school districts, curricular coherence, problembased instruction, and an emphasis on instructional leadership, change management, and organizational development (p. 21) Online Learning Higher education. According to Allen and Seaman (2010), online enrollments have grown signicantly faster than overall higher education enrollments and showed no sign of slowing. During the fall of 2008, over 4.6 million students took at least one online course which represented a 17 percent increase over fall of These 4.6 million students represented more than one-quarter of all higher education students taking at least 193

202 194 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT one online course. Despite the signicant growth in online courses, acceptance of this learning approach has been met with criticisms (Abdullahi, 2011; Allen & Seaman, 2010; Mendenhall, 2011). Acceptance of online teaching by faculty has been comparatively constant since rst measured in However, less than one-third of chief academic ocers believed that their faculty accepted the value and legitimacy of online education. Another criticism was the quality of online learning. Allen and Seaman (2007) reported that comparison of learning outcomes for online to face-to-face had been measured since Chief academic ocers comparing online with face-to-face as same, somewhat superior, or superior increased 11 percent. This increase was in direct contrast with the acceptance of online by faculty over the same time period. Mendenhall (2011) noted that quality was not just how many people graduate, but more so about what the graduates knew. Quality was also related to the time commitment, the costs of delivery and the eective use of technology in the delivery of the course. In an online environment that eectively used technology, faculty roles changed from delivering the content to mentoring students. Moreover, the use of technology for assessment helped determine what students knew and were able to do rather if they had regularly attended class. In this scenario, individualized learning became the model and the outcome was improved learning. Online learners. Higher education professionals at Noel-Levitz, Inc. (2008) reported in the National Online Learners Priorities Report that students continued to seek online learning options as a exible way to meet program requirements while balancing work and home commitments. To meet this demand, serving these students became a priority for colleges and universities. According to Granger and Benke (1998), the majority of distance learners were adults beyond the traditional age of undergraduate students. They returned to education for a particular reason: to qualify for promotion, to prepare for a new job, because their employer expects it, or as a personal goal. These learners were goal oriented, (obtaining their degree or certicate), task-oriented, had busy lives already, and their education competed with jobs, childcare, household responsibilities, etc. Granger and Benke (1998) reported that the distance learners brought specic skills, such as critical reading and thinking, and prior knowledge to the educational experience. The researchers also identied the learners as actively engaged and self-motivated. Noel-Levitz, Inc. (2008) identied additional factors that inuence learners' decisions to enroll in online programs. These factors included: convenience, work schedule, reputation of institution, cost and future employment opportunities. When summarizing the ndings from the National Survey of Student Engagement (Wasley, 2006), found that online distance education students who engaged in academically rigorous and relevant activities reported that they had positive educational experiences while interacting with both instructors and classmates. Online learning in K-12. Since its original 2007 study of online learning in K-12, Picciano & Seaman (2009) reported a 47% increase in the number of K-12 students enrolled in online courses. After replicating their 2007 study, Sloan Consortium (2009) noted support for the prediction that online enrollment in K- 12 could reach close to 6 million students by According to Christensen (2008), delivery of online instruction could be the catalyst necessary for essential educational transformation. According to Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin and Rapp (2011), online teaching required a dierent skill set that must be identied and developed. During the initial stage of online learning, professional development was provided by the school due to a lack of other opportunities. However, that trend was beginning to change and professional development options were available for beginning, intermediate, and advanced online teachers. A small number of university teacher preparation programs were beginning to develop certicate programs in online teaching and other continuing education options that addressed instructional design, use of technology in online teaching and learning, building online communities, and promoting synchronous and asynchronous interaction. In addition, an internship or practicum was oered to support course work. However, these programs were the exception, and most teacher preparation programs did not focus on online learning. DePietro, Ferdig, Black, and Preston (2008) acknowledged that there was not a lot of information about best practices for teaching in K-12 online settings. The principles that were identied were similar to faceto-face instruction. Several organizations published documents for teaching online courses. Although these documents addressed course design, they failed to address the skill set required to teach online. The skills needed for providing students with quality online learning experiences included coordination with pedagogy,

203 195 technology and content expertise (Kurtz, Beaudoin, & Sagee, 2004; Olson & Wisher, 2002; Russell, 2004; Savery, 2005). The skills necessary to successfully teach online often were beyond those required in a traditional classroom. Many online program professional development requirements focused on helping teachers understand how to motivate individual learners, enhance student interaction and understanding without visual cues, tailor instruction to particular learning styles, and develop or modify interactive lessons to meet student needs. Dawley, Rice, and Hicks (2010) reported that the United States was falling behind other countries in providing preservice training for online teaching. DePietro et al. (2008) suggested that with valid and reliable feedback regarding best practices, a framework for an online education certication was needed to promote a consistent model for exemplary instruction in K-12 online teaching and learning Web 2.0 Tools The web was shaped by Web 2.0 into communities across the globe that enabled anyone to join and allowed unlimited participation (Parker & Chao, 2007; Tapscott & Williams, 2008). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009) reported the technological environment within which modern education operated was becoming increasingly complex; oering new possibilities, but also giving rise to challenges. Furthermore, a continual evolution of technologies and how they were used since the introduction of the Internet was indicated. Web 2.0 tools, virtual worlds, simulations, and mobile technologies continued this trend of co[u+2010]evolution. An understanding was beginning to develop of how the trajectory of this co[u+2010]evolution would occur. Additionally, data indicated that more than one-fth of US higher education students were actively contributing content to blogs, wikis, photo or video websites and 18% contributed regularly to at least three of these (OECD, 2009). According to Mills (2007), this relatively new paradigm, Web 2.0, enabled web-based applications that routinely provided communication, contribution, and communication capabilities. These social networking sites, blogs, wikis and other media and interactive web conferencing sites enabled users to create and share information. Moreover, in order to properly discuss Web 2.0 tools and how they had altered the learning landscape, it was helpful to understand the role of Web 1.0. Hastings, CEO of Netix, described Web 1.0 as dial-up with approximately 50K average bandwidth. Web 2.0 averaged 1 megabit of bandwidth, while he predicted that Web 3.0 would be 10 megabits of bandwidth, which would be the full video web, and that would feel like Web 3.0 (Web 1.0, 2008). Flew (2008) identied the dierences in Web 1.0 versus Web 2.0 as a move from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publishing to participation, from web content as the outcome of large up-front investment to an ongoing and interactive process, and from content management systems to links based on tagging (folksonomy) (Web 1.0, 2008). O'Reily (2005) coined the term Web 2.0 at the rst Web 2.0 conference in He described Web 2.0 as a business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Lemke, Coughlin, Garcia, Reifsneider, and Baas (2009) dened Web 2.0 as an online application that uses the World Wide Web (www) as a platform and allows for participatory involvement, collaboration, and interaction among users (p. 5). Johnson, Levine, Smith, and Smythe (2009) identied four technology trends that were predicted to enter the classroom within the next year: collaborative environments, communication tools, personally-owned devices, one-to-one laptop initiative (p. 4). The authors stated online collaboration environments and virtual spaces for information sharing, gave students an opportunity to connect with a global community, present ideas to an authentic audience, and learn outside the traditional classroom. Furthermore, the authors noted that these collaborative environments provided opportunities for students to work on group projects outside the geographic barrier of the classroom or to work individually to develop 21st century skills. Prensky (2001) acknowledged an imperative need for the invention of digital native methodologies for all subjects, at all levels, using students to guide us. There was no doubt that with the amazing advances in technology and design schemes for creating social and participatory networks, we should begin to acknowledge the needs of these digital natives that have grown up in the midst of these technological innovations. He reported that these technologies have been altered as well as aected the wiring of neural networks in digital

204 196 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT natives. Furthermore, he advanced the case that in order for our education system to continue to ourish, educators must invent new ways of engaging these learners with the newest technologies that best match their learning styles Technology Professional Development in PK-12 Schools Supporting teachers as they acquired the skills and ability to integrate teaching, learning, and technology required time and professional development based on the stages of technology adoption (Dwyer, Ringsta, & Sandholtz, 1990; Martin, Hupert, Culp, Kanaya, & Light, 2003; O'Dwyer, Russell, & Bebell, 2004). As teachers advanced through these stages, they began to use technology more frequently and in a more sophisticated, creative manner (Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, and Woods, 1999). Ertmer, Ottenbreit- Leftwich, and York (2005) reported that teachers ranked professional development as one of the most powerful external factors for changing their professional practices of integrating teaching, learning, and technology in the classroom. Technology professional development must be more than exposure to short-term topics by a motivational speaker or a series of experts transferring knowledge. This type of professional development was an ineective method for an ongoing and substantive change in behavior (Brown, 2011). Anderson and Dexter (2005) in one of the most comprehensive literature reviews in the area of school technology leadership determined that all of the literature on leadership and technology acknowledges either explicitly or implicitly that school leaders should provide administrative oversight for educational technology (p.51). There was no doubt that technology leaders must be engaged in not only investigating and evaluating new technologies, but they should keep teaching and learning at the heart of all technology decisions (Creighton, 2011). According to Rodriguez (2000), technology-enhanced professional development initiatives should contain specic components that have been deemed critical in achieving successful implementation. These components included: a connection to student learning, hands-on technology use, various learning experiences, curriculumspecic applications, new roles for teachers, collegial learning, active teacher participation, ongoing process, sucient time, technical assistance and support, administrative support, adequate resources, continuous funding and built-in evaluation. (p.3) Carlson and Gadio (2002) contended that the one-time traditional teacher training workshops were not eective in creating an atmosphere where teachers felt comfortable using technology in the classroom. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the drive-by teacher training workshops resulted in the integration of technology into their classrooms. Conversely, there was an emerging new pattern that replaced this onetime training with lifelong professional development by providing a solid foundation in content, aptitude in teaching, organizational skills, classroom management and competency in using a variety of educational resources, including technology. In order for this ongoing technology professional development to be truly eective, teachers should actively coach and mentor each other, possess a sense of humbleness, creativity, innovation, risking taking, continuous improvement, sharing of successes and failures and participate in the constant revision of technology teacher professional development programs Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the eectiveness of an online Educational Technology Leadership (ETL) master's program to advance graduates' leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development in PK-12 schools Methodology A convergent mixed methods research design was selected for this study. In a mixed methods convergent research design, the researcher gathers both qualitative and quantitative data, both datasets are separately analyzed, the analysis results are compared, and an interpretation of the results support or contradict each other (Creswell, 2012). Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously, and the data

205 197 were integrated to better provide an assessment of graduates' personal leadership trends and the implementation of online learning, Web 2.0, and technology professional development in PK-12 school settings. All graduates of the online ETL master's program were invited to participate in a Likert-style online survey with open-ended questions. The survey and open-ended questions were completed by 110 of the 271 possible participants (41%). Additionally, a purposeful sample of 60 graduates' comprehensive electronic portfolios were selected and examined to obtain additional qualitative data Research Question The overarching research question for this study was: Does the online Educational Technology Leadership master's program advance graduates' leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development in PK-12 schools? Assumptions were developed to analyze quantitative research data and sub-research questions guided the qualitative data analysis. Online learning. The research assumptions associated with online learning were: Assumption 1: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates agree their PK-12 school implements online learning for students. Assumption 2: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates agree their PK-12 school district implements online learning for students. Assumption 3: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates agree their PK-12 school implements online learning for professional development for educators. Assumption 4: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates agree their PK-12 school district implements online learning for professional development for educators. Assumption 5: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates use video tools in their PK-12 teaching. Assumption 6: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates use video tools for personal learning. Assumption 7: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates use web conferencing for PK-12 student interactions. Assumption 8: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates use web conferencing to interact with colleagues. Assumption 9: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates use web conferencing for personal learning. Assumption 10: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates use collaborative tools in their PK-12 teaching. Assumption 11: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates use collaborative tools for personal learning. Sub-research Question 1: How does the online Educational Technology Leadership master's program advance graduates' leadership in the use of online learning? Web 2.0 tools. The research assumptions related to Web 2.0 tools were: Assumption 12: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates support colleagues in the use of Web 2.0 tools. Assumption 13: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates use Web 2.0 tools with PK-12 students. Assumption 14: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates use Web 2.0 tools for personal learning. Sub-Research Question 2: How does the online Educational Technology Leadership master's program advance graduates' leadership in the use Web 2.0 tools? The research assumptions associated with technology profes- Technology professional development. sional development were:

206 198 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Assumption 15: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates design technology-embedded professional development. Assumption 16: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates implement technology embedded professional development. Assumption 17: The majority of Educational Technology Leadership graduates serve on technology related committees for professional development. Sub-Research Question 3: How does the online Educational Technology Leadership master's program advance graduates' leadership in the use of technology professional development? Design and Instrument A convergent mixed methods research design was selected for this study. Mixed methods design combines quantitative and qualitative data to present a better understanding of research focus and to overall strengthen the study (Creswell, 2009). Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed to better provide an assessment of graduates' personal leadership trends and the implementation of online learning, Web 2.0, and technology professional development in PK-12 school settings. First, an online pilot survey using SurveyMonkey, was administered to persons associated with the Educational Technology Leadership master's program (N =41). Demographic information was collected in the rst portion. The second part included Likert-style items designed to collect personal perceptions and viewpoints on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=5). The items were grouped according to three concentrated areas: online teaching strategies, use of Web 2.0, and electronic portfolios. The survey addressed three major statements with several sub-statements focused upon Web 2.0 tool uses (5 questions), online teaching strategies (7 questions), and electronic portfolio usage (6 questions). A third section of the pilot survey was composed of open-ended items permitting qualitative responses. The SPSS software was used to conduct a Cronbach's α (alpha) test to assess internal consistency of the Likert-style items. Generally, Cronbach's alpha will increase as inter-correlations between test items increases, so it is often termed an internal consistency predictor of test score reliability (Leech, Barrett, & Morgan, 2005). The Cronbach's alpha for the 5 questions related to Web 2.0 tools was excellent ( α = 0.908). The 7 questions related to online teaching strategies appeared to be good (α = 0.848). The 6 questions about electronic portfolios were poor (α = 0.590). As a result of the Cronbach's alpha results, the electronic portfolio items were modied, leadership and technology professional development items were added, and the survey was again piloted. The subsequent pilot survey was administered to a dierent set of persons (N =25) representative of the Educational Technology Leadership Master's program who served in technical assistant or program participant roles, but were not ETL graduates. Moreover, eld experts which included university professors and education professionals, provided feedback regarding the instrument construction. Minor revisions were made to clarify the items. Then using SurveyMonkey, the revised (third) online survey was electronically distributed to 271 ETL graduates. Respondents were permitted to respond anonymously to the Likert items and open-ended responses. In addition to collecting quantitative and qualitative survey data from a pool of 271 ETL program graduates, 60 graduates' electronic portfolios were purposefully selected and examined. The 60 electronic portfolios were representative of graduates who completed the program during the same timeframe as the 271 ETL graduate data pool. The graduates' electronic portfolios were a collection of artifacts and reections gathered throughout the program coursework. Graduates' writing and electronic portfolio components were analyzed to obtain qualitative data regarding viewpoints and perceptions about online learning, Web 2.0 tools, technology professional development, and leadership. Specic sub-research questions were developed to guide an issue-focused analysis of the data. An issue-focused description generally moved from one discussion of the issue to that within another area, but indicated ways the issues were connected to each other (Weiss, 1994). The main qualitative focused issue was related to what graduates say about the eectiveness of the ETL master's program to advance personal leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development and whether there was of evidence of transference into PK-12

207 199 schools. The 60 graduates' electronic portfolios were coded related to leadership in the following three major categories: online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development. Then the categories were sorted to reveal key elements associated with the graduates' work sampling such as personal leadership roles, online learning, technology tools, and professional development. Lastly, the identied key qualitative elements were incorporated with the quantitative data, thereby indicating program outcome eectiveness Participants and Data Collection The population for this convergent mixed methods research study was 289 graduates of an online Educational Technology Leadership master's degree program employed in PK-12 school settings. All graduates were invited to complete a web-based survey created and distributed through SurveyMonkey. Of the 289 graduates in the participant pool, sixteen graduates' addresses were invalid and two individuals were no longer employed in a PK-12 school environment. Consequently, there was a possibility for 271 graduates to participate in the survey. Of the 271 potential contributors, 110 graduates responded to the online survey (41%). Both quantitative Likert-style and qualitative open-ended items were included in the electronic survey for which each respondent was permitted anonymous submission. Additional qualitative data was collected through examination of 60 graduates' electronic portfolios. Each work sample, purposefully selected and examined, were representative of graduates who completed the ETL master's program during the same timeframe as 271 ETL graduates included in the population for this study. The electronic portfolio was a collection of artifacts and reections gathered throughout the program coursework Delimitations/Limitations The selected communication method was one delimitation of the study. Educational Technology Leadership graduates were contacted twice to complete the online survey through SurveyMonkey using the addresses on le in the university's student registration system. Consequently, some potential recipients may not have regularly logged in to read or respond to messages stored in that specic account. A second delimitation was related to the population selected for the study. The program graduates were to be employed in PK-12 school settings, thus two opted out of the study because of employment outside of PK-12 educational environments. The third delimitation was associated with the two week timeline for which the online survey was accessible. Some potential contributors may not have been available to respond during the survey activation timeframe; therefore, those individuals could not participate. One limitation to the study was related to the participation in the survey. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymity was permitted, therefore, it reduced opportunities for potential follow-up communication. A second limitation associated with the survey pertained to the use of online survey formats. Although, the respondents were graduates of an Educational Technology Leadership master's degree, there was the potential for varied understanding of access and usage regarding online survey formats. The third and forth limitations were associated with the targeted population. Data was collected only from program completers following graduation and the research participants could have been biased to some of the survey topics Data Analysis and Findings The purpose of this study was to examine the eectiveness of an online Educational Technology Leadership (ETL) master's program to advance graduates' leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development in PK-12 schools. The overarching research question for the study was: Does the online Educational Technology Leadership master's program advance graduates' leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development in PK-12 schools? Assumptions were developed to analyze quantitative research data and sub-research questions guided the qualitative data analysis. A convergent mixed methods research design was selected for this study. The survey and open-ended questions were completed by 110 of the 271 possible participants (41%). Additionally,

208 200 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT a purposeful sample of 60 graduates' electronic portfolios were selected and examined to obtain additional qualitative data Quantitative An online survey was developed and electronically distributed through SurveyMonkey to 271 ETL graduates using addresses stored in the university's registration database. Demographic information was collected in the rst portion. The second part included Likert-style items designed to collect personal perceptions and viewpoints on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=5) regarding the personal use and implementation of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development in PK-12 schools. The Likert items were completed by 110 of the 271 possible participants (41%) and respondents were permitted to respond anonymous. Survey respondents were represented by 16.4% (n=18) males and 83.6% (n=92) females. Table 1 indicates the population age ranges and percentages in each category and Table 2 identies the ethnicities characterized by the respondents. Graduate participants represented six states in the United States: Texas (92.7%), Alabama (.9%), California (.9%), Kentucky (.9%), Louisiana (2.7%), and Ohio (.9%). Additionally, one respondent was from an international setting (.9%). The respondent job roles included the following represented areas: PKelementary school classroom teachers (33.6%), middle school classroom teachers (15.5%), high school classroom teachers (20.9%), PK-elementary school non-classroom sta (3.6%), middle school non-classroom sta (3.6%), high school non-classroom sta (6.4%), and PK-23 district oce sta (17.3%). Table 3 shows the years of teaching experience represented by the respondents.

209 201 The Likert-style item responses were grouped and analyzed based upon assumption statements associated with personal use and implementation of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development in PK-12 schools. For the purpose of this study, an item response of not sure (=3) was considered a negative response as well as disagree (=2) and strongly disagree (=1). Positive responses were represented by answer choices of agree (=4) and strongly agree (=5). Respondents were grouped in job related categories and two data sets were formed. Data set one (Classroom Teachers) represented participants presently teaching in PK-12 classrooms and data set two (Non-Classroom Sta) included PK-12 sta working primarily in support roles such as technology facilitators, librarians, and curriculum coordinators within PK-12 school environments. Online learning. Tables 4 through Tables 9 display the data collected regarding Assumptions 1 through 11.

210 202 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

211 203

212 204 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Web 2.0 tools. Table 10 and Figures 1, 2, and 3 display the data collected regarding Assumptions 12 through 14. Figure 1 Data Set One and Data Set Two for Assumption 12

213 205 Figure 2 Summary of Responses for Assumption 13 Figure 3 Summary of Responses for Assumption 14

214 206 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Technology professional development. regarding Assumptions 15 through 17. Table 11 through Table 16 indicate the data collected

215 207

216 208 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

217 Qualitative The open-ended survey questions were completed by 110 of the 271 possible participants (41%). Additionally, a purposeful sample of 60 graduates' electronic portfolios were selected and examined to obtain additional qualitative data. The 60 electronic portfolios were representative of graduates who completed the program during the same timeframe as the 271 ETL graduate data pool. The electronic portfolio was a collection of artifacts and reections gathered throughout the program coursework. Graduates' writing and electronic portfolio components were analyzed to obtain qualitative data regarding graduate's viewpoints and perceptions about online learning, Web 2.0 tools, technology professional development, and leadership. Specic sub-research questions were developed to guide an issue-focused analysis of the data. The main qualitative focused issue was related to what graduates say about the eectiveness of the ETL master's program to advance personal leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development and whether there was of evidence of transference into PK-12 schools. The 60 graduates' electronic portfolios were coded related to leadership in the following three major categories: online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development. Then the categories were sorted to reveal key elements associated with the graduates' work sampling such as personal leadership roles, online learning, technology tools, and professional development. Lastly, the identied key qualitative elements were incorporated with the quantitative data, thereby indicating program outcome eectiveness. Open-ended survey questions. Results of the open-ended question of the ETL graduates' survey relating to future leadership plans, showed that 43% of the ETL graduates responding wanted district technology positions while 18% preferred campus technology roles, and 12% wanted to pursue a doctorate degree to obtain a position at a university level. Only 10% of the respondents desired to remain as classroom teachers, 6% sought district positions other than technology while 5% wanted to become principals or assistant principals. An additional 5% preferred to move to corporate training or become independent consultants. Two percent of the graduates sought positions at regional education service centers. Synthesis of electronic portfolio reections. In this leadership study, the researchers gathered student reections from graduates' electronic portfolios completed in the last class of the master's program. The researchers selected a narrative rather than analytical approach to synthesize the ndings because

218 210 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT the majority of the reections could better be summarized and synthesized using a narrative approach. The 60 electronic portfolios were randomly selected from 271 graduates. Noteworthy statements related to the three sub-research questions were recorded for analysis. The sub-research questions related to the overarching research question were: 1) How does the online Educational Technology Leadership master's program advance graduates' leadership in the use of online learning? 2) How does the online Educational Technology Leadership master's program advance graduates' leadership in the use of Web 2.0 tools? 3) How does the online Educational Technology Leadership master's program advance graduates' leadership in the use of technology professional development? A review of the ETL electronic portfolios revealed common reections regarding the awareness of graduates' need for leadership in the use of online learning. Several students indicated online learning could meet specic needs for gifted, advanced placement, and homebound students. While other students discussed challenges to incorporating online learning into the traditional classroom. Furthermore, additional graduates mentioned using online learning for collaboration with teachers worldwide. Relating to the sub-research question of graduates' leadership in the use of Web 2.0 tools, graduates again emphasized personal growth and some initiation of using these tools with other educators and students. One graduate stated, My technology skills were expanded through the program learning activities with Web 2.0 tools. I have the capability to use both technology and leadership skills while working interactively and collaboratively toward to common goal. A district technology director and graduate of the master's program admitted, I have changed my ways and am much more open minded about emerging technologies especially Web 2.0 tools and their use in the classroom. Several statements were particularly signicant as a result of systematically analyzing qualitative data from the ETL graduates' electronic portfolio reections and work samples regarding the advancement of graduates' leadership in implementing new strategies for technology professional development. The graduates seemed to accept opportunities to lead other educators in technology professional development. One graduate shared, Teachers seek my support so often that it is dicult to meet their demands. This is one reason why I am so motivated to lead. The teachers I assist have given me the condence I have lacked. The technology leadership program has given me condence that I have needed to grow in my career. Another educational technology graduate said, As a result of my willingness to embrace new technologies, teachers began seeking help from me regarding technology Summary and Results In an eort to bring richer data and more viewpoints to the study, a convergent mixed methods research design was selected. As a result of analyzing the quantitative and qualitative datasets, a clearer understanding emerged of ETL graduate's leadership trends in online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development Quantitative Results from the quantitative survey item data indicated Educational Technology Leadership online program graduates exhibited leadership in the personal use and campus implementation of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development. The survey item content was closely aligned with the ETL online program curriculum components. Thus, survey item responses reected some graduate knowledge gained during the master's program and potentially contributed to transference of concepts into PK-12 school settings. Online learning. Data displayed in Tables 4 and 5 indicated the majority of ETL graduates agreed and strongly agreed online learning was implemented for PK-12 students in the school setting (55.5%) and district (73.6%). However, there was a discrepancy in viewpoint between classroom teachers and nonclassroom teachers as to the implementation of online learning for professional development for educators. Data set one (classroom teachers) rated both the implementation of online professional development at the school level (M =3.35) and district level (M =3.86) higher than data set two (non-classroom sta) at the school level (M=2.37) and at the district (M=3.96).

219 211 An examination of the data results in Tables 6 and 7 showed video tools were consistently rated high with respect to use in PK-12 teaching and for personal learning. However, although still a high rating, there was evidence of less use of collaborative tools in PK-12 teaching by the non-classroom sta (M=3.94) than by the classroom teachers (M=4.18). The data in Tables 8 and 9 indicated web conferencing as one of the areas least used for PK-12 student interactions. Non-classroom sta( M =3.9) rated the use of web conferences to interact with colleagues and for personal learning higher than classroom teachers ( M =2.7). Web 2.0 tools. Supporting PK-12 colleagues in the use of web 2.0 tools appeared to be highly supported by both data sets. A total of 93.6% of the respondents reported agreement or strong agreement with supporting fellow educators in the use of Web 2.0 tools in PK-12 school settings as displayed in Table 10 and Figure 1. An analysis of the Web 2.0 tools used with PK-12 students showed Google tools were used more frequently by graduates than other approaches. However, Web 2.0 tools such as Blogs, wikis (collaborative software), Prezi (presentation software), Wordle, and Animoto (video application) were implemented with PK-12 students by more than 40% of the respondents. For personal learning, again Google tools topped the list with 89.1% and close followers were Blogs (83.6%), wikis (80.9%), and discussion forums (71.8%). Reviewing the data in Figures 2 and 3, there appeared to be a discrepancy between the tools graduates used with PK-12 students from what was often utilized for adult personal learning. Technology professional development. The data displayed in Tables 11 and 12 indicated ETL graduates in non-classroom sta roles tended to strongly agree their perceived role included designing technologyembedded professional development at the school (78.8%) and district level (81.3%). However, the data showed classroom teachers seemed to perceive designing technology professional development school level (44.3%) and district level (18.4%) as a lesser part of their role. Furthermore, the classroom teachers rated that role lower on the Likert scale (M=2.79) than non-classroom sta (M=3.69). A low percentage of the respondents appeared to be involved in designing technology professional development for non-education work settings: classroom teachers (13.2%) and non-classroom sta (36.4%). Overall, a majority of ETL graduates (53.5%) denoted leading the design of PK-12 school-based technology professional development. Interestingly, the mean average for non-classroom sta was slightly higher related to designing district ( M =4.03) technology professional development when compared to school-based oerings ( M =3.69). An examination of Tables 13 and 14 showed classroom teachers (54.5%) tended to rate the implementation of technology-embedded professional development at the school level lower than non-classroom sta (84.4%). At the district level, non-classroom sta (87.9%) again rated the implementation of technology embedded professional development higher than classroom teachers (36.0%) as a perceived function of their role. Both data set one and two pointed to agreement with the implementation of technology-embedded professional development in non-education work environments (30.3%). There was a lower mean score of the district implementation of technology professional development by the classroom teachers ( M =2.48) than by the non-classroom sta (M =4.18). In reviewing Tables 15 and 16, more than 50% of the total ETL graduates reported they served on schoolbased technology related committees. Classroom teachers (M =2.94) seemed to rate their involvement slightly lower than non-classroom sta (M =3.00). Non-classroom sta (M =3.90) appeared to rate higher agreement with serving on district level committees than classroom sta ( M =2.48). Neither data set rated their role serving on non-education technology related committees as high as school or district committees Qualitative Results from the qualitative data indicated Educational Technology Leadership online program graduates exhibited leadership in the personal use and campus implementation of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development very similar to the quantitative results. The open-ended survey item content reected the PK-12 environment of the graduates giving more evidence which contributed to transference of concepts into PK-12 school settings. The synthesis of the electronic portfolio reections showed evidence of graduates' understanding the need for continued growth in the areas of online learning, the use of Web 2.0 tools, and in technology professional development. The open-ended survey item asking for future leadership plans of the 110 graduate respondents revealed that 73% of those responding wanted to pursue district, campus, or higher education positions. The remaining

220 212 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT graduates preferred to stay in the classroom or pursue other educational-related careers. The ndings from the qualitative data which came from graduates' electronic portfolio reections closely aligned with the ETL online program components. This study gave evidence of the graduates' understanding of the need for online learning, the use of Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development. However, the data were inconclusive regarding the ETL graduates' potential for leading initiation of these systemic programs within the PK-12 settings. Graduates did indicate they lead other educators particularly in the areas of using Web 2.0 tools and technology professional development Recommendations and Implications The research results indicated ETL online program graduates exhibited leadership in personal use and campus implementation of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development. Moreover, graduates expressed interest in expanded career options in leadership roles as administrators, district technology coordinators, and technology professional development providers. With respect to leadership with online learning, graduates frequently identied ways the online ETL master's program contributed to their personal knowledge base through creation of individualized and small group projects specically using Web 2.0 tools and video. These ndings substantiated Mendenhall's (2011) research noting the importance of documenting graduates' understandings and comprehension of program content. It is recommended that higher education faculty consider implementing or expanding the use of electronic portfolios as a documentation and assessment process to gain better familiarity with candidate knowledge and leadership potential. Picciano and Seaman (2009) indicated a steady increase in the use of online learning in PK-12 school settings and Christensen (2008) shared online instruction could be a catalyst for educational transformation. Graduate respondents of the ETL online master's program clearly supported the use of online learning in PK- 12 school and district settings. Furthermore, classroom teachers' personal experience with online learning appeared to contribute to the implementation of online learning with PK-12 students and non-classroom sta (technology facilitators, librarians, and curriculum coordinators) expressed greater condence with implementing district initiatives. Online professional development seemed to be less likely viewed as a focus of online learning in PK-12 settings. Higher education faculty should consider providing online professional development opportunities for graduates related to eective online teaching strategies and leadership to advance best practices for teaching in PK-12 online settings. These opportunities should include the use of web conferencing techniques to support PK-12 collaboration. The data provided substantial evidence that ETL graduates exhibit leadership skills in the personal use and implementation of Web 2.0 tools, but implementation practices with students in PK-12 were slightly lower. These results supported the work of Parker and Chao (2007) and Tapscott and Williams (2008) which indicated Web 2.0 was a relatively new paradigm for PK-12. Due to ltering restrictions and the technological environment in which PK-12 operated, ETL graduates found themselves leading the way with updating policies and procedures. Leaders in educational technology, higher education, and PK-12 should collaborate to share and publish examples of eective PK-12 implementation of Web 2.0 tools. In the emerging landscape of Web 2.0 in schools, indeed, these practices could serve as examples to school districts seeking to implement new Web 2.0 usages, but unaware of the benets and procedures to follow. The majority of ETL graduates noted leading the design and implementation of PK-12 school-based technology professional development to support teaching and learning. Specically, the graduates indicated leading professional development and supporting colleagues in the use of Web 2.0 tools was a priority. The individuals serving in non-classroom sta roles such as librarians, curriculum coordinators, or technology facilitators expressed leadership experience in design and implementation of similar technology professional development opportunities at the district level. It appeared these results supported the work of Creighton (2011) in that technology leaders should keep teaching and learning a focus while investigating new technologies. Furthermore, ETL graduates shared examples of ways to mentor and support colleagues with various levels of technology expertise. The data supported Carlson and Gadio (2002) by revealing the continued need for ongoing technology professional development for themselves as well as their colleagues. ETL faculty should maintain collaboration with and support for candidates beyond graduation to ensure transference of

221 213 program components into PK-12 environments. The ETL faculty should consider providing opportunities for ongoing collaboration, leadership development, and support for ETL graduates such as online professional development, web conferencing, Web 2.0 interactive sites, conference participation, presentations, and networking with individuals employed in leadership roles References Abdullahi, A. (2011). Student exam participation and performances in a web-enhanced traditional and hybrid allied health biology course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7 (4), Retrieved from Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. The Sloan Consortium, (2007). Online nation: ve years of growth in online learning. Retrieved from Allen, I. A., & Seaman, J. The Sloan Consortium, (2010). Learning on demand: online education in the United States, Babson Survey Research Group. Anderson, R., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and eect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41 (1), Ballek, K., O'Rourke, A., Provenzano, J., & Bellamy, T. (2005). Keys in cultivating principals and teacher leaders. National Sta Development Council Journal, 26 (2), Brown, R. (2011). Administration of technology: Teaching, learning, and resource management. In R. Papa (Ed.), Technology Leadership for School Improvement (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Carlson, S., & Gadio, C. T. (2002). Teacher professional development in the use of technology. In W.D. Christensen, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill. Creighton, T. (2011). Entreprenurial leadership for technology: An opposable mind. In R. Papa (Ed.), Technology Leadership for School Improvement (pp. 3-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Daugherty, R., Kelley, R., & Thornton, B. (2005). Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate. Education, 126, 17. Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., Lapointe, M., & Meyerson, D. 2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Dawley, L., Rice, K., &Hinck, G. (2010). Going virtual! 2010: The status of professional development and unique needs of K-12 online teachers.. White paper prepared for the North American Council for Online Learning. Washington, D.C. Dwyer, D. C., Ringsta, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1990). The evolution of teachers' instructional beliefs and practices in high-acess-to-technology classrooms. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Boston. DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R., Black, E., & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teaching k-12 online: Lessons learned from michigan virtual school teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(1), Retrieved from Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999) Examining teacher's beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. (2005). Exemplary teachers' adoption and use of tech-supported learner centered pedagogies. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Conference, Bloomington, IN. Flew, T. (2002). New media: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Glendinning, M. (2005). When teachers become administrators. National Association of Independent Schools, 64(2), Retrieved from

222 214 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Granger, D., & Benke, M. (1998). Supporting learners at a distance from inquiry through completion. In C.C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education, (pp ). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing. Haddad and A. Draxler (Eds), Technologies for education: Potentials, parameters, and prospects. Paris and Washington, DC: UNESCO and the Academy for Educational Development. Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Smythe, T. (2009). The 2009 horizon report: K-12 edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. 4. Knapp, M. S., Copland & M. A., Talbert, J. E. (2003, February). Leading for learning: Reective tools for school and district leaders (research report). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Kurtz, G., Beaudoin, M., & Sagee, R. (2004). From campus to web: The changing roles of faculty from classroom to online teaching. The Journal of Educators Online, 1(1), Ledesma, P. (2006). The technology specialist's dilemma: Computer repair technician or instructional leader? Virginia Society for Technology in Education Journal, 20(1), 3-8. Leech, N.L., Barrett, K. C., Morgan, G.A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. AERA, (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Retrieved from: Leithwood, K., Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership inuences student learning. Retrieved from: Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Garcia, L., Reifsneider, D., & Baas, J. (2009). Leadership for web 2.0 in education: Promise and reality. Culver City, CA: Metri Group. Martin, W., Hupert, N, Culp, K, Kanaya, T., & Light, D. (2003). Intel teach to the future summary of evaluation ndings. Center for Children and Technology, New York. Mendenhall, R. (2011). How technology can improve online learningand learning in general. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Online Learning, B23-B24. Retrieved from Mills, L.B. (2007). The next wave now: Web 2.0. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 73(4), 4-5. O'Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. J. (2004). Identifying teacher, school, and district characteristics associated with elementary teachers' use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48). Retrieved April 12, 2006 from Noel-Levitz, Inc., (2008). National online learners priorities report. Retrieved from Noel-Levitz website: OECD-CERI/ Pedró, F. (2009) New millennium learners in higher education: Evidence and policy implications. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) Directorate for Education, OECD. Retrieved from Olson, T., & Wisher, R. (2002). The eectiveness of web-based instruction: An initial inquiry. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(2). O'Reilly, Tim. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from Parker, K.R. & Chao., J.T. (2007) Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary journal of knowledge and learning objectives, 3, Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. (2009). The Sloan Consortium. K-12 online learning: A 2008 followup of the survey of U.S. school district administrators. Retrieved from Sloan Consortium Website: Podmostko, M. (2001, April). Leadership for student learning: Redening the teacher as leader. Retrieved from

223 215 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), Retrieved from %20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Rodriguez, G. (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for eective technology use. Retrieved from Russell, G. (2004). Virtual schools: A critical view. In C. Cavanaugh (Ed.), Development and management of virtual schools: Issues and trends (pp. 1-26). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Savery, J. R. (2005). Be vocal: Characteristics of successful online instructors. Journal of' Interactive Online Learning, 4(2), Sparks, D. (2045). The looming danger of a two-tiered professional development system. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), Tapscott, D., & Williams, A.D., (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration change everything. New York: Penguin Group. Wasley, P. (2006). Underrepresented Students Benet Most from Engagement. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(13), A Retrieved from WilsonWeb database. Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. Evergreen Group, (2010). Keep pace with k12 online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Retrieved from Web 1.0. (2008, November ). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from ipedia.org /w/index.php?tit le=web_1.0 &oldid= Weiss, R.S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art of and method of qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: The Free Press. 6.3 Examining Elements of Quality within Online Education Programs in Higher Education 14 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors 14 This content is available online at <

224 216 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Authors Dr. Kaye Shelton is an Associate Professor in the Center for Doctoral Studies in Educational Leadership at Lamar University. Previously a Dean of Online Education for Dallas Baptist University, she is a certied online instructor, teaching online since 1999, and also an online education consultant. She has published and presented numerous times on the subject of online education, including a book entitled An Administrator's Guide to Online Education. Her research interests include the creation of an online education program, best methods for teaching online, and the quality of online education programs. Dr. Jody Isernhagen is an Associate Professor in the Educational Administration Department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She has been a teacher, principal, Supervisor of Elementary Education, and Superintendent in prek-12 schools. Her interests are in instructional leadership, curriculum and instruction, school improvement, and student mentoring. Dr. Isernhagen is the author of three teacher resource books, two book chapters, and a number of journal articles focusing on leadership, teaching, and learning Introduction Clearly, the Internet has impacted and forever changed higher education in many ways, including the delivery of distance education. Before the arrival of the Internet, many institutions in higher education considered distance education an ancillary program or service for students, used correspondence or remote audio or video technologies, and often included it in continuing education programs. When course delivery using the Internet became an optioncreating the new phrase online educationit wasn't long before enrollments began to rapidly increase and online education became rmly entrenched within higher education. Numerous studies cite tremendous growth in online education, which is currently outpacing that of traditional higher education with the majority of accredited institutions now oering distance learning courses (Allen & Seaman, 2011; Parsad & Lewis, 2008). In fact, more than six million students were enrolled in an online course in 2011, which is almost a third of total students enrolled (Allen & Seaman, 2011). However, along with this tremendous growth were questions about the legitimate quality of online education programs including, What is the denition of quality higher education, and how does it translate to the traditional face-to-face format? In the early history of higher education, quality education was dened as a small group of elite students living together and learning under the guidance of a resident scholar. Later, quality was believed to primarily exist in those institutions that were expensive and highly exclusive (Daniel, Kanwar, & Uvalic-Trumbic, 2009). In the last few decades, quality has evolved to include accrediting bodies, and, for some, rankings in popular news magazines. However, the assurance of quality for higher education institutions in the United States has been addressed primarily by the regional accreditors (i.e., Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, etc.) and discipline-specic accreditation organizations such as the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) for business programs, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) for education programs and teacher certication, and various others. The regional accreditors emphasize a review process with an institution's self-study report, demonstrating that established standards (e.g., faculty credentials, nancial

225 217 performance, student satisfaction, and the achievement of learner outcomes) have been met. Yet in spite of the accreditation process, public scrutiny of higher education is greater than ever before (Wergin, 2005). Because of this, many institutions are nding that their standard processes for quality assurance are now inadequate and, often, not a continuous process for improvement (Dill, 2000). With the establishment of the Spellings Commission in 2005, the federal government became more heavily involved in institutional accountability. Institutions are being asked to provide more transparent evidence of student achievement and institutional performance, to establish methods for comparing to and benchmarking against other institutions, and to establish threshold levels for learning standards (Eaton, 2007). Because of the changing landscape and increased call for accountability, higher education is now being challenged to reconceptualize methods and processes used to indicate quality and excellence, including those used for assessing and evaluating programs delivered online. It has been said that delivering higher education online provides tremendous potential for the institution (Shelton & Saltsman, 2005). However, it is highly subject to suspicion and criticism (Casey, 2008). Therefore, online education programs must be diligent in demonstrating quality higher education to both its constituents and accreditors Quality Evaluation for Online Education Programs Meyer (2002) reminds us that quality higher education is a complex and dicult concept, one that depends on a range of factors arising from the student, the curriculum, the instructional design, technology used, [and] faculty characteristics (p. 101). While the total concept of quality for all program elements may be dicult to grasp, it is not an excuse to ignore the need for assessing and demonstrating quality online education. Moreover, if enrollment growth continues as expected, the demand for quality will only increase (Cavanaugh, 2002). According to the literature, various opinions exist for evaluating the quality of online education. For example, Lee and Dziuban (2002) suggested that the overall success of online education greatly depends upon the quality evaluation strategies integrated within the program. In a 2003 article, Benson explored the dierent meanings of quality that stakeholders brought to the table when planning an online degree program. She found the following perceptions of quality were resonant with stakeholders: quality is overcoming the stigma associated with online learning; quality is accreditation; quality is an ecient and eective course development process; and quality is eective pedagogy. After paralleling the demise of some online education programs created as stand-alone units to the dotcom bust in 2000, Shelton and Saltsman (2004) postulated that the mark of quality for an online education program is not its growth rate but the combination of retention rate, academic outcomes, and success in online student and faculty support. Husman and Miller (2001) argued, after their study of program administrators, administrators perceive quality to be based almost exclusively in the performance of faculty (para. 17). Online education has been heavily critiqued and compared to traditional teaching since its emergence as an instructional technique, with veiled suggestions of inadequacies and low quality. Responding to those suggestions, various approaches found in the literature propose guidelines for evaluating quality online education programs. After reviewing those approaches, this chapter provides a framework for evaluating quality online education programs. Presented in chronological order of their appearance in the literature, the articles and studies examined here best represent the processes available to dene and evaluate the quality of online education programs Existing Frameworks for Evaluating the Quality of Online Education Programs Presented in chronological order of their appearance in the literature, thirteen articles and studies examined here best represent the processes available to dene and evaluate the quality of online education programs. Table 1 provides the frameworks for quality online education examined for this review. Table 1. Existing Frameworks for Evaluating Quality of Online Education Programs

226 218 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The 24 benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. In their report, Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for Success in Internet-Based Distance Education (2000), The Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) identied 24 benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education that were individual quality indicators chosen as absolutely essential by various respected online education leaders of higher education institutions from an original 45 indicators determined through a literature search. While the study called each indicator a benchmark, in reality, they are attributes of online education programs to indicate overall quality; they are not measureable against other institutional results. However, the study sought to prove that distance learning can be quality learning (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2000, p. vii). Considered foundational to quality distance learning, IHEP's research categorized the 24 quality indicators into seven themes: (1) Institutional Support; (2) Course Development; (3) Teaching and Learning; (4)

227 219 Course Structure; (5) Student Support; (6) Faculty Support; and (7) Evaluation and Assessment. Within the Institutional Support (1) theme, the rst indicator prescribes a documented technology plan [in place] that includes electronic security measures to ensure both quality standards and the integrity and validity of information (IHEP, 2000, p. 2). This theme includes reliability of the technology infrastructure and assurance that support is maintained for continued growth. The Course Development (2) theme determines if guidelines are in place for the development of quality online course materials. Online course materials should engage the learner, encourage critical thinking, and undergo periodic revision. The Teaching and Learning (3) theme stipulates that interaction must occur during the teaching and learning process between student-instructor, and student-student. Additionally, timely and constructive feedback should be provided. The Course Structure (4) theme addresses the quality of information provided to a student prior to enrollment in an online class, such as a student readiness indicator and course objectives. Included in this theme was a provision of library resources for online students, required by all regional accrediting bodies. The Student Support (5) theme considers the kind of information students receive about the program, admission requirements, proctoring requirements, and whether all services available to traditional students are also made available to online students. It is recommended that online programs have a repository of resource materials online so that students can be successful in the program. The Faculty Support (6) theme identies resources provided to faculty for developing and teaching an online course. Faculty also need clear policies, a support structure, training, and mentoring. The nal theme, Evaluation and Assessment (7) examines if or how the online education program is being evaluated and what policies and procedures are in place for supporting an evaluation process. This theme recommends that data on enrollment, costs, and successful/innovative uses of technology should be reviewed to evaluate program eectiveness. Learning outcomes should be assessed and evaluated for clarity and appropriateness to support continued improvement. ACTIONS model of quality. To evaluate instructional technologies in education, Tony Bates (2000) coined the acronym ACTIONS: Access and exibility, Costs, Teaching and learning, Interactivity and user friendliness, Organizational issues, Novelty, and Speed. Although the ACTIONS model was designed to help with the selection of instructional technologies, the model may be used to evaluate distance learning programs as each of these themes can be applied to online education programs. Bates' ACTIONS model was one of the rst to address cost factors, which aect both the institution and the student. Best practices for electronically oered degree and certicate programs. One of the rst attempts to identify and assess quality in online education was developed by the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (WCET) in A second report, developed in 2001 along with the regional accrediting bodies, Best Practices for Electronically Oered Degree and Certicate Programs, expanded the prior report into ve categories instead of three: (1) Institutional Context and Commitment, (2) Curriculum and Instruction, (3) Faculty Support, (4) Student Support, and (5) Evaluation and Assessment (WCET, 2001). In the prior report, faculty support and student support were considered subsets of the institutional context and commitment category. The WCET standards developed in 2001 were not created as an evaluation instrument; the standards demonstrate how basic principles of institutional quality already in place according to accreditation boards would apply to distance learning programs (WCET, 2001). The 2001 report is still frequently cited as a guide for indicating quality within online education programs. Eight dimensions of e-learning framework. Badrul Khan (2001) examined the critical dimensions necessary for quality learning online and found eight primary categories: institutional, management, technological, pedagogical, ethical, interface design, resource support, and evaluation. Each dimension, presented in Table 2, is integral to a systems approach for evaluating quality. According to Khan, this comprehensive model may also be used for strategic planning and program improvement. Table 2. Khan's Eight Dimensions of E-Learning Framework

228 220 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT note: Reprinted from Managing e-learning: Design, delivery, implementation, and evaluation (p. 15) by B. Kahn, 2005, Hershey, PA: IGI-Global. Copyright 2005 by IGI-Global. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. Quality standards in e-learning. Frydenberg (2002) summarized existing quality standards for online education in the United States and found the following themes most common in the literature: institutional and executive commitment; technological infrastructure; student services; instructional design and course development; instruction and instructors; program delivery; nancial health; legal and regulatory compliance; and program evaluation. She observed the institutional and executive commitment theme to be one of the most common in the literature, and evaluation of a program to be the least written about, since at that time, few fully developed programs have arrived at a stage where summative evaluation is possible (p. 13). Five pillars of quality. The Sloan Consortium, an organization dedicated to improving the quality of online education, identied Five Pillars of Quality Online Education (Lorenzo & Moore, 2002) as building blocks for quality online learning: Learning Eectiveness; Student Satisfaction; Faculty Satisfaction; Scale; and Access. The Learning Eectiveness pillar requires a commitment to providing students with high quality education at least equivalent to that of traditional students which includes interactivity, pedagogy, instructional design, and learning outcomes. In fact, the Learning Eectiveness pillar places a priority on learning activities because of student interactivity with the instructor, and creating a learning environment of inquiry (Lorenzo & Moore, 2002). The Student Satisfaction pillar focuses on the experience of the student by providing

229 221 necessary support services such as advising and counseling and opportunities for peer interaction. It also examines student satisfaction with what and how they learned in either the online course or overall program. The Faculty Satisfaction pillar examines the support and resources needed for faculty to have a positive experience while teaching online. According to the Moore (2002), Faculty satisfaction is enhanced when the institution supports faculty members with a robust and well-maintained technical infrastructure, training in online instructional skills, and ongoing technical and administrative assistance (p. 58). The Scale pillar, originally entitled Cost Eectiveness, focuses on the cost eectiveness and capacity of programs so that quality learning is oered as an educational value to students. They believe an institution should monitor costs to keep tuition as low as possible while providing a quality educational experience for both students and faculty. Strategies for quality improvement were also addressed in the Scale pillar. The Access pillar assures that students have full access to the learning materials and services they need throughout their online degree program, including support for disabilities and online readiness assessment. This pillar also examines barriers that may be in the way of online students having access to all resources necessary to achieve success. Quality assurance strategy. Lee and Dziuban (2002) believed there were ve primary components for evaluating quality within online education: (1) administrative leadership and support, (2) ongoing program concerns, (3) web course development, (4) student concerns, and (5) faculty support. Structured around the University of Central Florida's online programs (Lee & Dziuban, 2002), their Quality Assurance Strategy (QAS) maintained the importance of administrative support and leadership for resources, training, and evaluation. They recommended that online programs be extensively planned through discussion, evaluation, and analysis, which is crucial to the overall success of the program. Assessment model. Lockhart and Lacy (2002) worked with faculty and administrators at several national conference meetings to develop a model that consisted of seven components needed to evaluate online education: (1) institutional readiness/administration (budgets, priority and management); (2) faculty services (support, outcome measurement, and training eectiveness); (3) instructional design/course usability (technology must be user friendly and accessible); (4) student readiness (assessment for student readiness and preparation); (5) student services (eectiveness of provided services); (6) learning outcomes (measurement of learning outcomes); and (7) retention (comparing rates to face-to-face delivery and enrollment monitoring). Focusing on data collection and analysis, they suggested further surveys were needed in the areas of faculty support, training, and student support. They also recommended that student grades and retention rates be examined as well as results of online learning outcomes. Finally, they challenged higher education to understand how important it is for institutions to plan, evaluate, and then revise programs based upon assessment results rather than just being another institution to deliver classes at a distance (p. 104). Accreditation and quality assurance. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) (2002) examined 17 institutional accreditors recognized by the United States Department of Education (USDE) or the CHEA. Each reviewed distance learning programs within their constituency which resulted in what they believed to be the seven key areas for assuring the quality of distance learning programs: 1. Institutional Mission: Does oering distance learning make sense in this institution? 2. Institutional Organizational Structure: Is the institution suitably structured to oer quality distance learning? 3. Institutional Resources: Does the institution sustain adequate nancing to oer quality distance learning? 4. Curriculum and Instruction: Does the institution have appropriate curricula and design of instruction to oer quality distance learning? 5. Faculty Support: Are faculty competently engaged in oering distance learning and do they have adequate resources, facilities, and equipment? 6. Student Support: Do students have needed counseling, advising, equipment, facilities, and instructional materials to pursue distance learning? 7. Student Learning Outcomes: Does the institution routinely evaluate the quality of distance learning based on evidence of student achievement? (p. 7)

230 222 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT The CHEA report (2002) described three challenges that must be addressed for assuring the quality of online education programs: the alternative design of instruction, the abundance of alternative providers of higher education, and an expanded focus on training. Concentric support model. Osika (2004) developed a concentric model for supporting online education programs using seven themes: faculty support, student support, content support, course management system support, technology support, program support, and community support. She validated this model with a panel of experts that consisted of administrators and those with various roles in online education programs including faculty and sta members. Assessment recommendations. Moore and Kearsley (2005) postulated that while everyone within the institution has a role to play in quality education, they believed senior administrators should be responsible for measurement and quality improvements. While they did not oer a prescriptive plan for evaluation, they suggested assessment of the following areas: the number and quality of applications and enrollments; student achievement; student satisfaction; faculty satisfaction; program or institutional reputation; and the quality of course materials. Sixfactor solution. Haro and Valentine (2006) surveyed adult educators and found six dimensions they believed to be important to program quality: (1) quality of instruction, (2) quality of administrative recognition, (3) quality of advisement, (4) quality of technical support, (5) quality of advance information, and (6) quality of course evaluation. It is interesting to note their inclusion of student advisement, which has not been heavily identied as a quality indicator in previous literature. They suggested a qualitative study be used to triangulate their results. The Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Education Programs. The most recent study for quality online education is The Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Education Programs developed by Shelton in A six round Delphi study was undertaken with 43 seasoned administrators of online education programs, with the majority of experts having more than nine years of experience in this eld. Through a six month research process, they came to consensus on a list of 70 quality indicators that administrators should examine within their programs to evaluate quality. The original set of 24 benchmarks from the IHEP, Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for Success in Internet-Based Distance Education (2000) were used as a starting point and almost all were determined to still be valid in 2010, with modications. The 70 quality indicators were categorized into nine categories: (1) Institutional Support, (2) Technology Support, (3) Course Development and Instructional Design, (4) Course Structure, (5) Teaching and Learning, (6) Social and Student Engagement, (7) Faculty Support, (8) Student Support, and (9) Evaluation and Assessment. The study's expert panel suggested a method for quantifying the program evaluation by allowing up to three points for each indicator within each category (0 points - not observed, 1 point - insucient, 2 points - moderate use, 3 points - completely meets criteria), depending on the level of existence each quality indicator can be demonstrated by the program administrator. A perfect score would equal 210 points. The study resulted in a quality scorecard for the administration of online education programs that administrators may use to identify areas within the online program that demonstrate excellence or are in need of improvement (see Table 3). Table 3. Summary of The Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Education Programs

231 223 Because the Sloan Consortium was a gatekeeper in the research study, they oer the Quality Scorecard on their institutional website so that administrators of online education programs may freely use the scorecard tool to demonstrate program evaluation. In an ancillary handbook (published by the Sloan Consortium), each of the 70 quality indicators are dened with more depth and examples; and best practices are provided to better demonstrate the level of quality that may be reached with each indicator. It is important to note that all 70 of the quality indicators on the scorecard fall within the Sloan Consortium's original Five Pillars of Quality (Learning Eectiveness; Student Satisfaction; Faculty Satisfaction; Scale; and Access) Quality Framework Comparison The 13 dierent articles and studies presented in this review of quality evaluation for online education programs have many commonalities among their suggested frameworks. The Institutional Commitment,

232 224 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Support, and Leadership themes were by far, the most cited when determining standards for online education programs. At least 12 of the 13 frameworks examined pointed toward the Institutional Commitment, Support, and Leadership themes as being a primary indicator of quality. Teaching and Learning was the second most cited theme for indicating quality. However, the literature as a whole has focused on the quality of teaching and pedagogy far more than that of program quality. Early in the literature, most authors wrote about overall design of the course and the experience of online teaching since individual courses moved online before complete programs. Faculty Support, Assessment and Evaluation, and the Course Development themes were the third most cited in the analyzed frameworks, with these being identied by ten of those examined. For success in teaching online, faculty require strong and ongoing support, training, motivation, compensation, and policy development. Institutional support should also be available for online course development and for keeping materials updated and current with instructional design support being provided. In addition, almost all of the reviewed frameworks recommend, that assessment and evaluation strategies continuously examine learning outcomes, student retention, and satisfaction. Student Support was found in 9 of the 13 frameworks. This is an important area to evaluate, as online students require the same support services as traditional students; however, it is often more challenging to nd ways to deliver those services and support in an online environment. Technology Support was identied in only 5 of the 13 frameworks reviewed. This is interesting to note since technology is foundational to the infrastructure of online education and should be considered a critical component to quality and success. Financial considerations were only identied four times in the frameworks. Various indicators, such as advising, government and regulatory guidelines, and user friendliness, were suggested once each. The Quality Scorecard appears to have captured all of the previously recommended frameworks, in one form or another except for a specic reference to cost analysis Conclusions and Recommendations This review of the existing frameworks identies many common elements cited as important elements for identifying the quality of online education programs. Of course, specic indicators may vary from institution to institution; however, this review found the most common themes and domains identied today by program administrators that will assist them with evaluating and improving the overall quality of their programs. While some of the themes were strongly considered to be signicant quality indicators such as institutional support and commitment, others, such as nancial considerations, were not. Quality is a perception that varies within industries, including that of higher education whose traditional indicators for quality are changing. In fact, Pond (2002) observed, "It is quite clear that education in the 21st century presents challenges to quality assurance that were unimaginable just a quarter century ago. E-learning in particular, with its ability to render time and place irrelevant, requires that we abandon traditional indicators of quality such as contact hours, library holdings, and physical attendance among others in favor of more meaningful measures." (para. 11) Higher education needs to agree upon a method for identifying and assessing quality within online education programs that could provide a way to benchmark and oer a path to improvement. The assessment of quality online education has never been more important as erce competition from for-prot programs as well as many non-prots programs continues to increase and students all over the world are clicking to nd a respectable degree program. Quality in education really does matter as the ultimate impact is the need for our students to be prepared for a world that is technologically more advanced than the world that we currently live within References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

233 Benson, A. D. (2003). Dimensions of quality in online degree programs. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), doi: /S AJDE1703_2 Bourne, J., & Moore, J. (Eds.). (2002). Elements of quality in online education (Vol. 3). Needham, MA: Sloan-Consortium. Casey, D. M. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance education through technology. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52 (2), Cavanaugh, C. (2002). Distance education quality: Success factors for resources, practices and results. In R. Discenza, C. D. Howard, & K. Schenk (Eds.), The design & management of eective distance learning programs (pp ). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002). Accreditation and assuring quality in distance learning. CHEA Monograph Series 2002 (Vol. 1). Washington DC: Author. Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalic-Trumbic, S. (2009). Breaking higher education's iron triangle: Access, cost and quality. Change, 41(2), doi: /CHNG Dill, D. D. (2000). Is there an academic audit in your future? Reforming quality assurance in U.S. higher education. Change, 32(4), doi: / Eaton, J. (2007). Institutions, accreditors, and the federal government: Redening their appropriate relationship. Change, 35(5), doi: /CHNG Frydenberg, J. (2002). Quality standards in e-learning: A matrix of analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3 (2). Haro, P. A., & Valentine, T. (2006). Dimensions of program quality in web-based adult education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20 (1), doi: /s ajde2001_2 Husman, D. E., & Miller, M. T. (2001). Improving distance education: Perceptions of program administrators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, IV (III). Retrieved from distance/ojdla/fall43/husmann43.html Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internetbased distance education. Washington, DC: Author. Khan, B. (2001). A framework for web-based learning. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training (pp ). Englewood Clis, NJ: Educational Technology. Khan, B. (2005). Managing e-learning: Design, delivery, implementation, and evaluation. Hershey, PA: IGI-Global. Kuh, G. D., & Pascarella, E. T. (2004). What does institutional selectivity tell us about educational quality? Change, 36(5), doi: / Lee, J., & Dziuban, C. (2002). Using quality assurance strategies for online programs. Educational Technology Review, 10(2), Lockhart, M., & Lacy, K. (2002). As assessment model and methods for evaluating distance education programs. Perspectives, 6(4), doi: / Lorenzo, G., & Moore, J. C. (2002). The Sloan Consortium report to the Nation: Five pillars of quality online education. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from Meyer, K. A. (2002). Quality in distance education: Focus on on-line learning. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Moore, J. C. (2002). Elements of quality: The Sloan-C framework. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth. Osika, E. R. (2004). The Concentric Support Model: A model for the planning and evaluation of distance learning programs (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No ) Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education. Retrieved from 225

234 226 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Pond, W. K. (2002). Distributed education in the 21st century: Implications for quality assurance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administrators, V (II). Retrieved from distance/ojdla/summer52/pond52.pdf Shelton, K. (2010). A quality scorecard for the administration of online education programs: A Delphi Study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14 (4), Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2004). The dotcom bust: A postmortem lesson for online education. Distance Learning, 1(1), Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2005). An administrator's guide to online education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Wergin, J. F. (2005). Higher education: Waking up to the importance of accreditation. Change, 37(3), Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications. (2001). Best practices for electronically oered degree and certicate programs. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). 6.4 Online Student Satisfaction 15 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech 15 This content is available online at <

235 227 About the Author Dr. Pauline M. Sampson, associate professor and superintendent program coordinator at Stephen F. Austin State University has 27 years of experience in public education as teacher, consultant, principal, special education director, and superintendent. She has authored 28 articles and 2 books with her research interests on eective schools and women leadership Introduction Student satisfaction is an espoused factor when evaluating online courses. The role of student satisfaction in the future course development of leaders in educational leadership preparation programs has multiple implications. As a result, various factors and denitions of student satisfaction have been used to aid instructors in developing online courses where students can learn to be successful educational leaders. Due to the emerging connections between competitive markets oering online courses and the increasing number of students taking online courses, the ability to incorporate student satisfaction may lead to the sustainability of an educational leadership program at a given university. The growth of online course enrollments grew by ten percent during the last academic school year (Kolowich, 2011). Additionally, open resources such as Connexions and Saylor.org are increasingly being met with an openness from faculty (Kolowich, 2011). Some of the advocates of open resources suggest that this openness may be due to the perceived potential cost savings. College administrators and faculty have shifted the delivery of educational leadership courses because of this market competition which is driven by the demands of the students for exibility and convenience for the opportunity to take courses. One of the more prevalent surveys of online courses that has been conducted over the last ten years is by Sloan Consortium. This survey is conducted yearly in conjunction with the Babson Research Group, the College Board, and the Sloan Consortium. The survey looks at a comparison of retention rate for students in online courses and traditional courses, course learning outcomes, faculty training and acceptance of online teaching, and economic impacts of online courses. The ndings from this survey provide a look at these factors over ten years. It is hypothesized that faculty need to understand student satisfaction in order to design quality instruction that meets the market demand for convenience of instruction, such as is oered in online course delivery. Within student satisfaction of online courses then leads to the need for a way to dene satisfaction that is relevant to educational leadership courses in order to create courses that are benecial. As such, the term student satisfaction is presented as a common denition, background of online courses, purpose for understanding student satisfaction of online courses, and then followed by factors researched in connection with student satisfaction of online courses Denition of Satisfaction One source gives the denition of satisfaction as, the contentment one feels when one has fullled a desire, need, or expectation ( 16 ). Another source denes it as, the fulllment or gratication of a desire, need, or appetite. (The American Heritage Dictionary, 1982). Students that are satised with an online course could indicate that the course fullls their desire to be an educational leader and/or meets their expectations for a course. The dening of student satisfaction is multi-faceted and some researchers have used students' reported intent to take another online course upon the completion of one course (Robinson, 2008). The examination of student satisfaction for online course rst requires an understanding of how satisfaction is dened by researchers. Some of the areas used when examining satisfaction in the research are: (1) components of instruction, such as teachers' interactions and support with feedback (Abdulla, 2004; Bouras, 2009; Cameron, Morgan, Williams, & Kostelecky, 2009;Evans, 2009; Kane, 2004; Herbert, 2006; Ortiz-Rodriques, et al., 2005; Palmer & Holt, 2009; Shea, Pickett, & Pelz, 2003; Wyatt, 2005); (2) students' interactions and support of each other (Baglione & Nastanski, 2007; Bouras, 2009; Evans, 2009; Ortiz-Rodriques, et al., 2005; Osika, 2006; Palmer & Holt, 2009); (3) student services, such as admission and 16

236 228 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT nancial aid (Waters, 2007; Woods, 2008); (4) active student engagement in learning (Cameron, Morgan, Williams, & Kostelecky, 2009); (5) rigor and relevancy of material and instruction (Aman, 2009; Cameron, et al, 2009; Sampson, Leonard, Ballenger, & Coleman, 2010); (6) students' perceptions of their own performance (Aman, 2009; Palmer & Holt, 2009; Richardson & Swan, 2008); (7) students' understanding of course evaluations and their self condence for learning and communicating in an online course (Palmer & Holt, 2009); (8) technology issues (Abudulla, 2004; Aman, 2009; Bailey, 2008; Kane, 2004; Williams, 2000); (9) assessment (Aman, 2009); and (10) institutional issues such as student support of technology and ease of the management system for the online course (Folkers, 2005; Kane, 2004; Mandernach, 2005; Osika, 2006; Tallent-Runnels, et al., 2006). The above list of factors are all used in dening and understanding student satisfaction, thus leading to a multi-faceted denition of student satisfaction of coursework whether online or traditional face-to-face courses. Keller (1983) stated that student satisfaction relates to the perceptions of being able to achieve success and feelings about the achieved outcomes. It is the changing face of student satisfaction that has driven the progress of online courses throughout the years Background In 1953, the University of Houston oered college credit course by distance education using the public television station. The courses aired on the public station in the evening for convenience of students. The 1990s became the most prevalent decade for the initial appearance of our current online education as the internet and technology advanced and became more accessible to the public (Preparing for your online education, 2011). This history of distance education has a long connection with our current online courses. As the needs of students have changed over the years, so has course delivery. It is the students' satisfaction that has driven this change Purpose Student satisfaction is congruent with denitions focused on meeting students' expectations and needs, and/or fullling their desire. This denition meets specically the use with college students in educational leadership. Further, the factors that have been used to examine and understand student satisfaction with online courses in educational leadership include satisfaction with administrative services, instructional course design and delivery, instructor interactions and feedback, student interactions, and student demographics, characteristics, and preferences. To understand student satisfaction with online courses, the primary importance is increasing the knowledge base for current research in all of these areas that have been related to student satisfaction (Sampson, et al., 2010; Tallent-Runnels, et al., 2006). For this reason, student satisfaction is regarded as a multi-faceted model of online course satisfaction. Indeed, student satisfaction has played a prominent role in shaping the course design of educational leadership initiatives in colleges and universities. In order to discuss student satisfaction with online courses, there needs to be an understanding of how to determine the satisfaction. Some researchers have divided components of online delivery to course environment, student outcomes, student demographics, and institutional factors. Online course oering continue to grow as well as the number of students taking online courses (Kolowich, 2011). Even though the numbers of student taking online courses has increased, the majority of faculty don't rate the online courses as high as the traditional face-to-face courses with a common reason as lower student-to-student communication (Kolowich, 2011) Factors of Student Satisfaction Many factors can be studied when examining and understanding student satisfaction with online courses. Some of these factors include technology issues, quality instruction such as curriculum and course design, administrative issues such as student services and nancial aid, teacher interactions with support and feedback, the learning outcomes, resource materials, exibility, student connections and collaborations with each other, and assessments (Tallent-Runnels, et al., 2006). While another researcher might use a simple format

237 229 such as students stating that they intend to take another online course as the most predictive of student satisfaction (Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levine, 2004) Administrative services The administrative issues such as student services and nancial aid are important issues that relate to students' satisfaction. Waters (2007) found that many of the policies and responses from employees at student service oces such as nancial aid, registrar, counseling, advising, and admissions, did impact the satisfaction by students. The students wanted their questions answered quickly by knowledgeable employees who had accurate information. Further, the students wanted university employees to appear to have a helpful attitude. Waters (2007) further found that when examining student satisfaction, the students did not separate their satisfaction of instruction from their satisfaction form services. Therefore, if students were dissatised with student services, they were also dissatised with the online instruction. Woods (2008) found that the online students were more satised with student services than traditional students. The online students found counselors helpful with academic programs and course oerings, admission sta gave appropriate transcript information, and nancial aid sta provided assistance with the completion of nancial aid applications Instructional course design and delivery The components of quality course design and delivery are important in online courses as well as traditional courses and do impact the students' satisfaction with courses. Instructors may enhance the design of their courses when factors of quality curriculum are aligned with the course objectives, resources, as well as resources and assessments that align together. There should be clear content standards that describe the knowledge and skills expected for students to learn in the course. Additionally, there needs to be clear performance standards so that students understand the degree of attainment they need to meet the standard. Further, the variety of technology may be utilized to help instructors design and deliver the courses. Faculty could include discussion group posts, assignments for students to respond to each other in weekly discussion boards, instructor initiated discussions, and instructor feedback on guided conversations Instructor interactions and feedback The importance of instructor interactions with students as well as interactions between students is an important component of student satisfaction with online courses. Sahin (2007) determined that personal relevance, instructor support, active and authentic learning opportunities were signicantly related to student satisfaction. Others researchers supported the importance of instructor interactions and increased student satisfaction when there was quality interactions between the instructor and students (Areti; 2006; Chen & Guo, 2005; Hartman & Truman-Davis, 2001; Picciano, 2002; Richardson, & Swan, 2003; Shea, et al., 2003). One of the dierences between traditional courses and online courses for instructor feedback is a time delay. In traditional courses, the instructor and students are present and the instructor is able to give feedback immediately and quickly with students' discussion. The online courses may have some delay in the instructor's feedback. Therefore, some ways to increase instructor interactions and feedback with online courses are to post reactions to students' work, schedule chat times between the instruction and students, provide feedback on discussion threads, and grade assignments in a timely fashion. Picciano (2002) studied interactions and found a positive relationship between higher levels of interactions between the students and the instructor and higher scores on students' writing assignments. Then higher scores and students' perceived learning also led to higher satisfaction with the course and the instructor (Richardson & Swan, 2003). Additionally, researchers found a signicant relationship between the amount of interactions between students and their instruction with the instructor's satisfaction of the course (Hartman & Truman-Davis, 2001).

238 Student interactions CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT When students are concerned with the development of their own identity within a class, then active engagement with the development of community in the course environment becomes important for student satisfaction of an online course (Cameron, Morgan, Williams, & Kostelecky, 2009). The use of collaborative working groups of students with relevant and meaningful assignments helps students develop a supportive relationship with each other and increases their perception of a caring relationship that impacts their satisfaction. The designing of group projects needs to have the social structure established by the instructor that develops the trust between group members. This connection between students is as important as the connection between the instructor and the student. The instructor needs to provide timely feedback with enough guidance to ensure adjustments and learning. There is a need to balance students' desire for anonymity and privacy protection with openness to learn from each other. An example might look at the students discussing openly with each other outside of the course system such as Google groups Student demographics and characteristics Student satisfaction can be determined by students' understanding, attitudes, and perceptions of how to be a student in the online format instead of a traditional face-to-face classroom. Mahoney (2009) found that students taking online courses felt they had more exibility for the pace of the course as well as their schedules. Other researchers tried to determine if students needed to be more self-directed with a higher self initiative and higher technology skills in order to continue successfully with the exibility of online course (Shinkareva & Benson, 2006). Their ndings showed that there was not a positive relationship between students' self-directed learning and technology skills that might lead one to believe that those were needed for satisfaction of the course. This nding has not been supported by other researchers and Levy (2007), Morton (1993), and Parker (2003) determined that self-motivated students were more likely to complete an online course and thus be more satised with online courses. Students also expressed feelings of isolation and too much time spent on unclear instructions of assignments (Mahoney, 2009). There was a sense by some students that online courses would be easier than traditional face-to-face courses (2009). Some researchers have examined students' demographics to determine if there was a relationship to students' satisfaction. Older students were more satised with online course than their younger counterparts (Fredrickson, Pickett, Shea, Pelz, & Swan, 2000; Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levine, 2004). There is a dierence in opinion of which age range was the most prevalent for taking online courses. Student between the ages of 35 and 55 preferred online courses (Abdulla, 2004; Allen & Seamon, 2006) while another group of researchers identied the largest age group for online course takers as 25 to 30 years old (Schneider & Germann, 1999; Tallent-Runnels, et al., 2006; Wang, 2004). Morton (1993) found that older students were more satised with online courses. Other researchers examined gender to determine if that had a relationship with student satisfaction, but found no dierence between gender and student satisfaction (Kim & Moore, 2005; Levy, 2007; Xenos, Pierrakeas, & Pintelas, 2002). Yet there were dierences in the responses from gender that rated the importance of teacher's skills in discourse facilitation and instructional design as positively related to satisfaction with the online course (Richardson & Swan, 2003; Shea, Pickett, & Pelz, 2003). Female students tended to rate their teacher's intellectual skills as the most important and male students rated their teacher's managerial skills as the most important (Abdulla, 2004; Fredricksen, et al., 2000). There are many reasons students choose to take courses online. The most frequent reasons are convenience (Shinkareva & Benson, 2006) and exibility in scheduling (Seaberry, 2008). Carmel and Gold (2006) found that there was no signicant dierence in level of student satisfaction related to students GPA. Kemp (2002) found that there was no signicant relationship with student persistence and prior experience with online courses. Drennan, Kennedy, and Pisarski (2005) found that student satisfaction increased with higher course attendance, positive perceptions of the ease of technology usage, along with autonomous learning styles of students. According to Herbert (2006), the largest factor for students not completing an online course was time commitment. Palmer and Holt (2009) identied several factors that impacted student satisfaction with online learning. They listed the following factors: (1) students' condence of their own ability to communicate

239 231 and learn online; (2) clear understanding for what was required to succeed; (3) students' perception of their own performance; and (4) students' ability to locate online information. Further, Palmer and Holt (2009) found that students rated a higher level of satisfaction with an online course when they felt support from other students Conclusion There are many published research studies that identify student satisfaction and the relationship with online courses. However, student satisfaction surveys generally are based on self perception of the online courses and the outcomes may vary upon quality of outcomes and rigor of the online courses compared to traditional courses. Therefore, when considering the recent, widespread oerings of online courses in educational leadership, there needs to be a clarication of what it means for student satisfaction as well as other potential contributing factors to satisfaction. Some other questions that might be explored for student satisfaction are: (1) class size; (2) student services that are helpful and courteous; (3) professors' knowledge about class subjects; (4) university website easily navigated; and (5) overall education and experience at one university References Areti, V. (2006). Satisfying distance education students of the Hellenic Open University, E-mentor, 2(14), Atan, H., Rahman, Z, A, and Idrus, R. M. (2004). Characteristics of the web-based learning environment in distance education: Students' perceptions of their learning needs. International Council for Educational Media, 41(2), Axmann, M. (2002). An online mentorship program for the online educator: Patterning for success. In S. McNamara & E. Stacy (Eds.), Untangling the Web: Establishing learning links. Proceedings ASET Conference Melbourne, July Retrieved from: Baglione, S. L., & Nastanski, M. (2007). The superiority of online discussion: Faculty perceptions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8 (2), Cameron, B. A., Morgan, K., Williams, K. C., & Kostelecky, K. L. (2009). Group projects students perceptions of the relationship between social tasks and a sense of community in online group work. The American Journal of Distance Education, 23, Carmel, A., & Gold, S. S. (2006). The eects of course deliver modality on student satisfaction and retention and GPA in on-site vs. hybrid courses. International Education Journal, 6 (4), Chen, D., & Guo, W. Y. (2005). Distance learning in China. Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 3(4), 1-5. Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarski, A. (2005). Factors aecting student attitudes toward Flexible online learning in management education. The Journal of Educational Research, 98 (6), Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2009). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses principles and examples from SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4 (2), Guglielmino, L. M. (1997). Reliability and validity of the Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale and the Learning Preference Assessment. In H. B. Long, & Associates, Expanding horizons in self-directed learning (pp ). Norman, OK. College of Education University of Oklahoma. Harman, J. L., & Truman-Davis, B. (2001). Factors related to the satisfaction of faculty teaching online courses at the University of Central Florida. In Moore, Online education proceedings of the 2000 Sloan summer workshop on asynchronous learning networks. Volume 2, Needham, MA: Sloan C Press. Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the course: A study in online student satisfaction and retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9 (4), Hsu, Y. C., & Shiue, Y. M. (2005). The eect of self directed learning readiness on achievement comparing face-to-face and two way distance learning instruction. International Journal of Instructional

240 232 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Media, 32(2), Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), Kemp. W. C. (2002). Persistence of adult learners in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers & Education, 48, McLaren, C. H. (2004a). A comparison of student persistence and performance in online and classroom business statistics experiences, decision sciences. Journal of Innovative Education, 2( 1), McLaren, C. H. (2004b). A comparison of student persistence and performance in online and classroom business statistics experiences, Decision Science Journal of Innovative Education, 2 (1), Morton, S. (1993). Socialization-related learning, job satisfaction, and commitment for new employees in a federal agency. Doctoral dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Palmer, S. R., & Holt, D. M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Alternative scales for measuring service quality: A comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), Parker, A. (2003). Identifying predictors of academic persistence in distance education. USDLA Journal, 17( 1), Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course, JALN, 6(1), Preparing for your online education (2011). Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 7(1), Robinson, D. L. (2008). Relationship of student self-directedness, computer self-ecacy, and student satisfaction to persistence in online higher education programs. Doctoral dissertation. University of Louisville. # Sahin, I. (2007). Predicting student satisfaction in distance education and learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2), Sahin, I. (2006). Predicting student satisfaction in distance education and learning environments. Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), Sampson, P. M., Leonard, J., Ballenger, J. W., & Coleman, J. C. (2010). Student perceptions and satisfaction of quality in the delivery of web-based educational leadership instruction, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13 (3), 12pp. Seaberry, B. J. (2008). A case study of student and faculty satisfaction with online courses at a community college. An unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Davis. AAT Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. F. (2003). A follow-up investigation of teaching presence in the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (2), 61, 80. Shinkareva, O., & Benson, A. (2006). Learning instructional technology for an online course: An analysis of the relationship between adult students' self directed ability and instructional technology competency. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Human Resources Development International Conference, Columbia, OH. Swan, K. (2003). Learning eectiveness online: What the research tells us. Quality Online Education, Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T., Shaw, S. M., Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research 76 (1), The American Heritage Dictionary (1982). (2 nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Miin Co. Wang, W. (2004). How university students view online study: A PCP perspective. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 21( 3),

241 233 Waters, V. A. (2007). Satisfaction of student services at Tomball College. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin, # Woods, M. L. (2008). A case study of student satisfaction: Comparing the traditional delivery and online delivery of student services in an urban community college. Doctoral dissertation. Sam Houston State Univeristy, # Xenos, M., Pierrakeas, C., & Pintelas, P. (2002). A survey dropout rates and dropout causes concerning the students in the course of informatics of the Hellenic open university. Computers & Education, 39(4), Yatrakis, P. G., & Simon, H. K. (2002). The eect of self selection on student satisfaction and performance in online classes

242 234 CHAPTER 6. PRACTICING NEW PATHWAYS OF STUDENT AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

243 Chapter 7 Renewing Our Commitment 7.1 The Rise and Fall of Camelot: Designing, Implementing, and Dismantling an Online Leadership Program 1 NCPEA Publications note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in Education Leadership, ISBN Editor's Note: The title of this section, Renewing our Commitment, was inspired from an message between the author, Frederick Buskey, and Editor Brad Bizzell. His full quote (noted below) is a tting way, along with his compelling personal narrative, to conclude this Handbook and look forward. We should all recommit to moving optimistically forward as we share in the development of the next generation of educational leaders. The process of writing, of trying to describe my own experiences and yet also understand the perspective of others, has helped me come to a place of cautious optimism about the program, and a renewed commitment to act authentically as a leader both within and outside my college. (F. Buskey, personal communication, December 12, 2011) 1 This content is available online at < 235

244 236 CHAPTER 7. RENEWING OUR COMMITMENT Editors Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech Associate Editors Beverly Irby, Sam Houston State University Rosemary Papa, Northern Arizona University Thomas Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech About the Author Frederick C. Buskey is an Assistant Professor at Western Carolina University. He spent seventeen years as a teacher and administrator in K-12 education. His passion is improving education for young people by facilitating the growth of both hierarchical and non-hierarchical leaders. He is committed to helping educators connect their work to a strong sense of moral agency Prelude Methodology I wanted to tell a story that would be instructive, and would also resonate deeply with readers. I have tried to describe instances of inter-departmental and college life that we don't generally write about, but which touch almost every facet of work in academe. I searched for a way to tell this story as my own without ascribing negative motivations or intentions to others, but in a way that could candidly describe how the interactions of various players shaped the program and my current condition. In searching for an adequate methodology I discovered Scholarly Personal Narrative (SPN). SPN seeks to use storytelling as the vehicle for sharing personal experiences and giving voice to the author (Nash & Bradley, 2011). SPN diers from other autobiographical forms of research in that it is rmly grounded in scholarship, adheres to a general theme or themes, and reaches conclusions that are universalizable (Nash & Bradley, 2011). I have attempted to follow Nash and Bradley's suggestion to Be candid, keep an open mind at all times, attribute the best motive to others, and avoid going on the attack (p. 9). My own personal perspective infuses the telling of this story, however I did use a number of dierent sources to check my recall of events and topics. Data sources included s, meeting agendas, minutes, and artifacts, program artifacts, and notes from my personal journal. I also used limited member checking to gain alternative understanding of key events. My goal is to tell an instructional tale that honors each individual character's personal truths. My hope is that you will be able to experience the events through my own perspective, but also be able to recognize my biases by critically examining the story from your own perspective(s) Program Overview Note: I will often use we, us, and our in discussing the program. The program was born of collaboration, and faculty members continue to collaborate in multiple ways. The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) referred to the process as revisioning. I use that term interchangeably with the term redesign. A preview of the online Master's of School Administration (MSA) program we developed will help set the context for the rest of this story. The program has ve distinguishing features, a mantra, a cohort structure, an initial face-to-face experience, interdependent sequential core leadership courses, and a program long change project. Mantra. The foundation of the program is a collaboratively developed mantra, live your leadership journey courageously. Each word in the Mantra has specic meanings. The mantra serves as a guide for both program participants and faculty. The mantra led to a set of six program standards:

245 Students at the center of action 2. Change as an opportunity and inevitability 3. Leadership through serving others and supporting self-actualization 4. Ethics as the fundamental basis for action 5. Action from an ethical foundation to create something positive 6. Growth is actively questing The mantra and the standards it inspired drive multiple aspects for the program. Course complexity, sequencing, and many assignments reect faculty desire to bring the mantra alive. Some faculty have used the mantra to guide their own actions and responses to situations. The mantra serves as both program mission statement and personal ethical code. Cohorts. Unlike our previous program, the new program relies heavily on a cohort model. We typically form two cohorts in the fall and two more in the spring. Cohorts begin with participants. The two cohorts are numbered by the semester of the new program in which they are starting the core leadership courses with the addition of a one or two to denote the two cohorts starting each semester. For example, in the ninth semester of the new program's existence, cohorts 9.1 and 9.2 will begin their core leadership classes. Faculty work very hard to encourage the growth of intimate learning communities, both within each cohort and in smaller cohort sub-groups. Being able to develop close learning relationships within cohorts has made the online learning experience highly personal for both participants and faculty. The cohort serves as a learning resource as members from vastly dierent types of schools share experiences, perspectives, and advice with each other. Cohorts also serve as mutual support groups in which members often share professional and personal challenges and seek support from other cohort members. The Hickory Experience. An essential element of the program is the Friday evening and all day Saturday face-to-face meeting in Hickory, North Carolina. Hickory is located two hours east of Western's campus and is within three hours driving distance of all of North Carolina's major cities. Attendance is mandatory for all members of the two cohorts beginning the core leadership program. The Hickory Experience takes place the weekend before classes start. Most semesters, all faculty fully assigned to the program attend Hickory. The experience concentrates on building an intimate learning community and on focusing participants on the connection between ethics, and their own values and actions. Throughout the weekend, participants work together to examine assumptions, dissect readings, and engage in purposeful activities, often in the same small groups that will form their online discussion groups during their rst semester. They leave Hickory feeling connected, energized, and more conscious of the deep and challenging ethical responsibilities they have accepted in becoming school leaders. It is extremely powerful for cohort members to work together during the weekend and then carry on with the same types of activities online a day later. The signicance of the weekend experience was captured by a recent participant when she said (paraphrasing), When I came here, I thought I had simply signed up for a series of courses. Now I understand that I have become part of a family. Core leadership courses. A series of four leadership courses form the core of the program (See Table 1). The sequence emphasizes putting ethical and instructional leadership into action regardless of hierarchical positioning. Each course revisits complex themes of ethics, relationships, and change with increasing depth and with clear linkages to the other courses. Cohorts move through the courses together. Table 1 MSA Course Sequence (Leadership core in bold)

246 238 CHAPTER 7. RENEWING OUR COMMITMENT Change Project. The change project was adapted from Collins and Porras' (1996) Big Hairy Audacious Goal and is called the BHAG (bee-hog) in our program. The BHAG could be an important element in any program, but it is especially signicant in an online program. The BHAG helps us achieve three things with participants. First, the BHAG teaches and immerses participants in a change process that is collaborative, planned, and that focuses on a problem as opposed to a symptom. Second, the BHAG demands that participants lead from where they are, reinforcing our program values about leadership being what you do, not what position you hold. Finally, the BHAG allows us to monitor dispositions and the ability of participants to work with others, areas that are commonly identied as decits in online leadership programs. BHAGs must be collaboratively developed and carried out by school-based teams and must impact student learning (broadly dened) in some way. In EDL 601, participants form school-based teams and slowly work through the process of gathering and using information from various stakeholders and school reports to identify a key school problem, develop multiple strategies for addressing the program, and gure out ways to evaluate the impact of their strategies. In EDL 602, participants work with their school team to develop and begin implementing a clear action plan. Participants continue implementation, evaluate facilitators and barriers to the BHAG, and make adjustments in EDL 603. They complete the BHAG in EDL 604, including an evaluation of the results, their learning, and presenting their experience at a faceto-face completion ceremony at Western Carolina University. Some participants continue the BHAG after completing the program. Past BHAGs have included implementing culturally responsive teaching practices in a specic grade level, developing a school-wide reading program, and creating stronger relationships between teachers, non-native English speaking students, and their families Characters In order to appreciate the complexity of the story, it is important to understand the people involved and the various positions that inuenced the program. This section includes brief sketches of two deans, four department heads, and multiple faculty members who have had signicant impacts on the MSA program. The descriptions are brief but reference events that will be described in greater detail later in the chapter. The rst three department heads served in the Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations (ELF). The department was dissolved as the result of a college reorganization in June, Hierarchy. Dean 1 was a long-serving member of the university. He worked to build strong connections between local schools and the university and was visible and highly personable within the college. Dean 1

247 239 retired in the Spring of Dean 2's arrival brought signicant changes to the college. Dean 2 focused more on the college and less on networking with local schools. His emphasis was on bureaucratic hierarchy and chain of command evidenced by his tight control of the ow of information. Dean 2 also faced multiple years of extensive budget cuts. In 2011, he engineered a college reorganization that led to the dissolution of ELF and the placement of the MSA in the Department of Human Services. Department Head 1 (DH1) had coordinated the MSA before becoming department head. She encouraged a departmental culture of democratic participation, collaboration, and an exploration of ideas. Department meetings encouraged faculty voice where honest discussion and debate were common. Consistent and open communication was important to DH1. All of the MSA faculty members, with the exception of Faculty Member A (FMA), were hired by DH1. DH2 was hired through an external search when DH1 returned to faculty. DH2's arrival coincided with the arrival of Dean 2 and so did not have the benet of an experienced dean to help her adjustment. DH2 was very personable in one on one situations, but the ow of information and tenor of faculty meetings was quite dierent from previous years. DH2 did not send out weekly newsletters with key information. She did not seek input on the faculty meeting agendas and ran them more as informational sessions. A signicantly symbolic dierence was DH2s use of `I' and `my' when talking about decisions and the department, as in, I decided to do this for my department. The faculty had been used to the we and our words form DH1. Additionally, the department was one of the most complex on campus with an array of undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs. The department also provided multiple service courses for other programs within the college. Program revisioning occurring in the college for both the MSA and teacher education programs added to the complexity. DH2 came into a dicult set of circumstances, made some changes to the departmental culture, which she may have been unaware of, with the result that her t in the department did not seem right to many of the departmental faculty. DH2 resigned from being the department head at the conclusion her rst year and returned to faculty in another department. DH3 was a research faculty member of the department who agreed to serve as Department Head after DH2's departure. DH3 attempted to bring back some of the openness and collegiality that had existed in the department under DH1. DH3 and I had collaborated on research prior to her becoming department head and that collaboration continues today. DH3 returned to faculty upon the elimination of our department. The MSA program was moved into the department of Human Services following the reorganization of the college of education, under the direction of DH4. It is dicult for me to characterize DH4 as his prior reputation as an honest, hands o leader has not been what I have experienced with him. DH4 is a strong supporter of Dean2 and has adopted the hierarchical management style the dean favors. DH4 expressed a desire to learn about the MSA program but also began making decisions about schedules and faculty that had previously been made by the program coordinator. DH4 also has accused me of several failings based on hearsay without discussing the accusations with me. These things have led to a relationship best characterized as mutually distrustful. Faculty. The longest serving educational leadership faculty member is FMA. He has been at Western for about 20 years. At the time of my arrival, FMA taught a variety of courses for ELF. His primary involvement in the MSA consisted of supervising interns, however with the revisioning process, he became a much more active part of the program. FMA is strongly committed to teaching leadership from an aesthetic paradigm. FMB had been at Western for several years prior to my arrival. She was a co-coordinator of the doctoral program but also supervised interns for the MSA. Though she was heavily involved in the early phases of the revisioning process, her focus remained on the doctoral program. My part in this story begins in August, I arrived at Western Carolina University for my rst academic appointment after 17 years in K-12 teaching and administration. I entered higher education because I thought I could make more of a dierence in K-12 education by training principals than by being one. I also wanted the opportunities to do research and to be engaged in multiple K-12 schools. Soon after my arrival I was asked to coordinate the Master's of School Administration program. I was the rst of three new hires in the department of Educational Leadership and Foundations that year and have designated myself as FMC1. FMC2 came to Western with many years of K-12 experience and several years of higher education

248 240 CHAPTER 7. RENEWING OUR COMMITMENT experience. FMC2 has a passion for building professional learning communities. Her rst two years at Western were split between teaching in the MSA and some curriculum and instruction (C & I) courses. FMC3 is a retired school superintendent and was an adjunct instructor prior to my arrival. He is immersed in the writings of Dewey and Giroux, takes a critical view of education today, and believes strongly in principal supervision as a means to improving teacher instruction. None of the three of us hired that year had experience with online teaching prior to coming to Western. FMD was hired the year after my arrival. She was a retired school administrator with prior higher education experience. Like FMC2, her duties were split between the MSA and C & I. FMD was involved in the redesign but left the university mid-year, before full implementation of the new program. FME was hired mid-year to replace FMD. This was FME's rst higher education appointment, though she had facilitated online school administration courses as a doctoral candidate. Like me, FME was a mid-career changer from K-12. FME was idealistic and a ready collaborator, open to new ideas Camelot The Rise ( ) This section describes the redesign process. After a discussion of the multiple catalysts for the redesign, I provide a glimpse into the idealistic beginnings of the redesign eorts. I will elaborate on how online faculty members developed a strong professional learning community (PLC) and share the process of the redesign. Catalysts. In the spring of 2005, our program had moved online at the request of several regional superintendents. We became the state's only online principal licensure program in order to serve the large mountainous rural region of western North Carolina; however, we quickly began to receive students from all over the state. Enrollments expanded from 40 in the fall of 2006 to 160 by fall, As we prepared for the academic year, we faced a number of challenges. Foremost among them was a curriculum that was compartmentalized and not designed for online delivery. The new faculty members had no investment in the old design and our mutual desires to develop principals as strong change agents made it easy to consider a redesign. The explosion in enrollments taxed our admissions and advising systems, as well as our ability to deliver all of the courses needed. Finally in 2007, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a bill mandating the redesign of all MSA programs. DPI was charged with overseeing the redesign process. The MSA faculty had already decided to redesign the program prior to the state mandate. This helped us view the state mandate as a lever instead of a club. Idealistic beginnings. Seven dierent faculty members were involved in the early design phase during the academic year. The group consisted of DH1, FMA, FBB, FMC1-3, and FMD. At our rst redesign meeting in October, we unanimously decided to design a program from scratch that was fully aligned with our beliefs about leadership, especially the commitment to being ethically and artistically driven and courageous in one's actions. We also wanted the program to take advantage of and compensate for weaknesses inherent in online programs. We saw opportunities to democratize the educational practice by promoting student voice and by using our courses as places to gain, exchange, and process information, while using participants' actual work sites as their MSA classrooms by driving many assignments into their real world. We also focused intently on creating elements that would facilitate the development of intimate learning communities that would ll the void of the lack of physical presence in online programs. We developed a mantra to capture and guide the spirit of the new program: live your leadership journey courageously (Jacobs, Buskey, Topolka-Jorissen, Szlizewski, & Allen, 2010). The team also decided to use their own research expertise, experiences, and values to be the primary drivers of the redesign and to backwards map DPI requirements. The MSA faculty PLC. Heeding DuFour and Eaker's (1998) warnings about the challenge of sustaining school reforms, the design team adopted a professional learning community model, operating on parameters similar to Hord's (1997) recommended features of shared leadership, collective creativity, shared vision and values, supportive physical and personal conditions, and shared personal practice. Four MSA faculty, FMC1-3 and FMD, were the primary members, although not all faculty attended each meeting. The other redesign participants (DH1, FMA, and FMB) attended on an as-needed basis and were consistently available for

249 241 consultation (Buskey & Topolka-Jorissen, 2010). The development of a PLC helped to unite faculty and to guarantee that we had face time with each other. In an online program, where faculty have less need to come onto the campus, a PLC can serve a vital role in keeping online faculty professionally and personally present to each other. Process. We began by dening our aspirations and then identied elements of a curriculum based on the functions of a school leader and the personal characteristics required to fulll the program mantra. Throughout the process, we played with varying program structures including the ideas that courses could vary from the standard 3-hour Carnegie unit, and could be organized by themes such as seasons, personal traits, or job functions (Buskey & Topolka-Jorissen, 2010). As the program continued to take shape, we consulted dierent groups regional superintendents and principals, departmental faculty, and recent and current students. Each step informed the next, with some steps working backwards to adjust prior decisions. The program came together in a curriculum and structure based on our mantra, experiences, feedback of others, and research on leadership, the principalship, and principal licensure programs (Buskey & Topolka- Jorissen, 2010). We also developed explicit strategies to reduce the sense of isolation inherent in online programs expressed by some graduates of the old program: The Hickory Experience, strategies for developing online PLCs, using a cohort model, and requiring an end-of-program face-to-face closing ceremony. As we began transitioning from the design phase to the implementation phase in the spring of 2008, the entire group was exhausted, yet also stimulated and proud of our accomplishments. We had sat as brothers and sisters at the round table, the foundation for Camelot had been built, and the castle was taking shape before our eyes. We sought and received permission from both the university and DPI to begin oering the new program as a pilot in fall, This allowed us to test the program and tinker with the structures and organization without having to constantly seek university approval. It also sped the transition from the old program and put us two years ahead of DPI's fall, 2010 implementation deadline Year 1 ( ) The rst year of implementing the new program included four important aspects that are particularly pertinent to designing and implementing online leadership programs. Early implementation helped maintain momentum through a long and intense design period, but it also required lling in program details as we went. The development of the cohort model required faculty to develop new skills in online course construction and teaching techniques. By piloting the program, we were able to incorporate participant feedback into program changes. Finally, changes in MSA faculty and their roles had implications for the future. Building on the y. During the summer of 2008 FMC2, FMC3, and I worked on moving the core courses to a teachable point. We collaboratively identied texts and readings for each course as well as specic content and focus. However, each of us took the lead, as an expert, in developing one of the core courses. With our high number of participants and limited faculty, we each would be teaching two sections of a core course and either an internship or managerial course. I developed the rst core course, Ethical School Leadership, which was rst taught in the fall of FMC3 designed the second core course, Leading School Culture, which would be taught in the spring of FMC2 worked on the third core course, Leadership for Student Learning, to be implemented in fall, We all worked with DH1 to design The Hickory Experience, initially based on an internship orientation program in the old program. Cohort 1. Fourteen members of Cohort 1 began the program in fall After Hickory, one participant dropped out of the program. The remaining thirteen went on to serve a dual role as program participants and sources of invaluable feedback. The lack of a fully developed program led to some painful moments. For instance, The Hickory Experience was initially designed as a separate course. Participants had trouble moving from the intense small-group experiences in Ethical School Leadership to a separate but related set of leadership discussions in the Hickory course. Later, the two courses would be merged so that The Hickory Experience served as an introduction to the program, a cohort development time, and the beginning of Ethical School Leadership. Cohort 1 was also aware that they were blazing a trail and faculty made it clear that we would make changes based on Cohort 1's feedback. This unique relationship between the program, the cohort, and the faculty created some intense faculty-participant bonds. Including participants

250 242 CHAPTER 7. RENEWING OUR COMMITMENT as collaborators with faculty was a very eective way of overcoming the criticism that online programs are impersonal. Personnel changes. As described earlier, FME replaced FMD at the conclusion of the fall 2008 semester. Our growing enrollments allowed FME to teach full-time in the MSA. FME was hired on a tenure-track faculty the following fall. By the end of fall, 2008, I had become exhausted. While the development of the program had been shared work, the burden of being the program director made it dicult for me to ever fully relax and just enjoy what was happening. There was always more to do and problems to deal with and I had yet to publish a single article, putting me behind schedule for promotion and tenure. By December I had reached the point where I could not sleep through the night. I was consumed with the new program and was neglecting my family. With the support of DH1, I resigned from program coordination. FME became the MSA program coordinator, making her transition to full time faculty very stressful. FMC3 volunteered to do most of the work in coordinating and phasing out the old program. We expanded our enrollment to two cohorts (2 and 3) in spring and FME co-taught Ethical School Leadership with me. Instead of creating two independent online sections, we ran both in a common shell. I served as the lead teacher, fullling most of the course management pieces. We divided each cohort into exclusive small learning groups for most course discussions and for grading of assignments, though we did include a few whole group (both cohorts) discussion topics. FME worked with the groups from cohort 3 and I worked with the groups from cohort 2. This was a rewarding experience for both of us, as we shared common values and views about learning and teaching. FME was able to provide a critical and constructive perspective to improve the course. Our collaboration in the course continued through the fall of Expanded enrollments also allowed FMC2 to phase out of teaching C & I courses and become full-time in the MSA. While there had been some changes in personnel since the fall of 2006, engagement of faculty in the MSA had generally increased (Figure 1). Figure 1. Graph of changes in position in relation to participation in the MSA during three years with Dean1.

251 Year Two ( ) What, to this point, has been a relatively clear story becomes tangled and fuzzy, at least in my own mind. I consulted numerous meeting agendas and notes to reconstruct this year, yet the number, degree, and emotionality of changes make reconstruction challenging. Much of what follows must be read with the understanding that my perspective is colored by a degree of negativity. Year two was one of contrasts. We experienced a number of signicant accomplishments, including the full implementation of the program, completion in the spring and summer of our rst three cohorts, and approval of the program by important state bodies. These positive events were contrasted by several stressors. DPI accountability requirements forced us to move from an idealistic to a more pragmatic mindset. Changes in college and departmental leadership and MSA faculty makeup had a signicant impact on how we functioned as a PLC. Once the program had been fully implemented, the PLC began to deal with issues that, earlier unrecognized, became contentious and fractious. Accomplishments. In the spring and summer of 2010, our rst cohorts completed the program. These 37 participants gave rave reviews of their experiences in the program. They achieved some signicant results with their BHAGs, including developing an active PLC of reading teachers, implementing culturally responsive pedagogy with a group of 4 th grade teachers, and structuring an elementary intervention program that helped teachers provide support for struggling students instead of referring them for special education testing. We continued to rene the program, making some signicant changes. However, the fact that we had actually implemented the program we idealistically dreamed up three years earlier, and that we saw such positive results, was exhilarating. Additionally, the new program was approved by both the University of North Carolina's General Administration and by DPI. Idealism runs into pragmatism. One part of the redesign required by DPI was the development of six electronic evidences (EEs) showing program eectiveness in preparing participants for the leadership standards. Participants would complete the EEs and DPI would review them to assure compliance. Each MSA faculty was responsible for writing one EE After DPI approval, we found ourselves faced with a messy group of duplicitous projects that had to be layered onto or into our courses. Throughout the year we struggled to add the EEs to our program in some coherent way. What we thought was an eective way to complete the DPI requirement, consistent with our collaborative approach of dividing work equally, had created a very challenging and frustrating situation. Changes in leadership and culture. Year two also began with signicant personnel changes. The long time Dean1 had retired and was replaced with Dean2. DH1 also left the department head position and returned to faculty as a member of our MSA team. Both Dean2 and DH2 were hired from outside the university. These personnel changes impacted dynamics within the MSA team but also resulted in a change in both college and departmental culture. As referenced earlier, the leadership styles of both Dean 2 and DH2 were signicantly dierent from what we were accustomed to. The decrease in sharing information, and the implementation of a more rigid hierarchical management style left some of us feeling isolated and vulnerable. We worried that the program we had built would not receive the support we needed. The management styles also led to changes in MSA faculty roles, adding to concerns. Changing norms and internal conict. As the school and departmental cultures changed, so did the climate of our PLC. With the conclusion of the intense redesign phase, faculty became engaged in other projects that limited the time members were able to invest. Concurrently, honest dierences in assumptions made at the outset of the program began to emerge in important areas. We began to disagree about co-teaching, admissions standards, and faculty prerogative in the core courses. Complicating all of this were continual shifts in program leadership. I had resigned as program director at the end of 2008 and FME had taken my place. Late in the fall 2009 we received an fro DH2 informing us that Eective immediately she (FME) will no longer serve as the director in order for her to focus on scholarship, teaching and service. (FMC3) will continue to serve as program director for the MSA program and manage both old and new programs until further notice. There was virtually no discussion about the change. By the spring semester, our core faculty consisted of a former department head (who had coordinated the MSA program

252 244 CHAPTER 7. RENEWING OUR COMMITMENT before becoming department head), two former program directors, a current program director, and FMC2. The changes in makeup and in positions led to a re-norming phase that included the inevitable storming (Tuckman, 1965). Throughout the academic year we attempted to openly address team norms. In one meeting we worked for several hours to create both a denition and a process for reaching consensus in order to develop a way to resolve our dierences. We began dealing with several issues related to the teaching of the core leadership courses, attempting to use this new consensus process. Based on numerous discussions during the design process and early implementation, and on my experiences co-teaching EDL 601 with FME, I had made several assumptions not shared by the full team (see Table 2). We seemed to reach some consensus on these issues; however, what we had agreed on did not become uniformly practiced at any point in time. Dierences in implementation led to signicant friction, with DH1 and I on one side, FMC3 on the other, and FMC2 and FMD in the middle. Table 2 My Assumptions, Group Consensus, Divergent Practices Admissions also became a source of disagreement and, again, the most disagreement seemed to pit DH1 and I against FMC3. The faculty had decided that cohorts would be capped at 22. This number was within the high end of both research recommendations on cohort size (for example, Brook & Oliver, 2003) and what we found to be a manageable number in online classes. We would begin two new cohorts (44 people) each fall and spring. We were receiving many more applications than would t into the two by 22 model. DH1 and I wanted to hold rmly to the 44-person cap by becoming more selective in our admissions process. FMC3 believed that we should not be the ones to limit applicants' aspirations and that we should admit everyone. He advocated that the dedicated students would make it through the program and those that were not capable would drop out, but that we could not make predictions based on our admission criteria. We debated these issues during each admission cycle without any real resolution. Admission cycles (in November, April, and July) became increasingly contentious and divisive. During our April admissions, FMC3, as program coordinator, made a command decision to admit a student whose GRE score was less than half of our requirement. Admissions had always been done collaboratively and this departure from our norms led to a harsh public confrontation between FMC3 and I. My trust in him had been broken and I