Educational Technology Leadershipin the Coming Decade

ED TECH LEADERSHIP1

Educational Technology Leadershipin the Coming Decade

James Puglia

New Jersey City University

Dr. Twomey

Educational Technology Leadership in the Coming Decade

As technology continues to grow in all aspects of our lives, it would be easy for some to see that it could be helpful if used for educational purposes. The exponential growth of both hardware and software technology companies working in the educational technology sector has grown substantially. In this past year’s ISTE conference close to 15,000 participants gathered to learn with one another through presentations and poster sessions. That said, around 150 exhibitors from educational software and hardware companies were there to showcase their products and to see if they could help deliver products to educational institutions to fit the varied needs of schools across the nation (ISTE, 2011).

While it is true that there is a large market for educational technology products, the truth is that the mere presence of computers and software will not help students learn. Cuban (2003) warned in his seminal piece Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom how many thought that through the purchase of computer hardware and software that a magical leap would inspire students to achieve better learning outcomes. He went further to indicate how many computers that were once purchased were never used appropriately because of inadequate training of professional staff. Clark (1994) would also argue that media does not improve learning by itself. Unfortunately, many schools have thought technology to be a panacea to solve educational problems without providing a leadership vision to help implement technology productively.

Despite these past failures in helping students learn with technology, the fact that conferences as large as ISTE have thousands of educators gather together for a three-day event at the end of the school year shows that many professionals see the value of technology as a potential benefit to students. ISTE’s technology standards challenge leaders in K-12 schools to develop an effective strategy to help students learn with technology and not in isolation(ISTE, 2011).

Current Policies

Dewey (1916) thought people should be active participants and shape their own knowledge. It is not enough to have information passively received and recalled without greater understanding. Unfortunately, if the teacher continues to drive learning from the front of the classroom through lecture-only teaching the student will never be able to harness the full potential of technology.

Today, the Partnership for 21st Century Learningcalls for students to develop skills that will prepare them for jobs in the future. This Partnership collaborates with state educational departments to foster the development of tangible and transferrable thinking and technology skills.Students that encounter authentic learning examples will have a greater passion for learning(Jonassen & Easter, 2012).

Unfortunately, states and national government policies have placed the importance of state tests as a critical metric in evaluating whether students learn. There is a paradox between the relentless focus on standardized testing assessments that promote rote learning and memorization of fact and the desire for students to become independent and critical thinkers.

Take the example of the average person in the workforce. He/she is required to complete tasks set out by his/her employer. Many of the projects or activities a worker must completeare aided with the use of technology software and hardware materials. A worker evaluates a task and then incorporates the appropriate technology to help complete it. Similarly, a student isoften placed in a learning environment that impedes the integration of technology but employs it in isolation from curriculum-based tasks.

The current National Educational Technology Plan (2010) promotes the integration of technology in all aspects of student learning. Moreover, it promotes constructionism practices, where the student manipulates objects in her/his learning environment to foster learning. Papert (1980) and others have promoted constructionism as the student learn through active participation, often with the support of technological tools. The exciting aspect of constructionism is that students develop an understanding of learning and the environment in which they live. Students begin to make sense of concepts, ideas and problems by being able to actively participate in learning and shaping outcomes. By creating projects and being involved with others, students learn material that can be transferred to new situations (Bransford J.D., Brown A.L.& Cocking R.R.(Eds), 2000).

Technology integration along with appropriate professional development for teachers will help students’ learning outcomes. It is critical that teachers take ownership in a community to learn with other teachers to foster ownership in learning. Lave and Wenger(1991) describe situated learning (SL) as a way to help understand how learning occurs and in the case of professional development, teachers can help one another become more fluent in delivering effective lessons while integrating technology seamlessly into curriculum objectives.

There is evidence that technology can help enhance learning when designed effectively for learners (Dirksen, 2011). The ability to effectively harness the use of expanding technology is promising as we move forward in the next decade. Without a clear vision set out by leaders in our national, state and local school districts, the effective integration of technology for learning purposes will continue to have mixed results. One cannot underestimate the importance of a leader who can work within current educational environments, but also have the foresight to develop a vision for educational technology in the next decade. Because students and teachers cannot work alone, it is critical that educational technology understand how educational policies are interconnected between the national, state and local levels of government.

Leaders Helping Teachers

Teacher professional development often occurs infrequently and does not facilitate knowledge transfer to their instructional practices(Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). Often teachers are expected to be experts and know answers to student questions, creating unrealistic expectations and precluding a teacher’s exploration for answers.

In addition, teachers face external factors: political, economic, and community-related. Recent public teacher critique focusing on data-driven results may impede professional growth because of poor morale (Ravitch, 2010). Teacher responsibilities are many and sometimes overwhelming given the requirement of planning lessons, grading, instructing, integrating technology, and communicating with administrators and parents

An effective leader will understand the problems that teachers face. The school leader who is able to receive input from teachers to help the group collectively make decisions is a critical component in driving technology integration in real-life practice(Northouse, 2012). More important, the leader needs to understand how parts of an educational institutions are interconnected.

For example, in order to move to more project-based lessons with technology, the leader must ensure that this message is effectively communicated to the local school board and that teachers have ownership in the new vision. The technology should not lead the infusion of any vision.

Educational leaders need to show the merits of how technology can give students the opportunity to move towards student-centered learning and the creation of projects that show mastery of learning in different content areas.

At the same time, a leader should have the foresight to see what the future has to offer. Steve Jobs’ uncanny ability to visualize and then put into action a plan to produce products that consumers would want to have and be easy to use before they even knew it themselves was a visionary leadership skill that could prove helpful to educational technology leaders (Isaacson, 2011). While Jobs often had a vision that he could foresee, he also had a team of professionals at Apple that shared that same belief that they could create products that would help “change the world”. Leaders that can take this vision and shape future educational practices.

Technocentric View- A Mistake

It is clear that putting the technology before the learning has proven to be a mistake in schools over the past few decades. Currently, the shift in educational practices towards a student-centered and differentiated learning environments holds promise for effective integration in technology. This shift coincides with the evolving nature of the web as people begin to become more creators than consumers of content. Leaders need to harness this simultaneous shift from both web-based and educational settings to help students create authentic learning (O'Reilly, 2007).

Potential Promise

Educational technology will continue to evolve in the next decade with many new opportunities for leaders to help learners. The most recent New Media Horizon K-12 Education and Higher Education Edition reports reveal promising uses of technology in both the near-term and long-term range in both K12 and higher education environments (Johnson et al., 2013a; Johnson et al., 2013b). The K-12 report offers cloud computing and participatory practices as a near-term goal for educators. How will cloud computing evolve over the next decade? The importance of a leader that understand that students and teacher will be creating more content is critical. Another area that a leader should focus on is the shift from the receptor of information to the creator of content. The reports suggest technologies like 3D printing, the Maker Movement and open content that will be growing in the long-term horizon. A leader needs to be grounded in not just purchasing new technologies without envisioning a plan for how education will look in the future. Students will benefit from hybrid learning environments in both K-12 and higher education settings. What is the future of schools and how does a leader envision one’s school in 2020? Technology offers the promise to continue to shape educational technology as a practice to help the leaner develop transferable skills to both new educational settings and everyday tasks in a global environment (Darling-Hammond, 2010).

Substance and Style of Leaders

Current leaders in educational technology offer the promise that students should come before “stuff” and that technology should be integrated in an environment where visionary teachers are rewarded for developing effective methods of integrating technology (November, 2009).

There are many leadership styles that can be employed to help drive the vision of a company or educational institution. The style of an educational leader needs to combine a delicate balance of style and substance to help reach a shared goal and vision. The vision should be developed by all stakeholders and not be forced upon people.

Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective Leaders outlines a plan to help emerging and existing school leaders. The ability to be able to guide events and to be able to be proactive is important. It is also critical that leaders understand that all members of the group can have the opportunity to win/win when working together (Covey, 1989).

The style of a leader should be based on that person’s strengths. A leader should not pretend to be someone that she/he is not. Tom Watson Jr. had difficulty taking over as leader of IBM. He did not have a lot of confidence from his father and he struggled in different areas of learning. Despite these difficulties, Tom Watson Jr. was able to return after a stint in the military with a new vision and outlook after encouragement from General Bradley. He was able to harness his own personal leadership style, take risks and help drive IBM as leader in computer hardware and software. He took necessary chances and risks to help drive the company forward and to ensure that it was forward-thinking and not stuck reveling on past successes (Buchholz, 2009)

Challenges

Leaders in educational technology can learn from the trials of Tom Watson Jr. who had failures at a young age, but was able to develop his own leadership style and substance in order to be successful. Both K-12 and higher education are areas that are slow to change. Teaching can be an isolating position and one where past practices continue. The shift or introduction of a new innovation, even if it has great merit, can come slowly in an environment where the status-quo is practiced by employees (Rogers, 1995). For example, the Maker Movement and student-centered learning would seem like great avenues for teachers and students to explore and employ. However, there is a contradiction with current educational policies from the state that are using standardized tests as the most important assessment of student learning. Educational technology must be employed with a practical purpose and vision for all.

Conclusion

Educational technology leadership must incorporate both style and substance qualities simultaneously. For example, strategic components that are employed by leaders may fail if the message is not conveyed with employees and stakeholders through a shared vision(Rath & Conchie, 2009). It needs to be one that all people have ownership in so that schools and universities can embrace and harness new technologies to help improve important skills for students.

Humor is an important quality of a leader when used to help build relationships. Academic institutions are difficult places to evoke change but when individuals can work together with the intended goal of improving learning outcomes, the vision of a leader becomes one that is shared by all people in the institution. It is a difficult balancing act and one that will not be fraught with difficult challenges. The benefits of integrating technology to help individuals is one that can be met when individuals work together to build trust and understanding of the great possibilities that technology can have in improving learning for all and developing transferable skills to new settings.

References

Bransford J.D., Brown A.L.& Cocking R.R.(Eds). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed). Washington DC: National Academies Press.

Buchholz, T. G. (2009). New ideas from dead CEOs. New York, NY: Collins Business.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective leaders. Amsterdam: Business Contact.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53. Retrieved from Retrieved from

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.

Dirksen, J. (2011). Design for how people learn (voices that matter). Berkeley, CA: New Riders Pres.

Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve jobs. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

ISTE. (2011). ISTE standards for administrators. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from

Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013a). The NMC horizon report: 2013 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., V, E., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013b). NMC horizon report: 2013 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

Jonassen, D. H., & Easter, M. A. (2012). Conceptual change and student-centered learning environments. In D. H. &. L. Jonassen S. (Ed.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 95-113; 4). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

National educational technology plan. (2010). Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. doi:Retrieved from

Northouse, P. G. (Ed.). (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

November, A. C. (2009). Empowering students with technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications and Strategies, 65(1), 17-37.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths-based leadership. New York, NY: Gallup Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed. ed.). New York, NY: Free Press: A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.