An Evaluation of Cross-Program Collaboration Among Graduate Students in Educational Leadership in a Virtual Learning Environment

Barbara B . Howard, Paul Wallace & Terry McClannonDepartment of Leadership and Educational StudiesReich College of EducationAppalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina

Introductions – Who we are…

Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 17,344 students total in Fall 2011 15, 460 undergraduates; 1,884 graduate students 140 undergraduate & graduate major programs

Department of Leadership & Educational Studies Graduate major programs: ▪ Doctorate in Educational Leadership (Ed.D.)▪ School Administration (MSA and Ed.S.)▪ Higher Education Leadership (MA, Ed.S.)▪ Instructional Technology (MA)▪ Library Science (MA)

Background of Our Programs Cohorts of students on satellite

campuses within 100-mile radius of main campus

Cohorts attend evening classes 2x weekly in face to face, hybrid or totally online

Interaction among cohorts and programs limited previously by logistics

Expectations for school leaders who can share collaborative leadership

Our Conceptual Framework:Five Principles Learning occurs through Community of

Practice; Knowledge is socially constructed; Learners proceed from Novice to Expert; A Knowledge Base emerges from the

Community of Practice;Dispositions reflect attitudes, beliefs,

and values common to the Community of Practice.

Conceptual Framework, Reich College of Education, http://www.ced.appstate.edu/about/conceptualframework/

Goals of our Project

To challenge traditional “ethnocentricity” of most graduate programs

To encourage development of shared leadership skills and collaboration

To engage students in School Administration and Instructional Technology Programs in transformative learning experiences through realistic simulations

Overview of the Project

10-week summer term in 2011 30 School Administrator students 48 Instructional Technology students Total 78 students divided among 15

“School Leadership Teams” with assigned roles (principal, AP, tech facilitator, teacher, etc.)

Instructions Provided to StudentsDesign a proposal for the District Superintendent and the Central

Office Leadership Team to convince them that your school

deserves the 200 iPads available through a grant to the district to be distributed among teachers

and students

Requirements for Proposal Description of school/department Professional Development Plan Specific student outcomes in learning

(beyond test scores) Specific applications of integrating iPad

hardware and software in classrooms Alignment with Core Curriculum in NC Alignment with National Educational

Technology Standards (NETS)

Technology Requirements Justification for number of iPads

requested Plan for distribution among teachers

& students Plan for upkeep, management, &

support Plan for telecommunications access

& support for connectivity and internet security

Logistics of Project

Instructions reviewed by each professor with his/her students

Assignments into teams by June 1, 2011 Each student assumes assigned role within

team Teams will meet online as often as necessary

outside the regular class meeting time Platform for communication decided by all

members of team Format of plan decided by team

Accountability of Students Each instructor decides on course

requirements for project assessment as well as any grading decisions: Regular weekly blog postings on

progress Reflection paper at end of project Summaries of the project Participation in project as judged by

team mates

Technology Tools and PlatformsMost commonly chosen by student groups:

Teleplace Googledocs Skype Wiki Email

Evaluation Questions

How effective was the project in meeting our stated goals?

To what extent and in what ways were needs of the participants met?

What were the strengths and weaknesses of the project and how can it be improved?

To what extent did the benefits of the project provide sufficient value to justify continuation for future cohorts?

Utilization-focused Evaluation Applied inquiry process for collecting and

synthesizing evidence culminating in conclusions about worth of program or project

▪ (Patton, 2008)

Evidence collected and analyzed: Online survey Reflection papers Weekly blog postings Review of completed projects

.

Online Survey Results

18 Questions 15 forced choice Likert Scale with

opportunity for comments 3 Open-ended

Respondents (n = 51 or 65%): Instructional Technology – 32 or 68% School Administration – 15 or 32% Skipped this question – 4

Allowed me to practice the role for which I am preparing

Realism of Simuation

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

I became comfortable working with other members of the team

Comfort Level

Strongly agreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Valued contributions made by team members

Contributions

Stongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStongly Disagree

Participation in the project strengthened my leadership skills

Leadership

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

I plan to use the knowledge/skills learned in my future role

Future Use

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStongly Disagree

Open-ended Questions: What were the strengths of this project?

We were able to get different points of view Sharing responsibility for interdisciplinary

project development Working with members of a school committee

that would make decisions about technology Being able to talk with “admin” who weren’t

up on the latest technology. It was good practice!

Developing the ability to communicate and provide constructive criticism and direction to underperforming team members.

Suggestions for improvementThemes that emerged:1. Pleas to hold all members

accountable for participation as some team members did not fully participate

2. Help resolve scheduling differences resulting in inconvenience for some students

3. Holding all students responsible for the same amount and type of coursework (e.g., reflection papers, blogs)

Some representative sample “Take Away’s” I love what I am getting my masters

in, and this project allowed me to get my feet wet

When to listen, and when to take charge

The job of making tech decisions is much more complex and far-reaching than I thought

The necessity of communication skills

Being flexible and understanding of each person’s ideas but not allowing one person to take over the project

Blog and Forum Postings

Supported findings of survey Tended to focus on the following

issues: Scheduling challenges Progression of work among teams Inequity of effort on part of teammates Sharing of ideas

Reflection Papers – Representative Sample Quotes Reflecting Themes

I truly learned more from this project than from writing any research paper during my graduate studies

I think I felt most challenged in this assignment because I was not the leader (School Admin)

Nothing says “need” like a principal who does not know how to use technology!

I learned that collaboration is key in effectively running a school

Themes surrounding challenges Discomfort with new technology Issues with scheduling around

classes and work for synchronous meetings online

Challenges in actually assuming the assigned roles when some resented not being assigned as principal

Challenges in working in online environment rather than face to face

Conclusion

Continue to develop and implement opportunities for students to engage with those from other areas

Continue refining the process through greater collaboration among faculty involving more program areas and faculty

Examine effects of participation in this type of experience on work of graduates

Selected References  Acker-Hocevar, M., & Cruz-Janzen, M. (2008). Teacher and

Principal Preparation Programs: Reforms that Sustain High Performance and Learning in High Poverty and Diverse Schools. [Article]. International Journal of Learning, 14(10), 87-95.

Bramming, P. (2007). An Argument for Strong Learning in Higher Education. [Article]. Quality in Higher Education, 13(1), 45-56.

Buskey, F. C., & Pitts, E. M. (2009). Training Subversives: The Ethics of Leadership Preparation. [Article]. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 57-61.

Cannon, R. (2001). Pedagogy: a point of view. [Article]. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 415-419.

Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of Adult Learners with Implications for Online Learning Design. [Article]. AACE Journal, 16(2), 137-159.

References (continued) Ettling, D. (2006). Ethical Demands of Transformative Learning.

[Article]. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education(109), 59-67.

Flumerfelt, S., Ingram, I., Brockberg, K., & Smith, J. (2007). A study of higher education student achievement based on transformative and lifelong learning processes. [Article]. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15(1), 107-118.

Fried, J. (2007). Higher education's new playbook: Learning Reconsidered. [Article]. About Campus, 12(1), 2-7.

Greyling, W. J., & du Toit, P. H. (2008). Pursuing a constructivist approach to mentoring in the higher education sector. [Article]. South African Journal of Higher Education, 22(5), 957-980.

Gulati, S. (2008). Compulsory participation in online discussions: is this constructivism or normalisation of learning? [Article]. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 45(2), 183-192.

References (continued) Hambright, W. G., & Franco, M. S. (2008). LIVING THE

"TIPPING POINT": CONCURRENT TEACHER LEADER AND PRINCIPAL PREPARATION. [Article]. Education, 129(2), 267-273.

Jaruszewicz, C. (2006). Opening windows on teaching and learning: transformative and emancipatory learning precipitated by experimenting with visual documentation of student learning. [Article]. Educational Action Research, 14(3), 357-375.

Johnson, H. H. (2008). Mental models and transformative learning: The key to leadership development? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(1), 85-89.

 

References (continued) Kerka, S. (2006). Understanding and Promoting Transformative

Learning: A Guide for Educators of Adults. 2d ed. [Book Review]. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 54(3), 55-56.

Kowalski, T. J., Place, A. W., Edmister, J., & Zigler, T. (2009). Need for Practice-Based Research in School Administration. [Article]. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 22(4), 2-8.

Kyungmee, L., Junghwa, Y., & Yeongmahn, Y. (2009). Why do Professors Refuse to use Constructivist Teaching Methodologies? [Article]. International Journal of Learning, 16(8), 47-56.

Patton, M.Q. (2008). Utilization-Focused Evaluation (4th Ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. [Article]. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education(74), 5.

References (continued) Roberts, B. (2008). School Leadership Preparation: A National

View. [Article]. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 75(2), 5-19. Szeto, E. (2011). Transformingg learning and teaching in higher

education: The impact of ICT on pedagogy, peer interaction, and support in a networked virtual learning environment. The International Journal of Learning, 17(11). http://www.Learning-Journal.com

Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. [Article]. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education(119), 5-15.

Von Kotze, A., & Cooper, L. (2000). Exploring the transformative potential of project-based learning in university adult education. [Article]. Studies in the Education of Adults, 32(2), 212.

Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2002). Appropriate Pedagogy and Technology in a Cross-cultural Distance Education Context. [Article]. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3), 309-321.