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

1. Barbara B . Howard, Paul Wallace & Terry McClannon Department of Leadership and Educational Studies Reich College of Education Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina An Evaluation of Cross-Program Collaboration Among Graduate Students in Educational Leadership in a Virtual Learning Environment

2. 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)

3. 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

4. Our Conceptual Framework:Five Principles Learning occurs through Community of Practice; Knowledge is socially constructed; Learners proceed from Novice to Expert; A Knowledge Baseemerges 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/

5. 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

6. 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.)

7. Instructions Provided to Students Design 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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Technology Tools and Platforms Most commonly chosen by student groups: Teleplace Googledocs Skype Wiki Email

15. 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?

16. 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 .

17. 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

18. Allowed me to practice the role for which I am preparing

19. I became comfortable working with other members of the team

20. Valued contributions made by team members

21. Participation in the project strengthened myleadership skills

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

23. 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.

24. Suggestions for improvement Themes that emerged: Pleas to hold all members accountable for participation as some team members did not fully participate Help resolve scheduling differences resulting in inconvenience for some students Holding all students responsible for the same amount and type of coursework (e.g., reflection papers, blogs)

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.