Mercy Ed Tech Decisions Feature Distributed Leadership

Distributed Leadership for learning and teaching is a leadership approach in which collaborative working is undertaken between individuals who trust and respect each other’s contribution. It occurs as a result of an open culture within and across an institution. . . .It happens most effectively when people at all levels engage in action, accepting leadership in their particular areas of expertise.  --- (Jones, Harvey, Lefoe, Ryland 2013, p.21).

Science Teacher Sara McGavin troubleshoots with iWizards

Distributed leadership characterized Mercy's decision to adopt Schoology as its Learning Management System. Reasons for changing from Moodle were identified by the I.T. Department.  However, we immediately put the evaluation different solutions in the hands of a committee of faculty members who self-selected and participated at a level each person could determine. (All meetings were open).

After the teachers chose Schoology they helped introduced the product to their peers and delivered the rationale for changing  Subsequently these same teachers conducted all of our professional development and training for Schoology.

August iPad Orientation led by the iWizards

We have also decided to hand over an important technology decision to our students. Recently we asked an iWizard to evaluate photo editing apps for use at the iCreate Workshop. The one she recommended has been so popular it may actually enter the school curriculum through our Design Foundations class. At a recent meeting of iWizards we were chatting our favorite iPad apps  One of the new ninth grade members began describing a planning app which sounded like one every student could use. It occurred to me that we should place selection of "Mercy apps"* more or less in the hands of the students. 

Consequently, we are asking the iWizards to assess all of our current apps. And at our next meeting we will ask them to pitch new ones. This is another great example of distributive leadership which has come to characterize decision making within our technology program.

-----------------------

*All students own a "Mercy iPad" which is pre-loaded with a set of instructional and personal productivity apps.

Lead by Example

Reflections on ISTE '13, three of three

During her ISTE '13 presentation on professional development, Lori Gracey suddenly exclaimed, "Modeling! Modeling! Modeling!"  She was making this point in reference to PD.  After all, shouldn't the professional development training itself model the type of behavior it seeks to inculcate?

She certainly modeled to those assembled in the packed room.  Much of her session was digitally

interactive.  And to the degree that it was possible with a big crowd, we small clumped into small groups to investigate and communicate about new apps.  Lori did not lecture-- we instead followed a process of exploration

Coincidentally, I had intended to mention modeling in my own PD presentation the next day.  And I did so, actually adding the word to my slides. I quoted Lori, too. In my presentation, however, I mentioned modeling in terms of educational leadership, stressing how very important I felt it was for administrators to demonstrate competency with technology and not merely cheer lead teachers to do it.  I commended the majority of my own admin team for really making this effort with our Mercy 2.0 technology initiative.

In my own case this has meant . . . .

* Almost always taking my iPad with me when I stroll the halls.

* Scheduling meetings through Google Calendar and Doodle.

* Never taking legal pads to meeting.

* Rarely carting file folders to meetings.

* Only providing paper copies to audiences where I may need to defer to their habits (parent groups, Board meetings).

* Blogging like a demon.

* Firing off photos with my iPhone and iPad at various and sundry school events, and posting them to FaceBook or Twitter when appropriate (e.g., softball team accepting championship trophy).

* Establishing shared Dropbox folders and Google Docs for task groups.

To be sure, some of these behaviors are rather superficial.  But taken together, they build some street cred. In retrospect, I wish I had made this a bigger point of emphasis in my Technology Leadership class at Madonna U.  The more I think about it, the more important it seems.

---------

Photo: myyogaonline via Compfight cc

Workflow!

Photo posted at Triangle Coalition http://bit.ly/GPAe40

As we roll out Mercy 2.0, we are taking the matter of professional development very seriously. Our consultant, Lucy Gray, has made a suggestion that I find very compelling. As we introduce the iPad to our staff, it would be tempting to pull everyone together and show off all the cool new things the gadget can do. I certainly hope that mobile devices continual to our instructional paradigm, but I think it makes sense not to end the year and introduce the device by focusing on all the different things it can do.

Instead, when we begin p.d. in April, Lucy is going to meet with our departments individually in order to discuss their particular questions and issues. In advance of those meetings, she is asking them to consider their standard workflow. In other words, let's first consider how the iPad might integrate to greater advantage in the work that you do on a daily basis.  This does not merely mean that we should find ways to substitute the iPad for our current technology.  In addition, we can ask, how might the iPad enhance instruction and support?  As an administrator, I think that this will be a daily eye-opening experience for some of my colleagues who use desk top computers (I've had the advantage of tooling around on my own person iPad 1 for the school year).

Though I am used to going to technology presentations where change is the theme, I think there is a lot to be said for identifying the ways a new tool can improve the familiar. After everyone has had a summer to become acquainted with the device, we will be better positioned to stretch it out and show some bells and whistles when we reconvene in August.  At that point I am imagining that as a collective staff we will be more prepared to reimagining how we deliver and support education with the new iPads.

Unboxing the iPad

As we roll out Mercy 2.0 we are trying to communicate with transparency. We also want to give our community face to face opportunities to learn about and explore our new 1:1 device-- the iPad. We have scheduled some exciting events and activities

Flickr CC photo by ~Brenda Starr~

April 17 - Unboxing the iPad. Any staff members who want to become acquainted with their new iPad will have an opportunity to stay after school for an orientation by Dean Haratsaris from the Professional Group.


April 23 & 24 - iPad and Google Apps professional development for Mercy Staff by Lucy Gray.


May 14 - An evening event at school which will allow current and new families to explore the iPad and place an order through our web site. The Professional Group will also be exhibiting (and selling) optional accessories like keyboards.


Summer 2012 - The IT Team will be providing iPad orientations to students on the designated pick-up dates.

I Failed!

Failure is instructive. The person who really thinks learns quite as much from his failures as from his successes.   ~John Dewey

When we received our ADE Training two years ago, the class of '09 was taught to celebrate failure. After all, it is fundamental to learning and success.  So rather than making this post a show and tell, I'll dance through some of this school year's failures, and remark what I have learned.


See through Cycle
Early in the school year I came up with the idea of our staff experiencing a "see through cycle" for six days-- staff would visit each other during six consecutive school days in a conscious effort at transparency and collaboration.  It was a terrific success, but had no legs.  I was not really surprised that this experience could not be sustained.  But it was an important experience for what lay ahead-- the terrific challenge of effecting change in a school culture.


Fantasy Candidate
I am glad that Cindy (my government teaching collaborator) and I threw open our school's mock election, allowing the kids to basically draw up the experience from scratch.  No regrets in this respect, but my brain storm of having the students create fantasy presidential candidates and create their campaigns was a bit of a fiasco.  Some of the zaniness of the fantasy campaigns drowned out the rest of the experience.  Allow students to create and  administer their own election was a fine learning experience, but the fantasy candidates became a distracting sideshow.


Passionate Collaboration
I think that my strategy of designing an in-service experience around "Pitching Your Passion" to fellow staff members may have been my greatest success in terms of promoting collaboration and challenge based learning at Mercy.  However, I would judge my own participation in the project to be in large measure a failure.  First, I was not fully engaged with my "Fight Apathy!" team at the inservice session.  Then I did little to bring us together before our spring launch.  I sort of forged ahead on my own, communicating very little with my teammates.  They were both dealing with younger, smaller groups which probably meant I was not blazing much of a trail.  We pulled together in the late going, and we were all happy with how the event turned out.  But it is more than a little ironic that my own collaborative experience was more shallow than many of the other teams I helped to organize.


Laggards
Last October, I reflected on how Everett Rogers' model for the adoption and diffusion of innovations might apply to my attempt to promote a new learning design (CBL) with colleagues through professional development training.   Rogers describes "laggards" -- those in an institution most resistant to change.  At times I've been rather stunned by how extremely resistant to new ideas some persons have been.  At times this has been expressed through outbursts, but commonly, it has been completely passive behavior along the lines of Bartleby the Scrivener-- who though continually reasoned with by Melville's narrator offers nothing but his signature "I would prefer not to."  


Back in the Fall I vowed to ignore the inevitable laggards and focus on the true innovators.  Alas, the laggards have been difficult for me to dismiss.  More than a few nights I've come home grinding my teeth over some ridiculous passive aggressive behavior.  Though my efforts have not been particularly well served by this distraction, the laggards have only made me all the more determined and make sure that the final failure is theirs.  

Larry as Guru and other Matters

Since school has started I have twice been introduced to new acquaintances as a "tech guru." I don't really mind, but the phrase is a bit loaded, don't you think? On the one hand I kind of deserve it since I have been appointed to spread the mystical vision of CBL this semester. But I also think it categorizes me as off in my la-la land of technology, communing with cyberspace. This notion amuses rather than offends. But I think the implication that I have secret knowledge to share is interesting. Hold this thought.

More obnoxious is being called a "techie." Again, I don't take this as an insult-- I think I just get blurred in with the IT guys. In fact sometimes  folks ask me for help with email, and printers when I really have no clue at all. Last year, a student ran down from the auditorium to see if I could problem solve a projector issue. And this year I was included on a 9th grade Tablet orientation team. In each of these instances, I was next to useless. Admittedly, I am fascinated with some gadgets. I am adept with some software as well as my Macs-- but as far as technology goes, I would describe myself as a generalist. Again, however, naming me "techie" like guru categorizes me as outside the pale.

Now to the point. I think this "guru" thing comes from my confidence developing projects that call for students to leverage technology of their own choosing.  I  "get" the technology and can even suggest they explore particular options. I find this necessary to the way I now teach.  So, I wonder, how much technology should any teacher know in 2010?  Haven't we reached a point in time where a teacher or administrator really must have some working knowledge with the powerful tools which are so integrated into modern life?  But how much is enough? 

-------------------------
"Paramhansa Yoganda " Flickr Creative Commons Photo by Prema01

The Change Dilemma

I had a recent opportunity to talk with an expert about reform and change in education.  I bent Dr. Ruben Puentedura's ear about M-Hub, Challenge Based Learning, and our ongoing professional development through PCGs.  His reflections on all these matters were quite insightful and interesting, but one remark in passing, came back to me just the other day.  During a dinner conversation,  he referenced Everett Rogers' model for the adoption and diffusion of innovations.  Rogers theory breaks innovation adopters into five groups:

Innovators-- the first individuals to adopt an innovation.

Early Adopters-- These individuals have the highest degree of opinion leadership among the other adopter categories.  More discrete in adoption choices than innovators. 

Early Majority-- Adopt an innovation after a varying degree of time. This time of adoption is significantly longer than the innovators and early adopters. 

Late Majority-- Individuals in this category will adopt an innovation after the average member of the society. These individuals approach an innovation with a high degree of skepticism and after the majority of society has adopted the innovation. 

Laggards-- These individuals typically have an aversion to change-agents and tend to be advanced in age. Laggards typically tend to be focused on “traditions”.

 

I decided to read up on Rogers because last week I began to get back channel feedback that implied I was churning up too much information in our professional development groups.  Folks needed more time to process information, settle in, discuss, etc.  This makes perfect sense at several levels: I have been rather furiously introducing new themes and we are discussing a radical new learning design with CBL.  Besides, change is simply tough on most of it.  It brings discomfort an ambiguity.  I deeply sympathize.

 

And that's the dilemma.  One's sympathy calls on a veteran teacher like myself to focus on the "slow" students, the laggards if you will.   But I think that culture shift of the kind that I trying to facilitate to focus attention on those early adopters and make sure that they are cultivated and intellectually nourished.  Initial success of my project cannot be measured on whether or not the majority immediately buys in.  We need to start bringing over the "early majority" to CBL and teaching Wagner's Seven Survival Skills.  Then some of the rest may come over.  And perhaps, some never will.  

So here is where I am with the dilemma.  I am going to cheer lead  every fresh idea and innovative inclination that comes along.  I want to be positive and fight any urge to become a scold.  But wait for ideas to "settle in"?  That's a fine line.  Because it is entirely legitimate to analyze, reflect and choose caution.  On the other hand, others need to press forward so that they don't lose the momentum to innovate and try new things.

P.S. Please don't lay any half-baked ideas expressed here at Ruben's doorstep.  This has been a riff on one reference he made.

---------------------------------------------

Flickr Creative Commons Photo by kagey b

 

 

 

 

Challenging the Challengers-- A Challenge Based Learning Meta-Challenge for Staff

On August 25, 2010, the entire MHS staff has embarked on a unique journey. I mean this literally. We are immersing ourselves in the Challenge Based Learning process. Our challenge is to devise project challenges for our students:

The Challenge: Collaborate departmentally to design a challenge based learning project which develops [Tony Wagner's Seven] "Survival Skills" for at least 15% of the students that your project team serves.

As Katie Morrow put it, MHS has adopted a "meta-challenge." Here's how we launched this ambitious project:

1) The entire staff and Board read Tony Wagner's Global Achievement Gap over the summer.

2) On August 25, the staff broke into small groups for an hour and discussed the implications of the book (the Board held a separate discussion). The entire staff then shared the groups' reactions and joined in a conversation.

3) After lunch, I made a presentation on the CBL process. Then after a short break, I presented the staff meta-challenge and took questions.

4) Excitement, anxiety, delight, confusion, etc., reigned.

As I write about this only few days later, I can already say that it's been quite a trip. Here are a few reactions:

*The confusion and frustration are completely understandable. In my experience it's intrinsic to the process. Besides, the directions and notion of a meta-chalenge were rather complicated.

*I was unprepared with how "overwhelmed" many folks felt by the challenge. Naturally, they had the sense of being given a major assignment before they had even started school. I have the advantage of knowing that if true collaboration occurs, and they engage in a shared, worthy goal, individuals not feel burdened as they go through the process. However, collaborating to this extent will be a challenge to our school culture.

*Interestingly, throughout the morning no one really disputed Wagner's claim of an "achievement gap." In the afternoon no one really doubted that CBL might present a road map to Wagner's "seven survival skills." Instead, I heard reasonable concerns about Wagner's failure to provide realistic solutions to the "gap." The paradox of "planning" a student-directed curriculum piece was probably the toughest issue I dealt with in the afternoon.

* I contributed my fair share of confusion by misunderstanding staff. While I was generally happy with my presentations, I wish I could have a couple of do-overs from the Q & A.

* The morning's discussion of the book was pretty amazing. I agree with staff members who remarked that it was refreshing to really grapple with educational philosophy and the school's direction.

*Of course we are not issuing the staff challenge and then walking away. "Professional Cluster Groups" have been set up to facilitate the CBL process and provide professional development of tech skills which enrich the CBL process. Staff has been scheduled into five such groups. Each one meets with me every six school days in my classroom. They fall at different periods during the school day, but they essentially constitute a fifth class for me each semester. Pardon the pun, but I expect this to be the most "challenging" class I have ever taught. . . . .and I will be blogging the dickens out of it!

-----------------------------------------------------

Click this link for my CBL presentation slides.

What Motivates Us (and our students)

I was quite delighted to come across "The surprising truth about what motivates us" video produced by the RSA. It's a wonderful animation of a compelling ten minute talk by Dan Pink. It contends that clear evidence shows that bonus money is not an effective motivator for complex cognitive tasks. Instead, autonomy, mastery, and purpose are the keys to better performance and personal satisfaction.

Though this video is aimed at a business audience, the implications for education are enormous.

Students: Let's apply the lessons of "What Motivates Us" to our students by substituting grades for bonus money. Most of the students I teach are motivated to get good grades, but the system too often does not motivate these same students to learn. They memorize information or ask the teacher, "What do you want". They think nothing of copying each other's homework or notes. They read Sparks Notes to pass their literature assignments. It's a game.

CBL

The themes of the video dovetail perfectly with my Challenge Based Learning experiences. I saw students genuinely excited about the quests they were shaping. In several cases they went far beyond my expectations. And by giving them control they took their topics in different and far more imaginative directions than I might have assigned. (The stopped asking me what I wanted when it was clear I wouldn't play the game). Knowing that they were creating for the benefit of others and knowing that they would report their ideas to their classmates, made a huge impact on their motivation.

Teachers

I think the video explains in part why teachers are so resistant to change: 1) They enjoy their autonomy in the classroom and their sense of mastery over the material. Pink's work also has important implications for staff development: change will only be achieved through motivators of autonomy, mastery, and purpose. It can't be imposed top-down or through a regimented design.

M-Hub This project has come together so quickly because it taps into these motivators, particularly the sense of purpose. When we go live, M-Hub will benefit the entire school community. Already, students and staff have devoted many hours to the project. Will it help their "grades" or effect their pay? Of course not. Speaking for myself, I've been far more engaged in it than some of the things I get paid to do.

I would love to hear your reactions to the video.