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 figure 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:
- Technology can improve the interaction and dialogue between teachers and students, resulting in improved student learning
BUT it can also isolate, marginalize, and reduce effectiveness in the classroom.
- Technology can offer its power to all students,
BUT it can also segregate and deny that power.
- Technology can assist with engaging students in meaningful learning and promote higher-level thinking,
BUT it can also mirror traditional instructional pedagogy.
Discussion: Reflecting on these three paradoxes discuss the following three questions:
- Where do you want to go?
- Why do you want to go there?
- 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,
(External Link)
National Educational Technology Standards,
(External Link) 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 proficiency and set goals for the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to succeed in today’s Digital Age.
Quality Education Data,
(External Link) Heavy investment in technology suggests that school leaders feel that it shows promise for contributing to schools’ effectiveness and improvement efforts.
Rice University Connexions Project:
(External Link) 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 effect.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 41 (1), 49-80.
- 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), 19-22.
- Creighton, T. (2008, August).
The NCPEA Connexions project: Beta 1.2 . Paper presented at
The National Council of Professors of Educational Administration Annual Conference. San Diego, CA. August.
- Feidler, F.,&Chemers, M. (1984).
Improving leadership effectiveness: 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 flat 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 effectiveness: A review of the empirical research.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 5-34.
- Hallinger, P.,&Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 92, 157-191.
- House, R. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.
Administration Science Quarterly, 16, 321-368.
- House, R.&Dressler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership.
Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.
- Hershey, P.,&Blanchard, K. (1993).
Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (5
th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Doubleday.
- Kuhnert, K. (1994). Transforming leadership: Developing people through delegation. In B. Bass&B. Avolio (eds.),
Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp.10-25). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
- Louis, K. (1994). Beyond managed change: Rethinking how schools improve.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 2-24.
- 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, 35-71.
- 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).
