In order to offer online programming that is “rigorous and engaging,” educational leadership faculty must rely on each other by engaging in collaborative professional learning and working closely with other team-based providers, such as instructional technology and administrative staff. A goal is to develop the dispositions and skills for best practices in online learning as well as to be advocates for what is equitable, engaging, and effective practice in online learning.
Our professional development project, we have found, is inextricable from reflections on our Department’s identity and collective vision. As such, this ongoing dialogue is imperative to not only build our readiness and skills to greet this game changer of online learning but also to rework our sense of who we are as educators and as a Department. In fact, the process is circular. In the 21st Century, the pervasiveness of technology means that any discussion of program quality, delivery, or availability must include a discussion of the possibilities technology brings to the educational process. And in turn, technology utilization raises questions of program quality, delivery, or availability as scholar-practitioners work to make their practice respond to the needs of students and the community at large. The spirit of rejuvenation that such interactions engender gives us hope and motivation to continue forward into uncharted territory.
We are learning that effective online programming requires us not to transplant or translate our existing f2f programming but to transform what we do now into what best serves students in an online environment. This work takes a great investment of time, energy, and creativity, and we are committed to being at the forefront of these efforts to “respond to the rapid technological advances in the external environment” (Hackmann&McCarthy, 2011, p. 284). And like the quarterback (i.e., a type of game changer) who changes a play at the line of scrimmage, we occasionally have to “audible”—that is, we have to change direction quickly in order to assure that we reach our preferred goals.
We eagerly accept the challenge of envisioning the future for 21st Century learning as it pertains to faculty development and educational leadership preparation programs. This dialogue is imperative for deepening our readiness for promising practices in online learning and intentionally reinventing ourselves as contemporary entrepreneurs in the process of renewal. The 21
st Century challenges us to new levels of preparing leaders for just, equitable, and democratic schools. Just as their work forecasts our collective future, our work at changing the game in leadership preparation will serve to exemplify how innovation serves socially valuable purposes.
Endnotes
-
1 Schools met eligibility requirements based on federal high poverty criteria and technology need.
-
2 The video can be accessed at http://screencast.com/t/NvS6Jx6rdH
References
- Ambrosino, R.,&Peel, J. (2011). Professional development to support online teaching.
Journal of Faculty Development, 25 (2), 33-38.
- Bausmith, J. M.,&Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge.
Educational Researcher, 40 (4), 175-178.
- Berry, J. E.,&Marx, G. (2010). Adapting to the pedagogy of technology in educational administration.
Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 4, 245-255.
- Berry, J. E.,&Staub, N. (2011). Technology pedagogy: Software tools for teaching and learning.
AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice,
8 (1), 24-32. Retrieved from JSP_Spring2011.FINAL.pdf
- Cornelius, S., Gordon, C.,&Ackland, A. (2011). Towards flexible learning for adult learners in professional contexts: An activity-focused course design.
Interactive Learning Environments, 19 (4), 381-393.
- Creighton, T. (2011). Entrepreneurial leadership for teaching. In R. Papa (Ed.),
Technology leadership for school improvement (pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
- Cushman, K. (1998).
How friends can be critical as schools make essential changes . Coalition of Essential Schools. Retrieved from http://www.essentialschools.org/resources/45.
- Darling-Hammond, L. (2010).
The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future . New York: Teachers College Press.
- English, F. W., Papa, R., Mullen, C. A.,&Creighton, T. (in press).
Educational leadership at 2050: Conjectures, challenges and promises . Lanham, MD: Rowman&Littlefield Education.
- Gomes, N. D.,&Mullen, C. A. (2005). Facilitating faculty development through mentorship: From traditional to technology-enhanced teaching. In F. K. Kochan&J. T. Pascarelli (Eds.),
Creating successful telementoring programs .
Perspectives in mentoring, volume III (pp. 123-144). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
- Hackmann, D. G.,&McCarthy, M. M. (2011).
At a crossroads: The educational leadership professoriate in the 21st Century . Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
- Hewitt, K. K.,&Weckstein, D. K. (2011).
Differentiation is an expectation: A school leader’s guide to building a culture of differentiation . New York: Eye on Education.
- Hirtle, J. S. (1996). Coming to terms: Social constructivism.
English Journal, 85 (1), 91-92.
- Horvitz, B. S.,&Beach, A. L. (2011). Professional development to support online teaching.
Journal of Faculty Development, 25 (2), 24-32.
- Hyatt, L.,&Williams, P. E. (2010). 21st Century competencies for doctoral leadership faculty.
Innovative Higher Education ,
36 (1), 53-66.
- Ko, S.,&Rossen, S. (2004).
Teaching online . New York: Routledge.
- Mullen, C. A. (Ed.). (2009).
The handbook of leadership and professional learning communities . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Mullen, C. A., Bettez, S. C.,&Wilson, C. M. (2011). Fostering community life and human civility in academic departments through covenant practice.
Educational Studies, 47 (3), 280-305.
- Normore, A. H. (Ed.).
(2008).
Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through inquiry and reflective practice . Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
- North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). (2003).
IMPACT model schools . Retrieved from http://www.ncwiseowl.org/impact/igrant/grant2.htm.
- North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). (2011).
IMPACT V grants awarded . Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/newsroom/news/2011-12/20110701-02?&print=true.
- Orr, R., Williams, M. R.,&Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional efforts to support faculty in online teaching.
Innovations in Higher Education, 34 , 257-268.
- Papa, R.,&Papa, J. (2010). Leading adult learners: Preparing future leaders and professional development of those they lead. In R. P. Papa (Ed.),
Technology leadership for school improvement (pp. 91-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
- Park, J. H.,&Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning.
Educational Technology&Society, 12 (4), 207-217.
- Reeves, D. B. (2009).
Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results . Arlington, VA: ASCD.
- Ritzer, G. (2004).
The McDonaldization of society (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Salmon, G. (2011).
eModerating: The key to teaching and learning online . New York: Routledge.
- Sansone, C., Fraughton, T., Zachary, J., Butner, J.,&Heiner, C. (2011). Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: The importance of who, why and how.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 59 (2), 199-212.
- Schrum, L.,&Levin, B. B. (2009).
Leading 21st Century schools: Harnessing technology for engagement and achievement . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
- Stears, M. (2009). How social and critical constructivism can inform science curriculum design: A study from South Africa.
Educational Research, 51 (4), 397-410.
- The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG). (2012).
ELC-UNCG strategic plan, January 2012 to August 2017 . Retrieved from http://www.uncg.edu/elc/.
- Vai, M.,&Sosulski, K. (2011).
Essentials of online course design: A standards-based approach . New York: Routledge.
- Ward, H. C.,&Selvester, P. M. (2012). Faculty learning communities: Improving teaching in higher education.
Educational Studies, 38 (1), 111-121.
