6.1 Evaluation of an online technology leadership master's program  (Page 3/16)

Ledesma (2006) contended that when teaching teachers, certainly, skills training was necessary, but a more critical component was leadership development. As teachers learned new skills, there was a clear opportunity to build leadership and professionalism. As teachers learned new strategies, it was imperative that they embraced opportunities to teach other teachers and share with others at a faculty meeting, district or regional meeting. This practice was essential in helping teachers realize their potential beyond the classroom and the first step in creating teacher leader/mentors. Sparks (2004) states:

Skillful teaching in every classroom requires skillful leadership by principals … high- quality teaching in every classroom depends on principals who make the success of all students their highest priority, nurture continuous improvement in teaching, and create energizing, interdependent relationships among all members of the schoolcommunity. (p. 1)

Evidence suggested that school leaders played a crucial role in shaping how schools created an environment where students can effectively learn (Davis, Darling-Hammond, Lapointe&Meyerson, 2005). There was agreement regarding what effective leaders needed to know and be able to do (Leithwood, Seashore, Anderson&Sahlstrom, 2004). Davis et al.(2005) identified several university program features essential in the development of effective school leaders. These included “field-based internships, mentoring, cohort groups, tight collaboration between university programs and school districts, curricular coherence, problem-based instruction, and an emphasis on instructional leadership, change management, and organizational development” (p. 21).

Online learning

Higher education. According to Allen and Seaman (2010), online enrollments have grown significantly faster than overall higher education enrollments and showed no sign of slowing. During the fall of 2008, over 4.6 million students took at least one online course which represented a 17 percent increase over fall of 2007. These 4.6 million students represented more than one-quarter of all higher education students taking at least one online course. Despite the significant growth in online courses, acceptance of this learning approach has been met with criticisms (Abdullahi, 2011; Allen&Seaman, 2010; Mendenhall, 2011). Acceptance of online teaching by faculty has been comparatively constant since first measured in 2002. However, less than one-third of chief academic officers believed that their faculty accepted the value and legitimacy of online education. Another criticism was the quality of online learning.

Allen and Seaman (2007) reported that comparison of learning outcomes for online to face-to-face had been measured since 2003. Chief academic officers comparing online with face-to-face as same, somewhat superior, or superior increased 11 percent. This increase was in direct contrast with the acceptance of online by faculty over the same time period.

Mendenhall (2011) noted that quality was not just how many people graduate, but more so about what the graduates knew. Quality was also related to the time commitment, the costs of delivery and the effective use of technology in the delivery of the course. In an online environment that effectively used technology, faculty roles changed from delivering the content to mentoring students. Moreover, the use of technology for assessment helped determine what students knew and were able to do rather if they had regularly attended class. In this scenario, individualized learning became the model and the outcome was improved learning.