ncpea 8 9-12-final

Advancing Leadership: Results of an Online Technology Leadership

Master’s Program

NCPEA PresentationAugust 9, 2012

Lamar University Faculty Dr. Diane Mason, Assistant ProfessorDr. Sheryl Abshire, Assistant ProfessorDr. Cindy Cummings, Assistant ProfessorDr. L. Kay Abernathy, Associate Professor

Overview of Study This research study investigated the

effectiveness of an online Educational Technology Leadership (ETL) master’s program to advance graduates’ leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development in PK-12 schools.

Convergent, mixed methods design 110 of 271 responds to Likert-style survey with

open-ended questions Examined purposeful sample of 60

electronic portfolios

ETL Program Background Master’s Degree – Educational Technology

Leadership Fully online program Coursework – 18 months Internship – 18 months Researched program effectiveness to

implement strategies in Pk-12

› Leadership› Online learning› Web 2.0 tools

Literature Review:Educational Leadership

Educational leadership single greatest factor of a learning environment (Daugherty, Kelley, & Thornton, 2005)

Skills training important for teachers, but the most critical element leadership development (Ledesma, 2006)

Nationwide, nearly 40% of principal positions vacant in 2010. Dwindling pool of certified principals requires a greater focus on teacher leadership (Ballek, O’Rourke, Provenzanom & Bellamy, 2005)

Literature Review:Online Learning

Higher education› Concerns about the quality of online programs

(Abdullahi, 2011; Allen & Seaman, 2010; Mendenhall, 2011)

› Technology for assessment helped to better understand students’ learning than just attending class (Mendenhall, 2011)

Online Learners› National Online Learners Priorities Report – Factors

for online: convenience, work schedule, reputation of institution, cost, and future employment opportunities (Noel-Levitz, Inc., 2008)

Literature Review:Online Learning

K-12› 47% increase in the number of K-12 students

enrolled in online courses (Picciano & Seaman , 2009)

› Online enrollment in K-12 could reach close to 6 million students by 2016 (Picciano & Seaman, 2009)

› Online teaching requires different skill set (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin & Rapp, 2011)

› Limited information regarding best practices for online teaching in K-12 settings (DePietro, Ferdig, Black, & Preston, 2008)

Literature Review:Web 2.0 Tools

Enables interaction and collaboration (Parker & Chao, 2007; Tapscott & Williams, 2008)

One-fifth of US higher education students actively contributing content to blogs, wikis, photo or video websites and 18% contributed regularly to at least three of these (OECD-CERI/ Pedró, 2009)

Relatively new paradigm which enables contributions and communication (Mills, 2007)

Best practices and framework for online educators needed in K-12 (DePietro et al., 2008)

Literature ReviewTechnology PD in PK – 12

Teacher support for technology integration, time for differentiated professional development to meet individual stages of technology adoption (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1990; Martin, Hupert, Culp, Kanaya, & Light, 2003; O’Dwyer, Russell, & Bebell, 2004)

Technology leaders must be engaged in not only investigating and evaluating new technologies, but they should keep teaching and learning at the heart of all technology decisions (Creighton, 2011).

Literature ReviewTechnology PD in PK – 12

Technology professional development should not be short term topics, but rather a focus on components deemed appropriate for successful implementation. (Carlson & Gadio, 2002; Rodriguez, 2000)

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of an online Educational Technology Leadership (ETL) master’s program to advance graduates’ leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development in PK-12 schools.

Methodology Convergent mixed methods

› Quantitative and qualitative gathered separately › Data then integrated

Participants – 289 program graduates in pool› Employed PK-12 settings› Classroom staff › Non-classroom staff (technology facilitators, librarians, and curriculum

coordinators) Quantitative

› Survey› 271 Possible participants employed in K-12 settings› 110 (41%) completed the survey

Qualitative› Purposeful sample of 60 graduates’ comprehensive electronic portfolios› Open-ended questions from survey

Research Question

Does the online Educational Technology Leadership master’s program advance graduates’ leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development in PK-12 schools? › Assumptions were developed to analyze quantitative

research data. Online learning Web 2.0 tools Technology professional development

› Sub-research questions guided the qualitative data analysis. Same three areas of focus.

Design and Instrument

Developed a pilot survey – 5 point Likert Scale› Cronbach’s Alpha test to assess internal consistency with Likert-style

items.› Revised survey and conducted another pilot.› Feedback from field experts.

SurveyMonkey™ used to distribute and obtain anonymous survey responses to the Likert items and open-ended responses.

Issue-focused examination of electronic portfolios› Effectiveness of the ETL master’s program to advance personal

leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development.

› Was there evidence of transference into PK-12 schools?› Key elements – personal leadership roles, online learning, technology

tools, professional development

Delimitations and Limitations

SurveyMonkey™ only form of survey data collection

Only used email addresses on file in University database

Participants only employed in PK-12 settings Limited a 2-week timeframe to collect data Voluntary and anonymous participation Unfamiliarity with online surveys Only program completers Potential researcher bias

Data Analysis and FindingsQuantitative - Online Learning

Majority of ETL graduates agreed and strongly agreed online learning was implemented for PK-12 students in the school setting (55.5%) and district (73.6%).

Classroom teachers rated both the implementation of online professional development at the school level and district level higher than non-classroom staff at the school level and at the district.

Video tools consistently rated high with respect to use in PK-12 teaching and for personal learning.

Evidence of less use of collaborative tools in PK-12 teaching by non-classroom staff than classroom teachers.

Web conferencing least used for PK-12 student interactions

Data Analysis and FindingsQuantitative – Web 2.0

93.6% of the respondents reported agreement or strong agreement with supporting fellow educators in the use of Web 2.0 tools in PK-12 school settings.

Google tools used more frequently by graduates with PK-12 students than other Web 2.0 tools.

Web 2.0 tools such as Blogs, wikis (collaborative software), Prezi (presentation software), Wordle, and Animoto (video application) were implemented with PK-12 students by more than 40% of the respondents.

For personal learning, Google tools topped the list with 89.1% and close followers were Blogs (83.6%), wikis (80.9%), and discussion forums (71.8%).

Data Analysis and FindingsQuantitative – Technology PD

ETL graduates in non-classroom staff roles tended to strongly agree their perceived role included designing technology-embedded professional development at the school (78.8%) and district level (81.3%).

Classroom teachers seemed to perceive designing technology professional development school level (44.3%) and district level (18.4%) as a lesser part of their role.

A low percentage of the respondents appeared to be involved in designing technology professional development for non-education work settings: classroom teachers (13.2%) and non-classroom staff (36.4%).


Overall, a majority of ETL graduates (53.5%) denoted leading the design of PK-12 school-based technology professional development.

Non-classroom staff rated designing district (M=4.03) technology professional development slightly higher than school-based offerings (M=3.69).

Classroom teachers (54.5%) tended to rate the implementation of technology-embedded professional development at the school level lower than non-classroom staff (84.4%).

Non-classroom staff (87.9%) rated implementation of technology embedded professional development higher than classroom teachers (36.0%) as a perceived function of their role at the district level.


>50% of the total ETL graduates reported service on school-based technology related committees. Classroom teachers (M=2.94) seemed to rate their involvement slightly lower than non-classroom staff (M= 3.00).

Non-classroom staff (M = 3.90) appeared to rate higher agreement with serving on district level committees than classroom staff (M=2.48). Neither data set rated their role serving on non-education technology related committees as high as school or district committees.

Data Analysis and FindingsQualitative

Program graduates’ personal use and campus implementation of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development very similar to the quantitative results.

Open-ended survey revealed 73% wanted to pursue district, campus, or higher education positions.

Evidence of graduates’ understanding of the need for online learning, the use of Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development.

Data inconclusive about ETL graduates’ potential for leading initiation of online learning, Web 2.0 and tech PD in PK-12 settings, but indicated graduates lead other educators especially with Web 2.0 tools and tech pd.

Results

ETL online program graduates exhibited leadership in personal use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development, three key components of the program.

ETL online program graduates exhibited leadership in campus implementation of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology professional development.

Graduates expressed interest in expanded career options in leadership roles as administrators, district technology coordinators, and technology professional development providers.

Results and RecommendationsOnline Learning

Graduates frequently identified ways the online ETL master’s program contributed to their personal knowledge base through creation of individualized and small group projects specifically using Web 2.0 tools and video. These findings substantiated Mendenhall’s (2011) research noting the importance of documenting graduates’ understandings and comprehension of program content.

Recommendation - Higher education faculty consider implementing or expanding the use of electronic portfolios as a documentation and assessment process to gain better familiarity with candidate knowledge and leadership potential.

Results and Recommendations Online Learning

Respondents supported the use of online learning in PK-12 school and district settings.

Classroom teachers’ personal experience with online learning appeared to contribute to the implementation of online learning with PK-12 students.

Non-classroom staff (technology facilitators, librarians, and curriculum coordinators) expressed greater confidence with implementing district initiatives.

Picciano and Seaman (2009) indicated a steady increase in the use of online learning in PK-12 school settings and Christensen (2008) shared online instruction could be a catalyst for educational transformation.

Results and RecommendationsOnline Learning

Online professional development seemed to be less likely viewed as a focus of online learning in PK-12 settings.

Recommendation - Higher education faculty consider providing online professional development opportunities for graduates related to effective online teaching strategies and leadership to advance best practices for teaching in PK-12 online settings. These opportunities should include the use of web conferencing techniques to support PK-12 collaboration.

Results and RecommendationsWeb 2.0

Graduates frequently identified ways the online ETL master’s program contributed to their personal knowledge base through creation of individualized and small group projects specifically using Web 2.0 tools and video. These findings substantiated Mendenhall’s (2011) research noting the importance of documenting graduates’ understandings and comprehension of program content.

Recommendation - Higher education faculty should consider implementing or expanding the use of electronic portfolios as a documentation and assessment process to gain better familiarity with candidate knowledge and leadership potential.

Results and Recommendations Web 2.0

The data provided substantial evidence that ETL graduates exhibit leadership skills in the personal use and implementation of Web 2.0 tools, but implementation practices with students in PK-12 were slightly lower. These results supported the work of Parker and Chao (2007) and Tapscott and Williams (2008) which indicated Web 2.0 was a relatively new paradigm for PK-12.

Due to filtering restrictions and the technological environment in which PK-12 operated, ETL graduates found themselves leading the way with updating policies and procedures.

Recommendation - Leaders in educational technology, higher education, and PK-12 should collaborate to share and publish examples of effective PK-12 implementation of Web 2.0 tools.

Results and Recommendations Technology PD

The majority of ETL graduates noted leading the design and implementation of PK-12 school-based technology professional development to support teaching and learning, especially implementation of Web 2.0 tools.

The individuals serving in non-classroom staff roles such as librarians, curriculum coordinators, or technology facilitators expressed leadership experience in design and implementation of similar technology professional development opportunities at the district level.

Results supported the work of Creighton (2011) in that technology leaders should keep teaching and learning a focus while investigating new technologies.

Results and Recommendations Technology PD

ETL graduates shared examples of ways to mentor and support colleagues with various levels of technology expertise.

Data supported Carlson and Gadio (2002) by revealing the continued need for ongoing technology professional development for themselves as well as their colleagues.

Recommendation – Faculty should maintain collaboration with and support for candidates beyond graduation to ensure transference of program components into PK-12 environments.

Recommendation – Faculty should consider providing opportunities for ongoing collaboration, leadership development, and support for ETL graduates such as online professional development, web conferencing, Web 2.0 interactive sites, conference participation, presentations, and networking with individuals employed in leadership roles.

Recommendations for Future Study

Replication study with all graduates from August 2010 – 2012. Study was limited to first four graduating classes.

Investigate graduates’ use of e-portfolios in PK-12 to document progression of Web 2.0 use and growth of knowledge from beginning of program to completion.

Follow-up study to document changes in education positions and educational leadership roles for graduates1 year, 2 years, 3 years after program completion.

A study should be conducted to plan, implement, and evaluate higher edfaculty PD program to implement onlinecontent courses integrating Web 2.0.

ReferencesAbdullahi, A. (2011). Student exam participation and performances in a web-enhanced traditional and hybrid allied health biology course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 426-438. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/abdullahi_1211.pdf Allen, I., & Seaman, J. The Sloan Consortium, (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in

online learning. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/

online_nation.pdf Allen, I., & Seaman, J. The Sloan Consortium, (2010). Learning on

demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Babson Survey Research Group.Anderson, R., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An

empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-82.

References

Ballek, K., O’Rourke, A., Provenzano, J., & Bellamy, T. (2005). Keys in cultivating principals and teacher leaders. National Staff

Development Council Journal, 26(2), 42–49.Brown, R. (2011). Administration of technology: Teaching, learning,

and resource management. In R. Papa (Ed.), Technology Leadership for School Improvement (pp. 45 -59). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Carlson, S. and Gadio, C.T. (2002). “Teacher Professional Development in the Use of Technology.” In Haddad, W. D. and Draxler. A. (Eds.) Technologies for Education: Potential, Parameters and Prospects. Paris and Washington, D.C.: UNESCO and AEDCreighton, T. (2011). Entrepreneurial leadership for technology: An

opposable mind. In R. Papa (Ed.), Technology Leadership for School Improvement (pp. 3-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

ReferencesDaugherty, R., Kelley, R., & Thornton, B. (2005). Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate. Education. 126, 17.

DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R., Black, E., & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teaching k-12 online: Lessons learned from michigan virtual school teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(1), 10-35. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/7.1.2.pdf Ledesma, P. (2006). The technology specialist’s dilemma: Computer

repair technician or instructional leader? Virginia Society for Technology in Education Journal, 20(1), 3-8.

Martin, W., Hupert, N, Culp, K, Kanaya, T., & Light, D. (2003). Intel teach to the future summary of evaluation findings. Center for Children and Technology, New York.

References

Mendenhall, R. (2011). How technology can improve online learning—and learning in general. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Online Learning, B23-B24. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/How-Technology-Can-Improve/129616/

Mills, L.B. (2007). The next wave now: Web 2.0. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 73(4), 4-5.Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1990

Noel-Levitz, Inc., (2008). National online learners priorities report. Retrieved from Noel-Levitz website:

https://www.noellevitz.com/upload/Papers_and_Research/2008/OnlineLearners08.pdf

References

O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. J. (2004). Identifying teacher, school, and district characteristics associated with elementary teachers’ use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48). Retrieved April 12, 2006 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n48OECD-CERI/ Pedró, F. (2009) New millennium learners in higher

education: Evidence and policy implications. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) Directorate for Education, OECD. Retrieved from

http://static.ow.ly/docs/NML-in- Higher-Education_5n0.pdfParker, K.R. & Chao., 57-72. J.T. (2007) Wiki as a teaching tool.

Interdisciplinary journal of knowledge and learning objectives, 3, 57-72.

References

Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. The Sloan Consortium, (2009). K–12 online learning: A 2008 follow- up of the survey of u.s. school district administrators. Retrieved from Sloan Consortium website: http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/k- 12online2008Rodriguez, G. (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for effective technology use. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000.htm Tapscott, D., & Williams, A.D., (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration change everything. New York: Penguin Group. Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. Evergreen

Group, (2010). Keep pace with k12 online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Retrieved from

http://www.kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPaceK12_2010.pdf.

Contact Information

Diane D. Mason, Ph.DAssistant Professor [email protected]

Sheryl R. Abshire, Ph.DAssistant Professor [email protected]

Cynthia Cummings, Ed.D.Assistant Professor [email protected]

http://tinyurl.com/c2nrsot