Whew - Week 3 Web Conferences

It appears that we are running out of things to talk about - I choose to take that as a good sign.  A core few students have logged on this week, mostly in order to clarify what items were to be done and what course assignments to include.  Many people, including me, are excited about graduation and can't resist making some plans.  I remember how silly and off-task I believed that to be on my first web conference:  how times have changed.

Feeling the Pressure

I attended at least a portion of all three web conferences this week, and everyone appears a bit tense.  As I know is the case in my house, I suspect many of my colleagues are suffering from exhaustion, frustration, and revision anxiety.  In some ways, the web conferences exacerbated the problem, layering one set of responses onto another until most were not sure exactly what information applied to their efforts and what did not.  However, between conferences, many of us communicated privately with our professor and/or our IA, so that by today most of us have some obtainable goals.  Life outside of Lamar has made the going more difficult for some than others; so, I feel blessed that my support system is still intact as we move forward into week 3. 
My observations from the conferences:
1.  Answer all of the questions for the reflections specifically
2.  Put a page number on every citation
3.  Check all headings
4.  Focus on the specific assignments

Off I go into the next week.  Hopefully I'm moving towards the right path at a pace that will land me in the target by Week 5.

Close to the Finish Line: EDLD 5370 Web Conference

I can scarcely believe we've come to this place:  this week, I began finalizing my portfolio and writing my comprehensive exam in order to finish my master's program.  I actually attended two conferences this week:  on Tuesday, I simply hoped that someone else might have a question that I hadn't even considered.  In fact, it appeared that most people felt the same way.  Dr. Abernathy gave us some guidelines for getting started on the comprehensive exam, including recommendations for how to most effectively create the paper in APA style.  She also clarifed for the group which items should be contained on the eportfolio (wiki) versus which items should be included in the comprehensive exam.  One bit of a surprise came when Dr. Abernathy told the group to add the curriculum vitae to their comprehensives.  It is certainly not trouble to do so, but I appreciated her pointing it out specifically.

By Sunday, I was feeling some of the pressure and had my own list of questions ready for the final web conference of the week.  This conference consisted of a small, intimate group of students, most of whom I have connected with throughout the coursework.  Consequently, we were able to bounce ideas between each other and Dr. Abernathy for what I consider the most robust, productive web conference of my entire program.  My first main question was answered almost immediately:  Dr. Abernathy told us that our comprehensive exam introductions should maintain a balance between the expression of our own personal narratives and an overview of the types of material to be covered in the paper.  Later on, Dr. Abernathy addressed my concerns regarding the field-based summary reports, indicating that various activities that reflected mastery of several ISTE indicators could be crossed-referenced to indicate the connectedness of our learning and experiences.  Also, she informed us that the signed summary report would not be due on our eportfolio until the final week of the course.  I was immensely relieved to have more time to refine and organize my thoughts for those all-important reflections.  Overall, this second conference allayed many of my fears and allowed me to feel much more confident in my abilities to complete this course in time for the long-awaited December graduation date.

The Power of Reflection (EDLD 5397)

Chinese philosopher Confucius said in The Analects, “Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.”  (Sturgeon, 2006)  Like Confucius, I believe that experience becomes a bitter teacher if reflection does not serve as part of the learning.  Dana (2009) emphasizes the need to incorporate inquiry and reflection into already existing activities.  She describes how principal Jim Brandenburg took a regular and necessary responsibility of his work, an annual evaluation, and engineered it to be an opportunity for reflection and realignment of questions and goals.  In this way, Brandenburg has allowed for a specific time for reflection, and has involved his superintendent in the inquiry process.  Although I teach the same curriculum every year, the lessons themselves change and evolve.  Each time I teach a lesson, I take time to consider the successes and failures of the day.  I notate what I’ve discovered in the process, so that I can make informed decisions about not only that lesson, but future lessons.  When I meet with my administrator and lead science teacher, I can speak about not only the hard data from assessment but of the qualitative data I collect from self-reflection.   

     In his book Why Don’t Students Like School, Daniel Willingham (2009) sets apart the cognitive processes of experts from those of novices.  The difference between a novice and an expert stems from something more complex than simply having more information stored in long-term memory.  Experts use this information in fundamentally different cognitive ways:  “the cognitive processes of experts are set apart from those of novices in this way:  Experts don’t think in terms of surface structure, as novices do; they think in terms of functions, or deep structure” (Willingham, 2009, p. 133).  Reflection is the mechanism by which new information is incorporated into existing abstract functions and by which adjustments are made to future action.  In studying, reflecting on, and adjusting my own best practices and the practices of others, I become a leader capable of more strategic and long-term thinking.   I also find a place of ethics and empathy that stem from true metacognition about my choices and their consequences that enables more effective communication and leadership.

References:

Dana, N. F. (2009). Leading With Passion and Knowledge: The Principal as Action Researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Sturgeon, D. (2006). Wei Zheng. Retrieved July 12, 2010, from Chinese Text Project: http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1083&if=en

Willingham, D. (2009). Why Don't Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Web Conference 2 Overview - EDLD 5397

I was able to participate directly in the Week 2 web conference, and I took the opportunity to ask questions regarding the action research project write-up coming in Weeks 3 and 4 of the course.  To the best of my understanding, we will not be required to write the action research summary in an article form for submission; however, Dr. Martin encouraged those students who had an interest in doing so would need to follow IRB protocols.  Students in this week’s conference, as in last week’s, had questions concerning the changing of a site mentor.  Many also asked for clarification on several clarifications for the Week 2 assignment as they related to the differences between the ISTE indicators for Educational Technology students and the Principal Competencies for the Educational Administration students. In listening to the discussion, I determined that my best course of action was to consider both aspects as I made adjustments to my plan.  A few students had questions regarding TK20, which I frankly do not find particularly useful.  The assignments required on TK20 have been prompted thus far, and I do not see any reason for that to change.  After many student questions had been answered, Dr. Mason prompted us to share examples of leadership successes in an effort to offer colleagues some potential options for consideration.  Although a few members of the web conference complied with this request, it seemed that the majority of attendees participated solely to receive information as opposed to offering it.  Some of my own anxieties regarding the final push towards certification and graduation were reflected in the tenor of the conference, which served both to validate and heighten my own concerns.

A Milestone on the Path to Leadership

When I was selected by my principal to serve on the campus instructional leadership team in spring of 2009, I frankly felt some reluctance to serve.  I would finish a two-year rotation on the campus improvement committee (site-based decision making) in a few short weeks, and I had found the experience to be frustrating.  The committee served essentially in a compliance capacity:  the principal completed the campus needs assessment and the improvement plan each year, and the members would simply endorse the document after only the most cursory of reviews.  The instructional leadership teams were required by the district, and I had little confidence that the team on my campus would play any real role in campus decision making. 

Less than a week after being appointed to the committee, my principal announced his departure from the campus.  After an awkward and contentious transition to new leadership, the team had a tenuous start in the 2009-2010 school year.  However, even in that first year it became clear: under new campus leadership, this team would serve as a critical component of decision-making and continuous improvement.  As I began my coursework and internship at the end of that year, two surprises awaited me:  first, I learned that my campus would receive a campus-wide technology upgrade to interactive whiteboard technology; second, I was asked to serve in a new, more visible leadership role on campus as head of the quality instruction sub-committee.  I was thrilled about the prospects of having such an avenue to promote and model constructivist teaching practices with the integration of technology. 

At the start of the 2010-2011 school year, I assembled a robust, cross-curricular, and vertically representative team to begin framing goals for professional development, peer coaching, and professional learning.  As I mentioned in last week’s posting, the committee worked with me to set a new framework for professional development in technology integration and instructional practices.  In a comparison between initial and summative staff surveys, staff related an increased confidence in new instructional techniques and technology integrations and a more consistent use of the same.  It was an excellent first step and a proud moment for me as a developing leader. 

Watershed Moments

As I begin my final sprint to the finish line, the time has come to look back on the experience of evolving from a leader of students to a leader of teachers:  the process has changed me in more ways than I could have known.

Building a professional development framework has been one of the most authentic learning experiences of my coursework and field-based activities.  I strived to create a sort of narrative thread throughout my different activities with the intent of building a robust documentation of my professional vision.   As such, I used a particular professional development need on my campus as the thrust of my action research, so that my professional development efforts could serve as both qualitative and quantitative data for my research.  From early in our coursework, I have seen the benefits of a professional development plan that supports ongoing learning in the style of professional learning communities (PLC’s) that provided shared learning and support from small groups working toward a similar goal. (Dana, 2009)  While I recognized the need to maintain a level of cohesiveness with the prevailing methodology for professional development in my school district, my internship activities allowed me to use the new approach in conjunction with more traditional PD norms.  As a result, I developed a PD process for the implementation of our new IWB technology that utilized a combination of large group instruction, open lab opportunities, and follow-up collaboration with grade-level or content-level teams as they prepared for realtime implementation.   What evolved as the most significant surprise in this process was the level of autonomy faculty members were willing to take on as the PLC’s moved forward in the PD framework for the year.  As often as I checked in with groups to monitor their progress toward yearly goals and offer my assistance, my group members came to me with fully formed lessons that were ready for implementation.  The overall level of participation by faculty members in this initiative far outpaced my original expectations, a reality I found not only surprising, but absolutely thrilling.

One of the more challenging activities during the past year sprang up from a completely unexpected source:  the transition of my internship to a more administrative perspective.  As a result of this shift, I was asked to work closely with my principal to develop the comprehensive needs assessment and campus improvement plan for the upcoming school year.  While I had a passing familiarity with these documents as a former member of the campus improvement team, they were, to me, documents one step removed from the day to day functions of my campus.  This had evolved for two reasons.  Under the leadership of my former principal, the development of these documents were not particularly collaborative: while teams were invited to offer feedback and suggestions, the actual drafting of the documents was done by the principal and presented to the campus improvement team for approval.  Additionally, the message was clear that these were simply compliance documents that were not going to act as the overarching law of the campus.  Few people on campus could even locate the documents upon request, and virtually none, myself included, could speak intelligently on the content of the documents.  At the same time I moved into a more significant administrative role, my new campus principal looked to create processes where the campus needs assessment and campus improvement plan would function as they were intended: as legitimate governing documents for decision-making and campus improvement.  (Elmore & City, 2007) The leadership training I completed to facilitate the development of these documents forced me to look at data in completely new ways, and gave me at times shocking new insights into how data is used both effectively and ineffectively for decision-making.  Concurrently, I took the Leadership for Accountability course, which worked in perfect conjunction to cement this new skill set.  I had the opportunity to lead the two-day professional development session on my campus that used the districts’ new formats to create cohesive documents with common vocabulary but unique campus goals.  In my follow up meetings with campus and district leadership, I felt more confident than I dreamed possible as I analyzed data trends and strength/gap assessments to develop campus goals and action plans.  It was in that moment I realized that I was ready to take on not only a teacher leader role, but a true campus leadership role.

References:

Dana, N. F. (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: The principal as action researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Elmore, R., & City, E. (2007, May/June). The road to school improvement. Harvard Education Letter , 23 (3), pp. 1-3.