Mac OS X only: Freeware program WebDesktop brings the functionality of Windows Active Desktop to the Mac… sort of.
WebDesktop places a resizable, overlaid web page on top of your Mac’s desktop wallpaper with the option to vary opacity while active/inactive. You can point WebDesktop to any web page, meaning that you can use it for fun active desktopproductivity tricks. You can set the page to refresh at intervals, so if, for example, you put your favorite productivity blog on your WebDesktop, you can have that bad boy refresh obsessively so you always stay on top of the latest content. WebDesktop is Mac OS X only freeware. — Adam Pash
Archive for November, 2006
These last two sections are indeed more brief. Here is the tenth of ten, focusing on effecting positive social change. Now on to the conclusion… then the annotated bibliography… and the Application portion of the KAM… there’s still a lot of work to do.
UPDATE: Actually, I’m including a cut and dry conclusion here and moving on. :)
10. Effect Positive Social Change
In the end, parents and the community do not exist so much to improve schools as schools exist to improve the community, or society at large. Professional learning community theorists tend to subscribe to the view that the purpose of any school change is to effect positive social change.
The DuFours in particular support this view, from their philosophy of service leadership (Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, p. 54) to their efforts to “building engines of hope” (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 110). In short, they believe that the “most powerful fuel for sustaining the initiative to improve a school is not the desire to raise test scores but rather the moral imperative …the professional learning community concept offers the best strategy for connecting educators to that moral imperative” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 11-12). Put another way, school change is made “not for the sake of improved test scores, but for the sake of the dreams and aspirations of the children whose lives they touch” (p. 192).
Others in the field espouse similar philosophies. Wald and Castleberry (2000) suggested that educators “see each other as human beings brimming with possibility and potential” rather than “as part of an assembly line” (p. 14). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) were interested in “in identifying, celebrating, and modeling on an ongoing bases those behaviors and accomplishments that reinforce the positive aspects of the culture” (p. 177). Hord (2004) was also interested in being sure that “students of all social backgrounds benefit equally, regardless of race, gender, or family income” (p. 12). Acknowledging the interconnectedness of education and societal change, Stone and Cuper (2006) concluded that “”we must be forever vigilant in our search for creative and unique solutions to help us meet the educational needs of our students and prepare them for the society and world these changes will bring” (p. 89). Stone and Cuper also captured the spirit of education for social change when they wrote that:
“Recognizing the global nature of educating our children has provided the children the opportunity to take their education into their own hands and act as leaders in the community. It has given parents input they had been denied, creating a more positive relationship with the school. It provides the greater community a chance to give back and act as stewards for the environment and the children who live there. No one is left in doubt as to his or her contribution to each child’s education or his or her role in creating a positive change in the world.” (Stone and Cuper, 2006, p. 53)
The use of new educational technologies, such as video games and simulations, is not an end unto itself. The change agents responsible for the implementation of such technologies must always keep in mind the question of whether or not the greater social good is being served by the changes they propose.
Based on the works of DuFour & DuFour, Wald & Castlebury, Huffman & Hipp, Roberts & Pruit, Hord, and Stone & Cuper, a working theory of school change has been presented in three sections: Facilitating Organizational Change, Overcoming Resistance to Organizational Change, and Integrating Organizational Change with Society. Five principles of school change related to Facilitating Organizational Change: respect the realities of change; establish mission, vision, values, and goals; focus on what’s important; develop leadership; and develop teaching. Three more principles related to Overcoming Resistance to Organizational Change: respond to obstacles, challenges, and barriers; sustain the process; and, develop learning. Finally, the last two principals related to Integrating School Organizational Change with Society: include family and community, and effect positive school change. In addition to the similar principles presented in the breadth portion of the KAM, these additional principles can, and should, be used to guide the process of integrating video games and simulations as educational technologies in a constructivist learning environment.
I’m nearing the end of this portion of the KAM and these last few sections will be more brief. Below is my cursory treatment of the necessity of involving parents and the community in professional learning communities and other school change initiatives…
Integrating Organizational Change with Society
A thorough review was conducted of theories about professional learning communities published by DuFour & DuFour, Wald & Castlebury, Huffman & Hipp, Roberts & Pruit, Hord, and Stone & Cuper. This review has revealed ten elements of school change that can be used to guide the process of integrating video games and simulations as educational technologies in a constructivist learning environment. The final two of these elements relate to integrating organizational change with society: include the family and community, and effect positive social change.
9. Include the Family and Community
As with any school change, professional learning communities are not formed in isolation. Families of the students (and faculty) and the surrounding community influence and are influenced by the changes in the school. Professional learning community theorists recommend taking advantage of this symbiotic relationship rather than ignoring it.
DuFour and Eaker (1998) look at parents as partners (p. 238), and they offer a framework for school-parent partnerships that consists of six standards. The first is that “communication between the home and school is regular, two-way, and meaningful” (p. 241). The second standard is to promote and support the development of parenting skills in the community (p. 244). Third, they recommend that schools encourage parents to “play an integral role in assisting student learning” (p. 245). Fourth is the requirement that parents be welcome in the school, and that their support and assistance are sought (p. 246). The fifth standard is that parents be made “full partners in the decisions that affect their children” (p. 248). Finally, they recommend collaboration with the community such that “community resources are used to strengthen schools, families and student learning” (p. 249). DuFour and Eaker also include “representatives of parents” (p. 67) in the process of developing shared mission, vision, values, and goals. Later, Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) include involving parents among their strategies for responding to students who are not learning (p. 71). DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek (2004) then recommended parent workshops organized by grade level (p. 108).
Roberts and Pruitt (2003) also explore ways to “collaborate with parents in learning communities” (p. 153). Like the DuFours, they offer tips for home-school communication, parenting, parent involvement in student learning, parent volunteering, parent-inclusive decision making, and collaboration with the community (p. 153-155). In short, Roberts and Pruitt believed that “students, parents, and teachers benefit when parents assume the role of learners” (p. 15) and that parents, too, can be school leaders (p. 176). Similarly, Huffman and Hipp (2003) viewed “a united effort from school staff, parents, and community members [as being] critical to embed effective practices and values into the culture of the school” (p. 64). Hord (2004) also included parents and other citizens as part of external support in her model of professional learning communities (p. 12). Stone and Cuper (2006) also include community among their three C’s of education: a classroom, a community, and collaboration (p. 46). This framework, too, is accompanied by numerous tips that might help aspiring change agents to leverage parents and the community for successful school change.
In order to draw on all available resources and to maximize the chances of success and sustainability for their change initiatives, change agents should involve parents and community members in all phases of the change process from planning to implementation and on into assessment and re-evaluation. This is true even of efforts to incorporate new educational technologies such as video games and simulations. Parents and community members may poses valuable expertise and at the very least will be able to understand a broader perspective on the influence of new technologies on the lives of students. Many obstacles, challenges, and barriers may be avoided or more easily dealt with on account of parent and community input into a change process.
We are now a proud one terabyte home. :)
Back when I got my MacBook in June, I picked up a MyBook 500 GB drive soon after. This was more than enough space to back up all seven computers in the house. Since then we’ve stopped using them all except my MacBook, Eva’s iMac, and her iBook from work… and the external drive has since become an extension of my MacBook. However, Eva’s video projects (with her kindergartners) are getting massive, and we just bought a second MyBook 500 GB drive! Counting the hard drives in the machines we’re at about 1.4 terabytes of storage in here. Whoa.
It was also fun that Eva just walked over to the Office Depot and came back with it… and for a great deal, too, especially with the $50 mail in rebate.
Here’s the last section of my KAM focused on overcoming organizational resistance. Here I focus on building the learning capacity of the organization as a strategy for sustained change. Of course this DRAFT is only a surface treatment of the subject, but I suppose this will all add up…
8. Develop Learning Capacity
Hord (2004) wrote that “substantive change is never simple, and any change requires learning” (p. 57). Ultimately, the sustained success of a professional learning community, or any individual change initiative, is dependent on the ability of the organization (or school) to learn. Change agents should focus first and foremost on developing the learning capacity of their organizations, and the individuals in those organizations.
The DuFours focused on schools as learning organizations (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 15). Even though developing teaching skills is important, these authors describe a cultural shift from a school that is primarily focused on teaching to one that is primarily focused on learning (Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, p. 18; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 173; DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006, p. 83), and from a culture of average learning to a culture of individual learning (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 177). They advocate “learning for all versus teaching for all” (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 12). They call for the principal to model lifelong learning (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 120) and to focus on developing a staff of lifelong learners (p. 121). Among their tips for celebrations, a key to sustaining professional learning communities, the DuFours even recommend sharing professional learning at weekly team meetings and monthly staff meetings (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006, p. 91).
Other professional learning community theorists also emphasized the importance of learning for sustained change in schools. Wald and Castleberry (2000) focused on certain assumptions about adult learning; according to their model adult learning is an active process that occurs over time (p. 10), is driven by the learner around meaningful issues (p. 11), is experimental by nature (p. 11), and is fueled by rich, diverse, accessible sources of information (p. 12). They also felt that “inquiry into underlying assumptions deepens the learning process” (p. 9). For Wald and Castleberry a professional learning community would be one in which the learner “the learner not only hears and processes the information but also experiments with it and then documents and reflects on the results” (p. 10). It is also important that “opportunities exist for the expert to learn from the learner and for the learners to learn from each other and from their own fund of knowledge and experience” (p. 12). In addition, Wald and Castleberry write that:
“yet other rich and diverse sources of information can be found inside and outside the school walls… sharing know-how and ideas among staff… discussing success and failures, and… supporting each other in experimenting and reflecting… network with other teachers; access consultants and university faculty; and tap into multiple forms of technology, such as video, computer, and telecommunications.” (Wald & Castleberry, 2000, p. 12)
Roberts and Pruitt (2003) advocate a variety of means for members of a professional learning community to learn. One is to learn through a study group, or “a gathering of people who meet on a regularly scheduled basis to address issues that the group members have agreed to study” (p. 92). After all, “conversations among administrators, supervisors, and teachers are a critical aspect of building the professional learning community needed for successful school reculturing” (p. 91). They also suggest learning through a professional portfolio, or “a thoughtful document demonstrating a teacher’s approach to teaching or an administrator’s approach to leadership… and reflection about it” (p. 159).
Huffman and Hipp (2003) point out that a professional learning community is “focuses, first and foremost, upon learning on the part of professionals in the school as the way to increase learning on the part of students” (p. 76). This process of learning and application includes an early phase of “establishing a school culture that values sharing information” (p. 45). Meanwhile, “gaining knowledge, skills, and strategies often is accomplished by traditional staff development, including workshops, mini-workshops, conferences, district inservices, and university courses” (p. 47). It is critically important to throughout this process that the principal, as a co-learner, “models the level of learning expected from the professional staff” (p. 14).
Kagaan, too, wrote for:
“professionals who believe that the ‘whole’ of collective efforts is infinitely greater than the ‘sum’ of individual efforts. Professionals who are convinced that their own learning is prerequisite to the learning of students – and that the learning of students is enhanced by their own learning” (Kagaan, 2004, p. 1)
Kagaan (2004) also recommended several principals of staff development, including the expectations that “participants take responsibility for their own learning”, “exercises reflect higher-order thinking”, and “exercises engender collective energy” (p. 5).
Like Huffman and Hipp, Hord (2004), focused on “collective learning and application of that learning” (p. 1) and like Wald and Castleberry, she also focused on “making opportunity for teachers to learn” (p. 25). In addition to the sorts of experiences advocated by Huffman and Hipp, Hord emphasized the importance of teachers “learn[ing] from and teach[ing] each other by focusing their attention collectively on issues that they identified themselves” (p. 37).
Being primarily constructivist in their pedagogy, many of these theorists focused on the context of professional learning. Huffman and Hipp (2003) for instance believed that professional development should be “an activity that is embedded in the various educational processes of operating schools – curriculum development, student assessment, and the development and evaluation of instructional strategies” (p. 10). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) also advocated “job-embedded professional development strategies… [because] they are collaborative and offer opportunity for conversation, reflection, and inquiry” (p. 55). They also recommend that adult learners need to have “a practical use for the knowledge and think it will benefit them in real life” (p. 60), and they recommend that learning be an active and interactive process (p. 61). Similarly, DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2006) warn that “to transform data into information requires putting data in context” (p. 61) and recommend this as part of professional development efforts.
A great deal of adult learning is involved when new educational technologies are integrated into a school’s teachng and learning routines. For this reason, change agents responsible for the integration of new educational technologies, such as video games and simulations, must address the needs of the adult learners who will be implementing the new technologies. Professional development should be collaborative, context-embedded, and congruent with the principals of a professional learning community.
Even though this is the longest segment I’ve written so far, I probably discarded the most notes I had collected for this section, too! And still I feel it only barely scratches the surface of the topic… but I suppose this should be a given when I review the resources I have and try to boil them down to a thirty page paper.
In any case, here is my *overview* of what professional learning community literature has to say on sustaining the change process.
7. Sustain the Change Process
Establishing a professional learning community and then responding to obstacles, challenges, and barriers can go a long way toward improving the chances that school change initiatives will be successful. However, these efforts are easily wasted if the process is not sustained over time. Not surprisingly, professional learning community theorists also offer advice for sustaining the process. They explore the human needs for passion and persistence in addition to more structural changes.
Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour believed explained that “what the PLC model offers is a process, not a program” (p. 107), a process that DuFour and Eaker (1998) described as nonlinear and persistent (p. 282-283). A critical first step in this process is to build shared knowledge of the school’s current reality (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 95). It is also “imperative that the school develop a critical mass of personnel that accepts both the desirability and feasibility of transforming the school” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 286). To accomplish this and other steps, Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) recommended creation of a guiding coalition of school leadership (p. 61). The next step is the process of laying the foundation of shared mission, vision, values, and goals (p. 62-63). Then school structures, such as the schedule and organizational hierarchies, must be aligned with the professional learning community model, including time for teachers to plan or collaborate (p. 63-64). Over time, the ability to enhance team productivity by analyzing data, identifying strengths and weaknesses, reaching consensus on the reality of the past, and identifying a goal (p. 65). Perhaps most importantly, professional learning communities should “limit the number of collective commitments to a handful; five or six is plenty” (p. 103). These “collective commitments also serve as a guide for confrontation” (p. 104) when some staff are not fulfilling their commitments to the community. Huffman and Hipp (2003) articulated “five dimensions characteristic of schools with successful professional learning communities in place” (p. 6), including shared professional practice (p. 11) and “an environment that values such endeavors is enhanced by processes that encourage teachers to share their personal practices with one another… peer review and feedback on instructional practice in order to increase individual and organizational capacity” (p. 11). Finally, Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) warn that “the process need not and should not use a cookie cutter approach” (p. 81). Or, as DuFour and Eaker wrote in 1998:
“When the challenge of creating a professional learning community is reduced to a recipe or formula, it is easy to overlook the fact that this task is a passionate endeavor. A school becomes a professional learning community… by tapping into the wellsprings of emotions that lie within the professionals of that school.” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 280)
Other human “needs and yearnings that the professional learning committee seeks to address” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 280) include the “desire to succeed in one’s work” (p. 280), the “desire to belong, to feel a part of a collective endeavor” (p. 281), and the “desire to live a life of meaning, to serve a higher purpose, to make a difference in this world” (p. 282). Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) also addressed the importance of meeting often unmet needs for educators, such as the “need to feel a sense of personal accomplishment” (p. 52), the “need to belong” (p. 53), and the “need to feel our life has meaning” (p. 53). Ultimately, the professional learning community should set out to create “a community of caring and mutual concern” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 281). Wald and Castleberry (2000) also add that “to sustain… communal energy and hope, the leader must hold the vision high for all to see, constantly revisit it, expand on it, and continuously help members of the community connect with it and find ways to personalize it and make it their own” (p. 20). However, like Evans in the breadth portion of this KAM, DuFour and Eaker (1998) warn that “optimism must be tempered by tough-minded recognition of the difficulties that lie ahead” (p. 286). DuFour and Eaker (1998) wrote that passion and persistence are key to sustaining a professional learning community (p. 279), and in 2002 Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour were insistent that sustainability was a matter of “persistence, persistence, persistence” (p. 27). As they explained, “the difficult times are inevitable and can be overcome only through the tenacity and persistence that are byproducts of passion” (p. 105). Hord (2004), too, acknowledged that successful professional learning communities “had a realistic understanding of change as a process that requires an ongoing commitment that oftentimes simply reduces to perseverance” (p. 23).
There are ways, of course, to persevere wisely. DuFour and Eaker (1998) advocated observance of “the three Cs of sustaining an improvement initiative – communication, collaboration, and culture” (p. 106). They focused on “the need for clear, constant communication in support of [objectives]” (p. 106), the “shift from a culture of teacher isolation to a culture of deep and meaningful collaboration” (p. 10), and “embedding change in the culture of a school” (p. 131). Hord (2004) shared “strategies for increasing staff capacities for continuous learning” (p. 23), including “focusing on staff and student success” (p. 24), “making opportunities for teachers to learn” (p. 25), “inviting teachers into decision-making and implementation” (p. 25), “nurturing new ways of operating” (p. 26), and “connecting professional development to school improvement goals” (p. 51). Kagaan (2004) believed that “staff professional development should in significant part be about finding allies, colleagues, even soul mates for ideas that are worth pursuing” (p. 3) and that “good professional development should counter this sense of isolation… [teachers] should return to their daily responsibilities uplifted, renewed, and ready to assume new challenges” (p. 3). He supported “collective capacity building” (p. 3) and recommended three guiding principles of professional development:
- “Participants take responsibility for their own learning
- Development exercises reflect high-impact learning
- Development exercises engender collective energy” (Kaagan, 2004, p. 5)
“Most important,” Kagaan (2004) wrote, “the exercises have to stimulate and inspire, providing a sense of anticipation that will be rewarded and a challenge that will be fulfilled” (p. 6).
Wald and Castleberry (2000), for their part, focused on establishing “environments characterized by high levels of trust” (p. 62). These environments included elements such as openness, sharing, acceptance, support, and cooperative intention (p. 62). Hord (2004) also frequently addressed the theme of building trust in a professional learning community (p. 31, 33, 36, & 43). Wald and Castleberry (2000) also recommended five communication norms that facilitate collaborative learning: listening carefully, sharing relevant information, developing shared meaning, making assumptions explicit, and deciding by consensus (p. 64). In addition, they shared several “group practices that support collaborative learning” (p. 69): establishing ground rules (p. 69), exploring trust and task roles (p. 70), documenting information (p. 71), and reflecting on group processes (p. 71). Similarly, Huffman and Hipp (2003) identified “five dimensions characteristic of schools with successful professional learning communities in place” (p. 6): supportive conditions (p. 13, including “the people capacities of those involved and the physical, or structural, conditions” p. 12), restructured time in the school day (p. 13), and the abilities of principals to both relinquish power and model learning (p. 14). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) recommend that principals follow ten specific steps to sustain their professional learning communities, including taking “every opportunity to educate [the] staff and the broader school community about the characteristics of learning communities” (p. 47), demonstrating the value of learning “by actively participating in learning activities with the teachers” (p. 48), and consistently focusing on instructional outcomes (p. 48). They also shared many strategies for overcoming barriers to effective teamwork, including providing “time enough for the group process” (p. 72), paying attention to “issues of equity and diversity” (p. 74), and providing “training in team skills” (p. 77). They even address ways that conflict between team members can be managed (p. 83). Most importantly, “to ensure shared leadership is sustained” (p. 186), they recommend the continual development of new leaders at the school. This process can include strategies such as a mentoring program (p. 144-147). Another strategy recommended by Hord (2004) was to commit funding “for teachers to attend conferences and visit other schools to observe effective practices” (p. 39), after which those teachers would then be “responsible for imparting their new knowledge to the entire staff afterward” (p. 39).
Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour describe a cultural shift from a culture where “improvement efforts frequently shift as new fads or trends come along” (p. 28) to a culture in which commitment “to ‘stay the course’ in the attainment of the school vision [ensures that] new initiatives are only implemented if it is determined that the change will help the school achieve its vision of the future” (p. 28) and in which “the leader’s role is to promote, protect and defend the school’s vision and values and to confront behavior that is incongruent with the school’s vision and values” (p. 28). Hord (2004) describes this process as long-term transformation taking three years (115-120). In year one, a new professional learning community is “fighting the status quo” (p. 115). In year two, the school encounters what she calls “speed bumps on the path of transition” (p. 117), and year three finally brings “transition to transformation” (p. 120). She also points out that “three years is not long enough to develop professional learning communities, though” (p. 162) a sustainable seed can be planted in that amount of time.
Regarding the assessment of a school as a professional learning community, Huffman and Hipp (2003) warn that “while many principals and faculties conceptualize their schools as organizations operating as learning communities, they rarely meet the operational criteria” (p. 67) and they developed the School Professional Staff as Learning Community questionnaire as an instrument for objectively evaluating schools as professional learning communities (p. 68). Such an instrument is in keeping with Roberts and Pruitt’s (2003) philosophy of teachers learning through classroom observation (p. 118).
Many of the lessons learned by those who have sustained professional learning communities year after year can be valuable to change agents responsible for other long-term change initiatives, such as the integration of video games and simulations as educational technologies in schools. Such change agents, whether administrators or educational technologists, can benefit from considering the change initiative a process, in which human needs must be met over time with passion and persistence. They can also benefit from proceeding as wisely as possible by implementing the advice of the authors discussed above.
Here is the next section of my KAM (in DRAFT form of course). I’ve finished the first five sections on facilitating organizational change; this is the first on overcoming organizational resistance. It doesn’t offer many answers, but might get people pointed in the right direction. For now, I’ve included an “appendix” as a summary of a particularly valuable passage in one of the DuFours’ books.
Thanks to those who have been reading… and especially to the few who have left comments. It’s motivating to me, and the criticisms will be valuable as I move forward with this project. For everyone else, I apologize for the temporarily low signal to noise ratio. ;)
Overcoming Organizational Resistance
A thorough review was conducted of theories about professional learning communities published by DuFour & DuFour, Wald & Castlebury, Huffman & Hipp, Roberts & Pruit, Hord, and Stone & Cuper. This review has revealed ten elements of school change that can be used to guide the process of integrating video games and simulations as educational technologies in a constructivist learning environment. The next three of these elements relate to overcoming organizational resistance: respond to obstacles, challenges, and barriers; sustain the process; and, develop learning.
6. Respond to Obstacles, Challenges, and Barriers
As Hord (2004) reported, “changing schools is highly challenging, complex, and messy work – and change is rarely welcomed” (p. 3). There are a variety of obstacles, challenges, and barriers to successful school change, including resistance from faculty and others. However, many professional learning community theorists have addressed these elements of resistance. They have offered strategies for responding to obstacles, challenges, and barriers – and for overcoming organizational resistance.
One of the first and most obvious obstacles is people in the organization who actively resist change. DuFour and Eaker (1998) point out that “principals often make one of three mistakes as they struggle with this problem” (p. 188). They either “pay too much attention to the resisters… vilify the resisters… [or] focus on attitudes rather than behaviors” (p. 188-189). DuFour and Eaker share that “the most effective way to change negative attitudes is to focus on behavior… [thus] providing them with new experiences [that] can become a catalyst for transforming attitudes” (p. 190, see also DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, p. 85). There are a variety of other objections or problems that schools must overcome: the claim that “there is not enough money or personnel” to support the necessary changes, or that “there is not enough time for frequent teacher collaboration” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. xiv). These issues must be creatively and carefully accounted for in school schedules and budgets. Even so, there will be no denying that “building a professional learning community is difficult due to the many demands on teachers and administrators; the growing accountability issues; the increasingly diverse needs of students; teacher isolation and burnout; and many other unmanageable stressors” (Huffman & Hipp, 2003, p. 5). Increasing a school’s capacity for flexibility and adaptability is critical for successful change efforts, but ultimately, “the level of distrust, the lack of structural flexibility, debilitating levels of turnover among school and district personnel, lack of resources, and other obstacles combined to make PLC implementation a truly heroic effort” (Hord, 2004, p. 151).
In addition to these obstacles, DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) identified “three daunting challenges” (p. 9) to professional learning communities. The first is the challenge of “developing and applying shared knowledge” (p. 9), which is highly individualistic and dependent on context. The second is the challenge of “sustaining the hard work of change” (p. 10), which requires considerable effort and focus, particularly in the early days of a professional learning community. As DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour pointed out, there are “no easy shortcuts… it will require a staff to find common ground and to exert a focused, coherent, consistent effort over time” (p. 11). The third and most daunting challenge is that of “transforming school culture (p. 11), which the authors explain this way:
“Significant school transformation will require more than changes in structure – the policies, programs, and procedures of a school. Substantive and lasting change will ultimately require a transformation of culture – the beliefs, assumptions, expectations, and habits that constitute the norm for the people throughout the organization” (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 11)
The DuFours and others offer still more warnings about additional barriers. For instance, the sorts of logistical barriers that Richard DuFour overcame at Adlai Stevenson high school included the teacher’s association (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 68), instituting a new concept of supervision (p. 69), providing staffing (p. 71), revisiting the grading system (p. 72), continuing to handle discipline issues (p. 73), and working together to find solutions (p. 77). Many of these same issues will need to be addressed or revisited when a technology such as video games or simulations are introduced to a school culture. More “fundamental barriers to professional learning communities” were identified by DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005, p. 162). First among these was “a lack of clarity regarding vales, intentions, and beliefs” (p. 162). Clearly maintaining a focus on mission, vision, values, and goals will be important to overcoming this barrier. The next was a “dependence on those outside of the school for solutions to problems” (p. 162), which can only be overcome by building the problem solving capacity of the faculty, staff, and community of the school. The worst barrier was a “sense of resignation that robs educators of the energy that is essential to the continuous improvement of teaching, learning, and relationships in schools,” (p. 162), which can only be overcome through inspirational leadership, frequent celebrations, and consistent attention to the human side of school change. Elsewhere in the same volume, DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour offer an additional “ten barriers to action and how to overcome them” (p. 227-248, see appendix A for an overview of this discussion). Hord (2004) pointed out additional structural barriers, such as “lack of training, lack of time, lack of a culture of collaboration, and lack of leadership support for shared practice” (p. 152), and the fact that “for the most part, American teachers work in high-volume, short term relationships with students” (p. 153).
To overcome these barriers the principal (or other change agent) must “constantly nurture those who under[stand] the value of becoming a PLC and persuade those who [have] yet to recognize the strength of a PLC” (Hord, 2004, p. 23). This is important because, according to Hord’s observations, “professional learning communities provide the means through which teachers can be enabled and emboldened to develop individually as professionals, and collectively as a profession” (p. 153). Moreover, “those who begin the PLC journey and the cultural shifts that it requires should not only anticipate but should also welcome challenges to PLC concepts” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 168). After all, as Hord (2004) explained, “the most successful PLC schools… were catalyzed by an external crisis or opportunity and lead by a powerful administrator who transformed the external force into energy for internal change” (p. 4).
Clearly change agents responsible for the introduction of new educational technologies, such as video games and simulations, will need to respond to similar obstacles, challenges, and barriers. Luckily, similar solutions to those used in professional learning communities should be helpful. For instance, focusing on behaviors rather than attitudes may be a more efficient way to help educators accept the use of new technologies.
Here’s one more section before Eva and I rush out to meet with my brother, his wife, and my little one and a half year old hockey playing nephew. :)
This DRAFT is once again submitted for your consideration and comments…
5. Develop Teaching (Including Professional Development)
Dennis Sparks said that “teaching is the most effective means through which a leader can lead” (Tichy, 2002, p. 57, as cited in DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 165). As Hord (2004) pointed out, the most effective principal will be one who has a deep understanding of teaching and learning (p. 146), and one of the main benefits of developing a shared vision is the opportunity to then use that shared vision to recruit quality staff (p. 46). Developing a professional learning community necessitates not only a need to develop leadership, but also a need to develop high-quality teaching at the school. Ultimately the ability of an organization to teach and learn will be the determining factor in the success or failure of any change initiative, including any effort to introduce video games and simulations as educational technologies. For this reason, schools must overcome the cultural belief that they cannot honor or identify good teaching because it will “lead to unhealthy competition and bad feelings among teachers” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. xiv).
The DuFours and their co-authors put the development of quality teaching and learning at the heart of their professional learning community model. “First and foremost,” they said, “the potential benefits of collaboration will never be realized unless educators work together in matters directly related to teaching and learning” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 125). They described a professional teaching as one who emphasizes learning rather than teaching (p. 216), emphasizes active student engagement with significant content (p. 217), focuses on student performance and production (p. 218), routinely collaborates with their colleagues (p. 219), and consumes research as a student of teaching (p. 220, see also DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker, 2006, p. 83). For DuFour and Eaker, professional teachers also serve as leaders (p. 226). The DuFour’s constructivist approach to inquiry also plays a roll in their concept of a professional teacher; they consider “the focus of collective inquiry… both a search for best practice for helping students learn at high levels and an honest assessment of the current reality regarding teaching practices and student learning” (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006, p. 21). They also call for an interactive sort of teaching, including patterns of calling on students, responses to student answers (such as cuing, wait time, expressing confidence, asking the question in a different way, and validating what is right about a student’s answer while pointing in another direction; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 92), giving help (such as useful cues; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 92), dealing with errors, assigning tasks, offering feedback on student performance, and displaying tenacity as a teacher (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 90-91). In order to make this sort of teaching possible, they also suggest that school schedules be carefully designed to include “consistent and large blocks of teaching and learning time” (Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, p. 63), and to include collaborative structures with a focus on teaching and learning (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 196-199).
Hord (2004) also called for the professionalization of teaching; her model included critical self-consciousness (p. 155), practical expertise (p. 157), trustful relationships with students (p. 158), and collegial regulation among fellow teachers (p. 159). Hord shared that in “he most successful schools functioned as professional learning communities, where teachers helped one another, took collective (not just individual) responsibility for student learning, and worked continuously to improve their teaching practices” (p. 12). She also noted the importance of “providing the structures necessary for learning (e.g., team meetings, grade-level meetings, study groups, etc.) and look[ing] for other opportunities for… teachers to collaborate around meaningful teaching and learning issues” (Hord, 1997, as cited in Roberts & Pruitt, 2003, p. 47). Hord wasn’t alone in believing that “meaningful and continuous conversation among teachers about their beliefs, their teaching, their learning, and what they have learned about teaching is necessary for teachers to develop into a community of learners and leaders” (Kruse, Louis, Bryk, 1995, as cited in Roberts & Pruit, 2003, p. xi). Wald and Castleberry (2000) advocated a similar practice, writing that as teachers reflect on themselves “as learners in a larger community… [they] will have new insights about cooperative learning in heterogeneous groups, learner-centered teaching, and the inquiry-based approach to learning because” (p. 17). Stone and Cuper (2006) conclude that teacher education programs must be dedicated to fostering the concept of being a lifelong learner in professional educators so that they might pass this on to their (p. 88-89).
Professional development is an important part of building educators’ capacities as teachers. DuFour and Eaker (1998) recommend that the content of staff development programs should “be based on research”, focused on “both generic and discipline-specific teaching skills”, and used to “expand the repertoire of teachers to meet the needs of students who learn in diverse ways” (p. 276). They also recommend that the process of staff development should “attend to the tenets of good teaching,” “provide the ongoing coaching that is critical to the mastery of new skills,” “result in reflection and dialogue on the part of participants,” “be sustained over a considerable period of time,” and “be evaluated at several different levels, including evidence of improved student performance” (p. 276). Finally, they recommend that the context of staff development should “be focused on individual schools and have strong support from the central office”, “be so deeply embedded in daily work that it is difficult to determine where the work ends and the staff development begins”, and “foster renewal” (p. 277). Stone and Cuper (2006) further recommend
“enriching and extending teaching through professional conferences” (p. 102).
At the heart of any school change effort should be an attempt to improve teaching. Change agents who hope to help educators adopt video games and simulations as educational technologies need to be sure their efforts focus on such improvements as are recommended by the professional learning community theorists above. Games and simulations may even serve as natural means of helping teachers practice and hone their teaching and learning skills.
Well, I blasted through Thanksgiving without a post… but I can definitely echo Will’s sentiments, and I have to take at least a moment to disagree with Dave Winer. I think we do need a Thanksgiving 2.0 – something that gets back to the roots of the holiday (ie. giving thanks, which surprisingly was not a part of the extended family festivities I attended yesterday… I don’t get the impression this is uncommon) and something that is far healthier than the binge eating most American’s partake in.
At any rate, I’m writing again (still working on that last KAM), and here is part 4 of 10 in the depth, a brief focus on developing leadership in a professional learning community… for the purpose of instigating school change initiatives such as the introduction of video games and simulations for teaching and learning of course. Again, this is a DRAFT, but I am open to any feedback. I hope to pull together a completed version of this paper in the next couple of weeks. This all moves so slow! What with work and life and all…
4. Develop Leadership
A professional learning community cannot exist without leadership. Hord (2004) “found clear evidence that the administrator is key to the existence of a professional learning community” (p. 20), while Huffman and Hipp (2003) also noted that in a successful professional learning community, “leadership pervades the organization” (p. xvii). It follows that change agents who hope to bring about positive change in schools by developing professional learning communities must also take steps to develop leadership at all levels of their organization, in administrators, in teachers, and even in students.
According to DuFour and Eaker (1998), “to have the greatest impact, principals must define their job as helping to create a professional learning communities in which teachers can continually collaborate and learn how to become more effective” (p. 184). In addition, principals must model “behavior that is congruent with the vision and values of the school” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 193), remain results-oriented (p. 194), and find a balance in the paradox between urgency and patience within the change process (p. 195). Later, DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) wrote that principals should model lifelong learning (p. 120) and serve as a “leading learner” (p. 121), or “head learner” as Roberts & Pruitt (2003, p. 26) called it. Huffman and Hipp (2003) also considered principals “co-learners” who modeled the “the level of learning expected from the professional staff” (p. 14). Furthermore, the goal of the principal should be to “build a staff of lifelong learners” (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 121).
Walde and Castleberry (2000) also saw a leader as an “architect of relationships” (p. 27). This is a very different sort of leadership than the traditional top-down authoritative model that has been expected of principals in the past. DuFour and Eaker (1998) expected “principals of professional learning communities [to] lead through shared vision and values rather than through rules and procedures” (p. 184). Rather than directing others what to do, “principals of professional learning communities involve faculty members in the school’s decision-making process and empower individuals to act” (p. 185). Huffman and Hipp (2003) thought that “the ability of principals to relinquish power is essential for the support of professional learning communities” (p. 14). These principals do, however, provide direction by providing staff “with the information, training, and parameters they need to make good decisions” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, 186). In fact, Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) viewed administrators as “leaders of leaders” (p. 22). Huffman and Hipp expressed this by saying that:
“In PLCs, principals are not coercive or controlling, but seek to share power and distribute leadership among staff. In turn, staff increasingly become open to changing roles and responsibilities. Principals let go of power and nurture the human side and expertise of the entire school community. Shared responsibility is apparent through broad-based decision making that reflects commitment and accountability.” (Huffman & Hipp, 2003, p. 38)
If principals are leaders of leaders, then clearly the teachers, too, must serve as leaders in a professional learning community where leadership is shared. Hord (2004) advocated building teacher leadership within a traditional school structure (p. 140). She felt that “principals must be both willing to share leadership and able to develop conditions and communicate expectations that will advance shared leadership among school professionals” (p. 140). Huffman and Hipp (2003) described this kind of leadership saying, “it’s not like a leadership that’s passed around; it’s worn at all times by anyone who wants it” (p. 32). They called this “pervasive leadership” (p. 34). For Hord (2004), the development of shared (or pervasive) leadership enhances, and is enhanced by, team teaching (p. 9). As Stone and Cuper (2006) wrote, teachers come to “rely on each other’s areas of strength… [and] to support, help, and laugh with each other” (p. 101). For this reason, Stone and Cuper also advocated “collaboration pods” (p. 19), not unlike the teams suggested in the DuFours’ model. Stone and Cuper also understood that:
“the finest educational leadership… it is the leadership of teachers – big-spirited, compassionate, and inventive teachers who lead through their willingness to reach out to their colleagues and their communities. It is the leadership of teachers who are always on the lookout fro ways to enhance their practice through the use of new technologies, through professional development, and through discovering and sharing the talents of the people living in their communities” (Stone and Cuper, 2006, p. xi)
Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002), too, viewed teachers as “transformational leaders” (p. 22). Similarly, Huffman and Hipp (2003) noted that “setting expectations often begins with the principal, but in the high-readiness schools at the implementation phase, the teachers quickly assumed the responsibility for continuing to develop and to sustain those expectations” (p. 42).
Many of these theorists even advocated that leadership reach down to the student level. DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour (2005) acknowledged that “”the principal who joins with the faculty and students in learning activities is the one who changes the school culture into one that is hospitable to lifelong learning” (p. 121); student are included in the creation of this culture. Earlier Roberts and Pruitt explained that “leaders are not limited to the administrative ranks. Leaders may be staff members, parents, community members, or even students” (p. 176). Huffman and Hipp (2003) had documented schools in which “”teachers teach the students to lead one another, so there’s a bunch of leaders in [the] school” (p. 32), and later Stone and Cuper (2006) advocated that educators “designate student peer leaders in the classroom” (p. 146).
Developing meaningful and effective leadership abilities at each level of the organization – administrators, teachers, and students – requires a good deal of capacity building. After all, as Hord (2004) points out, “at the beginning, most teachers did not have experience with site based decision making, and principals often had to provide training on new roles and responsibilities” (p. 47). She noted that “of equal importance to establishing shared decision-making structures was the ability of the principals to increase decision-making capacity among their staff” (p. 49). She went on to explain several principal capacities that help build leadership in others, including listening (p. 146), knowledge of teaching and learning (p. 146), and consistency of follow through (p. 147). Hord also recommends recruiting external change agents to help with this process (p. 149).
If a change agent, internal or external, is helping an organization develop a professional learning community so that other change initiatives, such as the integration of video games and simulations into teaching and learning, might be more effective, then in addition to respecting the realities of change, establishing mission, vision, values, and goals, and focusing on what’s important, they must also be sure to develop leadership at all levels of the organization. Clearly efforts at building the leadership capacity of administrators are important, but these efforts should also be extended to include teachers (and even students) so that a culture of shared leadership can be developed at the school. There is no need to delay a change initiative in order to develop this leadership capacity, but this need for leadership development should be addressed as a part of any school change effort.
Open Weekend GE Course Reflections (Via Teaching Hacks.com.) This seems worth noting and I’d like to know more about it… and how it might be connected to Cristin Frodella’s work at Google for Educators:
The Google Earth Education Program offers schools and districts a free subscription to Google Earth Pro ($400 annually). Prospective schools and districts are encouraged to contact Dennis Reinhardt, Google Earth Education Director, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
It was also Google Earth and Geography Awareness Week last week.