Leadership in Instructional Technology

By George Davidson and Matthew M. Maurer

~ P ' ~ h e best current evidence is that media are | m e r e vehicles that deliver instruction but do

. l . not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition" (Clark, 1983, p. 445).

A Need for More Preparation Discussions with post-graduates of educational administration programs let us know that principals needed and wanted more preparation in the use of technology for instruction. An educational adminis- tration professor with an interest in instruction and technology and an instructional technology professor with an interest in leadership designed a pilot course titled, "Leadership in Instructional Technology." The course focused on instruction and its impact upon technology. The issue for both instructors and principals was how to improve teaching and learning for elementary, middle, and secondary students, and how technology can assist exemplary, theory-based instructional practices.

Practitioners often shared a vision of teaching and learning that included computers without conceptualizing the role of technology in the curricu- lum. The computer became a "solution in search of a problem." The authors created a principal prepara- tion course that would find the solutions in instruc- tional models and strategies and in instructional leadership. To create the principal's role as instruc- tional technology facilitator, administrators must first understand the capabilities and possibilities of technology. They needed to substitute weak computer programs with stronger instructional applications based upon current learning theory.

Some principals have delegated the instructional responsibility to teachers, librarians, and technology

George Davidson is Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana. Matthew M. Maurer is Assistant Professor of Instruc- tional Technology at Butler University.

directors. Our course in leadership in instructional technology offers expert and referent power for principals to share with others. The potential for the improvement of instruction is so powerful that principals must become visionary leaders in the new instructional technology.

Collaboration Makes the Course Unique What is unique about this course is the interaction among three important knowledge bases for principals:

�9 instructional models and strategies (schema and metacognition),

�9 hardware and software applications, and

�9 leadership theory. The collaboration between a technologist and an administrator gave principals insight into instruc- tional leadership. We taught the course together to model this interaction. Principals were urged to recognize the connection between what happens instructionally and what happens technologically to inspire teaching and learning. Principals expanded their awareness of the capabilities of the technology as they explored the instructional possibilities of the technology.

Hands-On Experiences Experiences with examples of less effective and more substantial software applications were provided early in the course. Principals were guided away from a view of technology as "drill-and-kill" and game playing toward a paradigm of teaching and learning that uses technology as a basic tool. The software experience helped the principals shift their concep- tion of instructional applications from efficiency to efficacy. We wanted to move from educational games as the principals' primary understanding of the appropriate use of technology toward a vision of teaching and learning that helps students to construct

APRIL/MAY 1995 TECHTRENDS 23

meaning from information created in a data base, on a spreadsheet, or on a word processor. These early activities helped the principals to develop an under- standing of the importance of technology for teach- ing and learning and of the responsibility for direct- ing its effective use in the curriculum.

The course description was written to encourage principals with limited technological skills to partici- pate. Students with a variety of experience and proficiency were enrolled. To captivate them and to set them at ease, we engaged in several hands- on computer activities early in the instruction. Among our successful activities were experiences that connected principals with teaching and learning both intellectually and affectively. The principals recognized the instructional value of CD-ROM dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other data bases. They recalled the excitement with which their own students used these resources.

We began by teaching the principals to disas- semble the machines. They removed the covers from the processors, removed the hard drive, and investi- gated the components and their connections. The students reassembled the machines and discovered with surprise and delight that the computers still worked. After a demonstration of a variety of basic educational software, the students went for a "test drive." They quickly recognized that they would not break the hardware or erase the software. Also, we previewed commercial software that used hard drives, CD-ROM drives, and laser disk players.

The principals explored Kid Pix TM, a young children's paint program, without an overloading of instructions or assignments. They experimented with the toolbar, drew pictures, and played with the erase functions. Lastly, they printed their creations-- published them--for their teachers and their chil- dren. To get them started with Kid Pix, we organized the principals into dyads. Two principals were placed on Macintosh LCs separated by an architectural post. The post seemed to provide a sense of security and space which supported collaboration. Although cooperation among participants was not a stated goal, as they investigated the paint program, the principals naturally turned to each other for assistance, shared their outcomes, and offered predictions. We were surprised by their collaboration and referred to this serendipitous outcome as the "Pillar Effect."

Interesting telecommunications data were demonstrated. We opened a modem connection to

... an intellectual and leadership paradigm

shift was introduced, from which there can

be no retreat.

the Indiana Department of Education's IdeaNet network of data about the state's schools, students, and educators. Principals quickly engaged in data gathering, prediction, and analysis by reviewing their schools' expected and achieved indicators of academic performance and their schools' salary data. Logo was promoted as a tool to encourage children's inquiry and to build their higher order thinking and problem solving skills. Basic Logo was one of the applications

that captured the imagination of some of the principals while frustrating some others. Although all of the principals attempted the assignment, two went beyond the

expected task to derive recursion rules for making stars.

The course emphasized instructional applications rather than administrative uses, with administrative hardware and software applications left until the end. Therefore, principals concentrated on the instruc- tional uses of the software but also independently generated ideas for appropriate and effective adminis- trative applications. Only with FileMa/eerPro TM, a data base, did we present an administrative applica- tion first, followed by a discussion and presentation of instructional uses for this and other commercial data base programs. As expected, principals were so enthralled with the administrative potential of the data base that they tended to overlook its instruc- tional implications.

An introduction of schema theory and metacog- nition in language and literacy education was pre- sented mainly through the use of several instructional applications including the children's book and software Just Grandma andMe, the American Broad- casting Company series In the Holy Land, the hypermedia authoring software HyperCard, and Microsoft T M Word 5.1 word processor. We modeled effective instruction by presenting schema theory and metacognition using these applications, engaging the principals in progressive writing as a process writing method. The principals then discussed strategies and lesson plans to teach language and literacy skills and concepts, to integrate content, and to practice creative writing strategies. The principals seized the opportunity to experience the joy of learning using exciting and constructive instructional applications. Therefore, an intellectual and leadership paradigm shift was introduced, from which there can be no retreat.

24 TECHTRENDS APRIL/MAY 1995

Predictable and Unexpected Outcomes Some of what occurred in the computer lab was predictable. Prior planning with an elementary school principal led us to speculate about several of the outcomes. We expected increased awareness of the capabilities and potential of technology; we expected interest in translating the new learning into a goal action plan; and we expected an inordinate interest in administrative applications. What was more interest- ing, however, were the unanticipated outcomes.

The initial discussions of the theoretical and conceptual framework for instructional technology did not appear to inspire confidence or alter attitudes. Only after repeated experiences using the technology and planning lessons did Clark's delivery truck metaphor appear to have a powerful effect.

As we collaboratively assessed the course, the instructors and the principals recognized the advan- tage of sharing the learning with teachers and chil- dren by having elementary teachers and students participate in the course with the principals. Con- cerns were raised about children's ability to perform the requisite tasks with the seemingly complex technology. However, the principals soon recognized the comfort with which children manipulate the machines, solve technical problems, and think critically. Misunderstandings about children and computers began to be resolved. Effective instruc- tional leaders will create experiences in which chil- dren, teachers, and principals learn collaboratively.

Another unanticipated outcome of learning a new task, such as creating a Logo "house," was the principals' early desire to get it right--quickly! Their strong need to achieve interfered with their learning. They discussed the cognitive and affective implica- tions of this upon children. Apparently, the principals were more sensitive to this issue with children than they were with themselves.

An interesting example of the principals' strong need for achievement occurred during an introduc- tion of the instructional implications of spreadsheets. The instructors asked the principals to estimate the number of loops in the lab's carpet. We set up the spreadsheet to calculate an estimate. When the estimate was completed, the instructors made a casual comparison to a printed estimate from a group of children. There was a 10% difference between the two numbers. As a group, the principals proposed reasons for the discrepancy. Their discussion focused exclusively on why their number might be incorrect.

They tended to believe the printed estimate. After discussion, the principals adjusted their measure- ments slightly to more closely match the children's estimate.

An unexpected outcome served to moderate the principals' highly competitive nature. They were genuinely pleased by each other's accomplishments and breakthroughs. The principals made a subtle shift from personal competition to group collaboration. They intuitively understood that they were not technology experts and needed collaboration to accomplish their tasks. Removed from their normal, more isolated administrative context, the principals adopted a more collaborative style. In one instance, the principals shared their scripting in HyperCard and celebrated with applause when one principal discovered a divergent path to recursion in Logo.

The principals' experiences with several of the applications were a justification of schema theory. They appeared to enjoy and to learn processes, concepts, and tasks that had familiarity, which activated their schemata. Word processing and spreadsheets seemed to have a particularly powerful appeal to the principals.

Regardless of our insistence that we consider the instructional uses of all of the applications, the principals consistently juxtaposed the instructional advantages of programs with solutions for administra- tive problems. Word processing, spreadsheets, and data bases had special attraction for the principals. They seemed to be attuned to both instructional leadership and administrative applications.

The "Pillar Effect," although somewhat comical, suggested that given an appropriately safe, encourag- ing, and natural environment, principals and children will interact and collaborate in task completion. We were impressed with the principals' apparent need to exchange predictions about strategies and their genuine joy with each other's accomplishments.

The principals consistently experienced and shared their enthusiasm and joy of learning. The more the application challenged their problem- solving skills, the more they used metacognitive strategies. The principals were impressed by their new understanding of the implications of instructional technology for children.

As the semester progressed, we witnessed an increase in the symbolic use of instruction and technology language and jargon, almost as a signal of the acceptance of the new learning. As a final project, principals were asked to complete a personal goal action plan to implement ideas discovered during the

APRIL/MAY 1995 TECHTRENDS 25

semester. They demonstrated that they had internal- ized and transferred the learning as they used their new vocabulary, explored new applications, and solved problems. It was hoped that their struggles and accomplishments using the new technology would help the principals rethink teaching and learning. We were unprepared for the dramatic examples of reflective practice that the principals displayed. Collectively, they began to see the shortcomings of many of the instructional practices used in their schools. They were able to integrate new learning theory and apply new strategies to instructional technology.

The final discussion considered change and school improvement. The discussion of change broadened to include the principal's role in staff development. The principals recognized the impor- tance of shifting from more isolated, summative teacher evaluation models to more collaborative, clinical supervision models. The principals under- stood that good teaching is the key. Technology is one of many useful hooks to capture the teacher and the learner. Change became possible; the principals believed that they had the knowledge and skills to improve instruction for children and teachers.

Ideas for the Future As we plan for the Spring section of Leadership in Instructional Technology, we are committed to several changes. These are suggested to keep us constantly aware of our mission to improve instruction through technology and to offer principals new leadership skills in technology.

There is a need for a dialogue between teachers and principals about instruction and technology issues. Thus, the course is now open to teachers and administrators with an interest in instructional leadership. We trust that the synergy will spread part of the mission that our teaching alone can not. Additionally, we expect to integrate the nature of leadership--doing the right thing--into the students' instruction and exploration. As a leadership function, we recognize that change requires not only new knowledge but also implementation and assessment. As part of the ongoing instruction, we expect to include strategies for formative assessment and summative evaluation.

There is a need to emphasize telecommunications and networking. The gathering and sharing of information is continually growing in importance in education. More powerful tools are available. World-

wide networks, such as Internet, are more accessible to children, teachers, and principals. We will demon- strate the possibilities and capabilities of telecommu- nications including available information, E-mail, and hardware and software.

There is a need to maintain the instructional focus of the course. The goal is to engage principals and teachers in an exploration of teaching and learning. The management issues of technology must be secondary. However, teachers' and principals' natural instinct toward effective administrative applications, must be satisfied. We will help partici- pants discover the administrative uses of applications after we have explored instructional uses.

There is a need for collaboration. The interest of the College of Education in improving instruction for children suggests to us that we must share our learning with a broader audience. Therefore, we will work with our students to implement a Greater Indianapolis Symposium on Leadership in Instruc- tional Technology as a part of the mission of the course. We expect to involve practitioners and scholars from leadership, instruction, and technology in a one-evening celebration of teaching and learning.

Beyond the requirements of the course, we will continue to press for an institutional reward system to honor collaborative planning and teaching. We will challenge our college and university to adopt instruc- tional practices to meet the real and perceived needs of the field. We will continue to offer new models for faculty load and advancement based upon effective instructional practice. �9

References

Clark, R. E. (1983). "Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media." Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

Trademarks

The following software programs are trademarked to the companies listed:

FileMakerPro. (1992). Santa Clara, CA: Chris.

HyperCard 2. 0. (1989). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer.

In the Holy Land: Understanding Our World, ABC News. (1989). Warren, NJ: Optical Data.

Just Grandma andMe. (1992). Novato, CA: Broderbund.

KidPix. (1991). San Rafael, CA: Broderbund.

Logowriter. (1987). Highgate Springs, VT: Logo Computer Systems.

Microsoft Word 5.1. (1992). Redmond, WA: Microsoft.

26 TECHTRENDS APRIL/MAY 1995