Mr B’s Masterful Space

The most relevant competencies relating to my role as an IT coordinator and IT teacher in an international school are those within the design and development grouping.

One of the competencies is a description of what is known within the teaching circles as “differentiation” – the modification of instructional practices to reflect an understanding and accommodation of the diversity of learners and learner groups.

After reading the Siemens article I now have a name to put to the ID of the TAFE course I took and taught all those years ago – minimalism. A little too minimal for this animal!

But coming from the article, the sentence from Chizmar and Walbert that “pedagogy must drive the choice of instructional technology, not the other way around” really struck a chord.

Too often I hear comments like, “now that we have these (new tech thingies) we’ll be able to do so much more with our students.” I won’t argue. Yes, you will be able to do more, but is the “more” that the technology lets you do actually of any benefit? Does it improve the learning for the students? Does it make the content more accessible? Does it actually detract from the real learning needs?

These are the questions to be asked first – before going near any technology.

As the article also so nicely remarks, “Technology, no matter how advanced, cannot compensate for its misapplication.”

Reference:

Siemens, G (2002). Instructional Design in Elearning. elearnspace: everything elearning., Retrieved march 18, 2008, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionalDesign.htm

Laurillard raises some interesting points, precipitating the flourish of the highlighter on more than a few occasions. One that received a particularly generous splash of iridescent orange is to be found in the last paragraph of page 25, “The technology can do only so much. On its own, it cannot offer academics what they need to adapt their teaching to the needs of the digital age.”

This I find to be a little “front backwards” as it were. Let me rewind momentarily…

The article paints a very vivid picture of the challenges faced by today’s academics – research vs teaching – and hints at time as being a feature of that vivid picture. So, caught between these two possibly opposing pressures, the academic tends to lean towards the perceived area of most reward and, as discussed by Laurillard, the teaching ends up as the bridesmaid.

If we now take a moment to focus on that teaching, it would occur to me that the “caught in the middle” academic would be looking to methodologies that are the most effective in terms of covering the course content and producing results (successful students), hence the tried and true transmission model.

So, coming back to the recently orange-ified couple of sentences on page 25, it would seem to me that technology, or more specifically, the technologists, need to do so much more. Technology needs to adapt to the needs of the teaching, teacher and students.

With a clear understanding of what teachers and students need and what real learning is and how it takes place, the technology can adapt and do so much.

From the perspective of a teacher, it would seem the world is changing.

Harris and Muijs (2003) point to the fact that schools now face the challenge not of simply “how to improve”, but of “how to sustain improvement”. They suggest that teachers must become leaders within their faculties and school heads must become leaders of leaders. They point to three important factors influencing this sustained improvement – empowerment, time and opportunities for professional development.

With more and more pressures faced by teachers to meet government minimum standards, to teach ever changing curricula, to act as surrogate parents, etc, etc, becoming leaders in their schools is another pressure and as suggested by the research, another time consuming activity.

The role of the school leader, the principal, director, superintendent, headmaster has become less about leading a school and more about leading the staff within the school to be leaders themselves. At the same time, the headmaster must lead the school. Harris and Chapman (2002), in a study of leadership of schools recognized that successful school leaders possessed a range of leadership strategies to address the diverse sets of issues and problems they faced.

With so many changes affecting schools at this time, effective leadership would seem to be a prerequisite for effective teaching and learning.

References:

Harris, A, & Chapman, C (2002). Democratic Leadership for School Improvement in Challenging Contexts. International Electronic Journal, 6, Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume6/harris.html.

Harris, A, & Muijs, D (2003). Teacher Leadership: principles and practice. National College for School Leadership, Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media/DC8/39/teacher-leadership-summary.pdf.

As I have been reading through the text and the module notes I can’t help but think back to those managers and leaders who have managed and lead me – some of whom appeared on the list we were asked to quietly ponder at the beginning of the module. Some were good leaders and bad managers, some were bad leaders but good managers, some were good at both and well, let’s just say there were some that I’m glad I don’t work “under” any more!

One of the distinguishing factors of those I consider proficient at both leading and at managing is their interpersonal skills.

As a teacher of 15+ years experience ranging from preschool to university, now in charge of an IT department and staff at an international school, I find myself considering people skills, or more specifically, people-management-skills (and now I’m wondering if I should be writing people-leadership-skills?) as one of the most defining characteristics of an effective leader and manager. I highlight the “and” for the fact that the text and module notes seem to downplay this aspect for the manager.

If, as the text promotes, “leadership is the ability to inspire confidence and support among the people who are needed to achieve organisational goals” (Dubrin et al., p.3) and “effective leaders also manage and effective managers also lead” (Dubrin et al., p.5), then surely interpersonal skills play heavily in both areas.

I agree, as the text suggests, that the difference between the two may be one of emphasis, but not necessarily that the emphasis is determined by the job title on the name card. In my experience, the emphasis required is determined by the situation. The good leaders/managers that I have worked with have been the ones who have been able to respond to situations with the emphasis that brings about the most efficient and effective solution/resolution/conclusion.

Again, I find myself in agreement with the comparisons listed in the module notes (1.3.1) – there are these differences – but in order to be truly effective, one cannot exist without the other.

References:
Dubrin, A, Dalglish, C, & Miller, P (2006). Leadership: 2nd Asia-Pacific Edition. Milton: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.