*This is a reflection post required for my JHU-ISTE Leadership program.

This reflection is to focus on answering the following questions:
How has your definition of curriculum been shaped by the course readings and discussions? How and why has your definition of curriculum changed?

For reference, our texts for this course were:

Burrello, L. C., Lashley, C., & Beatty, E. E. (2001). Educating all students together: How school leaders create unified systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Glatthorn, A. A. (2004). Developing a quality curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Glatthorn

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999 or 2004). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson

As posted in my first reflection for this course I was certainly pushed on my definition of curriculum over the past eight weeks.  When I first started the course, I wasn’t sure that I had an established definition at all.  It seemed to me that many different people used many different definitions for the term.  Still does.  And while I believe I have more clarity on the issue, I’m not sure I’m ready to declare I have a definitive answer.  I’m not sure I want to.

The theme of the “written, taught, and tested” curriculum came up time and again in our work.  It still seems to me that is too narrow a focus for true curriculum.  I’m still of the mind that curriculum remains everything that students end up learning in our institution.  The written, taught, and tested is a big part of that to be sure, but it isn’t all of it.  Because again, kids learn as much about themselves, us, and learning from the things we chose to omit as from the things we choose to include.

There are many curriculums that are “test prep” focused.  That speaks volumes to students about the value of creativity and innovation.  Especially when they aren’t allowed such because it would interfere with the test prep scope and sequence.  When programs start cutting the arts, that teaches a student more than what they learn in an entire unit of grammar.  They learn between the lines.  I’m afraid we forget that.  We mislead ourselves to think they learn what we direct them to.  If you believe that, I’m afraid you’re sorely mistaken.

And if you aren’t considering the needs of all your students, again, you’re missing an incredibly large part of the point.  We’re not in this business to make things.  To manufacture items.  To manage.  We’re here to serve students and help them figure out how they can most effectively learn.  And we do that for all our students.  Tomlinson’s book certainly provided a great deal of thought on this topic.  And I think we’d do well to all remember that not all students  run a six minute mile, nor do they learn at the same rate.

In considering how my definition of curriculum has changed over the course of this class, I also recognize Glatthorn’s influence on my thinking.  His work provides an excellent framework for considering when working on implementing a new curriculum.  Although I can’t say that he directly changed any part of my definition of the term itself, he certainly provided great guidance in setting up a sound system that will help navigate curriculum change.

As this course draws to a close, and I’m considering my final definition of curriculum, I’d probably have to return to a variant of my original definition.

Curriculum is everything we want our students to learn; including the explicit and implicit of what our system fosters for learning.

I’m sure that will continue to evolve, and I’m happy with that.  I’m not ready to stop wrestling with the concept quite yet.

*This is a reflection post required for my JHU-ISTE Leadership program.

This post is being completed for the course “Curriculum Theory.” We have been exploring various curricular theories and programs, and this week we are to reflect on the following two questions:

* As a school administrator and instructional leader, what instructional technology would you expect to see in the written, taught, and tested curriculum of a school or school district striving to meet the needs of 21st century learners?
* What instructional technology would you promote to differentiate instruction for all learners?

The first question is certainly something I’ve discussed at length in the past. I don’t believe we should start with the technology first. I believe as a school district, we should first establish our learning goals, and then work to establish an ecology that helps us best meet our goals. I believe we’re past the point of teaching students specific technology competencies. I believe the technology is simply another option we choose to exercise when working to improve the learning experience for our students. I wrote about the way we started on this work in this post.  I still believe this is the approach to take. Establish the institution’s vision for learning, and then find the way to build the resources needed around the vision.

Developing an environment that is rife with opportunity for students to learn and extend beyond the classroom is also growing increasingly important. This discussion about the spaces in which we learn by David Jakes is a way that I see technology moving beyond the focus on tools.  The way the conversation is framed focuses entirely on how digital spaces and physical spaces merge to create an opportunity for students to engage the process of learning. In my opinion, this is the need of students today. Our mandate is to move the focus from teaching to learning, and then from the traditional means of learning to a more dynamic, individualized mode of learning that allows students to learn when and where they want outside of the classroom.

I believe creating such an environment will also provide the opportunity for students to differentiate the way they learn. By using ideas like the recorded lecture becoming the homework, we can then move the individualized transfer of learning in a classroom without taking up so much time with traditional instruction that leaves the collective intelligence of the classroom passively sitting and receiving information from a single source. Utilizing techniques like this with a combination of the physical and online environment means learning can become much more customized for students.

It is my honest belief that too often we approach technology backwards. We look at the tools, get excited, and work to shoehorn them into what is happening in the classroom. We focus more on the instruction rather than the learning. We get caught up in “Web 2.0 Whirlwinds” and “Tool Smackdowns” so that soon we misplace our focus on the tools and not what is taking place with the learning.

I absolutely believe in the power of technology-rich experiences like digital storytelling to engage literacy, wikis to engage collaboration, student-created media to engage creativity, primary sources available online to engage information fluency, and many other such technologies when they are working to engage the process of learning. When our focus is leading students on the journey of learning how to learn, and we choose technologies that help us advance that goal, that is when I think technology is the most meaningful and relevant for our schools and our students.

As part of my JHU-ISTE administration program, I am completing an internship with ISTE’s webinar department.  My task for the next couple weeks is to research potential topics for next year’s webinars.  Once we establish the topics, I will then explore potential speakers.  Sounds a bit familiar, I know.
While this certainly won’t prove as exciting a topic as that, I do think this is a good opportunity for you to voice your opinion on what ISTE should pursue next year.  If you look over this year’s offerings, you can get a sense for what topics have been a focus of late.

I certainly have some thoughts on potential topics.  I think a session on school law and teaching practices would be a fascinating topic.  I also believe a general session on social media’s role in learning would be of equal interest.  I’d be interested in hearing about how Linux could be used to save costs and increase student access.  And I’d love to hear how to develop online learning experiences that break from the traditional mold of old educational practices simply being replanted in the online soil.  I’d also love to hear about specific instructional/learning design for students living in a connected world.

I could go on, but I’d prefer this to be research I conduct collectively.  I’d like to know what topics you’d like to hear about.  I will take these suggestions and present them to the webinar project manager for ISTE.  She has agreed to consider the possibility of all requests.

I’d also like to gather any other feedback you might have about the ISTE webinar series.  What has value?  What needs changing?  This part is me going off script, but I’d still like to know.  Because I’m curious.

While I can’t promise you a grand voting experience that everyone will be talking about for the next six months, I can promise that your input will be valued and considered for future webinars.

So, what do you got?

I have been in education for ten years, and I haven’t thought enough about that question.  I’m now in the second week of the course, “Curriculum Theory” in my JHU-ISTE program, and we’ve started wrestling with some tough questions about curriculum.

The first being the title for this post.  What is curriculum?

It seems the answer can’t be cleaved from many political influences in most cases.  That’s fascinating- that so many will battle so hard over the very definition of something I find could be rather to entirely simple.  The more I delve into the topic, the more I find myself forced to simplicity.  In my opinion, curriculum is…

All the stuff our students learn.

That’s it.  Simple.

Where it gets exponentially complicated starts with the very first step away from the definition.  Who gets to pick the stuff the students learn?  Much more difficult and political.

Some say that the curriculum we choose is broken down into three parts; the written, the taught, and the tested.  Sure that’s part of it, but curriculum is much more than that.  It’s ALL the stuff our students learn.  That means both the intended and unintended.  When we start picking exactly what the stuff is that the students will learn, we begin formulating a construct that students will engage when learning.  Obviously, there will be written curriculum that is to be taught and then tested, but there is much more to it than that.  Because it’s the bigger construct of the scope of the curriculum that will likely have the greatest impact on a student.

What I mean is, if we set up a curriculum that focuses on finite, rote recitation of facts as a major outcome, we will intend to have students complete our institution’s educational scope and sequence with a specific knowledge base we’ve predetermined.  However, what we most likely will not intend for students to learn is how to game our system.  This is happening quite often in educational institutions who most value specific, information-based learning outcomes as students figure out how to work the system, or “Do School” as Denise Clark Pope suggests, and their final proficiency may say much more about how they learned to exploit than how they learned to learn what was intended.

Things continue to grow more complicated when we take another step back and look at some of the umbrella questions surrounding curriculum and its inception.

For example, the question was posed in our class last week, “Whose values should be reflected in the content and processes of curriculum?”  That question, frankly, is kicking my tail.  I’ve thought on it quite a bit, and I still don’t have a good answer for it.  I’d like to say mine, but mine probably isn’t yours, so why do I get to decide it’s mine and not yours?  I might say the learners, but what if collectively, they decide they don’t much value education in general?  Where does that leave us?  I could take the cheap way out and say society, but who in the world can say exactly what the values of society are?  Like I said, it’s kicking my tail.

Another step back.

Look bigger than just the curriculum.  Look at schooling in general.  What exactly is the purpose of school?  I’ve written about this before, and I still believe in what I wrote in that post.  It is all about learning.  That is the purpose.  However, if learning is the goal, what is the conduit?  That, I would have to say, is democracy.

This gets us nowhere easier than previous topics.  As Deborah Meier has stated before, democracy is an incredibly difficult process to understand.  There are fewer more important revolutions in the history of mankind than the information revolution.  That knowledge and learning and information moved from the privileged few to the masses means more for the progress of citizenry than perhaps any other reform.  However, learning in a democracy means dealing with difficult issues.  The tyranny of the majority.  The repression of the minority opinion.  The absolute need for empathy.  These are not always addressed in the democratic learning institutions where our students are learning.

If we teach in a democratic institution, then what exactly should be taught?  What subjects should students learn?  Yet another question to which I don’t have the answer.  I’d like to say students should learn what is of interest to them, but that if rife with complication.  I know if I had been given the opportunity to pick that which I would learn when I was in middle school, none of the subjects would have had any academic value.  I can assure you this, though, they would have been interesting.

Should we continue on with the just in case model; giving students a bit of everything just in case they might need it some day?  Should we move to the just in time model that delivers knowledge and learning right in the time when it is needed?  Do either really offer a true solution?

I can absolutely see the need for students to learn how to communicate dynamically, and it is likely there is a certain level of mathematics and science that is needed to succeed in our world, but other than that, what should we teach?  Citizenship, vocational skill, world languages, finance?  What about specific classes in project management, collaboration (the real kind, not just cooperative learning), critical thinking, etc.?

Obviously the more I write, the less I seem to know.

One last point before I bring this rambling, stumbling wreck of a post to a close.

What about me?  What do I do that makes a difference in the lives of learners today?  That, is a very valid question.  I’m the Instructional Technology Coordinator for a K-12 district in Illinois.  I have held this position for two years now.  I’d like to say that in that time, I’ve managed to facilitate great change in the way students interface with learning through technology.  For a host of reasons, I simply can’t say that with truth.  I face the same challenges many of my colleagues face in this profession.  I try to jump many of the same hurdles.  I’ve found there are reasons why I never went out for track in school.

I do believe we can engage our students in new and emerging ways.  I also believe there’s much we can be doing to better some of the old ways.  I will not stop fighting for what I believe is best for our students.  And that is, simply, learning.  I try to ground the work I do in that bedrock.  Many days I fail.  That doesn’t mean I will give up the trying.  As long as I’m in this position, and as long as I’m affiliated with the work of educating students, I will continue to fight for their learning.

Obviously, this is some kind of fragmented post.  But these are the things I’m wrestling with.  If you have any thoughts on one, a few, or all of the topics raised, I would greatly appreciate your sage wisdom.  Or even more questions.  Those seem to be what I can handle best at present.

Thanks to kevindooley for the use of the image.

*This is a reflection post required for my JHU-ISTE Leadership program.

For this assignment, I was required to conduct a full clinical observation cycle with a teacher.  I conducted a pre-observation conference, a classroom observation, and a post-observation conference.  I was required to video the post-observation conference, and the following are my notes regarding what I observed as I reviewed the recording.

*  What strengths and/or improvement areas did you notice about the environment and tone of the post-observation?
The post-observation conference I participated in was conducted in a staff meeting room.  The room was an ideal location as it was quiet and conducive to this type of conversation.  I sat at a table across from the teacher I observed.  I noticed that I gave the teacher quite a bit of nonverbal feedback, and I would say I might have given too much of this at times.  I didn’t realize how much I nod my head in agreement when I’m in a conversation such as this, and I think I might need to find a way to reduce the frequency in order to increase the effectiveness of this technique.  I also offered a variety of verbal feedback throughout the conversation to ensure the teacher knew I was tracking and listening intently as she spoke.  I spoke in a clear, effective manner, and I believe my tone and inflection were both professional and relaxed.  I feel the way I engaged in the conversation would be a strength, and I believe I made the teacher feel comfortable and at ease while she shared her thoughts.  One area I can target for improvement was my periodic glances at my computer screen.  I did this to make sure I was moving us along the five domains that were to be discussed, as well as make observations from the notes I recorded.  Looking back at the video, I realize that doing this is an acceptable practice, but I have to make sure I don’t do it too early before the other person has finished a thought or sentence.  I don’t’ want to appear that I’m rushing the conversation or only thinking about how I’m going to transition into the next topic.

* What strengths and/or improvement areas did you notice in the conference about strategies to improve instruction?
As part of this observation, I collected data on how many times the teacher used a filler/transition word.  I shared this data with the teacher, and it came as a surprise how often she used such a word during the lesson.  The rest of the conversation was focused on the lesson as well as the teaching style and opportunities for students to engage learning the teacher generally employs with her students.  We discussed strengths and a couple areas that might be targeted for future growth, and the teacher noted at the end of the conference how helpful the discussion was for her.  While I pointed out specifics that I noted in the classroom, I also discussed in broad terms the educational philosophies and strategies I saw the teacher employ.  The conversation allowed for the teacher to reflect on her practice, and several goals were established as a result of the conference.

* In the conference, which behavior did you seem to predominantly use?  Do you think this was an appropriate approach given the developmental level of the teacher? Briefly explain
During this conference, I primarily used listening, clarifying, encouraging, and reflecting with the teacher.  She falls near the collaborative end of the continuum of behaviors, and while she is still a teacher with only two years teaching experience, she already uses sound practice and strategies to engage her students in her classroom.  There wasn’t any cause for concern, and the manner in which she taught and then reflected in the post-observation conference made any potential utilization of a more directive approach unnecessary.

This was an excellent experience for me personally.  The teacher I observed and I discussed how helpful it would be for all teachers to engage in a peer-coaching experience.  The information I gained about myself as an observer, and the information the teacher gained as a result were quite profound.  I look forward to the opportunity to use what I learned from this experience in the future.

Thanks to philcampbell for the use of the Flickr image.

*This is a reflection post required for my JHU-ISTE Leadership program.

This week we were asked to evaluate various room arrangements found within a classroom.  It is quite intriguing to explore the various ways teachers choose to set up a classroom and what it communicates about the methodologies and pedagogical practice in play in a given setting.  It seems there is great variety in the methods teachers use when determining exactly what setup to utilize, and the practice yields a myriad of implications for students as they engage the learning process.

The tradition room arrangement with students all sitting in rows is decreasing in frequency from my observations.  More unique arrangements are being utilized in an attempt to foster more collaborative learning environments.  There are certainly still classrooms that employ the traditional, and it seems that set up is more common at the secondary level than at the elementary.  I believe this is the case for a multitude of reasons, one major reason being fewer teachers actually have their own classrooms in middle and high schools, thus, there is less opportunity to change the environment entirely to meet the teacher’s style.

It was quite apparent that most of the rooms that held a traditional arrangement, and did so for the duration of a class, were more invested in the direct instruction model.  Some teachers did begin in the traditional arrangement, but then allowed for movement of the arrangement once group work or partner work began.  Rooms that were arranged in a more unique manner were often centered around student discussion or student inquiry, and there was little time spent on specific direct instruction.  One room even had students getting comfortable in bean bags and non-traditional seats, almost like something seen in a library, and when I was in the classroom, a Socratic discussion was taking place amongst the students about a specific piece of literature.

It was clear that in most cases, the teachers accounted for the daily traffic patterns that take place in a class period.  The traditional setting has students moving only when they entered the classroom to take their seats and then again when they left the classroom.  The unique arrangements often had students moving freely throughout the class, and the furniture may have served as obstacles in a given arrangement, but the students didn’t seem bothered by this in the least.  One room was arranged in a double horse-shoe shape, and students in the center were constrained somewhat by the outer portion of the horseshoe.  This seemed to bother some of the students as they weren’t able to move their seats or move away from their desks freely.

This exercise proved quite interesting.  I was intrigued at how much I learned about a teacher simply by observing the arrangement of his or her space.  I’m sure many supervisors observe the same when conducting formal or even informal observations of a teacher.  I wonder how responsive teachers would be to dedicating a staff meeting or a portion of an inservice day to discuss and explore potential variety in the arrangements of a class.  I would also gather that supervisors could use what they observe about class arrangements to provide specific staff development in the learning and teaching practices that may result from various arrangements.

The final part of my observation was focused on the computers available in a given classroom.  Here again there was great variety.  Some classes had four or five computer stations sitting on tables at the back of the room.  Other classrooms shared a pod of computers in a common area just outside several classrooms.  Some classes had checked out a computer cart of laptops, and they were using those resources during the lesson at their individual desks.  There was great variety of setups depending on the physical setup of a given school.

It would be interesting to continue with this observation activity in the future as resources and pedagogy change to see if the change results in new ways to think of arranging the learning environment.

Thanks to Courosa for the use of the Flickr image.

*This is a reflection post required for my JHU-ISTE Leadership program.  As always, if the topic is of no interest to you, feel free to skip on by.

This reflection asked us to answer the following three questions:

How do you define transformational leadership based on your reading?
How can transformational leadership impact the way an administrator leads a school?
How can transformational leadership impact the school administrator as he/she leads integrating technology with instruction?

There are some leaders who ascribe to a “pull” style of leadership.  They stand atop the pyramid of an institution, look forward, and try to pull the pyramid along with them as they take each step toward the vision they have cast for the institution.  This is often referred to as “command” leadership, and while it can certainly be an effective way to move an institution in increments, it is not always the most empowering method for the constituents working within the walls of the pyramid.

There are other leaders who find themselves standing at the bottom of an inverted pyramid.  It is their goal to see the needs of the constituents, as well as the needs of the institution as a whole, and push each individual in a manner that effectively moves both the person within and the institution as a whole.  This is often referenced as servant leadership, and it often dismantles the notion of “leader as manager” and instead fosters leadership with the multitude of constituents in the pyramid.

Servant leadership can also directly lead to “transformational leadership.”  Leonard Burrello speaks directly to the idea of transformational leadership in his book, Educating All Students Together.  Burrello states that transformational leaders need to be less concerned with leading for the sake of compliance and linear system stability and equilibrium, but rather, such leaders should look to increase constituent’s investment and enrollment in the institution’s vision.  Michael Fullan has also written a great deal on this subject, and he states that transformational leaders should build the whole of the institution into each individual.  All people have a voice and input in the direction and execution of the institution’s vision.

When applying this concept to education, one can readily see how an atmosphere of networked learning can occur.  The overall investment and health of the educational institution will be experienced throughout as all members of the community are involved in decision making and implementation of specified goals.  If a building administrator seeks transformational leadership, learning will likely take the lead, and opportunity will abound for all in the system to grow and learn together.

I believe a transformational leader will also allow the institution to adapt as culture and educational practices adapt to better engage the process of learning.  The leader will allow new practices to emerge, and I would postulate that utilizing Argyis’s model of double loop learning for an institution would be an excellent opportunity for organizational learning and growth.  This model would certainly be an impetus for change, and given the present resources emerging and established technologies present, the members of the institution would find themselves tapping into the potential power that technology proffers.  The leader will also focus on the pedagogical questions of implementing technology, and he or she will not seek to implement technology for any contrived mandate or false pretense of doing so solely for the sake of the implementation.

I believe this sort of transformational leadership is exactly the way I want to lead an institution I might have the honor of leading in the future.

Thanks to Bluedrakon for the use of the Flickr image.

*This is a reflection post for my JHU program.  If you’d rather pass on this one and catch up with me in the future, I’ll understand completely.

As part of the JHU-ISTE leadership program, we are required to take a two week online orientation course.  The purpose of the course is to get us acclimated and prepared to be successful with the format of an online learning environment.  Overall, I think the course was a nice way to get people comfortable with the layout and for me, it was a chance to remember what it’s like to be a student in a structured system again.  I’ve grown rather comfortable with writing what I want to write and discussing things I want to discuss, and those things change a bit when you go back into a classroom, be it online or of a more traditional ilk.

In order to complete the orientation, I have to answer the following questions.

Now that you have a good sense of the types of online activities and the rhythms of an active participant, what steps will you take to be successful in this program?

I will say that being part of an online learning program takes great discipline.  Even when there are deadlines posted for work to be completed, there still remains a much more fluid feeling to the completion of the work.  If time isn’t allocated throughout the week to keep up on the reading, discussion forums, formal writing pieces, assessments, etc., the task of completing that which needs to be completed becomes nearly overwhelming.  For myself, I know I must dedicate a specific set of time blocks each week in which I will complete my work.

How will you be a contributing member of your team? How will team activities impact your time management?

This portion of the course will prove to be both rewarding and challenging as working with others is an excellent opportunity for personal growth while remaining a source of challenge for time management.  If the other members of the team have a schedule that doesn’t coincide one with the others, it may prove difficult to accomplish the learning goals for a specific project.  I will strive to remain flexible and always willing to share my thoughts and ideas with the group.

What have you learned about your communication style? How will this impact you as an online learner?

While I absolutely love to write on most occasions, using something like an online classroom certainly makes me miss certain aspects of face to face communication.  I believe as we continue to advance the way we engage learning online, there will eventually come a day when video conferencing or visual chatting will become more prevalent.  There is simply something about hearing a person’s voice and seeing their nonverbal communications that writing can’t replicate.  I will look for opportunities in this program to utilize, or perhaps even introduce where appropriate, such an experience.

Where do you still need additional support?

At this point, I can only pray for the stamina to make it through this next year.  I’m looking forward to the learning, and for those of you who actually read this post, I look forward to sharing what I’ve learned with all of you.

Thanks to retro traveler for the use of the Flickr image.