REFLECTING ON THE LEARNING...

“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow,"  is to learn something. That's the only thing that never fails.’’

T.H. White from The Once and Future King (GoodReads, 2018)

I have been pondering about students learning through teaching each other. While I was initially considering my own students, there is a parallel process with the forum discussions around the Assignment 2 e-portfolio (VN, SG, JW, & MB, 2018). I quietly reflected during that conversation that whether Niki’s non-response at the time (and since answered) was purposeful or not, the fact remained that we were teaching each other in using digital technology in education. Authentic learning in action (Davis, 2018).

I have previously talked in a blog post (no longer available to view) about growing self-efficacy in terms of digital technology, taking risks, and encouraging creativity (Brosnan, 1998). All of these traits were evident in that forum discussion. In her blog post “My Take on Quality Learning”, MB supports this view in her statement

“learning and building knowledge is co-constructed between participants... Both parties are involved in a joint enterprise of making meaning that builds new knowledge and strengthens prior knowledge” (MB, 2018)

Which got me thinking about Niki as the keystone figure, and the importance of her role in my learning. It seemed to me that if the keystone figure holds back, the floundering “tadpoles” (to steal MT's analogy) (MT, March 2018) have to learn very quickly to grow their legs! This is somewhat akin to the transformative leadership approach (Levin & Schrum, 2017), as Niki empowers us (whether we want her to or not) to accomplish more than we thought possible, and to become leaders in our own ecosystems.  While I might still be floundering, one thing I’m developing fast, if not my legs, is a better understanding of myself at least.

In my interview with a leader (blog post “Leadership Interview: An exploration on leadership style”, of 26 March), what stood out for me was the importance for him to be in alignment with his values (VN, March April 2018). This requires one to know oneself well. FR's Mr Karl supports this in his leadership interview, where Mr Karl states

“Well, as I said, you have to get to know yourself better than anyone and understand your capacity. It is not hard to adapt your leadership style to any setting if you know all about yourself.” (FR, 2018)

Both Mr Karl and my interviewee had a mix of leadership styles (transformative, distributed and instructional) as per the leadership options offered by Levin and Schrum (Levin & Schrum, 2017). A quick digital search of styles found a more diverse variety of educational leadership types (for example see EduZenith and EdTechReview), which might partly be due to semantics, but nevertheless demonstrated that three options were somewhat limiting (EduZenith, 2018; Gupta, 2016). Reading the blogs and forum messages from other students, it appeared that most student’s interviewees tended to have a mix of the three styles Levin and Schrum put forward. This was reflected in SG's comment that each model had strengths that should be embraced (“Inspiring Leadership” blog) (SG, 2018).

In exploring this topic, I became curious about leadership styles, and the contentious debates around distributed leadership (“Exploring the Distributed Leadership Style” blog) (VN, March April 2018). I am curious about its extensive use in New Zealand schools, however JW, in her blog “Leadership:  An Interview - Primary Principal”, pointed out the benefits of distributed leadership in integrating technology into schools (JW, 2018). Meanwhile, JL's bibliography showed a positive light towards transformational leadership (“Annotated Bibliography: A Research on leadership styles” blog post) where he states that 

“it is suggested that Transformational has a positive effect on schools’ leadership ability to facilitate change in school restructuring initiatives, and is suitable for dealing with the demands of schools in 21st Century” (JL, 2018).

Leadership that facilitates change in an educational setting, “restructuring initiatives”, and dealing with modern learning practices, brings me back to my own learning context within my ecological setting. My blog, “Using the Arena Framework to Explore Integrating Technology-Based Online Learning in a Relational-Based Learning Environment” explores my teaching context and has the main themes of the importance of self-growth of the student, process of change, and working towards the development of self-efficacy (VN, March April 2018). All of which are part of my own journey of course. 

I felt challenged in working with a context that seemed at odds with many others, but as JW mentions in her forum comment, “many of us have contexts that are unique” (JW, 2018), and this includes how we are in our working ecosystem as well as our living and learning environment. These thoughts are resonating with my process of change, and the impact that has occurred on the various ecosystems I am connected with, as a result of this learning environment and experience.

A lot of learning and growth occurred in getting it all off my chest in my blog of 10 April, “A Personal Exploration of the ISTE Standards”, a critical reflection of the ISTE Standards against this course (VN, March, April 2018).  One point I talked about was the importance of feedback, which was supported by a number of comments in NS's blog posts, including students learning to give and receive feedback; the “significance of immediate feedback”; and her leadership interviewee reporting that the feedback he received from students, parents, and teachers was his “greatest reward” (see blog posts “Designing and teaching a hybrid course: the role of feedback” and “Conversation with a Deputy Principal”) (NS, 2018). While these views supported my stance, I can now see that this level of feedback might be viewed as being somewhat akin to soothing an anxious child. Self-efficacy also involves the ability to self-soothe.

I also stated that I was wanting communication but not offering it myself. This tension seemed reminiscent of ST's push/pull comments in her blog “A draft casestudy plan on Instagram in the classroom” (ST, 2018). While her remarks are based around the integration of new technology in the classroom, I suggest the same could be said for anything that is being undertaken for the first time, such as the tension between moving towards what is new/novel and the pulling back from what is difficult or not working.

My own critical thinking, problem-solving and decision making (as per the ISTE standards) has been severely tested throughout my learning process (VN, March April 2018). I recognise now that much of my frustration in my critical reflection was directed at Niki, and for this, I apologise. The learning in that regard came much later. I do, however, uphold that the intensity and brevity of this course creates a challenge for promoting creativity and quality of the learning.

I recognised my own situational dilemma in digital learning mirrored that of my students, particularly in the push for the autonomy of learning and my own reactive push back against that. In the midst of my floundering about in the dark, I came to realise that I needed to just stop and do whatever felt right at the time (self-efficacy), hence the critical reflection. This forced sense of autonomy has helped me realise the point I was missing – that whatever I undertake, I can set about reviewing and researching without anyone needing to hold my hand.

FR's poignant perspective explores this issue in his forum post of 19 April, “The challenge of online learning in fostering learners' autonomy: a personal experience”(FR, 2018), as does MT's response. They both discuss this issue in relation to adult learners and the challenges of being a self-directed learner. In MT's response of 20 April (MT, 2018), she cited a quote from Boud and Walker that was particularly pertinent:

“When learners are involved in making decisions about their own learning, particularly the nature, scope, and purpose, learning becomes more productive, meaningful and relevant to those closest to the action” (as cited in MT, 2018).

I have been sitting with questions regarding whether implementing digital technology is the right action for my contextual situation. Particularly the implications that might stem from this in terms of its effect on human relationships. In some respects, this links with the importance of authentic learning, as in, is it relevant (emphasis added)? JW reported in her blog “Quality Learning using a Digital Tool”, that the relevance to herself, and her context, of what she was learning helped her become “deeply immersed” in it (JW, 2018), while MB suggested that

“when we add a digital ‘tool’ to the partnership we have to ensure that the tool compliments, and not disrupts, the co-construction of meaning or the partnership in learning” (see blog post “My Take on Quality Learning”) (MB, 2018).

The human aspect of digital citizenship, including the personal, societal and cultural aspects, and the ethical responsibility that comes with that, is paramount.  This relates to not only the importance of human connection as discussed, but also in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the ‘digital divide’. This term has come up several times on the student forums and blogs and appears to refer largely to the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in terms of students with access to digital technology, such as JL's reference to it on his blog “Curriculum Reform Caused by Adopting M-Learning in ESOL” (JL, 2018). SG has given a broader view of it in a previous blog post “The Digital Divide” (SG, 2016) which includes not only the technology but the access to knowledge. This is closer to the context in which I work where older students are often lacking not only the technical knowledge, but also the experience of having had digital technology as an intrinsic part of their lives. In other words, it simply doesn’t come naturally. MB's excellent post “Quality Learning” discusses accountability in the quality and equity of education, including asking the important question of: at whose feet does this lie, and for whose benefit (MB, 2018)? A good question to ask with regards to whether the integration of digital technology is pertinent.

Honouring diversity through the tenets of the Treaty of Waitangi, namely the principles of partnership, participation and protection (Clements, 2016), is important for all members of society who feel marginalised in some way. This is echoed in MB's post in which she states that acknowledging and respecting diversity in New Zealand education is fundamental to the adherence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (MB, 2018). The New Zealand Curriculum’s directions for learning (and encompassing the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) holds the vision of young people becoming lifelong learners (Ministry of Education, 2007). It stands to reason then that this vision should extend to those students who are still learning in their later years.

FR offers a quote on his blog that seems very apt for all societies where there are students who are marginalised or disadvantaged in some way:

“No pedagogy which is truly liberating can remain distant from the oppressed by treating them as unfortunates and by presenting for their emulation models from among the oppressors. The oppressed must be their own example in the struggle for their redemption” (Paulo Freire as quoted in FR, 2018).

Lastly, I wish to comment on the learning around change models. In some ways, this seems quite separate from all that has been discussed, disconnected even. There is less commentary on the student blogs in regard to this, and in some respects, this matches my ambivalence with this section of the paper. In my essay I explored the change models of the Arena (Davis, 2018) and the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (Hall & Hord, 1987). Both had their strengths, however, overall, I found that the Arena offered a more holistic approach and encompassed students’ perspectives (VN, March 2018) which would be better suited to my working context. I feel it would offer a clearer view on whether integrating digital technology would be to the most benefit for my students. However, SG felt that the CBAM allowed for

“the unique understanding that each person comes from. People are all different and therefore have both learning differences and differences in experiences.” (“Enhancing Change in Today’s Schools” blog post) (SG, 2018).

Having said that, I am in an evolving ecosystem of learning. These considerations are likely to evolve and change as well.  My legs have started to sprout, but I’m sure there is a lot more growing and changing that needs to happen before I begin to croak.

[Apologies if I have not referenced the blogs accurately with regard to APA style. I have endeavoured to retain confidentiality of fellow students.  Please feel free to comment, advise, correct or reflect on any of the above.]

[Image via Pixabay, no attribution required.]

REFERENCES

Brosnan, M. (1998). The impact of computer anxiety and self‐efficacy upon 
          performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14 , 223–234

Clements, A. (2016). Te Tiriti o Waitangi – living the values. Retrieved from School News: https://www.schoolnews.co.nz/2016/11/te-tiriti-o-waitangi-living-the-values/

Davis, N. (2018). Digital technologies and change in education: The Arena framework. New York: Routledge.

EduZenith. (2018). Educational Leadership. Retrieved from EduZenith: https://eduzenith.com/types-of-leadership-styles-in-education

FR (2018). Leader Interview & Reflection [Blog post]. Retrieved from FR blog post

FR (2018). The challenge of online learning in fostering learners' autonomy : a personal experience. From Support and Discussion Forum for The Personal Perspective Forum. Retrieved from Forum discussion - The challenge of online learning...

GoodReads. (2018). T. H. White Quotes. Retrieved 20 April, 2018, from GoodReads: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21627-the-best-thing-for-being-sad-replied-merlin-beginning-to

Gupta, P. (2016). Educational leadership styles for school leaders to know. Retrieved from EdTechReview: http://edtechreview.in/trends-insights/insights/2390-educational-leadership-styles

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the Process. Albany: State University of New York Press.

JL (2018). My Journey on EDEM630 [Blog]. Retrieved from JL blog

JW (2018). Digital Technology Learning Journey [Blog]. Retrieved from JW blog

JW (2018). Re: A personal experience of the ISTE standards. From Support and Discussion Forum for The Personal Perspective Forum. Retrieved from Forum discussion - A personal experience...

Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2017). Every Teacher a Leader: Developing the Needed Dispositions, Knowledge, and Skills for Teacher Leadership.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

MB (2018). Quality Learning [Blog post]. Retrieved from MB blog post

Ministry of Education. (2007). New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media Limited.

MT (April, 2018). The challenge of online learning in fostering learners' autonomy : a personal experience. From Support and Discussion Forum for The Personal Perspective Forum. Retrieved from Forum discussion - The challenge of online learning...

MT (March 2018). Growing tadpoles [Blog post]. Retrieved from MT blog post

NS (2018). EDEM630 blog [Blog]. Retrieved from NS blog
SG (2016). The digital divide [blog post]. Retrieved from SG blog post

SG (2018). Redefining education one tool at a time. [Blog]. Retrieved from SG blog

ST (2018). A draft casestudy plan on Instagram in the classroom [Blog post]. Retrieved from ST blog post

VN (2018, March, April). Teaching from a place of learning: Experiential learning in action [Blog]. Retrieved from VN blog

VN (2018, March). Review of the Arena Framework and the Concerns-Based Adoption Model. EDEM630 Essay. Christchurch.

 VN, SG, JW, MB (2018, April). Assignment 2 - portfolio. General questions and answers about assessment forum discussion forum. Retrieved from Forum discussion - Assignment 2

A Personal Exploration of the ISTE Standards

[This blog was revised and updated on 2 May, 2018]

I thought I would explore the six standards set out by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), as discussed in Davis’ Digital Technologies and Change in Education (Davis, 2018), within my own learning in this paper. From a learner’s perspective, what experiences of studying via digital technology have promoted “quality learning” (p. 41) and my willingness to be engaged in this learning arena?

The first standard, Creativity and Innovation, suggests that students use technology to enhance creative thinking, adopt innovative processes and construct knowledge. Two points come to mind regarding this. Firstly, consideration should be given to the term 'creativity', which may mean different things to different people. Many people perceive creativity as being artistically creative in some way, however  Catharine Hondzel & Ron Hanson offer a broad meaning to creativity, as our ability to adapt to shifting circumstances by tapping into and improving on, ideas and knowledge of which we already hold (Hondzel & Hansen, 2015). 

The second point is that this principle, that the ISTE standards suggests, makes the assumption that the student is in a "static learning environment" (Hondzel & Hansen, 2015, p. 180) where they are motivated, curious, and open to risk-taking: a necessity for creativity (Dewett, 2007; Hondzel & Hansen, 2015). These states stem from an inherent motivation whereby the student perceives that undertaking the task will be worthwhile, interesting, satisfying and/or agreeably challenging, and such intrinsic motivation is beneficial to creativity and learning process (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012). 

The converse is also true regarding intrinsic motivation, in that external motivators, such as deadlines or negative feedback, are detrimental to creativity (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012). Such constraints can shift one’s motivational state from the positive internal to the less conducive external state. However, it should also be taken into account that the negative stress that may arise from such a scenario may be partially created from the student's own expectations, or through miscommunication between tutor and student (Smith & Lilly, 2016).

Even so, the challenge here is that once a venture is completed (which would require some form of creativity), it then requires an interested (external) audience who recognises and validates the work (Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). Such evaluative measures can, in turn, pose a threat to the creative self-identity of the producer, which could then impact their creative ability (Byron, Khazanchi, & Nazarian, 2010). 

With the inherent pressure of this particular paper, its copious amounts of reading and seemingly short assignment dates, the external motivations, for myself, stifled any intrinsic motivation that was present at the start of the course. My style of learning is through relationship and connection, and while I understood what I was signing up for, I had no real concept of just how deeply disconnected and alienated this completely on-line course would leave me feeling. Motivation, creative thinking, and being innovative with technology was at an all-time low. Although such challenges tend to promote some level of 'creativity' for me (or problem-solving), if we use Hondzel & Hansen's definition, it comes more from a place of survival than some novel or mildly enjoyable process that is hinted at in the ISTE definition.  If I were to answer Boni Hamilton's questions of "how am I building these skills with digital tools (author's italics) (Hamilton, 2015)?" Then my answer would have been 'painfully'. 

The second standard, Communication and Collaboration, states that students use technology “and the environments” (p. 41) to communicate and learn in a collaborative manner (Davis, 2018). In this way, their individual learning is supported as well as contributing to their classmates’ learning experiences. Again, the assumption is that these students are all learning from the same page, with perhaps a little variation, but their topic is likely to be set across the whole learning environment. My challenge is that a large percentage of the students on this course appear to be working within schools, with children, and with a similar curriculum, while I am working in a tertiary environment with older adults, in a totally different field. I found it difficult to relate in any way to what is being discussed regarding primary or secondary class environments because I’ve never taught in a school before. It made it difficult for me to pass comment other students' work. I did endeavour however, particularly in the early days of the course. I imagine it has been much the same for other students towards my own work that is uploaded. I dare say it didn't mean much as my context is so different. And I don’t think I’ve ever had so little feedback by a tutor. Which links with the statement made above, on the need to recognise and validate in order to promote the creative state. 

Having said that, I assume there is a significant drop in tutor input with a Level 9 Masters paper, as in an expectation that we’re big enough now to do it on our own. But it has felt like there's a fine line between letting the reins out and tossing them to one side altogether. So, has “communication and collaboration” supported my personal learning experience? Not nearly enough in the first half of this course, and I take responsibility for the lack of dialogue going from here to others in supporting them in their learning. According to Boni Hamilton, one of the goals for this standard is to "give students experiences working digitally with others in authentic relationships" (Hamilton, 2015, p. 26). I feel that, yes, I developed a relationship of sorts with some of the other students, but it is a fine thread. As to "authentic", I'm not so sure...  How does one describe that in terms of a relationship that is purely electronic?

The standard of Research and Information Fluency, relates to students' use of digital tools in their research, evaluation, and implementation of information. For me, there was hesitant progress. Using such digital tools such as a blog and e-portfolio, aided my understanding a little about this form of media. I remained somewhat at a loss for some time, however, as to its purpose other than to practice creating one. Similarly, I felt confused as to (a) what exactly an e-portfolio was, and (b) why the need for one and a blog, when they appeared to be almost the same thing. I felt as though there were large pieces of information missing as if there are things I should have known that everyone else took for granted or assumed is commonly known. Even the ensuing conversations around this topic on the forum failed to clarify. It took me quite some time to figure out it didn't seem to matter. It would have been much less stressful to have had this explained with some clarity for those new to this level of on-line learning.

Is it quality learning if a student reaches half way through the course and feels they know not much more than when they started? And does the stress this confusion and/or uncertainty brings, create an ideal learning environment where authentic learning can take place (Davis, 2018)? I pondered these questions for a while, initially aimed towards what such a learning environment might be like for my adult students who are not au fait with either technology or study, but I realised these same questions were relevant for myself.  Experiential learning at its best.

The fourth standard, Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making, asserts students will learn how to use critical thinking in their research, as well as manage tasks and problem solve throughout the process. In this way, they also learn to make cognizant decisions regarding what is appropriate in terms of technology and resources. At this higher level of tertiary study, one can assume that students are able to apply critical thinking, are able to problem solve, and make decisions, in regard to their learning and assignments. It becomes a bit more challenging for this particular course because the nature of the course dictates we must use the digital technology prescribed. Whether it is appropriate becomes subjective (emphasis added). I think it would have been appropriate to have more personal interaction, as Neil Selwyn suggests in his book "Distrusting Educational Technology",

“digital technologies can easily be used to frame the relationships between teachers and students in terms of finite services or contracts rather than sustained human interaction” (Selwyn, 2014, p. 134).

Selwyn suggests that digital education leads to "altered emotional aspects of learning", particularly in relation to the "disembodiment" and "dematerialisation" of a technology-saturated pedagogical approach (Selwyn, 2014, p. 134).

Next is Digital Citizenship, whereby students gain an understanding of the human aspects of technology. This would include an awareness of cultural aspects, societal matters, along with legal and ethical matters. I believe there lies an ethical responsibility for educational leaders to instruct not only the benefits of digital technology but also its disadvantages in terms of its effect on relationships. This includes the teacher/student relationship. According to Linda Cundy, the impact of digital technology has affected not only our daily lifestyle, including education, but also, and more importantly, our self-experience. She suggests that technology is now “a third element in two-person relationships, mediating the exchange of information and the expression of our needs, desires, love, and hate” (Cundy, 2015, p. xiv). 

If the education sector is going to whole-heartedly embrace technology for children who are still developing their sense of self, then they need to take heed of their own advice in terms of ethical behaviour. It's not just about how children use digital media, but how much (italics added).  Media usage from an early age, along with the cumulation of hours spent with digital technology, may negatively impact executive functioning and a child's theory of mind development (Chassiakos, Radesky, Christakis, Moreno, & Cross, 2016). Furthermore, it has been suggested that assumptions have been made in the argument for increasing the use of technology in education to better meet the needs of the "digital natives" (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008). It was refreshing to read Sheila Keegan's call for a more balanced approach to learning and thinking (particularly with regard to research) (Keegan, 2012).

In terms of my own study, my felt sense of disconnection and alienation (the human element) is a direct reflection of the mode of learning.

Lastly, there is Technology Operations and Concepts in which students are able to demonstrate a solid understanding of the concepts, systems and operations of the technology they are using. While this statement refers to the children’s’ understanding of technology, I’m left wondering about the educators’ understanding of what they are implementing, and there’s a very strong why? ringing in my ears (emphasis added). Do we stop to question why we are implementing an innovation? Do we apply the critical thinking skills we purport to teach? While the world enthusiastically pushes technology in education, are we pausing to ask ourselves, to whose benefit are we so energetically embracing this pedagogical approach? While I believe there is a place for digital technology in education, including K-12 schools, I don't believe it is the answer to producing a balanced and well-rounded education. As Sue Bennet and K. Maton suggest, young people are much more complex than the label "digital natives" implies, and that much more research is needed to better understand their needs (Bennett & Maton, 2010).

While the nature of this particular course is about learning, understanding, and integrating digital technology in education, I’ve come across a very big why? in regard to my own context. Again, it’s not about disregarding digital technology altogether, but about finding a balance. I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that implementing digital technology in education should not be done simply because it’s perceived to be the right thing to do. It needs to be the most appropriate that works to encourage knowledge and growth, and not at the cost of human relationships.

This reflection is the personal experience of my own learning and is not a judgment on the learning of anyone else.

Postscript:
Following the original publication of this blog post, LS posted on the class forum regarding the updated ISTE standards (LS, 2018). With the rapid advances in technology, the ISTE standards have been revised in order to meet the changing focus of technology in education (Trust, 2017). While the original standards appear to still be relevant, there are subtle differences in tone due to the shift from teaching with technology to empowerment from technology. This subtle shift has offered me food for thought.

Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46 (1), 3-15. doi: 10.1002/jocb.001.

Bennett, S., Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students' technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (5), 321-331. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. The British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5), 775-786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (1), 201-212. doi: 10.1037/a0017868 .

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.

Chassiakos, Y. R., Radesky, J., Christakis, D., Moreno, M. A., & Cross, C. (2016). Children and adolescents and digital media. Pediatrics, 138 (5), 1-18. doi: doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2593

Cundy, L. (2015). Love in the age of the internet: Attachment in the digital era. London: Karnac Books.

Davis, N. (2018). Digital technologies and change in education: The Arena framework. New York: Routledge.

Dewett, T. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment. R&D Management, 37 (3). 197-208. doi /10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00469.x 

Hamilton, B., & International Society for Technology in Education. (2015). Integrating technology in the classroom: Tools to meet the needs of every student (First ed.). Eugene, Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education.

Hondzel, C. D., & Hansen, R. (2015). Associating creativity, context, and experiential learning. Education Inquiry, 6 (2), 177190. doi:10.3402/edui.v6.23403

Keegan, S. (2012). Digital technologies are re-shaping our brains: What are the implications for society and the research industry? Qualitative Market Research, 15 (3), 328-346, doi: 10.1108/13522751211232012.

LS (2018). Re: Quality learning with Scratch. From Support and Discussion Forum for The Personal Perspective Forum. Retrieved from Forum discussion on Quality Learning...

Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology. Abingdon: Routledge.

Smith, D., & Lilly, L. (2016). Understanding student perceptions of stress in creativity‐based higher education programs: A case study in interior architecture. Journal of Interior Design, 41 (2), 39-55. doi: 10.1111/joid.12072.

Trust, T. (2017). 2017 ISTE standards for educators: From teaching with technology to using technology to empower learners. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34 (1), 1-3. doi: 10.1080/21532974.2017.1398980

*

Exploring the Distributed Leadership Style

[This article was revised and updated on 3rd May, 2018]

Following my leadership interview, and assessing the leadership style against Levin & Schrum’s chart "Characteristics of Transformative, Distributed, and Instructional Leadership" (refer blog of 26 March), I explored the Distributed Leadership (DL) style in a little more depth. What I found caused me to become curious about the extensive use of DL as a management style in education.

In investigating DL, I found a number of authors who felt there was a disparity between what is theorised, and what happens in reality, within the school context (Gunter, 2010; Corrigan, 2013; Lumby, 2013; Morris, 2014). Helen Gunter views the educational structure as linked with external conditions of organisational expectations or culture (context) whereby a sense of agency may be heightened, controlled, or muted (the ability to meet expectations, or not) (Gunter, 2010). This suggests a conflict with the philosophy of distributed leadership which emphasises collaboration, shared responsibility, and distribution of power (Schrum & Levin, 2012; Timperley, 2005).  

Education institutes, by their very nature, are complex systems and require complexity thinking (Davis, 2018), particularly by their leaders. The environment is multilayered and dynamic where exchanges occur between and across sectors of the system, and where feedback loops are a significant part of the milieu.

Gunter describes how various academics perceive and react to what is known. For instance, the mathematics leader is likely to approach information from a linear perspective where truths are abstract and untainted, while the social sciences leader might tend towards a more reflective and soft approach where outcomes are seen as "enlightening" (Gunter, 2010). The level of collaboration expected in DL would undoubtedly require an uncomfortable stretch for some colleagues who hold such differing styles of knowing. Niki Davis alludes to these dynamics when she states that

“knowledge and thought are mediated by ideological beliefs and power relationships, both of which are historically constituted and may never be isolated from values” (Davis, 2018, p. 132).

This view is also reinforced by Paul Cilliers who suggests that 

"considerations of power and expediency affect the way in which we understand the world (p. 606)... and that knowledge ...will always be contextualised... and form part of our experience of the world, and will therefore be influenced by relationships of power" (Cilliers, 2005, p. 610).

John Morris’ report states that DL is one of the three major leadership styles used in New Zealand schools despite there being minimal studies that positively demonstrate its effects on student outcomes (Morris, 2014). He views DL’s popularity as due to its philosophical and democratic flavour rather than founded on evidence-based outcomes.

While the above views are mostly centred on the school context, Sandra Jones, Geraldine Lefoe, Marina Harvey and Kevin Ryland felt that DL was a potential alternative to the more traditional hierarchal leadership style of the tertiary sector (Jones, Lefoe, Harvey, & Ryland, 2012). However, they do perceive the significant challenges this is likely to present with the historical differences and dynamics within the various departments and layers of staff (academics and administration). Again, Cilliers alludes to this when he states

"The contingent and historic nature of complex systems entails that our understanding of the system will have to be continually revised; the frames of our models will have to change. The boundaries of complex systems cannot be identified objectively, finally and completely.” (Cilliers, 2005, p. 612)

Jacky Lumby’s article is largely scathing and describes the DL style as pervasive, utopian, and political; that it lacks equality and inclusivity; and that it holds subtle undertones of control and manipulation (Lumby, 2013). Lumby believes DL lacks serious critique, and its popularity is unwarranted. Having said that, Davis' description of leadership for complex systems, especially in systems where the individuals are more expert in their field than the leader, suggests that leaders need to support other domain leaders to 

“identify valuable adaptations by sharing visions and recognising the value of relevant activities and artefacts, both old and new" (Davis, 2018, p. 140).

Davis describes complex systems as being autonomous, where individuals are "interdependent agents", and the system engenders autopoiesis, whereby self-regulation and self-reference work towards the self-organisation of the system. This not dissimilar to the Distributed Leadership style.

While there appears to be no ideal model of leadership style as such, Morris suggested an integration of the Instructional (IL) and Transformational leadership (TL) models (Morris, 2014). He states that these styles are both backed by a number of studies that demonstrate increased outcomes for students, and this integrated model would deliver the ideological aspects of shared responsibility (from TL) with the direction and vision of a principal (through IL). While Keith Morrison talks about distributed leadership as "sine qua non", or an indispensable part of an emergent higher-order form of leadership within complex environments (Morrison, 2012). 

When I began this research, I started from the position of thinking Distributed Leadership was an ideal style in which to lead a school. Its popularity certainly seemed to confirm this. I am curious now about the breadth of negative reports on the topic, some of which are quite damning. It seems that leadership in the education sector appears to be a very complex and contentious matter.

[Image via Pixabay. No attribution required]

References

Cilliers, P. (2005). Knowledge, limits and boundaries. Futures 37, 605-613.  

             doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2004.11.001

Corigan, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: rhetoric or reality? Journal of Higher Education

             Policy and Management, 35 (1), 66-71. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2013.748479.

Davis, N. (2018). Digital technologies and change in education: The Arena framework. 

             New York: Routledge.

Gunter, H. (2010). Leaders and leadership in education. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.

Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., & Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed leadership: a collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1), 67-78. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2012.642334

Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2017). Every Teacher a Leader: Developing the Needed Dispositions, Knowledge, and Skills for Teacher Leadership.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 518-597. doi: 10.1177/1741143213489288.

Morris, J. (2014). The school leadership effect. Wellington: The New Zealand Education and Scholarship Trust.

Morrison, K. (2002). School leadership and complexity theory. New York: Routledge

Schrum, L. & Levin, B. (2012). Evidence-based strategies for leading 21st century schools. London: Sage Publications

Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice. Journal of  Curriculum Studies 37 (4), 395-420. doi: 10.1080/00220270500038545.