Page 51

Chapter 4: School Leadership

©2010 The Greaves Group, The Hayes Connection, One-to-One Institute

• e highest rate (78%) of respondents in 1:1 environments say that teachers are co-planning, and the second highest response rate (70%) say that teachers are collaborating on at least a monthly basis. • 69% of 1:1 respondents say that teachers are engaged in monthly coaching. 56% report that they are debriefing their coaching experiences. • Significance of 1:1 technology: e lower the student-computer ratio, the higher the rate of professional collaboration, coplanning, and coaching.

Project RED Commentary Professional learning (also called professional development) has been the most frequently overlooked component of technology integration since schools began using technology. As long ago as 2000, the U.S. Department of Education tried to set a model expectation by requiring that 25% of all EETT (Enhancing Education rough Technology) funds be set aside for professional development. To make professional learning an essential part of technology in instruction, more time must be spent on the activities identified here. For example, while schools with 1:1 student-computer ratios report higher frequency than schools with higher ratios, less than half of 1:1 schools report use of in-class mentoring at least weekly. Since in-class mentoring is one of the most effective kinds of professional learning, frequency as well as appropriate planning is critical.

Research Basis Chesbro, Patricia & Boxler, Nancy, “Weaving the fabric of professional development in the 21st century through technology,” Journal of Staff Development, 2010, v31, n1, 48-53. Clifford, Matthew, Hiring Quality School Leaders: Challenges and Emerging Practices, Learning Point Associates, 2010. Eck, James & Goodwin, Bryan, “Autonomy for school leaders,” e School Administrator, 2010, v67, n1, 24-27. Kaasila, Raimo & Lauriala, Anneli, “Towards a collaborative, interactionist model of teacher change,” Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 2010, v26, n4, 854-862. Klimek, Karl J.; Ritzenhein, Elsie; & Sullivan, Kathryn D., Generative Leadership: Shaping New Futures for Today’s Schools, Corwin Press, 2008. Kurland, Hanna; Peretz, Hilla; & Hertz-Lazarowitz, Rachel, “Leadership style and organizational learning: e mediate effect of school vision,” Journal of Educational Administration, 2010, v48, n1, 7-30. Marzano, R. J.; Waters, T.; & McNulty, B. A., School Leadership at Works: From Research to Results, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2005. Mouza, Chrystalla & Wong, Wilkey, “Studying classroom practice: Case development for professional learning in technology integration,” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2009, v17, n2, 175-202. Musanti, Sandra I. & Pence, Lucretia, “Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking resistance, constructing knowledge, and navigating identities,” Teacher Education Quarterly, 2010. Reeves, Douglas, e Learning Leader: How to Focus School Improvement for Better Results, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2006. Rhodes, Christopher & Brundrett, Mark, “Leadership development and school improvement,” Educational Review, 2009, v61, n4, 361-374.


Projectred thetechnolgyfactor  
Projectred thetechnolgyfactor