The Future is Now:  Unpacking Digital Badging &

Micro-credentialing for K-20 Educators

Angela Elkordy, aelkordy@emich.edu

Doctoral Candidate

Eastern Michigan University, Dept. of Leadership and Counseling

Digital Badges

            Proposed as a supplemental or alternative credentialing system, the concept of badges, specifically digital badges, has created quite a buzz in the past year. While the idea has both advocates and detractors, there is substantial interest emanating from business and government sectors, as well as in higher education communities. Digital badging systems have been proposed to assess, recognize, and communicate knowledge acquisition, particularly in content areas which are currently neither taught nor assessed in tradition learning environments. An important trending discussion for all educators, the introduction of new, potentially widespread alternative credentialing is particularly pertinent for faculty in higher education preparing leaders in the field.

          Stimulated and facilitated by the “Open” philosophy of the Internet which has proliferated free or equitable access to resources in education, publishing and software, a growing body of learners is acquiring skills and competencies in informal environments. The momentum behind the digital badges concept is building in large part, because learning now can be continuous, no longer bound by time or location, interest-driven, or, increasingly, by cost.  However, at this point, the outcomes of the learning processes are not measured, assessed or communicated to interested audiences in any meaningful or systematic manner.  A digital badge ecosystem has been proposed as a method to organize and articulate some informal learning, hence making it “visible” to others.

          The potential of digital badges is being explored not only by agile, technology-based (and hosted) communities such as StackOverflow, Khan Academy and various social media (e.g. FourSquare) but also in more traditional contexts such as the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the U. S. Department of Education and the New York State Department of Education (through Badgestack). In addition, the Smithsonian Institutions, Microsoft, Intel as well as entire school districts (e.g. School District of Philadelphia and Adams County School District 50) are implementing digital badge projects.

Source: Badgepost, A. Halavais

  In higher education contexts, forward thinking educators such as Alex Halavais (image left), Arizona State University and Daniel Hickey, Indiana University have piloted the use of badge schema to supplement or replace more traditional grading schemes in courses. In a recent post to his blog, Remediating Assessment, Dr. Hickey articulates his methodology in issuing digital badges to students in a doctoral class in Educational Assessment (Hickey, 2012).  Interest in using digital badges in higher education is gaining purchase: writing recently for the HASTAC blog (Humanities, Arts, Science and Technology Advanced Collaboratory), Sheryl Grant considers some of the innovative higher education projects such as the Open Michigan badges initiative to acknowledge scholarly contributions to an open education initiative (University of Michigan). Grant also poses thought provoking questions and summarizes widespread interest in the badges idea as shown by a growing number of news articles and blog posts (Grant, 2012).

          The use of digital badges has myriad implications for faculty preparing future educators, specifically K-16 administrators; potentially, the repercussions of the movement could reverberate throughout K-20 education, as a “disruptive” technology, compelling the rethinking the existing structures and frameworks of education in formal environments. Are digital badges “insurgent credentials” as recently described by Dr. Mike Olneck? (2012). Or could they be a progressive and conciliatory bridge to acknowledge and validate learning in both formal and informal environments?

What are Digital Badges?

          Digital badges are essentially credentials which may be earned by meeting established performance criteria. A digital badge, much like its boy or girl scouts’ cloth counterpart, is an image or symbol representing the acquisition of specific knowledge, skills or competencies. The vision of a digital badging “ecosystem,” that is, a loosely connected framework of badges designed by various authorizers for different purposes, is moving forward to realization. Development and dissemination of the concept has been leveraged by significant  technological and developmental support in the past year through Mozilla’s Open Badge Infrastructure (OBI) (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Badges) and the Digital Media and Learning Competition on Badges for Lifelong Learning (http://dmlcompetition.net/), supported by the MacArthur and Microsoft Foundations.

          The OBI currently being developed by Mozilla provides an important centralized collection and distribution point for badge authorizers and developers, permitting them to “register” digital qualifications. A critical design point of the OBI is the metadata or descriptive information embedded into the digital badges provides data describing the badge issuer (authorizer), date earned, criteria for earning the badge as well as assessments, and sometimes, links to products which demonstrate learning. Using the proposed open [software] architecture, badge authorizers will be able to design software “widgets” or plug-ins to interface directly to the OBI, sharing performance criteria and issuing digital badges.   Badges may then be viewed through a “digital backpack,” displayed through digital transcripts or on social media pages. Access to these web-based credentials will be controlled by privacy settings and authentication processes. (For more information, see the Mozilla Wiki Badge FAQS (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Badges/FAQs)

          The idea of a system to recognize, communicate and articulate skill development addresses some of the knotty issues in learning and assessment of competencies which are essential for the knowledge-based workplace, skills which are not adequately measured through standardized testing. As web-based, “open” credentials for which criteria are available to be reviewed upon demand with an Internet connection, digital badges, for perhaps the first time, may provide unique assessments which could be:

• transparent (because the specific criteria are published);
• evidence-based (for some badges, products which demonstrate learning will be “attached” to the users’ badges, similar to a digital portfolio);
• acknowledge and hence make visible skills and competencies needed for the workplace but which are neither “taught” nor assessed in formal environments;
• flexible (even transcultural, embodying criteria important to communities of practice transnationally)
• granular (very specific skills and knowledge sets can be targeted) and in some sense, may be
• “common assessments” in that authorizers may openly solicit feedback on badge criteria and design aspects from pertinent communities of practice. In this manner, badge criteria could be “crowd sourced” by relevant experts.

          Advocates of badging are hopeful: Arne Duncan, U. S. Secretary of Education recently described the use of badges as a “game changing strategy. “ “Badges can help engage students in learning, and broaden the avenues for learners of all ages to acquire and demonstrate—as well as document and display—their skills” (MacArthur Foundation, 2011). Firmly grounded in motivational and learning theories as well as social/educational psychology, badges are already successfully implemented to measure and reward achievement within academic and professional learning contexts such as in epistemic (learning) or serious games.

          Still in its infancy, the emerging idea of using badges in education is controversial, with supporters and critics having strong opinions on either side. In order for badges to be effective in the long run, it will be important to address the salient points of detractors and to build a transparent, flexible system. Ironically, the process of responding to badge criticism mirrors the process of how badges can possibly function as formative assessment, in that the badge ecology can be strengthened in the process through both positive and negative feedback.

           Dr. Alex Halavais, a “skeptical evangelist” regarding the possibilities of digital badges, cultivates a critical, yet optimistic view: “To look at how some badges have been used in the past and not be concerned about the ways they might be applied in the future would require a healthy amount of selective perception. I have no doubt that badges, badly applied, are dangerous. But so are table saws and genetic engineering.” (2012)

          Furthermore, Professor David Goldberg, a cofounder of the HASTAC organization which co-sponsored the recent Digital Media and Learning Competition, “the deeper point about badges is that where they work, they work always within contexts that socially support them and where their users are invested in their significance. They do not work for everyone, as motivations or modes of recognition.” (2012)

Carefully Applied… Badges Could Lead to Good Learning

Digital Badges and Learning

          Well designed, robust badges can be associated with important principles of learning and motivation of particular interest to educators because of their potential for deep and lasting knowledge:

• contextual learning situations (situated learning and cognition);
• scaffolding through learning trajectories;
• socially constructed/mediated learning, particularly in “connected” environments which facilitate, mediate and promote content or skills related content;
• participatory learning;
• motivational and interest learning;
• ongoing, formative feedback as well as summative assessment;
• creation of “visible” learning paths which encourage reflection, self-regulation and autonomy and
• building of social capital, self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Digital Badges and Educator Professional Development

Source: Teacher Learning Journeys, K. Peck

One of the more exciting ideas coming out of the badge movement is the idea of using a digital badge ecosystem to acknowledge new skills and knowledge growth in specific epistemic or professional groups, particularly where the expectation is continued professional growth. In the K-12 environment of high expectations and concern over administrator and teacher effectiveness, a digital badging system could complement existing credentialing structures to reflect ongoing professional growth.

Source: Teacher Learning Journeys, K. Peck

Professional development opportunities include formal coursework as well as informal learning experiences such as conferences, workshops or classes. Educators earn CEU’s, which are useful, but do not articulate or assess new skills or competencies. Digital badge advocates are excited and hopeful about the idea of using badges for educators working in K-12 environments, because newly acquired skill sets are made “visible” through badge learning trajectories as well as performance outcomes. Importantly, trajectories encourage learners along a clearly defined path of skills acquisition and understanding; when a digital badge schema is designed to move learners through tasks of increasing difficulty, formative feedback guides learners through the mini-curricula, which terminates in a summative assessment (the highest badge level).

Source: Teacher Learning Journeys, K. Peck

          The potential for digital badges to provide cohesive systems for teacher professional development is in the early stages of recognition and promotion; the Digital Media and Learning Badges Competition, in 2012, called for “Teacher Mastery” projects (see the winning entry by the American Social History Project). Also, recently, as part of “Connected Educators Month” (August, 2012), the U.S. Department of Education Connected Educators initiative solicited additions for a database of professional development opportunities for teachers to earn badges.

An innovative program piloting the use of digital badges for teacher professional development in the sciences, Teacher Learning Journeys, is being jointly developed by the NSTA (National Science Teachers’ Association) and NASA. The project, directed by Penn State professor and P.I., Dr. Kyle Peck, builds upon the Aerospace Education Services Project (AESP) which seek to reach in-service teachers for professional development. The objective of Teacher Learning Journeys is to ameliorate gaps in content and/or pedagogical knowledge in the STEM areas through six types of activities including pedagogical content knowledge, assessment and collaboration. The purpose is to help teachers engage students more effectively in STEM subjects by making instruction more participatory and hands-on learning opportunities.

          The project design, explained Dr. Peck, is based upon research on professional development and adult learning principles to be relevant, ongoing, and create connections to other learners. Using a travel metaphor, complete with a “passport” articulating personal visions of “journeys”(learning goals and perceived knowledge needs), teachers engaged in learning units designed by a team of educational specialists including curriculum and development experts. Teachers design individual professional development trajectories which they described as an “itinerary” on their passports. Upon completion of the module, learners demonstrated at two levels for which they earned “stamps” or “badges” depending upon the complexity of the tasks. Certificates of completion and badge “transcripts” were provided to teachers who volunteered to be part of the study.

          A pilot program conducted during summer, 2012 yielded positive results with 36 teachers earning a total of 154 awards; post-pilot survey respondents highly valued the learning from the modules as well as recognition provided by digital badges. Future development plans include increasing the content offerings of the learning units, to incorporate a social network such as NEON, alignment with standards and possibly incorporating a cohort framework to facilitate collaborative learning. See more Teacher Learning Badges here

Implications for Educational Administration Faculty

          Clearly there is a gap between the skills necessary to function in the workplace of tomorrow, and what is measured, gets done (credit Peter Drucker).  “For all the talk by educators and policymakers about the need for “multiple measures” for evaluation or for the need to value other types of learning not demonstrated on multiple choice tests, there hasn’t been much discussion about how exactly these alternatives could actually be implemented in reality” (Ledesma, 2011). The conversation regarding teaching, learning and assessing new skill sets and competencies is by no means “new”; however, the digital badges concept provides a nexus around which meaningful discourse on these problems of both theory and practice can occur.

          A digital badge ecosystem may provide a flexible, inclusive system to bridge the gap between formal and informal learning to effectively create learners identity through skills, competencies and abilities.  At the very least, the digital badge discourse compels us to reevaluate the content, context and assessment of learning. Educational administration faculty, visionaries in learning, have unique opportunities and challenges to become leaders in these crucial conversations, or  to watch and follow as new paradigms of learning emerge.

Comments, questions and responses welcomed and encouraged!

Resources:

Badgestack: http://badgestack.com/

DML Competition 4, (2011).Badges 101 webinar (Video file). Retrieved October 10, 2012 from: http://dmlcompetition.net/competition/4/badges-competition-cfp.php

DML Competition (Curators), (2012).Badges for Lifelong Learning. Retrieved September 22, 2012 from: http://www.scoop.it/t/badges-for-lifelong-learning

HASTAC, (2011). Digital badges for lifelong learning: An open conversation (Video file).Retrieved October 2, 2012 from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqVidWPVBKA

MozillaWiki, (2012). Badge FAQ’s. Retrieved October 5, 2012 from: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Badges/FAQsNASA and NSTA (2012). Teacher Learning Journeys: http://learning-interfaces.com/tlj/v2/login.php

Open Michigan, https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Badges

Peck, Kyle (2012). Teacher Learning Journeys v3.0: Prezi presentation. Retrieved September 29, 2012 from: http://prezi.com/blogb7d5qpxh/teacher-learning-journeys-v30/?auth_key=f29aca32eb1792ab75c8827c726bcefcae2fe801

Cited works:

Duncan, A. (2011). Digital badges for learning: Remarks by Secretary Duncan at 4th annual launch of the MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Lifelong Learning Competition. Retrieved April 10, 2012 from: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/digital-badges-learning

Goldberg, D. T. (2012). Badges for learning: Threading the needle between skepticism and evangelism. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://dmlcentral.net/blog/david-theo-goldberg/badges-learning-threading-needle-between-skepticism-and-evangelism

Grant, S. (2012). Questions about badges in higher ed. Retrieved October 15, 2012 from: http://hastac.org/blogs/slgrant/2012/10/05/questions-about-badges-higher-ed

Halavais, A. (2012). Badges: The skeptical evangelist. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://alex.halavais.net/badges-the-skeptical-evangelist

Hickey, D,. (2012). Incorporating Open Badges into a hybrid course context. Retrieved October 16, 2012 from: http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com/2012/10/incorporating-open-badges-into-hybrid.html

Ledesma, P. (2011). Can badges offer viable alternatives to standardized tests for school evaluation? Retrieved September 25, 2012 from:  http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/leading_from_the_classroom/2011/07/can_badges_offer_viable_alternatives_to_standardized_tests_for_school_evaluation.html

Olneck, M.(2012). Insurgent Credentials: A Challenge to Established Institutions of Higher Education. Paper presented to "Education in a New Society: The Growing Interpenetration of Education in Modern Life"  at Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 26-27, 2012. Available from: http://hastac.org/documents/insurgent-credentials-challenge-established-institutions-higher-education

Technology and Digital Media Impact: Considerations for Leadership Preparation in K-20 Education

Angela Elkordy, aelkordy@emich.edu

Doctoral Candidate

Eastern Michigan University, Dept. of Leadership and Counseling

       Although “technology integration” has been a prominent goal in many educational environments, significant challenges remain to the consistent implementation and meaningful application of instructional technologies. Significantly, learner preferences shaped by participation in a digitally-mediated world are often-overlooked in the process of curriculum development as well as in planning of instruction delivery and learning environments. There are substantial ramifications for educational leaders resulting from the new, rapidly evolving skill sets and competencies necessary for the knowledge-economy workplace; to be effective in the shifting educational landscape, leaders must leverage learners’ new strengths to develop effective learning tools, objectives and environments.

Technology has irrevocably transformed society:

       As a result of Internet and communications technologies (ICT), the way in which much of the world lives, communicates and conducts business has been transformed. In the developed world, these changes are structural and pervasive, transforming practices and paradigms. Internet-mediated communications, for example, foster interactions across time and distance via texting, VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) enabled communications, smartphones, email, social networking sites or messaging, in addition to a myriad of other conduits such as video, chat and conferencing.   The use of digital media and ICT has altered societies on every level: health care, business models, knowledge acquisition activities, education and social interactions – including the meaning and context of global citizenry - which are now in continuous motion on global platforms.

In fact, because the Internet has become almost synonymous with societal, economic and even political growth, some leaders believe access to the Internet is so critical that it is regarded as a “human right” by the United Nations:

[We] declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  (World Summit on the Information Society, 2003)

Technology has irrevocably transformed the workplace:

       One of the realms most impacted by digital media and ICT is the work place. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, jobs in the manufacturing sector in 1967 accounted for 54% of the U.S. economic output whereas by 1997, this was surpassed, at 64%, by information products (Partnership, 2008). Davidson, citing research on the future workplace by the U.S. Department of Labor suggested: “ by one estimate, 65% of children entering grade school this year will end up working in careers that haven’t even been invented yet” (Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention will Transform the Way we Live, Work and Learn, 2011).

       An outcome of this trend has been a parallel shift in the skill sets and competencies necessary for workers to function in what is now, effectively, a global marketplace made possible by digital communications and Internet technologies. Researchers and policy makers are advocating for a diverse new range of skills and dispositions including the abilities to be creative, innovative and in the European Union, “entrepreneurial thinking” is advocated as a necessary new skill. As a result, forward thinking educational researchers, policy makers and educators have recognized a definitive shift in necessary basic competencies (often called “literacies”) critical for U.S. competitiveness. This has obliged educators and others to consider new ways of teaching to prepare learners to thrive in a largely unpredictable 21^st century workplace.

Technology has irrevocably altered the environments of youth:

       Not surprisingly, our students have been profoundly impacted growing up in a digitally-mediated world, in large part due to the amount of daily media and ICT-related exposures which are increasing. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation study, 8-18 year olds spend more than 10:45 hours per day exposed to various types of media  (TV content, computers, music/audio, print, movies, video games). This amount of exposure has increased in the past decade from 7:29 hours in 1999. In addition, over 25% of this time is spent “multitasking”, engaging in more than one media simultaneously.

       Students today have definite preferences in learning as a direct result of this media immersion; according to the Kaiser study, 81% of teens use media at least “a little” of the time or more while doing homework. Furthermore, they have definite preferences in communication modes and styles. A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life reported: “Texting is by far the most popular way for teens to communicate. While 63% of teens say they text every day, only 39% said they make calls on their phones on a daily basis or send messages through social networking sites (29%). In addition, 35% said they socialize face to face outside of school” (Teens, Smartphones and Texting, 2012).

Technology has irrevocably altered how we learn:

       Considering the extent of media and Internet immersion, it’s not surprising that the preferred learning modes, methods of transmission, and learning styles of our students, particularly teens and young adults, differ significantly from previous generations’.  Accustomed to being entertained and engaged, many students carry this expectation into the classroom and at the very least, expect that to learn in a similarly engaging and interactive manner. As digital devices have become increasingly mainstreamed and used by  young children, users expect, and are usually rewarded, by intelligent design which is intuitive and easily discerned.  As a result, the

digital generation has adopted a mindset of rapid-fire-trial-and-error learning. They’re not afraid of making mistakes because they learn more quickly that way. They operate under the strategy of useful failure …..while people of our generation are under the assumption that all failure is bad and help comes from an expert or a book. (Understanding the Digital Generation, 2011).

       Students’ learning and communications styles and expectations have profound influence on the development of instructional programs. These changes in the learning landscape are all too often overlooked, misunderstood, or not taken into account by educators. It is critical that educators are aware of the existence of digital age learning preferences regardless of technology use, or not, in the learning space. For example, digital age learners prefer the flow of information to be non-sequential and streamed from multiple, linked sources. Exposed to vast quantities of media and data from an early age, digital learners are often critical consumers of information and they are comfortable with large quantities of data in rapid succession. Young adults, in particular, are often active in online communities where information is crowd-sourced and verified, such as Wikipedia.

       Digital age learners have a strong preference for visual learning, tending to process media before text. They expect learning to be engaging and interactive, relevant, authentic and motivating. As the volume of free, increasingly more reliable information is readily available online, there has been a distinct shift in information seeking behaviors which has rendered the necessity of remembering large quantities of information irrelevant. Instead, just-in-time learning is now more often appropriate, where information is retrieved as needed to solve authentic problems. Stylistically, the presentation of the overall concept or problem first is key to these learners; that is, information and inquiry in context leading to situational learning opportunities.

       In terms of strategy, digital age learners tend to prefer extensive integration of digital technologies and tools and for collaborative work (especially digitally-mediated). Furthermore, there is a strong preference for peer assisted, problem solving, inquiry-based and discovery kinds of learning which are embedded in a meaningful context (which is why game-based learning has become so effective in some environments).

An extremely important trend is the significant amount of learning which is occurring in informal environments ; this learning is primarily interest driven and self-motivated, occurring through technology-mediated environments such as social media and other networks. It is highly social and participatory in nature.

        As the concept of digital media technologies for learning matures, new models of learning and assessment are emerging to inform curriculum and instruction. Some of these ideas support the idea of school reform, and others complement it; for example, the Connected Learning Model  (http://connectedlearning.tv/infographic), which includes important socio-cultural factors of effective learning environments such as participatory learning, connectivity  as well as individual factors, such as individual  “interest”  or motivation (D. Hickey, personal communication, August 19, 2012).

       Emerging in response to the need for life-long learners to communicate newly acquired proficiencies and skills to employers and other interested audiences, is the “new” concept of Digital Badges and micro credentialing. As the quality and amount of free digital media resources increases, matched with the availability of portable digital devices, learning can, and does occur anywhere and at any time. Much of this learning focuses upon skills which are urgently needed in the workplace, but because they are not taught in formal environments, they are currently neither assessed nor acknowledged.  The concept of digital badging has the potential to “disrupt” higher education; Arne Duncan, U. S. Secretary of Education recently described the use of badges as a “game changing strategy. “ (Duncan, 2012).

Technology and schools… in transition:

       K-20 Educational institutions are changing, slowly, as the ramifications of digital media and ICT technologies have become firmly entrenched in other environments.  As with most diffusion patterns of innovation, there are pockets of success and notable failures. Online learning, once an innovative, emerging method of instructional delivery, has now become main-streamed with both K-12 and higher education offering classes entirely in cyberspace.

       Despite the significant “integration of technology” in teaching and learning as well as administration, practicing educators, for the most part, lag behind in understanding. It is imperative that school leaders be moderately technically adept, and critical that they understand the possibilities and limitations of technologies. For example, so many technology initiatives fail because of the well-meaning vision of “technology integration” which fails to match learning theory with the practical application of technologies as pedagogical tools. Without this understanding, leaders risk failure and irrelevance, wasting resources and demoralizing colleagues.

Implications for Educational Leadership Faculty

Technology has the potential to leverage teaching and instruction:

       Innovative technologies which could be applied in educational contexts are being developed at a rapid pace. In the past 2-3 years, advances have been made in hardware, personal digital devices, and digital media and software. Many of these technologies are already in use in business and industry contexts. The implementation of these technologies lags behind for a variety of reasons but one of the most pervasive challenges is the knowledge and skill sets of the educators in the field. The U.S. Department of Education suggests that more attention should be directed to adequately preparing pre-service and in-service teachers, providing them with:

professional learning experiences powered by technology to increase their digital literacy and enable them to create compelling assignments for students that improve learning, assessment and instructional practices…… technology should be used ….to engage and motivate them in what and how they teach. (National Educational Technology Plan, 2010)

.

       The New Media Consortium in collaboration with the Consortium of School Networking (CoSN) and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), reports on emerging technologies in education and challenges for the educational community. In the annual Horizon Report, the consortium reports that one of the most significant challenges to effective technology use is inadequate teacher preparation to use emerging technologies:

….despite the widespread agreement on the importance of digital media literacy, training in the supporting skills and techniques is rare in teacher education…..This challenge is exacerbated by the fact that digital literacy is less about tools and more about thinking [i.e. approaches and pedagogies] and thus skills and standards based upon tools and platforms have proven to be somewhat ephemeral. (p. 15).

       Characteristic of quality leadership, modeling and mentoring are powerful strategies, and are critical to successful innovation diffusion in organizations. A leaders' knowledge and skills can make a tremendous difference in the degree of success in technology-related initiatives.  Educational leaders and faculty have the capacity as well as the responsibility, to confer knowledge of effective technology practices to teachers and school administrators. We can only teach what we know; this may be best accomplished, in an ever changing context, by creating communities of learners with a common vision to really understand not only the capabilities of technology and how they have changed the learning landscape, but also to be responsive to students’ needs.  When used appropriately technology tools can facilitate in powerful pedagogies; as our students lives are enmeshed in internet and communications technologies, we risk being irrelevant if we do not lead the wave of change.

Considerations for addressing the need for K-20 teacher and administration preparation programs:

• Knowledge and discourse on technologically-mediated learning and relevant theories, instructional practices and assessment
•  Additional technology training and awareness for educational leadership and teacher preparation faculty
• Training specifically for the complex and multifaceted change processes in implementing educational technology initiatives. For example, what kinds of support and leadership actions foster success?
• Additional digital media and learning experiences in preparing pre service educators
• More exploration and research on situated learning in technology-mediated learning in socio-cultural contexts (e.g. classrooms, professional development)

Please share your thoughts and comments. How do you think we can prepare educators for a digitally-mediated future?

Suggested resources:

21^st Century Principal (blog): http://the21stcenturyprincipal.blogspot.com/

Digital Media and Learning (web site): http://dmlcentral.net/

ESchoolNews: Technology for Today’s K-20 Educator (publication): http://www.eschoolnews.com/

Free Technology for Teachers (blog): http://www.freetech4teachers.com/

References:

Brenner, J. (2012). Pew internet: Teens. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/April/Pew-Internet-Teens.aspx

Carey, K. (2012). A Future full of badges. Retrieved August 15, 2012 from: http://chronicle.com/article/A-Future-Full-of-Badges/131455/

Davidson, C. N. (2011). Now you see it: How the brain science of attention will transform the way we live, work and learn. New York, NY: Penguin Group

Duncan, A. (2011). Digital badges for learning: Remarks by Secretary Duncan at 4th annual launch of the MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Lifelong Learning Competition. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/digital-badges-learning

Europa, Summaries of EU Legislation (2006).  Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning, Retrieved May 8, 2012 from: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11090_en.htm

Jukes, I., McCain, T. D. E., Crockett, L., 21st Century Fluency Project, & NetSavvy/Infosavvy Group. (2010). Understanding the digital generation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens, smartphones and texting. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-smartphones.aspx

New Media Consortium. (2012). NMC horizon report: 2012 K-12 edition Retrieved May.20, 2012 from: http://www.nmc.org/publications/2012-horizon-report-k12

Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 21-21.

Partnership for 21^st Century Skills, (2008). 21^st Century skills, education & competitiveness: A Resource and policy guide. Retrieved: February 16, 2012 from: http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf

Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010).Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-olds. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved May 18, 2012 from: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/mh012010presentL.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Education Technology Plan. Retrieved May 15, 2012 , from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 

World Summit on the Information Society, Geneva 2003- Tunis 2005, (2003). Declaration of Principles: Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new millennium. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

Grow, learn and contribute at the ...

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROFESSORS OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

66TH Annual Conference

Social Justice, Competition and Quality: 21st Century Leadership Challenges

Kansas City, Missouri

August 7-10, 2012

Full details of events: Conference Schedule

NCPEA Board Candidates


Currently, three candidates have accepted nominations for the forthcoming NCPEA Board Elections. Please review Candidate information at the NCPEA web site: http://www.emich.edu/ncpeaprofessors/


Vote for candidates: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/X2DF868

Sharing our Learning: The Important Work of Scholarship in Community

Marc Shelton, EdD, Professor of Education

Director of Administrative Licensure

George Fox University – Newberg, OR

This month closes in on the one-year anniversary of this NCPEA blog, an initiative by the executive board to expand the conversation on the work our members are doing in school leader preparation programs.

As Jim Berry, our executive director, stated in a September 2011 memo, “The intent of Talking Points is to communicate and listen.  It is NCPEA’s version of the hard copy newsletter.  Talking Points is a combination of communication about the organization and a forum for discussing issues.  Keep in mind that what goes into Talking Points can be responded to in the comments section.  NCPEA also has set up Facebook and Twitter accounts to take advantage of these growing social media networks to expand the conversation about educational issues to the general public.”

One can review this inaugural year-at-a-glance by clicking in the blog archive to access the conversations that centered on the following topics:

·         The Practitioner Professoriate: Ways to Connect with Practitioners

·         Leadership Preparation Programs: A Home for Teacher Leaders

·         NCPEA Policy Brief: ESEA Waivers

·         Student Achievement and Educational Leadership Programs

·         Teacher Unions as Part of Democratic Decision Making

·         Increasing Professors’ Voices in Educational Policy

·         Educational Leadership at 2050

·         Mentor Mosaic: NCPEA’s Role in the Development of the Professoriate

·         Blazing Leadership Trails for Equity & Access: A New Direction

·         Interagency, Non-Profit, and Neoliberal Collaboration: A Three-part Perspective

This blog has continued conversations in the time between Augusts – from the past summer’s conference in Portland to our upcoming time together in Kansas City.  It has served to expand the conversations happening consistently through our NCPEA Publications website and journals.  It has provided a forum for executive board members to share our thoughts, ideas, and learning with the growing membership of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, as we close in on nearly three-quarters of a century as a formal organization – a community dedicated to the advancement of leadership in education.

I have been reflecting on the work of Ernest Boyer (1990), and colleagues that have carried on the work at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in a national study of roles and rewards for faculty.  Two books published by these learners were shared with the broader community and suggested the need to reconsider and reassess priorities of professors at institutions of higher learning.  The authors presented six criteria for assessing scholarship, with my parenthetical descriptors, as follows:

 

1. Clear Goals – Purposeful
2. Adequate Preparation – Thoughtful 
3. Appropriate Methods – Meaningful
4. Significant Results – Fruitful
5. Effective Presentation – Beautiful
6. Reflective Critique – Truthful

Glassick, Huber & Maeroff (1997, p. 36)

Sharing one’s learning matters – just as leadership is the ability to act as a leader, then scholarship could de defined as the ability to act as a learner.  In our discipline, it is believed that leadership matters and fruitful leadership can make a difference in the life of an organization and its members.  Likewise, in institutions of higher learning it is important to model that learning happens through our teaching in classrooms, is integrated through our service in life applications, and discovered through our collaborative research that is shared with and evaluated by the broader community, all with evidence in assessing our work to expand the knowledge base of leadership in education that reflect these six measures.

This broader definition of scholarship is one that many are discussing on campuses related to promotion and tenure, which is one meaningful benefit of belonging to NCPEA.  But, perhaps, the discussion is more to focus us on the importance of learning from one another by listening well to others’ voices to develop multiple perspectives on broader topics influencing our work.  This is why I am excited to join the discussion – seeing and hearing others again in Kansas City!

REFERENCES

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation.

English, F.W., Papa, R., Mullen, C.A., & Creighton, T. (2012). Educational leadership at 2050: Conjectures, challenges, and promises. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kutcher, E.J., Bragger, J.D., Rodriguez-Srednicki, O., & Masco, J.L.  (2010). The role of religiosity in stress, job attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 319–337.

NCPEA Talking Points: New, Views and Opinions on Leadership in Education. http://ncpeapublications.blogspot.com/.

Connecting the practitioner and the professor: Establishing a strong professional organization

Pauline M. Sampson

Associate Professor

Superintendent Program Coordinator, IRB Chair

Stephen F. Austin State University

A strong organization such as NCPEA could further its identity by more recruitment of preK-12 educational leaders to join NCPEA. Educational leadership preparation programs strive to develop scholar-practitioners where leaders constantly use current research and best practices to form their decisions.  At the university level, professors develop their own research agendas and these research agendas may be connected to current needs of schools.  Additionally, NCPEA strives to be a forum to guide policy for educational leadership while providing its members opportunities to network.  This helps them keep current on research in educational leadership and publish their research.  This increases the accessibility of their research to both practitioners and other professors.

One way to ensure the success of an organization is to continue increasing its membership. This leads to increased revenue that could be used to conduct the mission of the organization as well as network with people in the same field. Organizations that network and engage their members have a greater chance of continuity.  Organizations also continue to change and evolve to meet the needs of its members for the recruitment of future members.

 

Another way to increase recruitment of new members is to examine the network of current school leaders, who are the practitioners, and involves them with the professors.  Suddaby and Viale (2011) identified one purpose for professionals to network was that they have an understanding of the field and are able to bring along new members to the field that help create new identities for the field. 

Many practitioners may desire to move into the professorate. Networking practicing school administrators with professors to compete research projects can benefit both groups. This combined work helps the school leaders to become stronger scholar-practitioners by providing a better understanding of the need for scholarship at the university level with service, as well as honing their skills as researchers with professors.  The professors are helped by having relevant research while working to develop future potential professors. 

Additionally, this collaboration could assist practitioners to learn more about the career of a professor so they could have a smoother transition should they decide to work at a university (Coleman, Christie, Culver, Erickson, Hunt, Williams, Kinsey, Smith, & Tareilo, 2007; Johnson & De Spain, 2004; Karanovich, 2010; Searby, Ivanlova, & Shores, 2010).  Exposure for practitioners to the expectations of higher education, especially for service and scholarship, could be helped with an early collaboration between school leaders and university faculty (Marshall, Karanovich, & Sampson, 2010).  Holberg and Taylor (2004) focused on the concerns of publications for the profession of English professors with lower opportunities to publish because of fewer book publishers.  Further Holberg and Taylor (2004) suggested the professorate must have a focus on teaching.  I would suggest that reconsideration is also needed for the connection to service.  This service can lead to research published by the professors and their colleagues who may desire movement to the professorate.  This type of connection would continue NCPEA’s engagement with practitioners while increasing a focus on the use of research by practitioners.

References

Coleman, J. C., Christie, E., Culver, M. K., Erickson, D. E., Hunt, J. W., Williams, F. K., Kinsey, G. W., Smith, S. J., & Tareilo, J. (2007). The transition from practitioner to professor: The struggle of new faculty to find their place in the world of academia.  NCPEA Educational Leadership Review, 8(2), 65-76.

Holberg, J. L ., & Taylor, M. (2004). Editors’ introduction: Getting the profession we want, or a few thoughts on the crisis in scholarly publishing.  Pedagogy, 4(1), 1-7.

Johnson, J. A., & DeSpain, B. C. (2004). Mentoring the reluctant writer. The Professional Educator, 26(2), 45-55.

Karanovich, F. (2010). Transitioning from the Superintendent’s Chair to the Professor’s Podium: A Narrative of Personal Reflections. In Michael Afolayan (Ed.), Multiculturalism in the Age of the Mosaic: Essays in Honor of Rudolph G. Wilson. New York: Nova Science Publishers. 

Marshall, R. L., Karanovich, F. A., & Sampson, P. M. (2010).  From practitioner to professor: The impact of mentor programs on the success of PK-12 practitioners entering higher education.  Paper presented at the National Council for Professor of Educational Administration in Washington, D. C.  August 2-6, 2010.

Searby, L. J., Ivankova, N. V., & Shores, M. L. (2009). Capable, contributing, and connected: New professors find support through a peer learning community. Learning Communities Journal, 1(2), 97-119.

Suddaby, R., &Viale, T. (2011). Professionals and field level change: Institutional work and the professional project. Current Sociology, 59(4), 423-442.

Departments of Educational Leadership- a Natural Home for the Development of Teacher Leadership Programs

Caryn Wells

Associate Professor

Education Specialist Program Coordinator

Oakland University

         Executive Board members of the NCPEA are drafting a position paper that has as its foundation, the belief that departments of Educational Leadership are uniquely positioned to offer programs in Teacher Leadership to benefit teachers as well as aspiring and practicing administrators. We take this stand for several important reasons, illustrated here in the April Talking Points blog. I write on behalf of my colleagues who are working with me to develop the paper that will be delivered at the annual meeting in Kansas City in August of 2012. This blog contains some preliminary considerations, generated to initiate conversation and reflection among the members of our organization in advance of our meeting.

     Why teacher leadership, why now, and why Educational Leadership departments?

      In schools across America, principals are faced with mounting pressure to develop instructional programs that will increase student achievement for every student during periods of diminished funding and increased visibility in the public eye (Hess & Kelly, 2007; Kafka, 2009; Louis, et al., 2010; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). The job of educational leaders has described as being “a job too big for one,” as Grubb and Flessa (2006) reported in the title of their study (p.518).  Opportunities for partnership in the leadership of schools are within the buildings of the school- the obvious insights, expertise, and skills of the teachers. Teacher leadership is associated with the possibility of improving student achievement and a sense of change in the culture of the schools to promote teaching learning and collaboration (Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson, & Hann, 2002; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009; Mujis & Harris, 2003: York-Barr & Duke, 2004).

     University preparation programs are faced with challenge and opportunity to prepare aspiring and practicing leaders to fulfill the expectations that will transform educational environments for social justice, where every student achieves and thrives. Calls for pedagogic leadership in the training of principals are emerging in the literature (NCPEA, in press). The pedagogic leadership that is the foundation for administrative leadership training has a natural home in the preparation of teacher leaders. For example:

·         

           Departments of Educational Leadership have, at their foundation, instructional leadership constructs that teach the theoretical underpinnings of teaching and learning;

·         Teacher Leadership programs demand skill development in principles of leadership- professors of Educational Leadership programs teach how the political, structural, symbolic, and human resource frames intersect in a school (Bolman & Deal, 2004);

·              Professors of Educational Leadership programs are able to teach the process of the changes inherent in the transformation to include teachers as leaders, including teaching skills that respond to conflict and resistance; these skills are often taught by professors who have been practitioners in educational leadership roles;

·            Teacher leadership preparation must move beyond concepts of efficiency, research, collaboration, and study of school culture to include social justice as a foundation for improving schools for every student, concepts taught by Ed Leadership departments; and

·             The deliberate naming of teacher leadership programs suggests that it is about leadership, concepts for which professors of Educational Leadership have been trained, and are involved in as leaders in scholarship, teaching, and service.

     I invite your feedback about the development of Teacher Leadership programs as part of the Educational Leadership departments in universities. We are preparing principals and central office administrators who will be the partners with teachers in new leadership structures.

      We are at a crossroads with regard to program development and implementation of Teacher Leadership programs. Along with colleagues from the Executive Board of NCPEA, I submit that is time for us to take an important lead in conversation, implementation, and research concerning Teacher Leadership. We look forward to your feedback for the same.

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4^th Ed. ). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 468- 503. doi: 10.1177/0013161X03255561

Crowther, F., Kaagan, S. S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

English, F. W., Papa, R., Mullen, C. A., & Creighton, T. (2012). Educational leadership at 2050. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Grubb, W. N., & Flessa, J. J. (2006). “A job too big for one”: Multiple principals and other nontraditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 518-550. doi: 10.1177/0013161x06290641

Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. K. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal-preparation programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244-174.

Kafka, J. (2009). The principalship in historical perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 318-320. Doi: 10.1080101619560902973506

Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009) Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders, (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Louis, K. S., Wahlstom, K. L., Michlin, M., Gordon, M. Thomas, E., Leithwood, K., Moore, S. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final report to the Wallace Foundation. The University of Minnesota.

Mujis, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership- improvement through empowerment?: An overview of the literature. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 31(4), 437-448. doi: 10.1177/0263211030314007

Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of leading 21^st century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181-203.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 4(3), 255-316.