Digital Leadership Week 2

     In working through this weeks readings ,I really wanted to find something new and exciting as a framework. Many of them aligned with how I thought. Trying to put into the perspective of something I would want to implement, a lot of them seemed way too complicated. In the end, good ole Triple E from Kolb seemed to be the most aligned with my thoughts, as well as easily sold to a staff. The simplicity and rememberability of it makes it something that can catch and stick in the minds of teachers, as it did with myself. I really think this model would be effectively implemented as it can be the practice of a whole day PD, as well as a printout to reference for teachers when lesson planning. I find the ease of this important as the school I work at is very disorganized and hectic on a day to day basis

    If I was in a role of digital leadership, teachers and students would be my main stakeholders. I would want to try and find a wide array of people to survey this model to. You would not only want strait A students. They will complete their assignments with a scroll and quill if we needed. Technology is something should be a tool to bring up the C average student who is just getting by. The same thought can be applied to teachers. My teachers who are implementing the most technology, are probably falling into some version of this framework already. I would want to hear from the teacher who uses little to no technology, or the teacher that only breaks out the chrome book for the plop the student in front of a chrome book platforms. . 

    This framework, or really any framework, models perfectly into a qualitative goal that our principal speaks about very often. It is our goal as a school to be the premier academic school in region 3 of Columbus City Schools. The simple fact is, worksheets and packets are not premier. You can definitely be a good teacher with these tools. However, in the year 2026, technology is essential to being a premier space of academia. Kolbs triple E framework gives us a clear path to use technology to go from good to premier through enhancing, engaging, and extending the already good work we are doing.

    The first way I would try to leverage current practices is to look at the Triple E framework against the simple things we are already doing with the computers we do have. As stated earlier, a lot of the technology use is plopping students in front of Alecks, StudySync, or Achieve3000. The district tells us we have to use these, and they are used. Trying to leverage PLC time with subject area teachers together to try and see how we can modify what we are already doing to better fit into using these programs to expand, extend, or enhance would be a good entry point. I think this takes away a lot of fear from adding another thing to a packed curriculum.

    The outcome I would be looking for and providing feedback on would that the teacher could articulate what they are doing differently with technology to better answer a specific question from the triple E framework. I think to bridge the digital divide I would spend some time finding local (in-district) experts of these programs and find out how they use these things effectively. Learning myself and passing along this information will provide some much needed training to bridge that inequity gap. I think this is something that is reasonable as it only includes finding three people and learning more about 3 things. 

Reference:

Kolb, L. (2020). Framework models. Triple E Framework. https://www.tripleeframework.com/framework-models.html    

Digital Leadership Week 1.

 

       The first thing I found very interesting was that Dr. Evans started her career in tech. I think this gives her a unique perspective. I am not always fond of those who have never been in the classroom having grand ideas about what we should be doing. However, with technology being so curated to keep us addicted, I like the idea of someone knowing "how the sausage is made". After working for a tech company with many rolls, she moved into working for educational technology startups. The combination of these two roles gave her a lot of knowledge of the inner workings of both large tech companies and educational technology companies. I think this combination propelled her to be able to take on the self admitted daunting task of being the CEO of the educational technology nonprofit NETDAY.

    Dr. Evans work has aligned with ISTE standards before she ever got into a running her own company. The initial work she did in startups focused on using Howard Gardener's learning styles to evaluate the best educational technology use for parents which aligns with 3.5.a staying current on innovations in learning. Her second stop in start up had her developing technology to find specific reading differences. This aligns with standard 3.3.d which focuses on helping educators meet the needs of diverse learners. As a CEO of an educational technology nonprofit, she probably dabbled in any and all standards listed with ISTE educational leader standards. With that being said, she spoke about how she had to reinvent the company many times. To me, this close aligns with developing and sustaining a vision, but even more importantly, evaluating a plan progress. These standards 3.2.a and 3.2.c respectively, shows how she not only built a plan, but was willing to change it through her own self evaluation.

    Not only does Dr. Evans discuss professional development(PD), I think her work in the speak up research project helped inform on the types of PD needed. Throughout her work, she toured a lot schools. This allowed to see the varying types of buy in from teachers, this ranged from fully bought in, totally out, and many being somewhere in between. This led to her focus on something specific she mentions which I really appreciate, differentiated instruction. Not just for students, but for teachers. As a young and technologically savvy person, educational technology PD usually goes one of two ways for me. I am either bored or spend a lot of time helping someone next to me. Differentiated PD is honestly something I have never heard of like this, this is interesting because we as teachers are expected to constantly differentiate.

    I think the biggest real world issue she dealt with here would be the changes in our social world and world of technology from 2003(earliest date mentioned) and 2024(date of book being published). She talks about it some in the story, but these were my entire K-12 education into my own teaching career. The technology in and out of our classroom did not only 10x, but 10 to the x. This is continuing not only as children get older, but as parents get younger and have more experience with technology.

    I dont have many critiques or concerns. I would say the emotion this invoked would be appreciation. Dr. Evans has a mindset I greatly appreciate. She doesn't seem to be overstepping and telling teachers what they need to be doing, but she seems to be using her expertise in technology to help inform teachers in something that is a growing part of out jobs. One reading from this week that informed my perspective was Rashid and Asghar(2016) and how the growth discussed in the previous paragraph doesn't necesarrily mean an increase in "scores" but more in engagement and the ability for learning to self directed.

References:

International Society for Technology in Education. (n.d.). ISTE standards for education leaders. https://iste.org/standards/education-leaders

Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604–612.

Stachowiak, B., & McClay, J. (2024). Igniting your leadership with technology (J. McClay & B. Stachowiak, Eds.). Innovate Learning, LLC. https://pressbooks.pub/edd7032018f/