1.1 Shared Vision
Candidates facilitate the development and implementation of a shared vision for the use of technology in teaching, learning, and leadership. (PSC 1.1/ISTE 1a)
ITEC 7410 Shared Vision Paper
The Shared Vision Paper artifact investigates the way our school participates in the stated vision for technology in our county. Further, it suggests what vision for technology use suits our school mission statement and improves student achievement. At first, the technology Vision for the county is investigated, and then the way our school uses that technology is studied and compared to research-based best practices for use of technology in learning. Then, research-based strategies are considered to propose a new shared vision for the use of technology and the way it is implemented in our school. The Shared Vision paper includes descriptions of the ways stakeholders in the school can implement meaningful use of technology so that it supports our mission and student success. Thus, the artifact contains both the development and implementation of a shared vision for technology use in learning, teaching, and leadership.
The Shared Vision Paper artifact is evidence of my work in investigating the stated mission and vision of our school as it relates to teaching and learning. First, the mission statement and vision for our school is investigated to compare its verbiage against the reality of our school’s practice. I found that the mission statement does describe the ideal image of what we want to accomplish in our school, but the vision statement had no explicit mention of technology use to achieve our goals. Instead, the verbiage asserts that our graduates are capable of world-class competition in the job market and adult life after high school, but the ways that they are competitive are not stated. So, I Research of the ISTE standards for students and best practices for teaching and learning in the 21st century to develop the vision statement. I analyzed and compared the statement against our actual practices. This first step toward implementation of the shared vision discusses the reality that we are actually teaching and learning in a way that’s inconsistent with best practices; technology is often used at the Substitution level (SAMR Model) while missing opportunities to encourage collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, and communication. The Shared Vision Paper subhead “Rationale” details how our current use of technology might be amplified by new processes that promote the 4C’s. Then, the “Possible Solutions” section selects some of the strategies in technology use that are effective for student success and suggests ways to implement technology to increase student engagement, motivation, and achievement.
In order to support transformational change throughout my school, I need to also focus on implementation of a shared vision for technology use. So, I proposed a new Vision Statement in the Shared Vision Paper. This one is consistent with ISTE standards and research-based practices for effective use of technology for student achievement (ISTE, 2008); it explicitly mentions how we will use technology to achieve our greater aims of assessment and Feedback, Goal setting, and Literacy. In order to effect a change in a school, however, I must change more than a vision statement. I must also implement changes in teaching and leadership. First, leadership includes working with teachers as well as other stakeholders outside the classroom. The subsection of the Shared Vision Paper labeled “Stakeholders” describes what the Teachers, Administrators, and a Peer Technology Coach would be doing if the new Shared Vision was implemented. Transformational change will not happen without a shift in thinking, and this is where a Peer Instructional Technology coach’s dispositional awareness comes in. In order to shift administration and teachers toward the new shared vision where students direct their own thinking through inquiry, I would necessarily have to encourage a different type of approach and thinking about learning. This is, perhaps, the most difficult part of transformational change: habits. However, using strong teacher leaders as change agents to begin the process toward Problem- and Project-based learning will seed the momentum necessary to reduce anxiety about student performance. The subhead “Peer Technology Coach” discusses the ways I would coach the transition, namely, through a peer approach as opposed to becoming an agent of administration.
In completing this artifact, I discovered that the vision for technology use in a school changes along with the technology capabilities itself. For instance, our vision statement seemed out of date, but that might be because capabilities of technology have changed in the ten years that the statement has been in published and in effect. A teaching staff can get “stuck” in the vision from years ago, and without updating it and looking at the rationale for processes in meeting the vision, a school might fall behind the advancements in technology that could be used to amplify the teaching and learning in a school. I have also learned that there are precious few resources in a school who can actually keep the pulse of technological opportunities. In fact, a peer technology coach, whether named or not, can serve this position for teachers and administrators who have other concerns (Knight, 2007). In short, the need for a technology coach becomes clear to me. In order to improve the quality of the Shared Vision Paper, I would prefer to have interviewed the county technology personnel to gather further details about the technology plan for the county for the next ten years. At the time I produced the artifact, I had access to the old technology plan for the district, and it was four years out of date at the time I wrote the Shared Vision Paper. Having details about what the new tech plan was for the district would have helped me shape the “Possible solutions” section of the paper as well as the “diversity Considerations” section. Looking back on it, I might have pressed the technology division further for details of the new draft.
Assessing the impact of a new vision statement seems vague. However, once the statement is communicated and implementation begins, real impact begins. For instance, when the peer instructional technology coach begins supporting teachers in their efforts to change small teaching processes and to use technology to accommodate the engagement and motivation of their students (Knight, 2007), real impact will be measured by student success on assessments and engagement with learning. These are real, albeit somewhat delayed, effects of transformational change in a school’s technology vision. Creating the Shared Vision Paper allowed me to suggest a new vision and research-based strategies so that I could build ethos to implement them into our practice.
References:
ISTE (2008). Student achievement brief.[pdf]. Retrieved from https://computerexplorers.com/Student-Achievement-Brief.pdf
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
The Shared Vision Paper artifact investigates the way our school participates in the stated vision for technology in our county. Further, it suggests what vision for technology use suits our school mission statement and improves student achievement. At first, the technology Vision for the county is investigated, and then the way our school uses that technology is studied and compared to research-based best practices for use of technology in learning. Then, research-based strategies are considered to propose a new shared vision for the use of technology and the way it is implemented in our school. The Shared Vision paper includes descriptions of the ways stakeholders in the school can implement meaningful use of technology so that it supports our mission and student success. Thus, the artifact contains both the development and implementation of a shared vision for technology use in learning, teaching, and leadership.
The Shared Vision Paper artifact is evidence of my work in investigating the stated mission and vision of our school as it relates to teaching and learning. First, the mission statement and vision for our school is investigated to compare its verbiage against the reality of our school’s practice. I found that the mission statement does describe the ideal image of what we want to accomplish in our school, but the vision statement had no explicit mention of technology use to achieve our goals. Instead, the verbiage asserts that our graduates are capable of world-class competition in the job market and adult life after high school, but the ways that they are competitive are not stated. So, I Research of the ISTE standards for students and best practices for teaching and learning in the 21st century to develop the vision statement. I analyzed and compared the statement against our actual practices. This first step toward implementation of the shared vision discusses the reality that we are actually teaching and learning in a way that’s inconsistent with best practices; technology is often used at the Substitution level (SAMR Model) while missing opportunities to encourage collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, and communication. The Shared Vision Paper subhead “Rationale” details how our current use of technology might be amplified by new processes that promote the 4C’s. Then, the “Possible Solutions” section selects some of the strategies in technology use that are effective for student success and suggests ways to implement technology to increase student engagement, motivation, and achievement.
In order to support transformational change throughout my school, I need to also focus on implementation of a shared vision for technology use. So, I proposed a new Vision Statement in the Shared Vision Paper. This one is consistent with ISTE standards and research-based practices for effective use of technology for student achievement (ISTE, 2008); it explicitly mentions how we will use technology to achieve our greater aims of assessment and Feedback, Goal setting, and Literacy. In order to effect a change in a school, however, I must change more than a vision statement. I must also implement changes in teaching and leadership. First, leadership includes working with teachers as well as other stakeholders outside the classroom. The subsection of the Shared Vision Paper labeled “Stakeholders” describes what the Teachers, Administrators, and a Peer Technology Coach would be doing if the new Shared Vision was implemented. Transformational change will not happen without a shift in thinking, and this is where a Peer Instructional Technology coach’s dispositional awareness comes in. In order to shift administration and teachers toward the new shared vision where students direct their own thinking through inquiry, I would necessarily have to encourage a different type of approach and thinking about learning. This is, perhaps, the most difficult part of transformational change: habits. However, using strong teacher leaders as change agents to begin the process toward Problem- and Project-based learning will seed the momentum necessary to reduce anxiety about student performance. The subhead “Peer Technology Coach” discusses the ways I would coach the transition, namely, through a peer approach as opposed to becoming an agent of administration.
In completing this artifact, I discovered that the vision for technology use in a school changes along with the technology capabilities itself. For instance, our vision statement seemed out of date, but that might be because capabilities of technology have changed in the ten years that the statement has been in published and in effect. A teaching staff can get “stuck” in the vision from years ago, and without updating it and looking at the rationale for processes in meeting the vision, a school might fall behind the advancements in technology that could be used to amplify the teaching and learning in a school. I have also learned that there are precious few resources in a school who can actually keep the pulse of technological opportunities. In fact, a peer technology coach, whether named or not, can serve this position for teachers and administrators who have other concerns (Knight, 2007). In short, the need for a technology coach becomes clear to me. In order to improve the quality of the Shared Vision Paper, I would prefer to have interviewed the county technology personnel to gather further details about the technology plan for the county for the next ten years. At the time I produced the artifact, I had access to the old technology plan for the district, and it was four years out of date at the time I wrote the Shared Vision Paper. Having details about what the new tech plan was for the district would have helped me shape the “Possible solutions” section of the paper as well as the “diversity Considerations” section. Looking back on it, I might have pressed the technology division further for details of the new draft.
Assessing the impact of a new vision statement seems vague. However, once the statement is communicated and implementation begins, real impact begins. For instance, when the peer instructional technology coach begins supporting teachers in their efforts to change small teaching processes and to use technology to accommodate the engagement and motivation of their students (Knight, 2007), real impact will be measured by student success on assessments and engagement with learning. These are real, albeit somewhat delayed, effects of transformational change in a school’s technology vision. Creating the Shared Vision Paper allowed me to suggest a new vision and research-based strategies so that I could build ethos to implement them into our practice.
References:
ISTE (2008). Student achievement brief.[pdf]. Retrieved from https://computerexplorers.com/Student-Achievement-Brief.pdf
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.