ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online DOI: 10.1080/00405840802329219
Leslie Ann Williams
Linda Cole Atkinson
Jean McGregor Cate
Mary John O’Hair
Mutual Support Between Learning
Community Development and
Technology Integration:
Impact on School Practices and
Student Achievement
Traditional schools are notorious for being iso-lated, inflexible, and reluctant to change. This lack of professional dialogue among educators remains a significant barrier to successful school
Leslie Ann Williams, Linda Cole Atkinson, and Jean McGregor Cate are all associate directors, and Mary John O’Hair is Vice Provost and director, all at the K20 Center for Educational and Community Renewal at the University of Oklahoma.
Correspondence should be sent to Leslie Ann Williams, Associate Dir for K12 Research, K20 Cen-ter, K20 Center for Ed and Community Renewal, University of Oklahoma, 3100 Monitor Avenue, Suite 200, Norman, OK 73109. E-mail: [email protected]
improvement, resulting in teachers’ practices be-coming stagnant and student achievement suffer-ing. The K20 Center for Educational and Com-munity Renewal at the University of Oklahoma addresses this barrier through research and pro-fessional development focused on teaching and learning innovations. Knowledge gained from these research activities is transferred to net-work schools through professional development for K–12 teachers, principals, superintendents, and other key stakeholders. This article describes the K20 Center’s research-based systemic change model, which moves beyond a conceptual frame-work to actually improving teacher quality and student success.
M
ANY OFAMERICA’S SCHOOLS today re-main characterized as bureaucracies with top-down leadership that hinders collaboration and professional learning (Darling-Hammond, 1997, Fullan, 1991). To improve these traditional school structures, the framework of the K20 Center for Educational and Community Renewal at the University of Oklahoma has developed a research-based framework and systemic reform model.1This model builds leadership capacity ofmembers of the school community for transfor-mation into a professional learning community (PLC) through job-imbedded professional devel-opment and technology innovations.
The K20 model utilizes technology integration to involve a school’s individuals and teams in a collaborative learning model. Technology inte-gration processes enhance collective learning that contributes to the development of a community (Burns, 2002; Dexter, Seashore, & Anderson, 2002; Riel & Fulton, 2001; Williams, Atkinson, O’Hair, & Applegate, 2007). As teachers work together toward technology integration, they col-lectively gain knowledge, share best practices, and work collaboratively to build leadership ca-pacity. Through intensive professional develop-ment around technology integration, mutually supportive, and reciprocal relationships are cre-ated to support learning community development and increased student learning (Williams, 2006). This article presents the strategies and imple-mentation of the K20 Center’s statewide reform efforts.
Founding of a School– University Network
The K20 school–university partnership began in 1995 as the Oklahoma Networks for Excel-lence (ONE), and its goals centered on creating networks for democratic education. For 6 years, teacher representatives from 12 urban, suburban, and rural schools met monthly to share best practices through collaborative discussions and school site visits. Conferences provided oppor-tunities for intentional professional networking (Lieberman, 1996) to address common
chal-lenges. The lessons learned from this school– university network provided the foundation for the K20 Center’s framework, which is based on the principles of inquiry, discourse, equity, authenticity, leadership, and service (IDEALS) and the 10 practices of high-achieving schools (O’Hair, McLaughlin, & Reitzug, 2000). These research-based practices support school members in developing learning communities in which all members learn together and engage in renewal (Cate, Vaughn, & O’Hair, 2006).
Through the early work of ONE, the signifi-cance of the administrator’s role was identified. In 2001, the K20 Center was awarded the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation state leadership development grant to provide professional de-velopment to 800 school leaders. Two former school administrators and the K20 Center Di-rector coordinated the leadership project, Okla-homa’s Achievement for Collaboration and Tech-nology Support (OK-ACTS). To consider various viewpoints and build ownership for the project, an advisory board of representatives from the university, executive directors of the associations for school boards, administrators, teachers, and career technology centers, and a committee of principals and superintendents was established. This board set criteria for participation, planned and examined professional development content, and monitored the project.
Beginning With Leaders
In 2002, head principals and superintendents began attending the year-long OK-ACTS Phase I leadership professional development. As an in-centive, leaders were given a laptop computer at the initial 2-day seminar. Many of them believed that the focus would be on technology skill development, but because of lessons learned, the focus of the 75-hr professional development was democratic leadership and school change focused on the IDEALS and Ten Practices framework us-ing technology integration strategies. Sessions in-volved the participants in activities that illustrated the impact of school improvement practices, such as building leadership capacity (Lambert,
2003), leading technology integration using The National Educational Technology Standards for School Administrators (Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative, 2001), and utilizing effective technology activities such as Active Learning with Technology modules (Adams et al., 2000).
School leaders who had completed OK-ACTS Phase I served as cluster coaches for a group of 20 participants. In this role, they acted as mentors, assisting the participants, conducting periodic meetings, and communicating by tele-phone and e-mail to facilitate school renewal, shared leadership, and technology integration (Joyce & Showers, 2002). After the seminar, and with on-going support, the leaders partici-pated in follow-up cluster meetings, administered a school technology assessment, and wrote an action plan for implementing one of the Ten Practices. This action plan provided evidence of the practice in their school, obstacles to be addressed, and strategies to advance this practice (Reitzug & O’Hair, 2002). The action plans were assessed for evidence of the practices in the school utilizing the STARSS-LS rubric (Cate, 2002), which evaluated structures, technology, authenticity, research, staff development, stake-holders, leadership, and service. The K20 staff provided suggestions, questions, and resources as reflective feedback.
At the end of the first seminar in 2002, one rural superintendent voiced concern in the evaluation report, “I am a little disappointed that our sessions have been more dedicated to leadership than technology.” Yet, as he worked through the shared leadership process, he found that his district was changed through increased stakeholder involvement that resulted in the de-velopment of a community foundation. In their action plan, he reflected, “The Technology Team has moved from a group who met annually to one that meets in various forms throughout the school year to encourage inquiry and dis-course among faculty, staff, students, parents, and community.” At a later regional meeting, the principal from this district voluntarily shared how rewarding the process had been for their school community and how reflective questions
and feedback, received from the K20 staff on their action plan, had caused them to refine their school improvement strategies. As a result, they continued their participation in the K20 Center network.
During the leadership phase of the systemic reform model, administrators review examples in practice of leadership theories and analyze school reform implementation strategies. They discuss challenges and successes as they progress through their own learning in small groups and teams. Because the readiness and experiences of leaders varied, their learning was supported by K20 Center facilitators, who provided technical assistance with technology and school change processes, resources, and connections. By the end of the year, the leaders reported that the network-ing, support, and resources were more valuable to them than the laptop they had received. They further reported significant increases in their im-plementation of the IDEALS, technology inte-gration, and shared leadership (Cate & O’Hair, 2007).
Fostering Whole School Change After completing the OK-ACTS Phase I Lead-ership program, school administrators became eligible to apply for a competitive grant, known as Phase II. The K20 reform model focused on sustaining leadership development by assisting administrators in building the capacity of their school community to implement the systemic change framework. One of OK-ACTS Phase I funding partners, Oklahoma Educational Tech-nology Trust, provided a long-term commitment to enhance student learning through technology. Through a partnership between Oklahoma Ed-ucational Technology Trust and the K20 Cen-ter, the competitive Grants-to-Schools project assisted OK-ACTS Phase I leaders in developing PLCs and integrating technology into teaching and learning in their schools. Awards for grant recipients included $40,000 to $50,000 in tech-nology equipment, $4,000 for staff release time, and year-long professional development provided by the K20 Center.
Grant Writing Promotes School Change The grant application process required school leaders to extend their experiences from Phase I by working with teachers, parents, and commu-nity members to collaboratively develop a plan for implementing three of the 10 practices of high achieving schools (O’Hair et al., 2000) and inte-grating technology to enhance student learning. Because of the importance of a common vision, schools were required to address the practice of shared vision. Applicants chose two additional practices, based on a technology survey and their school’s needs. In addition to the narrative, the grant required a description of requested tech-nology and how techtech-nology would facilitate the grant goals, action plans for selected practices, identification of the learning team, and evidence of faculty, community, and district support. The grant applications were subjected to a multi-faceted review process that utilized the STARSS-LS (Cate, 2002) rubric as the scoring criteria, in addition to adequacy and appropriateness of the technology, rationale of the grant narrative, and potential for impacting student learning. The results of these reviews were employed to select the grant recipients and to provide feedback for non-recipients.
Creating Technology-Enriched Learning Communities
The collaboration between the K20 staff and the school faculties began with an initial meeting to plan professional development for implement-ing each school’s grant goals. The purpose of the professional development was to enhance student achievement by creating technology-enriched learning communities, where technol-ogy was used as an effective tool that is tightly linked to content standards and seamlessly in-tegrated into ongoing classroom instruction. Fac-ulty at each school received over 40 hr of profes-sional development in regular monthly sessions, which administrators were expected to attend and support. This job-embedded professional de-velopment utilized an on-going, constructivist
design that targeted grant goals and the school’s selected practices.
The K20 staff facilitated sessions through which the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of teachers and administrators were developed and through which the learning community was strengthened and coordinated with the whole school focus (King & Newmann, 2000). During the sessions, the professional development pro-cess modeled the use of technology for authentic teaching and learning, rather than focusing solely on the technology. The content of the sessions combined best pedagogical practices with spe-cific technology competencies, such as word pro-cessing, use of database programs, spreadsheet programs, interactive whiteboards, presentation stations, and in some cases, basic computer use. Teachers were supported in developing authen-tic lessons that would integrate technology into student learning experiences that engage critical thinking skills and have relevance beyond the classroom. The K20 Staff also provided tech-nical assistance, such as assembling equipment or dealing with network issues. The content and format of the professional development sessions are included in Table 1.
Network Learning
Professional development sessions occurred mostly at the school sites. This was supplemented by networking activities with other grant schools, which extended the school–university partner-ship. Networking opportunities involved quar-terly meetings; site visits; focus groups; and con-tinued communication with teachers via e-mail, videoconferences, and telephone conversations. The K20 Center’s Annual Winter Institute of High Achieving Schools also afforded opportu-nities for administrators, teachers, and business and community members to attend sessions that featured examples of classroom applications of technology or strategies for promoting PLCs.
During the fourth quarterly meeting, learning teams from all grant schools shared successes and implementation of grant goals. School teams assessed their goals by analyzing data and re-flected on their progress. Because transforming a
Table 1
Whole School Change Professional Development
Month Professional Development Focus Proposed Time
August September October November
Professional development sessions include: IDEALS Overview/PLC (Hord, 1997; O’Hair,
McLaughlin, & Reitzug, 2000)
Vision of Core Learning Principles (Glickman, 1993) Authenticity (Adams et al., 2000; Newmann &
Wehlage, 1995)
Problem solving and inquiry Cooperative processing
Planning for technology integration Learning team development
Session lengths vary including: full day
1/2 day two-hour blocks planning periods after school sessions
December January February March April May
Based on decisions from planning, professional development sessions include:
Equipment use Lesson development
Integration of technology into instructional strategies Technology specific training
Data-driven decision making Examining student work Curriculum development
Session participants also vary, such as:
whole staff learning teams grade level groups departments individual
June Celebration, Sharing, and Planning for Sustainability
Note. ©2003 K20 Center.
school culture is a highly complex, multivariate process (Cate et al., 2006) that takes from 3 to 5 years (Fullan, 1991), the school teams discussed plans to sustain and deepen their development as a technology-enriched learning community. Following the initial grant year, the K20 staff continued to assist the schools in their reform efforts through professional development and ad-ditional networking opportunities.
Changing Schools and School Districts Before becoming involved in the K20 Center’s systemic reform program, many of the schools were characterized by traditional school struc-tures and top-down leadership that harbored iso-lation and stagnant teaching practices, negatively impacting learning and school change (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Schmoker, 2006). Through the job-embedded professional development focused
on building leadership capacity and ongoing re-flection, continuous support, and networking, the faculties became involved in shared practices for systemic school improvement and change. As teachers began participating in discourse about student needs and collaborating about technology integration, they redefined their personal vision for learning and professional growth. In each of the 97 participating schools, a wide range of technology expertise existed. One teacher em-phasized that it would not be permissible for a teacher to be unfamiliar with his or her content, but “since technology is a newer generation tool, it gives us an opportunity to not know everything and encourages us to become learners with the students.” The learning team and stu-dents supported and instructed other teachers, and professional development provided opportunities for teachers and students to learn together.
This continued practice of learning together during the technology integration process
pro-duced a generative model between learning and leadership that increased the schools’ capacity for change (Hord, 1997; Huffman & Hipp, 2003; Newmann, King, & Young, 2000; Sergiovanni, 1994). As teachers were brought together for the common purpose of technology integration, they collectively learned and collaborated, sharing best practices for increased student achievement. The collaborative culture provided opportunities to develop new solutions and created contexts that generated new knowledge and conditions where people were continually learning how to learn together (Senge, 1990). Through these experiences, leadership capacity and shared de-cision making were elevated. Increased levels of trust promoted risk-taking, honest commu-nication, and commitment for the shared vi-sion. In the schools, faculty’s learning influenced their leadership and, reciprocally, their leader-ship influenced learning (Atkinson, 2005; Cate et al., 2006; Williams, 2006). As this model for generative learning was expanded to the class-room, teaching practices improved and student learning, not teaching, became the central focus. While teachers became more confident in using technology, students were excited about having increased access and authentic, technological ex-periences.
Student Learning and Success
The impact of technology as a tool for PLC development snowballed directly to classroom practices. One teacher reflected, “At first the new technology is scary, but once you become comfortable, you get excited about a new way of teaching that involves the students more.” A high-school principal stressed that technology moti-vates many of her low socioeconomic students who lack access to technology in the home. “For some of my at-risk kids, it’s the magic potion that engages them in learning.” She observed in-creases in attendance and dein-creases in discipline problems in classrooms in which teachers were integrating technology with authentic teaching and learning.
Teachers reported that technology increased overall student engagement. One teacher com-mented, “The extra layer of interactivity that technology brings as an instructional tool changes the way the students perceive infor-mation forever.” Several teachers emphasized that technology and collaboration involved the students in their own learning process, which motivated them. In technology-integration activi-ties, students were active participants, rather than passive recipients of information. One teacher shared her belief that “the technology is helping the students transfer their knowledge among the content areas and helping them make connec-tions.” The collaboration and technology integra-tion improved students’ standardized test results, class performance, discipline, attendance, and dropout rates. Pre- and postsurvey data demon-strated that students received greater technology access, and were more motivated, engaged, and involved in their own learning (Williams et al., 2007).
Building on Success
Both leadership and whole school change programs demonstrated success. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation evaluation report ranked the leadership program as third in the na-tion for systemic, substantive change that impacts student learning (National Staff Development Council, 2004) and the whole school change pro-gram showed significant increases in PLC indi-cators such as shared vision, collective learning, and peer observations (Southwest Educational Developmental Laboratory, 2004). One measure of a school’s progress toward its educational goals is the State of Oklahoma’s accountability measure, Academic Performance Index, a for-mula for determining Adequate Yearly Progress as required by No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). The Aca-demic Performance Index index formula varies by school level, but includes student achievement data (80–90%), attendance (10%), and other fac-tors, such as graduation rate and dropout rate. For
the past 4 years, K20 partner schools have a 74% greater increase in the Academic Performance Index than the state’s average increase (Education Oversight Board, 2005).
Mutually Supportive Relationships Supporting previous research that technology integration contributed to the development of a PLC, K20 Center studies (Atkinson, 2005; Cate et al., 2006; Williams, 2006) have pro-vided evidence that learning community devel-opment and technology integration are mutually influential, reciprocal, and supportive. The K20 Center systemic reform model has demonstrated that, by building technology-enriched learning communities, administrators, teachers, and, per-haps most important, students flourish. A shared need of the teachers to learn about technology integration, coupled with the support through the university–school network, contributed to the development of PLCs and the transformation of the schools’ cultures into a more collabora-tive and technology-based system. Technology made collaboration simpler and faster with the use of e-mail, video conferencing, and Web sites; and as collaboration and communication spread, more teachers became interested in using technology. This finding supported the National Research Council (2002) report that emphasized that these strategies assisted in overcoming teach-ers’ sense of isolation. The significant relation-ships between learning community development and technology integration supported and mo-tivated teachers to become focused on continu-ous growth and systemic change for substantive school improvement, indicative of a learning organization (Senge, 1990).
Impact of the K20 School– University Network
Through the K20 Center’s school–university partnership, a state-wide network has developed
to improve opportunities for school leaders, teachers, students, and communities in Okla-homa. Almost 1,200 superintendents and princi-pals have participated in this leadership project since 2001. The Phase II grant project, from 2002 through 2007, has impacted over 2,600 teachers and 40,000 students in 97 schools or districts across Oklahoma. Both projects have continued funding until 2012. Many leaders and schools initially participated in the projects to receive the technology. The technology provided the vehicle to reexamine and collaborate about a school’s vision of teaching and learning. How-ever, participants indicated that, as valuable as the technology was, they most valued the de-velopment of the learning community and the shared learning and relationships built among the network schools.
Note
1. This research was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Oklahoma Edu-cational Technology Trust. The Trust equips Okla-homa common school students with the technology and technological skills necessary to compete in the global marketplace. The Trust provides funds for computer and telecommunications equipment, infrastructure, leadership, and professional devel-opment to implement and advance integration of technology into classroom instruction. AT&T Ok-lahoma provided $30 million in initial funding for the Trust in 2001. The Oklahoma Educational Technology Trust has funded over $1.6 million to provide laptop computers and professional de-velopment for Oklahoma school superintendents and administrators participating in Phase I leader-ship training provided by Oklahoma Achievement through Collaboration and Technology Support. Oklahoma Educational Technology Trust’s 10-year (2002–2012), $13.5 million Phase II grant initiative provides individual school site and/or district com-petitive grants. Oklahoma Educational Technology Trust is administered by Communities Foundation of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Achievement. Opinions reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agencies.
References
Adams, S., Burniske, J., Burns, M., Cuevas, J., Di-mock, V., Heath, M., et al. (2000).Active learning with technology portfolio. Austin, TX: SCR-TEC of Southwest Educational Development Labora-tory.
Atkinson, L. (2005). Schools as learning organiza-tions: Relationships between professional learn-ing communities and technology-enriched learnlearn-ing environments (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2005).ProQuest Digital Dissertations, ATT 3163444.
Burns, M. (2002). From compliance to commitment: Technology as a catalyst for communities of learn-ing.Phi Delta Kappan,84, 295–302.
Cate, J., & O’Hair, M. J. (2007). K20-ACTS leader-ship for technology implementation: A statewide professional development model.OASCD Journal,
14, 14–18.
Cate, J., Vaughn, C., & O’Hair, M. (2006). A 17-year case study of an elementary school’s journey: From traditional school to learning community to democratic school community. Journal of School Leadership,16, 86–111.
Cate, J. M. (2002).Action plan feedback rubric. Nor-man: University of Oklahoma. Retrieved January 6, 2004, from http://archive.k20center.org/resources. htm#Phase%20One
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dexter, S., Seashore, K. R., & Anderson, R. E. (2002). Contributions of professional community to exem-plary use of ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18,489–497.
Education Oversight Board. (2005). Oklahoma edu-cational indicators program: School report card. Oklahoma City, OK: Office of Accountability. Re-trieved on March 15, 2006, from http://schoolreport card.org
Fullan, M. (1991).The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Glickman, C. (1993).Renewing America’s schools: A
guide for school-based action. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hord, S. (1997).Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improve-ment. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Devel-opment Laboratory.
Huffman, J. B., & Hipp, K. K. (2003). Reculturing schools as professional learning communities. Lan-ham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002).Student achievement through staff development.Alexandria, VA: Asso-ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment.
King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals?Phi Delta Kappan,
81, 576–580.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lieberman, A. (1996). Creating intentional learning
communities.Educational Leadership,53(2), 51– 55.
National Research Council. (2002).Scientific research in education. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Staff Development Council. (2004).Building for success: State challenge grants for leadership development. Report of a study. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Young, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools.
American Journal of Education, 108, 259–299. Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful
school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the center on organization and re-structuring of schools.Madison: University of Wis-consin, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
O’Hair, M. J., McLaughlin, H. J., & Reitzug, U. C. (2000).Foundations of democratic education. Or-lando, FL: Harcourt.
Reitzug, U. C., & O’Hair, M. J. (2002). Tensions and struggles in moving toward a democratic commu-nity. In G. Furman (Ed.) School as community: From promise to practice(pp. 119–142). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Riel, M., & Fulton, K. (2001, March). The role of technology in supporting learning communities.
Phi Delta Kappan,82, 518–523.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Su-pervision and Curriculum Development.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Southwest Educational Developmental Laboratory. (2004).Technology integration. Austin, TX: South-west Educational Developmental Laboratory. Technology Standards for School Administrators
Col-laborative. (2001).The National educational tech-nology standards (NETS) for school administrators. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001).No Child Left Behind(NCLB). Retrieved April 2004 from http:// www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
Williams, L. (2006). The relationships of tech-nology integration and high school collabo-ration through the development of a profes-sional learning community: A mixed methods study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Okla-homa, 2006).ProQuest Digital Dissertations, ATT 3214722.
Williams, L., Atkinson, L., O’Hair, M. J., & Applegate, P. (2007, April). Improving educational quality through technology-enriched learning communities for success in the global economy.Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Re-search Association, Chicago, IL.
