Week Nine

This quarter we've been asked to think differently about leadership. More correctly we've been asked to think about ourselves and how we think about leadership. How does one assess change when the person doing the changing is also self assessing? Could I fool myself into thinking I/m different? How does one imagine a paradigm shift, as a series of milestones or one large leap forward?

And yet the same is true for constructivist leadership. Lambert, et al. (2002, p.7) quoting Fosnot (1992, p. 167) points out that constructivism is at once a theory of 'knowing' and a theory of 'coming to know.' Fosnot's statement is true for the leader and the members of the group.

As such, a constructivist leader is facilitating a meeting to increase member discourse so as to promote the reciprocal process of learning, among and between the participants which allows the members to deepen understanding, provide clarity, and reframe thinking (p. 89). And we are back to assessing paradigm shifts.

Doing my own reflecting on Joan Wink's "Critical Pedagogy" I felt some comfort when I read the following on page 11:

I must continually challenge my long-held assumptions.
I must let practice inform my theory.
I must continually build theory that informs my practice.
I must find new answers for new questions.
I must grapple with multiple ways on knowing.
I must listen, learn, reflect, and act.

And if I follow Wink's advice, won't that lead to internal change? I know, I know, how would I assess the change . . . .

Kirk


And if you could assess the change, role

Week Eight

I was thinking about the Lambert book this week and reflecting on what she calls the internal and external mutual influences.  There has to be a mutual, almost, reciprocal, understanding.  The leader learns from the follower and the follower learns from the leader.

The concept applies to internal and external stakeholders as well.

According to Lambert:

Emerging leaders would (good)

·      Communicate with the internal and external stakeholders

·      Accept more relationships with the external stakeholders

·      React to the external stakeholders in a compliant or protective mode

·      Allow stakeholders to exaggerate the sense of uncertainty, instability, and urgency in the organization

Practicing leaders would (better)

·      Create transactional relationships with stakeholders

·      Work collaboratively with stakeholders to identify needs and concerns without regard to organizational goals or resources

·      Manage the stakeholders rather than consider them part of the team

Integrating leaders would (best)

·     Build reciprocal relationships with stakeholders to support mutual awareness and learning that leads to meeting the needs of all people and the organization

·     Actively engage and influence the stakeholders to generate knowledge, resources, and support for continuous improvement of organizational goals and processes

This means I need to change, and, in turn, the organization will change.  And when the organization changes, it impacts me so I change.  And the continuous improvement cycle continues . . .  Kirk

Week Seven

Week seven dealt with situated learning and technology demonstrations.

In addition to the class readings, I found an article by Jan Herrington and Ron Oliver titled, "Critical Characteristics of situated learning:  Implications for instructional design of multimedia."  They add to the situated learning debate by weaving the theory into practice focusing three areas:  designing for the role of multimedia, designing for the role of the student, and designing for the implementation.  Of particular importance to me was the second area regarding the role of the student.  Herrington and Oliver offer the following for student learning:  collaboration, reflection, and articulation.  Learn by doing is not limited to Cal Poly students because our classes have emphasized discussion in classes, reflections through blogging, and collaberation through projects.

Herrington and Oliver criticize multimedia learning because often times assessment takes a traditional approach such as written testing rather than portfolios, summary, and reflection.

This has me thinking about other situations and whether or not assessment has kept pace with technology.  For example, synchronous learning or web conferencing with team members in different locations.

Perhaps a dissertation topic . . . .

Kirk

Week Six

Week Six dealt with distance learning and technology.

ED Tech Focus on K-12 had a number of articles about managing (or trying to) online content.  I found the Fundyk article informative in that it deals with user created content concerns, agency exposure and guidelines, management advice.  What was interesting to me was the tone of the article:  risk is to be expected, it can be managed, and don't forget to assist and support your content providers.  Fundyk almost, but not quite, infers that online content is the goal, followed by assistance and support for content providers, and oh, yeah, it might be risky.  This seems to be new paradigm thinking.

We talked about the Kelsey and D'Souzo article in class and I continue to wonder if Homberg and Moore's Theoretical Framework for Didactic Conversations is pre or post paradigm?

Regarding ethics, like leadership, it has to start with me (awareness, proper modeling, and accountability) and spread to the team.  Hey, sounds like constructivist leadership accountability . . .

Like my other colleagues, I'm getting busy with the readings, term papers, preparation for classes, life, family, and work.  I'm learning to balance and prioritize.  Notice I did not say prioritize correctly, that will be an important second step.

Team #3 is making strides with the project.  Still a work in progress.  We find we talk more through email, text messages, and cell phones than the wiki ...

Kirk

Week Five

For me, this week is all about change, new thoughts, and new possibilities.

Dr Faverty discussed the Toffler Technology and Innovation Article from November, 2008.

"The message in the report is simple:  its implications are widespread yet personal. We have seen a future with converging, connected, and accelerating technology that will so increase choices for individuals and the ways we interact with technology, that the changes will affect our identity" (p. 4).

For the sake of discussion, let's say Toffler is correct:  how does that change our thoughts that we are emotional beings in a social setting?  There might be two implications.  First, my emotional being, certainly my identity will and must change with time.  Second, the social setting must also be changing as a result of the first item.  But will the change between the two items be linear?  Exponential?  Fixed?  Dynamic?  And regarding any of these topics, how does that impact me or my leadership style, skills, or abilities?  Is there a new leadership theory on the horizon called shark theory?  The premise for the new theory is you have to keep moving or you would die.  Continuing with the analogy, if technology is accelerating, do I have to swim faster to keep up or will I have to adopt a new strategy?  And again, how does this impact me and my leadership style, skills, or abilties?

As a result of our conversation over the last few weeks, I'm starting to ask myself, "Is that thought the old Kirk or the new Kirk?"  Now I'm questioning, comparing, and thinking about the future.

I'm willing to sell my shark theory to anybody in C6 for a jelly donut.

Kirk

Dr Faverty's equation

Week 4

Okay, we've spent four weeks talking and learning about what leadership is not about, what's not working, and technology is a tool, not the answer.  We've also heard that we are social beings in an emotional setting.

Time to sharpen the pencil (Luis, a reference to old school writing) and put the thinking cap on . . .

Transformational leadership develops and maintains a collaborative, professional school culture, foster teacher deveopment, and helps teachers solve problems more effectively (Lambert, 2002, p. 39).  Trouble is, transformational leadership situates responsibility for the growth of others in the designated leader (p. 39).  This is similar to Capra's (1995) "great" person theory that one person with extraordinary, charismatic qualities should lead (p. 41).  What happens if this one "great" person calls in sick on the day of an important meeting?  And I wonder, given the outcomes based climate we are in, does it make sense to focus on one person?  What about the students?  Parents?  Educators?  Admin?  Board of Trustees?  In higher education what about the business and advancement stakeholders?

For me, Lambert (2002), makes the case for constructivist leadership (CL) as a way to take the best of transformational leadership and overcoming the shortcomings of the great person theory.

CL is an epistemological concept that is at once a theory of "knowing" and a theory of "coming to know" (p.7).  The goal of CL is to create reciprocal processes that enable participants in a community to construct meanings that lead toward a shared purpose and understanding (p. 42).

Adopting a CL approach means you facilitate shared understandings and meaning between and among participants.  For example, you could tease out emotional feelings of educators at a meeting to discuss budget cuts. 

Aaaah, a pattern emerges:  emotional beings in a social setting . . . . .  Kirk



 

Week 3

Saw a bumper sticker that went something like this:  " if we lead the leaders will have to follow."  This is interesting for a few reasons that are related to our class discussions.  First, the leaders are out of touch with the followers.  Second, the leaders are motivating (incorrectly) the followers to action.  Third, the follower actions are not concerned with with the political correctness as Scott has mentioned.

Are there any parallels to higher education?  While K-12 races to the top are they loosing sight of constructivist leadership processes?  Did they loose it or was it taken away?  Are they creating learning environments or producing widget test takers? (Does it matter?)  As higher education starts its race to the top with continued calls for accountability, can we steer the conversation towards the process?  At least steer it towards the different mission and goals of higher educaiton in California?

I guess we can turn the meaning of the bumper sticker:  if we lead, the legislature will have to follow.

Just some thoughts to spark discussions . . .