0.7 Berry, j. (october 2011). leading with twenty-first century  (Page 6/9)

If there is such a thing as the traditional role of teacher as the source of knowledge through which information is absorbed through a lecture, that role is being challenged in this district. As another administrator succinctly stated: “So, the kid manages his own learning and the teacher simply facilitates it.”

Individualized/personalized learning for quality

The school district in this study had a solid history of technology use going back a decade. However, prior to this study the school district piloted a project to supply a cohort of 8 ^th grade students with high quality laptop computers. This project served as a foundation for encouraging an interest and desire for student-centered learning. As much as the teachers moved incrementally in the direction of technology driven pedagogy to facilitate learning, the students moved even further and faster toward an acceptance and use of technology.

I think the number one impact is student engagement. They’re tuned in. Students are tuning in . . . They’re engaged. They’re going to learn more. When they’re thinking about what’s going on, then they have questions. They’re able to apply it a little bit better. So, I think that’s where I see the number one impact. And, it’s immediate . . . like immediate engagement in the learning.

Another administrator viewed the adoption of the technology/software structure as a fundamental change that shifted power and control to the learner. Although this shift in power and control forced more responsibility on the student, it also changed the work of the teacher:

Q: Does virtual instructional delivery alter the teacher’s authority and control of student learning?

A: I think it does because it puts more responsibility on the student to learn and take control of their learning. In my mind it does require the teacher to help the student learn how to learn. And, I know that maybe this sounds, I don’t know, too theoretical or educational, but so much of what—at least when I was in school—was about memorization, wasn’t about the learning itself.

The reason for investing in technology/software involved an overall commitment to higher quality learning across the organization. Thus, another organizational structure—assessment and accountability—appeared to be a component of a system responsibility to measure learning progress to ensure higher levels of achievement within an individualized and personalized curriculum:

I think you need a feedback mechanism for the student immediately because one, the students want to know right away if they got the answer right or where they are on the test. The teachers should know they are hitting the target with whatever percentile they’re comfortable with—90%, 80%, 70%.—for the students to get it . . . for the teacher to say I’ve successfully got all that I could in terms of learning in the students.

Organizational and pedagogical gap in adoption of technology/software

This study highlighted a lagging adoption on the part of teachers and administrators to embrace technology tools for purposes of 1) organizing a virtual structure for schooling; and, 2) using software tools to facilitate learning. Whether or not the knowledge of, and uses for, software tools made sense or had validity there was a cautious acceptance in what teachers and other school leaders would readily adopt and implement in regard to technology and software innovation. The stages of Rogers’ (1993) innovation-decision process outlines how teachers and administrators moved over a period of five-eight years to the technology and software advancements in this district: