{short description of image}
EDAL670 - Technology for Leaders
A Web-based Course
(1-3 semester credits, 2005-2006)
To Educate is to Redeem
Instructor - Dr. Jim Jeffery

Office: 269.471.3481 (office)
Fax: 269.471.6540
Home: 616.471.5229
E-mail: jimjeff@andrews.edu
Office Hours: Anytime by appointment or e-mail
Course Webpage: http://www.andrews.edu/~jimjeff/EDAL670/

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

For many leaders and administrators, life has become much more complicated trying to live the technology dream. Where are technology and administration headed in the 21st Century? What does a leader need to know to keep up? EDAL670 is described below:

This course provides a "Philosophical basis for technology usage in various leadership settings to enhance organizational effectiveness, survey of contemporary technologies appropriate to most organizational setting and cost-benefit analysis of various systems; development of a technology plan for leader development; ethics of technology usage." Prerequisite: EDAL520 or equivalent and computer literacy or permission of instructor." (AU 2005-2006 Bulletin)

top of page

The purpose of this course is to give administrators a general overview of educational technology, how to plan for technology, how to plan for technology related staff development, issues of technology security, the ethics associted with technology use and planning for on-going funding for technology. By the end of the course students will be able to:

  1. Understand the limitations and the possibilities of current computer technologies.
  2. Articulate the major concerns which have been voiced about technology usage.
  3. Understand the role of technology in workplace transformation
  4. Develop an awareness of how technology can be successfully integrated into the workplace.
  5. Understand the issues surrounding copyright, fair use, and the ethical issues of technology and the Internet.
  6. Understand the issues of safety and security as they relate to technology usage in institutions.
  7. Develop an institutional technology plan.
  8. Demonstrate an understanding of hardware and software issues surrounding the implementation of a technology plan.
  9. Articulate the process of staff development as it relates to technology implementation.
  10. Articulate a 3-5 year plan for funding technology in an institution.
  11. Understand and share knowledge of important issues and trends related to technology and their implications for leaders in institutions.
top of page
Track 1 (K-12 School Leaders)

Picciano, Anthony G. (2002, 2006). Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology. (3rd Edition or 4th Edition). Columbus, OH: Merrill. An outline of its content are found here. This book can be ordered through Amazon.com

Track 2 (Choose one for your area of interest)

Technology Review (Higher Education) : Key Trends, Bargaining Strategies and Educational Issues, October 2003 (pdf)http://www.aft.org/higher_ed/downloadable/Tech.pdf

Implementing Technology (Non-profit Organizations)(NPower, The Nickerson Marina Building, 1080 W. Ewing Place Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98119)http://www.npowerseattle.org/tools/index1.htm

A Revolution in Knowledge Sharing (Business)http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0350.pdf

Other required articles will be supplied and assigned in the Course Outline Section.

top of page

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AS RELATED TO MISSION, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ELEMENTS and STANDARDS.

A. School of Education (SED)

The mission of the School of Education (SED) at Andrews University is to serve an international clientele, preparing educators for excellence in thinking, teaching, service and research. As companions in learning, students and faculty are committed to global Christian service. The mission is succinctly captured in the phrase "To educate is to redeem" through harmonious development of students for service. The mission is expressed through six elements which reflect the ideal development for all graduates of the School of Education. They are:

1. Worldview - addresses appreciation of the perspective of others and development of a personal philosophy from which action and service arise; (WV)

2. Human Growth and Change - addresses principles of growth, development, and learning, and the use of these principles to effect positive change; (HGC)

3. Groups, Leadership and Change - addresses principles of group behavior and the use of these principles to effect positive change for individuals and organizations; (GLC)

4. Communication and Technology - addresses oral, written, intrapersonal and interpersonal communication as the essence of human behavior and technology as it enables, supports, and enhances human interaction and learning; (CT)

5. Research and Evaluation - addresses valuing and conducting disciplined inquiry for decision-making; (RE)

6. Personal and Professional Growth - addresses commitment to holistic personal and professional growth. (PPG)

B. Leadership and Educational Administration Department (LEAD)

The mission of the Leadership and Educational Administration (LEAD) program is based on the overall mission of the School of Education and is stated as follows:

To develop a community of scholar-practitioners who transform the power of knowledge into global service. Its core values include: (1) Service; (2) Community; (3) Integrated Life and (4) Human dignity.

C. Educational Administration

Competency Standards. The Educational Administration segment of LEAD seeks to prepare effective educational administrators for servant leadership in educational settings based on the following competency standards:

Standard 1: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.

Standard 2: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

Standard 3: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

Standard 4: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and the community members, responding to diverse community interest and needs, and mobilizing community resources.

Standard 5: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.

Standard 6: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.

Standard 7: A school administrator is an educational leader who understands and comprehensively applies technology to advance student achievement.

Standard 8: A school administrator is an educational leader who appreciates the perspectives of others and develops a personal philosophy from which action and service arise.

Standard 9: A school administrator is an educational leader who understands and comprehensively applies research and evaluation for effective decision making.

top of page

These requirements are for both tracks

1. Online Participation. (15% of Final Grade)

Students are expected to participate in the Question for the Week assignment and any online class discussions which may be scheduled.

2. Reading Assignments (20% of Final Grade)

Over the course of the semester, students will be required to read and critique three specific articles. These readings are selected to provide valuable insights into the challenges of planning for technology.

You will be expected to submit a report about the article not to exceed four pages of content. Reports should provide a 2 page synopsis of the content of the article while the 3rd and 4th pageof the report will be your personal critical analysis of the main ideas in the article.

Your critical analysis will show how relevant you feel the authorsideas are to the role of a technology leader. Again, the paper will be graded heavily your analysis of the relevance and significance of the authors ideas in the role of the technology leader. The rubric for grading these critiques is found in the table below.

Reading Assignment #1 for Module 1:

Reading Assignment #2 for Module 2:

Reading Assignment #3 for Module 3: You will choose ONE of the following articles:

3. Development of the Outline of a Technology Plan - Module #1 (65% of Final Grade for Module 1) (See Criteria for Assessment below)

4. Development of the Outline of a Technology Staff Development Plan - Module #2 (65% of Final Grade for Module 2)

5. Collaborative Project - Development of the Outline of a Technology Funding Plan - Module #3. (65% of Final Grade for Module 3)

top of page

NB The following table outlines the standards used for evaluating the short papers expected in the Reading Assignment above.

A B C D
Tightly focused writing relating to a narrow topic. Generally focused on single topic. Somewhat focused on broad topic. Scattered random writing without focus.
A high degree of conceptual development Indicates good ability to conceptualize Concept discussed but not well developed. Little if any conceptualization.
Properly documented where sources used. Outside sources given proper credit. Outside sources alluded to. No credit given to sources used.
Excellent organization and logical progression of thought. Good organization and logic. Moderately well organized, but logical progression not evident. Poorly organized with little or no logic evident.

Excellent use of prose in capturing the essence of referenced material. A good job of summarizing the material reviewed. Much paraphrasing of other material. Mostly paraphrased or copied; not really the authors own work.
Syntax and grammar excellently done. Well edited material. Only a few errors of minor significance. A number of errors. Not well edited. Many errors. Poor grammar and sentence structure.
Complete yet concise discussion of the issue. Concise and generally recognizes most aspects of the topic. Topic appears to be one-sided with aspects of the topic missing. Overly verbose. Incomplete discussion of the issue. Major points ignored.
Opinion based on fact, research or scholarly authority. Generally good evidence given in support of opinion. Evidence only somewhat supports opinion. Opinion entirely unsupported.

Criteria for Assessment of Assignments #2, 3, & 4: Technology Integration Plan, Staff Development Plan, and Technology Funding Plan

top of page

The course will feature readings from the textbook and a variety of other readings which will be supplied at the website/WebCT site

Click Here for the EDAL 670 Schedule

top of page

Final grades

Final Grades for each module and the entire course (3 credits) are based on the following distribution of points with the calculation of the grades as illustrated below:
  Percent of Grade Max Possible Pts. Your Score Weighted Percent
Module 1        
Discussion/Participation 15% 20  20 15.0%
Reading Assignment #1
Article Critique		 20% 40  40  20.0%
Development of the Outline of a Technology Integration Plan - Major Assignment #1 65% 100 100  65.0%
Final Mark for Module 1 (1 sem credit) 100% 180 159 100.0%
         
Module 2        
Discussion/Participation  15% 20  20  15.0% 
Reading Assignment #2
Article Critique		  20% 40  40 20.0% 
Assignment #2
Development of the Outline of a Technology Staff Development Plan
Case Study		 65% 100 100 65.0% 
 Final Mark for Module 2 (1 sem credit) 100% 160 160 100.0%
         
Module 3        
 Discussion/Participation 15% 20  20 15.0%
Reading Assignment #3
Article Critique		 20%  40   40  20.0%
Assignment #3
Collaborative Project to fund technology
 65% 100  100  65.0%
 Final Mark for Module 3 (1 sem credit) 100%   160 100.0%
         
Final Mark for Modules 1- 3 (3 sem credit)
Total of above modules		 480 480  100.0%
Suggested Grade Scale: A (95-100), A- (90-94.9), B+ (85-89.9), B (80-84.9), B- (75-79.9), C+ (70-74.9), C (65-69.9)
ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY

The submission of work which includes the work or ideas of another without citing or attributing them to their author possibly constitutes plagiarism. Assignments which are plagiarized will be given a failing grade and their authors treated in accordance with AU Honor Code on academic dishonesty as stated in the Andrews University Academic Calendar.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION STATEMENT

The School of Education, and the University are committed to providing appropriate support for students with documented disabilities, including learning disabilities. Any student who has a documented disability may identify him/herself to the teacher at the beginning of the semester so that reasonable accommodations or arrangements can be made.

top of page

Elearning, Higher Education, and Learning Technology Resources Martin Irvine Communication, Culture & Technology Program (CCT) Georgetown University http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/CCTP737/Sources/elearning-sources.html

Books/Articles

  1. Bates, A.W. (2000) Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  2. Rowley, D.J., Lujan, H.D. and Dolence, M. (1998). Strategic Choices for the Academy. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  3. Campion, M. (1995). 'The supposed demise of bureaucracy: implication for distance education and open learning - more on the post-Fordism debate.' Distance Education, 16 (2), pp. 192-215.
  4. Conway, K. (1998). 'Designing classrooms for the 21st century', in Oblinger, D. and Rush, S. (eds.) The Future Compatible Campus. Bolton, MA: Anker, pp. 198-217.
  5. Farnes, N. (1993). 'Modes of production: Fordism and distance education'. Open Learning 8 (1), pp. 10-20.
  6. Finnegan, D. (1997) 'Transforming faculty roles', in Peterson, M., Dill, D., Mets, L.A. and Associates (eds.) Planning and Management for a Changing Environment. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 479-501.
  7. Fritz, R. (1989). 'Vision' The Path of Least Resistance. New York: Columbine, pp. 122-138.
  8. Graves, W., Henshaw, R., Oberlin, J. and Parker, A. (1997) 'Infusing information technology into the academic process'. In Peterson, M., Dill, D., Mets, L.A. and Associates (eds.) Planning and Management for a Changing Environment. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 432-452.
  9. Kaufman, R. and Herman, J. (1997). 'Strategic planning, schooling and the curriculum of tomorrow', in Dijkstra, S., Seel, N., Schott, F. and Tennyson, R (eds.). Instructional Design: International Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 45-58.
  10. Kennedy, D. and Rosenweig, R. (1998). 'Who owns lectures?' University Business. March/April, pp. 19-20.
  11. Kowalski, T. (1998). 'Program planning'. The Organization and Planning of Adult Education. New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 87-107.
  12. Moran, C. (1998). 'Strategic information technology planning in higher education'. In Oblinger, D. and Rush, S. (eds.) The Future Compatible Campus. Bolton, MA: Anker, pp. 36-52.
  13. Noblitt, J. (1998). 'Making ends meet: a faculty perspective', in Oblinger, D. and Rush, S. (eds.) The Future Compatible Campus. Bolton, MA: Anker, pp. 151-163.
  14. Raggatt, P. (1993). 'Post-Fordism and distance education - a flexible strategy for change'. Open Learning 8 (1), pp. 21-31.
  15. Renner, W. (1995). 'Post-Fordist visions and technological solutions: educational technology and the labour process'. Distance Education, 16 (2), pp. 284-301.
  16. Ross, D. (1991). 'Project management in the development of instructional materials'. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5 (2), pp. 24-30.
  17. Wilson, A. and Cervero, R. (1997) 'The song remains the same: the selective tradition of technical rationality in adult education program planning theory.' International Journal of Lifelong Learning 16 (2), pp. 84-108.
Online Articles
  1. Bates, A.W. (1997). Restructuring the University for Technological Change.  Paper presented at the The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, What Kind Of University? 18-20 June, 1997 London, England.
  2. Berg. G. (1998). Public Policy on Distance Learning in Higher Education: California State and Western Governors Association. Education Policy Analysis Archives Initiatives, 6(11). 
  3. Cunningham, S. et al. (1998) New Media and Borderless Education. Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs: Canberra, Australia.
  4. Griffiths, José-Marie. Scaling up IT: Weighing the Options, Maintaining the Balance.
  5. Jaffee, D. (1998). Institutionalized Resistance to Asynchnronous Learning Networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(2). 
  6. Kovel-Jarboe, Patricia. The Changing Contexts of Higher Education and Four Possible Futures for Distance Education. University of Minnesota.
  7. Smith, Karen L. (1997). Preparing Faculty for Instructional Technology: From Education to Development to Creative Independence. CAUSE/EFFECT Volume 20, Number 3, Fall 1997, pp. 36-44, 48
  8. Turoff, M. (1997). Alternative Futures for Distance Learning: The Force and the Darkside.
  9. Model Technology Plans http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/guidewww/appenc.htm
  10. Professional Development http://www.ncrtec.org/pd/index.html
  11. Technology Staff Development Resources http://www.thesnorkel.org/toolkit/articles/StaffDevRes.pdf
  12. Small Business and Technology Considerations http://www.bcentral.com/articles/tech/default.asp
top of page