Leadership for Change/Professional Learning - Artifact Two Reflection:
How is the need for change recognized? Are change agents guided by a specific criteria with specific outcomes? What principles of effective change should leaders adhere to? How do these principles affect how we lead and how we learn in the 21st-century?
These were some of my questions I had prior to the Spring 2013 commencement of my third course in the UOIT graduate education program, Dr. Robertson’s EDUC 5204G Staff Development and Supervision. Similar to my interviewee in Artifact One, I've been responsible for driving institutional change through educational technology, but how do I recognize the need for change? I often found myself 'driving change', but was this change necessary? Why initiate the change in the first place? Furthermore, how could I, as an agent of change, ensure that the change was successful?
Artifact Two, an online mind-map and presentation based on these critical questions, is an attempt to understand how the need for change is recognized in an institution, how change is implemented, and how future success is guaranteed because of the change.
Artifact Two, an online mind-map and presentation based on these critical questions, is an attempt to understand how the need for change is recognized in an institution, how change is implemented, and how future success is guaranteed because of the change.
![Picture](/uploads/5/0/0/7/50076029/177622957.png?424)
Using the PDCA cycle, an older yet still effective theoretical model for outlining the procedural guidelines for institutional change, I began to see change as a series of questions that the leader must always ask:
- What conditions indicated the need for change?
- Create an "Aim" Statement
- What needs to be changed?
- How do you know change is needed?
- What is the proper course for change?
- What is the plan for successful change?
- How did the implementation of change proceed?
- Was the solution successful?
- What measures and procedures are in place to assure the change remains effective? (Schuttler 2013).
![Picture](/uploads/5/0/0/7/50076029/4802569.jpg?631)
I felt like I was on to something here. Not only did I find answers to some of my nagging questions around organizational change but I had some sound material to bring back to the EDUC 5204G class for further discussion. While the preceding questions on organizational change seem to fit my professional needs, are they designed around sound pedagogy?
Dr. Robertson suggested I look at the work of Chickering & Gumon (1991), specifically their Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Even though my career has been focused on the K-12 market, I found the principles outlined a good fit. In a bit of a tongue-in-cheek observation of the landscape of education in 1991, Chickering & Gumon (1991) state that “there are neither enough carrots nor enough sticks to improve...education without the commitment and action of students and faculty members. They are the precious resources on whom the improvement of...education depends” (p. 63). If engagement is key to furthering positive change (and likely, disengaged teachers will lead to disengaged students), how do we accomplish this? Answering this, Chickering & Gumon (1991) list their seven principles to promote engagement including encouraging student-faculty contact, encouraging cooperation among students, encouraging active learning, the giving of prompt, emphasizing time on task, communicating high expectations, and respecting diverse talents and ways of learning (p.63).
In reflection, I’m wondering if one were to focus on just one of the key principles presented, if “encouraging active learning” is the most critical piece? Referring to Easton’s (2008) Powerful Design for Professional Learning, “powerful professional learning results in automatic buy-in” (p. 19). This presentation helped me develop my own conditions for change.
Dr. Robertson suggested I look at the work of Chickering & Gumon (1991), specifically their Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Even though my career has been focused on the K-12 market, I found the principles outlined a good fit. In a bit of a tongue-in-cheek observation of the landscape of education in 1991, Chickering & Gumon (1991) state that “there are neither enough carrots nor enough sticks to improve...education without the commitment and action of students and faculty members. They are the precious resources on whom the improvement of...education depends” (p. 63). If engagement is key to furthering positive change (and likely, disengaged teachers will lead to disengaged students), how do we accomplish this? Answering this, Chickering & Gumon (1991) list their seven principles to promote engagement including encouraging student-faculty contact, encouraging cooperation among students, encouraging active learning, the giving of prompt, emphasizing time on task, communicating high expectations, and respecting diverse talents and ways of learning (p.63).
In reflection, I’m wondering if one were to focus on just one of the key principles presented, if “encouraging active learning” is the most critical piece? Referring to Easton’s (2008) Powerful Design for Professional Learning, “powerful professional learning results in automatic buy-in” (p. 19). This presentation helped me develop my own conditions for change.
Video Review of Artifact Two
Artifact Two: Analysis of Change Conditions
![](http://www.weebly.com/weebly/images/file_icons/image.png)
Hi-res image of Artifact Two | |
File Size: | 1621 kb |
File Type: | png |