# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was published in CAUSE/EFFECT journal, Volume 22 Number 2 1999. The copyright is shared by EDUCAUSE and the author. Seehttp://www.educause.edu/copyright for additional copyright information.

Creating a Campus Culture to Support a Teaching and Learning Revolution

How can a college or university best support the faculty in the process of rethinking courses and curricula to unleash the truly revolutionary potential for technology to enhance learning? This article presents four key strategies that have contributed to a growing campus culture at Duquesne University to embrace the potential of technological tools to enable fundamental pedagogical changes. Specific examples of each strategy are provided and key success factors are identified.

I n recent years the potential of information technology to enhance teaching and learning has been demonstrated in virtually every subject matter discipline. At the same time, most faculty have become comfortable using word processing programs, e-mail, and the World Wide Web, and a wider range of user friendly software has become available. The 1998 National Survey of Desktop Computing and Information Technology in Higher Education revealed that the percentage of college classes using technology continues to increase, with 44.4 percent using e-mail and 36 percent using presentation handouts.

These fairly common uses of technology in the higher education classroom, however, still do not capitalize on the real power of technology to make available real-world situations, aid visualization, facilitate collaborative activity among students, support analysis and synthesis of information, simulate complex environments, and provide continual feedback. These "deeper" uses of technology require conceptualizing the teaching and learning process in a different way and envisioning new instructional approaches that might assist students in attaining course goals.

Educational research reveals that new knowledge grows out of the process of relating new ideas to what we already know and exploring the interrelationships among ideas; new knowledge is not transmitted but is created by the learner. Also, knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense out of their experiences and test their own understanding against that of others, notably those of teachers or more advanced peers. Technology can enhance learning by fostering the active processing and application of new ideas and by providing opportunities for students to engage in dialogue about ideas with their peers outside of class time.

One of the obstacles to integrating technology into our courses in ways that maximize the impact on student learning is the tendency to look at technology as a way of enhancing our current instructional approaches rather than starting from the "ground up." Instead, we need to look back to our fundamental student learning goals for a specific course and brainstorm ways to assist students to reach these goals, keeping in mind that active involvement and dialogue about ideas are powerful catalysts for learning. Most faculty members find this kind of thinking energizing since their primary interest is in teaching and learning rather than technology. The question is, "How can a college or university best support this process of rethinking courses and curricula to unleash the truly revolutionary potential for technology to enhance learning?"

Certainly, adequate technology and support of its use is a necessary condition for success. No individual faculty member, department, or campus will be able to fully realize the potential of educational technology to enhance teaching and learning without a robust information technology infrastructure. Faculty access to hardware and software for development and use of educational applications, student access to PCs and the Internet both on and off campus, multimedia-capable classrooms with Internet access, training, and technical support are essential. However, these elements are not sufficient to create the desired revolution in teaching and learning.

Jane Marcus of Information Technology Systems and Services at Stanford University provides a very useful conceptualization of the factors affecting individual adoption of technology. In Marcus�s model, adoption is a function of available resources, the perceived value of the innovation, and communication with other adopters. Her dissertation research provides empirical evidence in support of the model, indicating that social/contextual variables are as important as resources in encouraging adoption of technology.

Subsequent research at Western Michigan University also highlighted the importance of these factors. Faculty members on that campus were surveyed to identify factors that might influence the use of new instructional technologies. The most important factor identified was the need to be certain that technology would enhance student learning. Other important social/contextual factors were compatibility with the subject matter, advantages over traditional instruction, increased student interest, information on materials in the discipline, compatibility with existing course materials, and support from higher administration, chairpersons, and deans. Faculty were also asked to rate the importance of various incentives to use technology. Not surprisingly, released time, student and clerical support, and stipends were important incentives. In addition, however, faculty noted the importance of knowing that their efforts would contribute to promotion and tenure and would be recognized by the university community.

Four Key Strategies to Help Faculty Rethink Pedagogy Using Technology

This kind of research on learning and on adoption of technology can inform the design of campus programs to support faculty in rethinking pedagogy and using technology in ways that make a significant impact on student learning. For the past nine years, Duquesne University has been developing a comprehensive, campuswide program to reach this goal. The following sections describe four key strategies of Duquesne�s program and the principles that underlie them, providing examples of ways the strategies have been implemented at Duquesne.

Encourage faculty to learn about the successful use of educational technology by colleagues at their university and by colleagues within their discipline around the globe.

Creating opportunities for faculty to learn about successful uses of educational technology on their own campus facilitates communication with adopters (a social variable identified by Marcus as important in promoting adoption of technology). Faculty can discuss the impact of technology on student learning and motivation, the amount of work required to develop and implement applications, and the perceived value. Faculty are often able to make the conceptual leap required to see how a colleague�s use of technology might apply in their own discipline (for example, a historian might easily envision how a philosopher colleague�s use of computer conferencing might be adapted). Clearly, however, there are disciplinary differences that make it difficult to see how particular uses of technology could be transferred (for example, a chemist might doubt that the philosopher colleague�s use of computer conferencing would be useful in learning physical chemistry). For this reason, it is quite helpful to create opportunities for faculty to learn about technology use by colleagues within their discipline at other institutions (for example, the chemist might easily be persuaded that a symbolic and numerical software program such as Mathcad would enhance learning in physical chemistry).

During the past nine years, Duquesne�s computing center and faculty development center have partnered to provide a wealth of opportunities for faculty to learn about the ways in which colleagues at Duquesne and elsewhere have used technology to improve student learning:

Live Teleconferences. These satellite downlink programs, obtained from vendors such asPBS Adult Learning Service and National Technological University, enable Duquesne faculty to be aware of cutting-edge uses of educational technology. Immediately following such a downlink, participants discuss possible application of ideas presented during the program within the Duquesne University environment. Computing center and faculty development center staff serve as resources for this discussion.

Stimulate individual faculty and departments to think about their learning goals for students and how technology might be used to help students attain these goals.

As noted earlier, the most common uses of technology such as e-mail and presentation software tend to be "add-ons" to current pedagogy and do not capitalize on the real power of technology to revolutionize the teaching/learning process. Encouraging faculty to identify their basic goals for a course, on the other hand, frees them to think more creatively. What do they wish students to be able to do at the end of the course? What are the "bottlenecks" (critical concepts that many students fail to master) in a particular course? What kind of experiences and assignments will help students to master course goals? These kinds of questions provide the basis for considering alternative, technology-based approaches to facilitating student attainment of course goals--perhaps drill-and-practice tutorials for basic skills, computer conferencing to develop critical thinking, or multimedia to enhance visualization of important concepts. Likewise, an academic department might consider its overall goals for graduates of its programs and how technology could be integrated into courses to ensure that students do, in fact, reach those goals. For example, students in journalism might need to develop skills in carrying out online research, evaluating credibility of sources, and creating Web pages. In what courses will these skills be developed and how will these competencies be verified?

Duquesne University encourages this "ground up" rethinking of courses and possible uses of technology on the part of individual faculty as well as by schools and departments. When schools and departments pursue such thinking, there is the potential for significant curricular reform. What follows are a few ways that Duquesne has fostered rethinking of pedagogy.

Schoolwide Integration of Technology into the Curriculum. Duquesnes School of Music made a commitment to integrate the K-12 National Standards for Arts Education into the School of Music curriculum and to extend those standards to the collegiate level. The guidelines accompanying the standards indicate that "the curriculum should utilize current technology to individualize and expand music learning However, technology should not be used for its own sake, but in order to achieve the goals of music education." Accordingly, the School of Music has examined its courses, noting the goals and content of each course and the technologies that could be used to increase attainment of learning goals. A theory course, for example, does not inherently require the use of technology, but student learning might be enhanced by use of a synthesizer module, music notation software, and computer-assisted instruction to develop ear-training skills. Strategic use of technology throughout the school provided a focus for relevant faculty development opportunities and led to the creation of a required freshman course, "Computers for Musicians," to familiarize students with the technology they would use in later courses.

Online Course on Online Teaching and Learning. During the fall semester of 1998, Duquesne pilot tested a course on online teaching and learning. Seventeen faculty and administrators took part, with all coursework being carried out online using FirstClass computer conferencing software. This approach enabled faculty to experience the role of learner while, at the same time, reflecting on the teaching/learning process and designing their own course. In addition to reading the text, participants read "lectures" by the instructor as well as articles on the Web. They posted responses to questions such as: "What do you see as the role that you are likely to take as an online instructor?" "Do you see this as different from the role of an effective face-to-face teacher? Explain." "What do you think will change for you in your teaching in the online environment?" Another assignment listed many instructional strategies that could be used in the online environment (for example, small group discussion, collaborative learning, problem-based learning, case studies, simulation, and project-based learning) and asked participants to identify ways they might be able to implement these strategies in one of their courses using technology. A separate "metacognition" conference provided a virtual class space within which participants could reflect on their own experience as learners. They might, for example, have noted how difficult it is to synthesize the comments of the 16 other participants or have speculated on why the degree of social interaction increased or decreased depending on the topic and the assignment.

Summer Institute on Teaching with Technology. For the past four summers Duquesne has offered a summer institute for faculty. Participation is competitive, based on applications that describe a project that the faculty member would like to undertake, using technology to enhance some aspect of student learning in one of his or her courses. Faculty who complete the five-day institute receive a $1,000 stipend for their participation and commit to demonstrating their work within their own school and also in a university-wide venue. During the first day of the institute, there is a session on instructional design and an overview of available technologies. As a result of these sessions, a high percentage of faculty change their instructional strategy, choice of technology, or both. What is important is that faculty come to the institute having identified their instructional goal; institute instructors can then assist faculty in clarifying the best means for reaching that goal.

Duquesne University has had such a roundtable since the spring of 1995, with the membership comprising representatives of each of the 10 schools of the university, the computing center, library, and faculty development center. Duquesne went a step further than the TLT Groups recommendation, however, and also created roundtables Teaching, Learning, and Technology Roundtable. within each school. This has proven extremely valuable, providing a focus within schools for the consideration of learning goals and ways in which technology might be used to help attain these goals. At the same time, the university roundtable provides a forum to address matters that transcend the schools (for example, technological infrastructure or the university reward system) and facilitates the exchange of ideas among the schools and various academic support units. A good example of the way the roundtable concept has stimulated thinking about disciplinary matters and technology was the 1997 request of the university roundtable to each school roundtable:The Teaching, Learning, and Technology Group (TLT Group), which is affiliated with the American Association of Higher Education, advocates that colleges and universities establish Teaching, Learning, and Technology Roundtables to help coordinate and stimulate the use of technology to improve teaching and learning.

Please give us your vision of what the future of technology in your discipline will be. We need your knowledge of the trends and directions in your discipline area. We cant know that as well as you do, and it would not be practical for us to try to understand the nuances of a discipline and the overall technological direction in which it is moving. We would like to develop a coordinated "vision" of all disciplines in a three- to five-year framework that maintains the integrity of each disciplines needs.

This request resulted in a thought-provoking set of school vision statements that noted trends ranging from the need for search and retrieval of information such as patient records and research data (health and sciences) to the use of technology in the courtroom (law). All school vision statements had implications for both the content and instructional strategies needed to prepare Duquesnes students for their future.

Provide faculty with information about the teaching and learning process, effective technology-enhanced pedagogical strategies, and the availability of technology resources appropriate to their needs.

Learning about colleagues uses of technology and analyzing ones goals for student learning build a strong foundation for integrating powerful and appropriate uses of technology into ones course. However, these strategies alone are not sufficient to provide faculty with the background to create cutting-edge applications. Faculty who implicitly believe that knowledge is transmitted, not constructed, are unlikely to adopt active learning strategies such as simulations and conferencing. Information about recent research on the learning process, however, may create openness to constructivist approaches. Furthermore, it is the insightful use of technology rather than the technology itself that results in learning. Consider two examples:

(1) Simply using computer conferencing does not ensure critical thinking. It is the crafting of assignments and monitoring of the conference in a skillful way that are likely to enhance students critical thinking; and

(2) Using multimedia to enhance a lecture may increase students learning. However, learning may be increased to an even greater degree if the instructor makes that same multimedia available to students to review outside of class time and develops assignments that lead students to interact with the multimedia in a constructive way.

Examples such as these can assist faculty in maximizing the pedagogical effects of technology use.

Finally, it is important for faculty to know what technology is available on campus to reach particular goals. What tools can be used to create sophisticated Web-based course materials? What software could facilitate student peer editing? What are the various possibilities for asynchronous conferencing? Is there a technology for desktop videoconferencing?

Based on the belief that knowledge about the research on teaching and learning process, effective pedagogy, and capabilities of available technology will lead to more powerful uses of educational technology, Duquesne has made available a wide range of opportunities for faculty to develop this knowledge.

Book Study Groups. The director of the faculty development center recently compiled a book of selected readings about online teaching and learning. The 12 articles included had a common theme, exploring aspects of good online pedagogy. Chapter titles included: "Creating Effective Instructional Materials for the World Wide Web," "Moderating Discussions in the Electronic Classroom," "Teaching Online: Computer Conferencing as an Educational Environment," and "Online Evaluation: Multiple Choice, Discussion Questions, Essay, and Authentic Projects." The conversations stimulated by these readings were rich, with faculty speculating how various instructional strategies such as small group work, simulations, and case studies could be used in the online environment to help students master the goals of their courses. As one faculty member observed, "Online teaching is more than putting up materials on the Web. The way in which students are asked to interact with the material, with other students in the class, and with me is critical." Although this group used a book of specially developed readings, there are several commercially published books that would also be appropriate.

Lunch Bytes. As noted earlier, Lunch Bytes sessions often feature faculty who are using technology. Other sessions, however, are planned to provide knowledge about teaching, learning, and instruction. Fall 1998 sessions included "Computer Conferencing Tools," "Putting Face-to-Face Courses Online," and "Matching Technologies to Learning Outcomes." Whenever possible, sessions are planned to encompass technological considerations, effective pedagogy, and real-world applications. A Lunch Bytes session on computer conferencing might consist of a brief demonstration of FirstClass software, suggested strategies for using conferencing to deepen knowledge and develop critical thinking, and a description by a faculty member of his or her specific use of conferencing in a class.

Reward faculty for their successful use of educational technology.

Faculty have many demands on their time and must make hard choices about how to use this finite resource. Developing cutting-edge uses of technology to support teaching and learning requires a significant time commitment. Junior faculty are unlikely to make this commitment if they believe this will jeopardize their promotion or tenure. Even senior faculty for whom promotion and tenure are not an issue generally elect to spend their time in ways that are rewarded by their college or university and their disciplinary area. The campus culture plays a crucial role in creating an environment for exploration of new uses of educational technology.

The Duquesne University community has given a great deal of thought to ways of providing recognition and rewards for the effective use of technology. Some of these approaches are direct, others indirect, but all work together to convey the message that taking on the demanding task of harnessing technologys potential to enhance student learning is a worthwhile use of ones time and talents.

Promotion and Tenure. Duquesnes general promotion and tenure criteria are structured so that faculty must document their level of performance in teaching and scholarship. Each applicant is rated in each of these two areas as excellent or effective (or, possibly, ineffective!). Applicants are provided with examples of achievements that serve as indicators of excellence or effectiveness. As Duquesne strove to become a leader in the use of educational technology to support teaching, learning, and research, it was important to be quite clear that faculty accomplishments in this area would be recognized in the promotion and tenure process. The changes that were made did not substantially alter the promotion and tenure criteria but made explicit that achievements in the creation or use of educational technology would be recognized within the context of teaching or scholarship, depending upon the nature of the work. Also, it was noted that simply using educational technology would not suffice; excellence or effectiveness would need to be documented by indicators such as improved student learning, publications about the innovation, or peer evaluations by experts in the field.

Award for Innovative Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Technology. Sparked by an invitation from the organizers of the Tenth International Conference on College Teaching and Learning to nominate a Duquesne faculty member for this award, Duquesnes Teaching, Learning, and Technology Roundtable requested that each school nominate a faculty member for the award. One of these nominees was selected to attend the conference, receive the award, and give a presentation about his work. However, the roundtable was very much impressed with the quality of all of the nominations and decided to recognize these school nominees. This recognition took the form of a Provosts Certificate of Recognition, an article in the campus newspaper, and an invitation to present their work to colleagues in university-wide workshops.

In addition to these teaching, learning, and technology awards, it should be noted that Duquesne has for many years offered Creative Teaching Awards to recognize innovative ways of teaching that inspire students and lead them to better understanding. Although Creative Teaching Awards are not specifically designed to recognize achievements in the use of technology, the projects of several award winners have, in fact, entailed innovative technology use.

Newspaper Articles.Duquesne University publishes a weekly newspaper, and reporters are assigned to "beats" in the various schools. Quite often, articles feature achievements in teaching with technology. For example, a recent article highlighted the work of a nursing faculty member who requires students in one of his classes to work in groups to develop a manuscript for an online journal, Issues in Psychosocial Nursing, which he edits. His students improve writing skills, learn to work effectively in groups, and may graduate with a record of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Articles such as this in the university newspaper not only provide recognition but also serve as a source of ideas for other faculty.

Finding Common Ground to Create a Campus Culture

What are some of the factors in the Duquesne environment that have enabled the university to be successful in its endeavors to date?

One key factor has been the close collaboration between the computing center and the faculty development center (Center for Teaching Excellence) over the past nine years. Most of the activities described have been cooperatively planned and/or co-sponsored by these two organizations. As director of the faculty development center, I attend biweekly meetings of the academic computing group within the computing center. As a result, we are always "on the same page" in our thinking.

A second key factor has been the evolution of both "bottom-up" and "top-down" support for integration of technology. Duquesnes president frequently mentions that the universitys leadership position in integrating technology into teaching is of strategic importance. Duquesnes provost, a historian, is convinced that the insightful use of technology in ways specific to a subject matter discipline can lead to the most significant revolution in learning that has occurred since the invention of the printing press more than 500 years ago. School-based teaching, learning, and technology roundtables provide a venue for faculty to share disciplinary-specific ideas for use of technology and plan for any needed development opportunities or technology infrastructure. The university-wide roundtable enables faculty and academic support staff to contribute to decision making about any issue relevant to educational technology.

A third factor of importance is Duquesnes unwavering focus on teaching, learning, and scholarship, with technology being seen as a means of enhancing the accomplishment of these fundamental university goals, not an end in itself. The involvement of the faculty development center in this initiative has helped to keep the focus on this perspective. The center provides workshops on a wide range of topics (for example, active learning strategies, effective grading, dealing with troublesome behavior, teaching large classes) and consults individually with faculty who have teaching concerns. Unlike the computing center, which could be perceived as valuing technology in and of itself, the faculty development center is clearly seen as valuing technology only for its value in teaching and learning. In reality, however, the academic computing personnel at Duquesne have incorporated this focus on teaching and learning into their own culture and way of working with faculty. They consistently focus on the faculty members instructional goals for technology and offer assistance in realizing those goals; they can speak as comfortably about teaching, learning, and assessment as about streaming video or dynamic HTML.

As a faculty developer, what I find fascinating about the use of technology to enhance teaching and learning is that it leads faculty to rethink the entire teaching and learning process. At Duquesne, faculty are rethinking the role of presentation (whether via lecture or text); considering small group work, simulations, case studies, and so forth; and pondering how best to foster the deep learning of ideas and development of student thinking skills. Indeed, technology enables many pedagogical strategies that were impossible or impractical only a few years ago. A significant number of Duquesne faculty have created applications of technology that address "bottlenecks" in student learning and assist students in visualizing concepts, actively processing ideas, and dialoging with others about their thinking.

What is currently lacking is rigorous assessment of the learning outcomes of these technology applications. Although Duquesne asks faculty who attend the Summer Institute and those who receive small technology grants to create a plan for assessing the outcomes of their efforts, few faculty are skilled in carrying out classroom research, so results to date tend to reflect student satisfaction rather than student learning. We are currently looking toward partnerships between faculty who have expertise in outcomes assessment and those who have created educational applications of technology to develop more sophisticated measures of success. As we review the educational technology literature, we see very few research studies that are well designed and ferret out the factors that have the greatest impact on learning. We hope to contribute to this knowledge base.

We continually review our faculty development strategies and revise them as the sophistication of our faculty grows. For example, Teaching with Technology Fairs play a lesser role in our planning now than three years ago since their primary purpose is to create awareness of potential uses of technology and a sizeable percentage of Duquesne faculty already have such an awareness. In the early years of our work, we would simply ask faculty members who were using technology in teaching to share their work with colleagues. Now we structure such presentations by asking such questions as "What are your goals for student learning, what instructional strategies did you use, and how did you assess learning?" This helps to emphasize the pedagogical underpinnings of the technology application.

Like most institutions, Duquesne has to work hard to keep up with the technology needs of its faculty, students, and administrators. Our focus on the use of technology for teaching, learning, and scholarship, however, keeps us rooted in the fundamental mission of the university and gives our work a larger meaning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creating a Campus Culture to Support a Teaching and Learning Revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article was published in CAUSE/EFFECT journal, Volume 22 Number 2 1999. The copyright is shared by EDUCAUSE and the author. Seehttp://www.educause.edu/copyright for additional copyright information. Creating a Campus Culture to Support a Teaching and Learning Revolution How can a college or university best support the faculty in the process of rethinking courses and curricula to unleash the truly revolutionary potential for technology to enhance learning?

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Cayla,

I enjoyed your article about leadership theories. Educational leadership is one of my favorite parts of graduate studies. I find it all very interesting and applicable. I love learning about different leadership styles and applying different approaches to my leadership.
I fall primarily into transformational leadership, but also have some qualities from other theories as well. What leadership theory do you align with the most?

Also...if you turn on comments, people can post under each article they read instead of directly to your board. All you have to do is turn comments on in your settings. I didn't have them turned on to start either :)

Thanks for sharing!
Ashley Gould

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spread the loveThere are four major styles of leadership which apply well in the educational setting. While each of these styles has its good points, there is a wide berth of variation, and in fact transformational leadership is truly an amalgamation of the best attributes of the other three.

# data[].attributes.body
Being a first year elementary teacher at an IR campus communication with parents is very important. At times I am unsure when I should actually communicate with a parent. This article helped me see the different forms of communication and informed me on using technology to communicate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After years of working in isolation, a group of Milwaukee principals decided to collaborate rather than compete. Principals create yearlong themes, share problems and strategies, and advocate for all students. Included: Descriptions of the group's programs.
For years, Milwaukee Public Schools' middle school principals competed against each other for jobs, resources, and accolades.

Then seven years ago, feeling pressure from central administration, one principal made a simple suggestion: why don't we work together?

So they formed the Milwaukee Public Schools Middle School Principals' Collaborative, a support network that has become an agent for change, not just in their schools, but in the whole district.

"We are the district -- and I say that with great pride and humility," said Dr. Rogers E. Onick, principal of Samuel Morse Middle School and one of two original collaborative members. "We've helped shape reform in this district."

CUSTOMIZED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Twenty-two principals representing 17,000 middle school students now make up the collaborative, and they meet monthly over lunch.

"I don't miss a meeting unless I'm out of town," said Robin Kitzrow, who is in her second year as principal of Gustav A. Fritsche Middle School, a charter school. "It's a priority for me. I like the support and it's very professional. It's not a gripe session."

During meetings, members "check in," talking about problems on the job, while other members offer strategies that might help them. The principals also discuss the group's vision and theme for the year. This year's theme is, "Every child reading, writing, and counting at grade level."

As the group's convener, Onick said it is his job to keep that theme in front of the members, as well as facilitate meetings. Principals discuss the best practices they are using in their schools to execute the theme. A professional development committee schedules workshops related to the yearly theme.

Originally funded by a grant from the Danforth Foundation, the collaborative now supports itself with budget funding; each school chips in $2 for each student enrolled. A staff member keeps records and takes care of paperwork, and the collaborative has developed extensive archives, according to Onick.

The group also hosts guest speakers periodically, and schedules a Saturday retreat once a month and a two-day retreat in the summer.

"We are building and sustaining positive relationships," said Onick. "We are turning to one another. We can't work in isolation. We had to break down the walls of competition. When we work as a team, we work with more energy and more creativity."

Programs also evolve around members' needs. Kitzrow said that she and some other newer principals had questions about creating budgets, and collaborative members set up a workshop with a district administrator to ensure they were putting their budgets together correctly.

"These things would not happen without the collaborative," Kitzrow told Education World.

MORE THAN MEETINGS

But while the collarborative's meetings and workshops are valuable, members talked about the invaluable aspect of the collaborative: the confidence and security they get from having a peer support network.

"This is a tough chair to sit in," said Dr. Robert Wenner, principal of Sarah A. Scott Middle School for the Health Sciences, and the other original collaborative member. "When I'm pinned in this chair, wondering what to do next, I can call on a network who will be here to support me. It's a godsend when things get tough."

The collaborative even sends members cards or flowers to celebrate good news or provide condolences when there is illness or death in a family.

"This has built a level of trust among the principals in the district," added Onick. "We're not ashamed to call one another and can be critical of each other, and ask deep, probing questions. We're trying to have solid, sound professional conversations."

Although the collaborative does not have a formal support program for new principals, members distribute sheets listing their names, phone numbers, and areas of expertise so less experienced principals know who they can call on in a hurry.

"The day I became a principal, I got seven phone calls from other principals, congratulating me and offering help," said Kitzrow. "It's always good to have other people around who do the things you do every day and can talk about it."

GAINING A LOUDER VOICE

While working together certainly makes sense, it took pressure from the central administration to help the principals see the benefits of a collective voice.

Middle school administrators were edgy in 1996 after some colleagues were demoted to assistant principal, with little or no warning. At the same time, they started questioning the lack of communication among principals and the rivalry for the best scores and evaluations.

The principals meet three times a year to review test scores, said Wenner, and he compared the past meeting to a poker game: everyone sat in a room, keeping the sheet with their test scores close to their faces, and did not want to let on what they had until they knew they were not last.

"There was a lot of competition," Wenner told Education World. "Then one principal suggested we all take responsibility for all of the middle school kids, and have our own staff development."

"As a group, our voice becomes louder," Kitzrow added. "We don't work against each other; we work together."

COLLABORATING FOR CHANGE

Collaborative initiatives have spread throughout the district. "They really have influenced district policy," said superintendent of schools William Andrekopoulos, a former middle school principal and also an original member of the collaborative. The middle school principals helped set promotion and retention standards and also proficiency requirements, Andrekopoulos told Education World.

The collaborative members also created leadership teams in their schools-- a core group of teachers who talk about rubrics, standards, teaching, and learning -- and now all the district schools have them, Onick said.

This year, the board of education voted to require schools to determine how their education plans tie in with their budget, and the collaborative received a grant to pilot that initiative.

Elementary and high school principals are interested in working collaboratively as well, but have not formalized an organization yet.

District administrators are trying to build a support structure for principals into the district's infrastructure, Andrekopoulos said, using retired principals as coaches.

"The collaborative is a model," said Kitzrow. "Other groups in the district want to model it."

The future of the collaborative, and middle schools in the district, are another issue on the table for the group. Milwaukee officials are discussing converting to K-8 schools

"We need to be proactive about letting the community know what we [middle schools] have to offer," according to Onick, and members are investigating the best way to market middle schools.

Other issues challenging collaborative members this year include: how to lead in standards-based era; how to lead so people are comfortable with change; and closing the achievement gap, he said.

Onick urged administrators in other districts to develop their own networks. "Just get together every month," he said. "But don't get together to complain. Talk about teaching and learning.

"This has helped me in a number of ways; I feel like I am part of a team and I know I have support and can give support."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Principals Collaborate, Bring About School Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After years of working in isolation, a group of Milwaukee principals decided to collaborate rather than compete. Principals create yearlong themes, share problems and strategies, and advocate for all students. Included: Descriptions of the group's programs. For years, Milwaukee Public Schools' middle school principals competed against each other for jobs, resources, and accolades.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Charlotte Danielson

School organization" refers to how schools arrange the resources of time, space, and personnel for maximum effect on student learning. The school's organizational plan addresses those issues that affect the school as a whole, such as the master schedule, the location of staff in different rooms, and the assignment of aides to teachers or teams. (Matters that affect only individual teachers or teams-how to form reading groups for all 2nd graders, for example-are addressed in Chapter 11: Team Planning.)

Relationship to the Framework

How a school is organized is a matter for the staff to determine, and a school's organization should reflect the staff's commitment to the success of all students. Every aspect of the instructional program will convey the values and goals of the staff toward students and their learning.

High-Level Learning for All Students

Through a school's organizational patterns-whether the school is divided into teams or houses, for example, or whether it adopts a traditional or a block schedule-the staff can convey to both students and their parents that learning is important, that the business of the school is learning, and that the different elements of the school's organization are structured to support that learning. The master schedule, for example, is not established merely for the convenience of the transportation department, although bus schedules are important and must be accommodated. Nor are teams established only so that members of the faculty who are friends can work together. All arrangements must reflect an unwavering focus on student learning.

A Safe and Positive Environment

The wise deployment of space can go a long way toward ensuring a physically safe environment, particularly for young children. If classrooms, the art room, restrooms, and the library are all within easy walking distance, and if the paths to each are safe, children will feel secure going alone. In addition, a school's arrangement of teachers into teams, houses, and the like can contribute to a feeling of community, and therefore emotional safety, for students; they should feel part of a group small enough that their absence or illness would be noticed.

A Culture of Hard Work and Opportunities for Success

A focus on success is not a matter of spoon-feeding. A good school organization will offer students the optimal degree of challenge, stretching them while at the same time ensuring that they can succeed if they exert the necessary effort. Students need to know (and may need to be reminded) that it is up to them to exert the effort. For example, elementary-school teachers might let their students know that they are free to go to the computer lab or learning center once they've completed their work and mastered certain tasks; similarly, students in middle or high school could be told that if they are willing to commit to a heavy workload and fill any gaps in their understanding, they can enroll in Spanish II or an advanced placement course. Such opportunities should not constitute an exclusive club, open only to a few students; they should be open to any students willing to commit to them. The master schedule must be arranged to permit students to make these commitments and demonstrate their desire to participate in the most challenging opportunities the school has to offer.

When a school adopts a success orientation, it also commits itself to a flexible deployment of resources: nothing is carved in stone, and no one adopts a "take it or leave it" attitude. Students are assumed to be capable learners, and the school accepts its obligation to ensure successful learning by all students. Students should be able to get additional help when they need it, and to challenge the curriculum when they so choose; they should not be obliged to sit through a year of algebra if they can demonstrate, through a valid assessment, that they already understand the content. On the other hand, a student struggling with how to write a clear paragraph, for example, should be able to get help as needed.

School Organization

The research on school organization is clear: in general, small schools yield better results than large ones. This suggests that educators at large schools can help more students learn by creating subunits-schools within a school. Moreover, studies on teacher collaboration and teaming have shown that students benefit when teachers work together to promote student learning. Some schools in rural areas, of course, are too small, unable to provide a reasonable range of curricular or extracurricular offerings. But while educators in large schools can generally devise ways to break up into smaller units, those in small schools can't usually do much about their limited resources (although the Internet now provides students with learning opportunities that were not previously available).

Components of School Organization

Of course, most school staffs inherit a preexisting organizational structure. For many educators, certain aspects of the school's organization-such as the number of classes in the master schedule in a high school or the houses in a middle school-are part of the school's very identity. This reality can make altering the school's organization slow and difficult. Still, educators should consider the following aspects of the school to determine which ones, if any, should be changed.

At the elementary-school level, units are usually instructional teams or grade-level groups, in which teachers work with students from classes other than their own homerooms. For example, three 4th grade teachers might choose to work together to teach all 100 children in the grade. Many middle schools have houses in place, which might be led for instance by four teachers, each representing core curricular areas, working together with a group of 100-125 students. (When these are multi-age groups and students remain with the same teachers over several years, teachers and students grow to know one another particularly well.) Many high schools establish schools-within-a-school to create smaller and more personal learning communities. Some of these are grade-based, whereas others are organized around an instructional focus, such as technology or the arts.

Master Schedule

The influence of the master schedule is hard to overstate. The schedule structures the pace of the interactions between students and teachers, and class length affects the nature of instruction and the depth to which students are able to go at any given time. At the elementary- and middle-school levels, the master schedule conveys the relative importance of different areas of study: for example, when language arts are allocated 90 minutes a day, and science is allocated 30 minutes twice a week, students and teachers receive powerful messages about the supposed value of each subject.

Alternatives to traditional scheduling practices at the middle- and high-school levels have been widely discussed in the educational literature under the general heading of "block scheduling." Although not a panacea, block scheduling can materially affect the quality of student-teacher interactions and the nature of teacher collaboration. The main characteristic of these approaches is that they organize instructional time into longer blocks than the traditional pattern, thus allowing teachers and students greater flexibility in how they use their time. With longer blocks of time, students can embark on projects that would be difficult to complete in only 43 minutes. Teachers accustomed to relying on lecturing find that they need to vary their approach under block scheduling, enabling students to engage in deeper and more sustained exploration of content.

Deployment of Instructional Personnel

Most elementary schools assign classroom teachers groups of 20-30 students, although there are usually other teachers available as well: specialists for subjects such as art, music, and physical education; state-funded remedial reading or math teachers; Title I teachers; and teachers funded through district or external funds to serve migrant students, ESL learners, or "gifted" students. In fact, some elementary schools have more "extra" teachers than they do regular ones! The situation is different at the middle- and high-school levels, where students rotate among content specialists. In schools committed to enhancing student learning, teachers go to considerable effort to integrate "special" subjects with more "academic" disciplines. Even when the schedule demands that a class of 3rd grade students goes to art class at, say, 11:00 a.m. on Thursdays, the art teacher and the home-room teacher work to ensure that what the students are learning in the two classes is not completely separate.

Many schools-particularly at the elementary level, and sometimes motivated by state statute or by the promise of additional funds-have created more classes with fewer students in each. These efforts have had mixed results, partly because when overall class sizes are reduced, other expenses are inevitably increased-for more classroom space and for additional content specialists (and the classroom space that they need). In addition, there are frequently not enough qualified teachers to teach the new classes, especially at very large schools, resulting in at least a short-term reduction in teaching quality.

Although the research on class size has been inconclusive, studies suggest that reductions in size don't have much of an effect on student achievement unless the classes consist of 15 students or fewer. In any case, it is not the size of the homerooms that matters, but the size of instructional groups; consequently, if the entire teaching staff can be deployed in a manner that greatly reduces the size of instructional groups, results are likely to improve. A school organizational structure that supports the use of all teaching staff (including those paid for by categorical funds) to provide basic instruction can result in much smaller instructional groups than are traditionally found in schools. (For more on this subject, see Chapter 12: Learning Support.)

Grouping Strategies

A school aiming to improve student performance must develop a reasoned approach, even a philosophy, toward the grouping of students for instruction. Such an approach should not include permanent tracking. When elementary-school students are clustered as "bluebirds" or "canaries" according to their real or perceived abilities, the groups often become permanent: those who are identified early on as particularly able tend to be the ones permitted to enroll in advanced courses in high school.

Permanent tracking harms all but the highest-performing students, who themselves gain only slightly from the practice. Short-term skill grouping, however, can be highly beneficial for all students. Students who do not understand, say, subtraction with regrouping should receive targeted instruction on the concept before moving on to a skill that depends upon it (such as division). But there is no reason for students who have already grasped subtraction with regrouping to spend any more time on the topic; they should instead be more productively engaged in other topics. Hence teachers need the flexibility to create skill groups when needed, particularly for concepts that are prerequisites for later lessons.

The school's approach to scheduling and deployment of staff must support the formation of short-term skill groups when needed. In addition, the school's organization must allow for skill groups to be formed quickly and changed frequently; flexibility, in other words, is the key.

Implications for Different Levels

I have discussed the above issues separately, as though educators addressed them one at a time. In reality, of course, the various aspects of a school's organizational structure are highly intertwined and tightly related to other aspects of the school, such as curriculum, student assessment, and learning support. Still, there are important differences among schools at different levels.

Elementary Schools

Teacher teams at the elementary-school level may comprise anywhere from two to eight teachers each; more than eight, however, can become unwieldy. These teams may be organized around a single grade level (a "2nd grade team") or as "family" teams of, for example, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades. Each arrangement has its advantages and disadvantages. Students in single-grade teams, of course, tend to be closer to one another academically than are those in family teams. On the other hand, these same students must relearn the ropes each year with a different group of teachers, and the teachers must become acquainted with a large new group of students. Academic levels may vary in family teams, but students stay with the same group of teachers for several years, reducing the startup time required at the beginning of the school year.

Middle Schools

The "middle-school philosophy"-which recognizes that young adolescents learn best when given a fair degree of autonomy, while at the same time "belonging" to a relatively small group of teachers and other students-has become dominant in schools serving the 5th or 6th to 8th grades. Students at this period in their lives experience rapid physical, emotional, and intellectual growth, matched in scope only by the first three years of life; they are experiencing fast and sometimes confusing changes. Middle schools, therefore, must provide both stability and stimulation, respecting the students' age-related concerns.

I have already suggested the major recommendation for middle schools: teachers should work in small teams, composed typically of four teachers, representing the core subjects. Additional subjects should be offered as "exploratory" opportunities for students. In addition, time should be scheduled- and instruction provided. in long blocks, permitting teachers the maximum degree of flexibility to meet student needs (and to alter internal arrangements as these needs change). When the school organization allows for the integration of various . support. teachers. Title I, remedial, migrant, gifted, and so on. teachers within each team have the best opportunity to arrange a combination of core and supplementary instruction for each student.

High Schools

Some high schools institute schools-within-a-school (SWAS), often for their 9th grade students. This structure is designed to mirror (and hence ease the transition from) the middle-school experience. If they can be managed, SWAS are recommended, as they provide students with smaller instructional units and permit them to learn the ropes of the high school-by interacting with a greater number of students and teachers, not to mention abiding by typically more structured rules of conduct-without also having to learn how to find a classroom or juggle the multiple demands of too many different courses.

Scheduling is the main aspect of school organization at the high-school level. Many high schools have by now implemented some form of block scheduling, in which students attend three to four classes on any given day rather than seven to nine. There are two basic patterns for block scheduling: four-by-four and A/B. In four-by-four schedules, students complete four "yearlong" courses each semester in periods of about 90 minutes each day. In the A/B schedule, classes are held on alternate days over the entire year; students may still be carrying six to eight courses, but they attend only half of them on any given day.

In general, block scheduling is advantageous because it provides longer instructional time and more opportunities for engaged learning. When teachers must plan for 90-minute classes, they are likely to employ different approaches than when classes are limited to 40 minutes; they can engage students more deeply in investigations, and will probably vary their instruction more. On the other hand, if teachers don't plan their time effectively, much of it may be wasted; students might devote considerable class time to independent work, for example, that might otherwise be assigned as homework. But in general, block scheduling tends to improve the school climate, with fewer discipline referrals, fewer class changes each day, greater student commitment to the work, and the potential for more engaging instruction.

The two major approaches to high-school block scheduling carry different advantages and disadvantages. Before implementing one or the other, educators are well advised to consult one of the many excellent books that have been written on the subject.

Summary

A school's organizational structures can go a long way toward promoting student learning. At all instructional levels, the school's organizational pattern can materially affect the manner in which students and teachers interact. All of these schoolwide structures should be designed to maximize teacher and student flexibility, encourage in-depth teaching and learning, and integrate as many different resources as possible.

The chart on the following page is intended to help educators examine their own school's approach to school organization and determine whether changes should be made. I have provided a similar chart at the end of each subsequent chapter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Charlotte Danielson School organization" refers to how schools arrange the resources of time, space, and personnel for maximum effect on student learning.