Leadership and Learning with Web 2.0Michael Stevenson Learning Technology Coordinator, Caroline Chisholm College

! This paper discusses the potential of e-learning and the importance of articulating a clear vision for implementation of emerging technologies in the secondary Catholic systemic context. It investigates the impact of redesigning a school-led learning management system (LMS) around a Web 2.0-enabled learning design with effective integration of cloud computing infrastructure and applications. The paper then explores the relationship between e-learning tools and content and examines how current practice with e-learning in systemic Catholic schools might be further developed with recourse to internet-informed notions of critical literacy and co-constructivism. The strengths and weaknesses of current practice are also addressed, including an evaluation of Google Apps for Education, a discussion on discrepancies between school- and system-level infrastructure and support, and an analysis of how some teaching programs are currently informed by Web 2.0 tools, especially those used in collaborative writing. Finally, the paper examines the current roles and responsibilities of leaders and managers at the school-level, including the roles of Principal, Learning Technology Coordinator and IT Manager, and outlines how these roles are integral in realising the vision for e-learning within and beyond the school.

The Vision in the Cloud

! In 2008, most secondary Catholic systemic schools in the Parramatta diocese were required to produce an ICT strategic plan as part of their application for computers for the Digital Education Revolution (DER). In the plan, schools were asked to outline their vision for e-learning and document the stages of development in moving towards the vision. For many schools, this requirement - which saw some move from having less than one hundred machines to well over five hundred after the grant - placed the onus on school- and system-level leaders and managers to consider how, as White points out in reference to the DER, “the provision of computers to students and connections to the internet will have a series of consequences that will impact the transformation of schooling” (2008: 7).At the same time, technology infrastructure in systemic Catholic schools has often lagged behind independent schools. Access to prevalent Web 2.0 tools and content on the internet has been relegated to very limited computer access, while the systemʼs LMS, MyClasses (a proprietary solution from Editure in place since 2007), has provided functionality generally limited to basic uploading and downloading of files and text-based discussion fora.

! Caroline Chisholm College is a systemic Catholic girls school in outer-western Sydney which has funded technology infrastructure and support considerably more than most systemic Catholic schools in the area. The school independently employs a non-teaching, full-time IT manager in addition to the 0.2 allocated teacher-trained role of Learning Technology Coordinator, addressing the concerns of technology management and leadership respectively. The school has also purchased additional computers beyond those allocated with system funds, the result of which was that there were too many computers (at the time, over three hundred) to successfully qualify for the first round of computer funding in early 2008. With relatively large and well-established technology infrastructure, it is possible to argue that leaders are better equipped when exploring the role of technology in “empowering students… [as] a ubiquitous, transparent part of their

Leadership and Learning with Web 2.0 - Michael Stevenson

lives” (New Media Consortium, 2010: 4). At the same time, many point to the increased demands that expanded technology infrastructure place on managers within schools and systems (Hayes, 2006; Maio-Taddeo, 2006; Williams, 2008). Nonetheless, in terms of resourcing, support and expertise, the technology infrastructure at Caroline Chisholm College could be described as better established when compared with other Catholic systemic schools in the Parramatta diocese.

! The vision in the schoolʼs 2008 ICT Strategic plan was the only one amongst schools in the area to articulate the importance of Web 2.0 and “the critical relationship between multi-literacies (including dialogic and critical literacy), multi-modality and the implementation of Web 2.0 tools in the curriculum” (Stevenson, 2008: 3-4). Since the writing of the plan, research has emerged in support of Web 2.0-enabled learning designs resilient to future technologies which foster critical literacies and co-constructivist learning through collaboration (Bower, et. al., 2009; Nevin, 2009; McClure, 2010). Given Web 2.0 as a substantial component in the schoolʼs vision for technology implementation along with the greater availability of internet-enabled computers, the need for scalable software as a service (SaaS) tools and a flexible and open LMS have resulted in the school-led implementations of Moodle (open source courseware) and Google Apps for Education (a set of applications typically associated with a Google account available under the control of an administrator within a school domain). These implementations have also been integral in setting the tangible benchmarks for the effective use of specific Web 2.0 tools by teachers and students, the importance of which has now been established (ACODE, 2006).

! More recently, the schoolʼs vision for e-learning has grown to encompass the impact of cloud computing, which is, in line with current trends, “progressing along a path that began with the adoption of collaborative tools for administrative tasks and that leads, eventually, to classroom adoption of cloud-based tools for learning” (New Media Consortium, 2010: 9). Initially implemented as an alternative to the student email system, Google Apps for Education has been further explored over the last two years for its collaborative potential, in terms of shared documents, calendars, spreadsheets and, very recently, the addition of RSS reading software, photo management tools and blogging software to the core set of applications (Wolf, 2010; Google, 2010). The development of a school-run learning management system through Moodle has allowed for greater control of the ways in which these applications are integrated into structured online courses, with links to resources, tools, assessments and activities relevant to each subject area. The integration of both Moodle and Google Apps arguably responds to previous concerns that “the LMS needs to be a student-centred application that gives students greater control over content and learning… to utilise and integrate with many Web 2.0 tools that students already freely use on the internet and expect to find in this kind of system” (Agee, et. al., 2005: 9). Therefore, the greater vision for e-learning at the school - a cloud-sourced set of tools used co-constructively and critically to generate knowledge and understanding - relies on an up to date technology infrastructure which is open, flexible and underpinned by school autonomy, innovation and managerial support.

Current Practice: Building Collaboration around the Vision

! Research is now emerging in support of enterprise-based, scalable Web 2.0 applications implemented as part of a learning design. Although Web 2.0 tools have been used sporadically at Caroline Chisholm College since the inception of websites such as

Leadership and Learning with Web 2.0 - Michael Stevenson

Wikispaces, Wordpress, Digg, Delicious and others, the difficulty in scaling these tools across classes, year levels and subject areas has been an obstacle in the development of a Web 2.0-enabled learning design that incorporates a range of literacies, modalities, tools and content sources. In this respect, many describe Web 2.0 as a predominantly bottom-up innovation in many schooling contexts (Bower, et. al., 2009; Agee, 2005; Prensky, 2006; Huber, 2010). The implications of this are, however, crucial for understanding the limitations of Web 2.0 for an institution; difficulties using several services at once, maintaining a number of user names and passwords, managing the limitations of free or “freemium” versions of software, problems with start-up services changing terms of use or terminating service altogether are a few of the concerns that teachers and students at Caroline Chisholm College have voiced in relation to Web 2.0. Further to this, and more broadly, concerns about privacy, storage and security of data are being raised, giving rise to questions around legal issues that might emerge when student data is out of the immediate control of the institution (Hayes, 2008; Gurr, 2004).

! Nonetheless, benefits of Web 2.0 to learning are now well-supported. Prensky describes the relationship between Web 2.0 tools and content in arguing a mandate for the use of Web 2.0 in the classroom: “students want and deserve to receive this content through 21st century tools that are powerful, programmable, and customisable—through tools that belong to them (2006: 6). Likewise, Hedberg analyses the Web 2.0-based learning processes of “mashing” and “modding,” arguing that these processes bridge the divide between learning technology tools and web-enabled content, with software that allows students to “construct and co-construct ideas/knowledge… through Web 2.0 tools that enable collation of multi-modal information from multiple sources” (2008: 145). Clearly, the tools-and-content paradigm is a fundamental part of any future Web 2.0-enabled learning design, and while it is possible to ensure a degree consistency in access to web-enabled content (for instance, a few links shared amongst teachers and students or a web video projected on a data projector), consistency with the use of Web 2.0 tools is, I would argue, much harder to ensure and this represents a significant challenge to current practice at Caroline Chisholm College.

! In terms of infrastructure, Google Apps for Education offers several advantages in line with those currently associated with cloud computing. As Hayes notes, “to the extent that cloud computing succeeds, it represents an obvious competitive challenge to vendors of shrink-wrap software” (2008: 3). Likewise, Nevin points out that Google Apps for Education “is free for non-profit educational institutions, so it has the potential to save school districts significant amounts of money because Google Apps replaces most of the other software used and much of the physical infrastructure such as school and district servers” (2009: 3). As a central and highly scalable service that includes a very wide array of Web 2.0 applications available through a single sign-on API, the integration of Google Apps with Moodle allows students to access all of the available applications through one sign-on process. The applications at Caroline Chisholm College currently include Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Reader, Picasa and Blogger. Although this implementation may not fully satisfy concerns around privacy, storage and security (and such concerns are beyond the scope of this paper), having only one set of terms of use to integrate into existing school ICT policy arguably makes for greater clarity and efficiency in relation to delivery, communication and promotion of the available and “supported” applications.

! At Caroline Chisholm College, the school-wide initiative for 2010 of replacing the use of Microsoft Word with Google Docs in many ways embodies Hayesʼ competitive challenge. In commenting on similar initiatives in their own learning institutions, both McClure (2010) and Nevin (2009) have discussed the value of working by default with

Leadership and Learning with Web 2.0 - Michael Stevenson

Google Docs rather than a stand-alone word processor. Nevin points to the real-time process of “sharing ideas and opinions while a document is being drafted,” suggesting the qualitatively different nature of a document that is multiply-authored, with ideas that may have been contested, negotiated or enhanced through web-based collaboration (2009: 3-4). In an end-of-semester survey of 137 Year 7 students at Caroline Chisholm College who had been immersed in using Google Docs as part of a project-based learning assessment task in the subject Connected Learning (a humanities- and technology-based, fused curriculum program undertaken by all Year 7 students in 2009 and 2010), students evaluated Google Docs in reference to several key statements as follows:

Leadership and Learning with Web 2.0 - Michael Stevenson

Q. 1.

Q. 2.

Q. 3.

Leadership and Learning with Web 2.0 - Michael Stevenson

Q. 4.

Q. 5.

Q. 6.

Leadership and Learning with Web 2.0 - Michael Stevenson

Q. 7.

Q. 8.

Q. 9.

As these survey responses indicate, the collaborative benefits and technical interface of Google Docs are largely understood by the students (as in Questions 4, 8 and 9). The responses also indicate that many students understand that when it is well-managed, a shared document can support their learning (Question 6) and, potentially, that document collaboration is a feature that makes Google Docs a more effective learning tool than Microsoft Word in certain contexts (Questions 1, 2 and 6). Students also appear to have internalised choices around the use of use Google Docs for certain activities irrespective of whether or not they are asked to do so (Question 7). However, the degree of ambivalence in relation to whether or not Google Docs and Presentations are better pieces of software than Microsoft Word and Powerpoint overall (Questions 2 and 3), indicate that many of the features currently available on stand-alone applications - and not available on web applications - need to be factored into decisions about when to use either as part of the learning design.

Conclusion

! Any discussion of a school-led initiative towards realising a Web 2.0-enabled learning design through the use of ʻcloudʼ enterprise software brings into question both the relationship between the school and the system of which it is a part, as well as the nature of the roles in the school that support and lead the initiative. The role of principal in funding physical technology infrastructure as well as hiring additional personnel or restructuring ICT departments is an important part of sustainably supporting the strategic direction of ICT. In the case of Caroline Chisholm College, the principalʼs use of school autonomy in approving an alternative to the systemʼs LMS is particularly noteworthy. There is now a growing body of research on the connections between the principal and strategic ICT direction that recognises the specific value of Web 2.0 in professional learning (Huber, 2010; Hayes, 2006; Gurr, 2004; Prensky, 2006). Most importantly, much of this research points to the principal as the key figure responsible for setting the parameters in which professional learning takes place. Many suggest that traditional learning structures are insufficient in sustainable professional learning that supports the kind of twenty-first century pedagogies needed in a Web 2.0-enabled learning design (Rudd, et. al. 2006; Hayes, 2006; Huber, 2010). As Huber notes:

[Although] traditional learning structures certainly play a role in the learning life of teachers, we need to update the approach. Web 2.0 technologies can help schools create structures for sustained, complex, and meaningful professional learning… With Moodle and other Web 2.0 tools, teachers no longer need to go to a specific place for professional development or wait to hear someone from the outside tell them what they need to do. Rather, ongoing professional learning is now part of the culture of the school. As they collaboratively construct understanding, teachers and administrators alike define who they are, how they communicate, and how they can best serve their students (Huber 2010: 5-6).

In addition to the principal, the school-level leaders and managers are clearly important. This paper has argued that by splitting leadership and management responsibilities through the roles of Learning Technology Coordinator and IT Manager at Caroline Chisholm College, the school has been able to foster innovation and change at the same time as providing the structural support needed to effect such change. Clearly, the relationship between the principal and main technology leader in the school - in this case,

Leadership and Learning with Web 2.0 - Michael Stevenson

the Learning Technology Coordinator - is key in the initial implementation of a Web 2.0-enabled learning design. However, in terms of long-term sustainably, the concept of leadership dispersal may be an important future direction, as Hayes asserts in his case studies of the principal-technology leader relationship:

Despite their rather extraordinary individual efforts, each [principal] spoke of at least one key colleague who had provided collegial support. This person was invariably a junior colleague with a strong vision for ICT integration and the knowledge and skills to support the process. The importance each principal placed on collegial support raised the issue of how they would have managed and what decisions they would have made without this support. It suggests that, where ICT integration is concerned, the notion of leadership dispersal… should be broadened to include the collective benefits of shared expertise (Hayes, 2006: 4).

! This paper has explored the concept of a Web 2.0-enabled learning design as a fundamental part of an education institutionʼs vision for e-learning. By examining this concept in the secondary Catholic systemic context, the paper has drawn attention to the leadership and management concerns common to many schools, particularly those relating to school-system discrepancies and the implementation of software which supports the schoolʼs vision. In evaluating Google Apps for Education, the paper has argued in favour of open, flexible enterprise software as a service (SaaS) to facilitate a school-wide Web 2.0-enabled learning design that can be measured, and against which, benchmarks of achievement may be set. The use of such software reflects broader educational ICT trends in cloud computing and allows for the scalability of Web 2.0 tools that foster collaboration and critical literacy, particularly in relation to web-enabled content. Ultimately, it is the key ICT roles in the school along with the necessary school autonomy in implementing the vision that move the school itself into a position of leadership within the system, thus positioning it as an agent of change within the wider community.

References

ACODE (2006). 2006 Benchmarks for the use of Technology in the Learning and Teaching in Universities. http://www.acode.edu.au/projects_resources.php (last accessed 3/10/10)

Agee, A. S., & Yang, C. (2009). "Top 10 IT Issues 2009. EDUCAUSE Review." EDUCAUSE Review 44(4): 44-59.

Bower, M., Hedberg, J. & Kuswara, A. (2009). Conceptualising Web 2.0 enabled learning designs. In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/bower.pdf (last accessed 28/08/10)

Google (2010) “Strike up the band: over 10 million have gone Google with Apps for Education.” The Official Google Blog. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/strike-up-band-over-10-million-have.html (last accessed 4/10/10).

Leadership and Learning with Web 2.0 - Michael Stevenson

Gurr, D. (2004). "ICT, Leadership in Education and E-leadership." Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 25(1): 113-124.

Headberg, J. (2008) “Supporting Dialogic Literacy Through Mashing and Modding of Places and Spaces,” Theory into Practice, 47:138–149, Ohio: Routledge.

Huber, C. (2010). "Professional Learning 2.0." Educational Leadership 67(8): 41-46.

Johnson, L., Smith, R., Levine, A., and Haywood, K., (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report: K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Maio-Taddeo, C. (2006). A literature review: investigations into the impact of leadership styles and management strategies on cohesive and transformative ICT integration in primary schools. Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) (pp. 1 - 11). Adelaide: AARE.  http://www.education.unisa.edu.au/education/school/subjects/educ5088/papers/Carmel%20Maioaareconfpaper.doc

McClure, A. (2010). "Meet me Online." University Business 13(2): 36-39.

Nevin, R. (2009). "Supporting 21st Century Learning Through Google Apps." Teacher Librarian 37(2): 35-38.

Prensky, M. (2005). "Listen to the Natives." Educational Leadership 63(4): 8-13.

Stevenson (2008) ICT Strategic Plan. Parramatta: Catholic Education Office.

Stevenson, M. (2010) Google Apps survey of Year 7 Connected Learning Students. Caroline Chisholm College.

White, S. (2007) Critical success factors for e-learning and institutional change — some organisational perspectives on campus-wide e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 38(5), 840–850.

Williams, P. (2008). Leading schools in the digital age: a clash of cultures. School Leadership and Management, 28 (3), 213-228

Wolf, T. (ed.) (2010). “Google Apps for Education Users Grow to 10 Million” TCMNet Education Technology. http://education.tmcnet.com/topics/education/articles/109042-google-apps-education-users-grow-10-million.htm (last accessed 4/10/10).

Leadership and Learning with Web 2.0 - Michael Stevenson