In an unprecedented digital age, there is a popular misconception that technology is a threat to our classrooms because it is finding a way to replace the need for good teaching. There is a sense that the need for personal teacher interaction will be reduced, given that young people hold in their hands vast warehouses of information, via their smart phones and other devices.

However, we can take comfort in knowing that teacher leadership still matters more than anything else. It has never been more relevant to ensure great teachers connect with engaged students – and the best schools and school leaders are keenly aware of this fact.

Take school Principal Kevin DeForge, in Alberta. DeForge is the leader of St. Dominic Fine Arts School in the Calgary Catholic School District, in Alberta. He says it is crucial for educators to get on board with the idea that quality teaching, “if rooted in authentic learning practices like project-based and inquiry learning, can be enhanced by technology.”

Project-based learning is an approach to teaching where students are actively engaged in exploring real-world issues and challenges. With this kind of engaged learning, young people are inspired to go deeper into the knowledge of what they’re studying.

DeForge, who is a recipient of Alberta’s Distinguished Leadership Award, points out that with businesses looking more closely at soft skills as an area of need, “educators can use technology to provide new opportunities for innovation and communication.”

He says it is critical that the focus shifts to “allowing students to make meaning of their own learning, as they create with technology, rather than just curate with it.”

Creating with Technology

There are many ways that students can create with technology, including using a multitude of tools, from video streaming and podcasts to the use of social media, preferably used in a way that is project-learning based. Powerful programs like Prezi, PowToon, Piktochart, and even the classic Powerpoint are also great for student learning and student engagement.

For instance, PowToon is a cloud-based software for creating animated presentations and animated videos that can explain complex subjects. Teachers can use this engaging approach to introduce themselves to a new class. Students can use it to talk about multifaceted or difficult subjects, like war in the Middle East, social challenges, and political policies.

Piktochart is a web-based infographic software tool. It allows users who have little to no experience as graphic designers to make incredible, professional-looking infographics, using ready-made templates.

Piktochart is a web-based infographic software tool. It allows users who have little to no experience as graphic designers to make incredible, professional-looking infographics, using ready-made templates.

In both these cases, though, a hands-on, qualified teacher will ensure the time spent on these programs is used for rich and meaningful topics – not just technology for technology’s sake.

Dr. Simon Breakspear says while the digitization of educational resources “will enable more and more content to be accessible online, the most powerful elements of learning have always been deeply human.”

Breakspear is an internationally-known, Australian-based education leader on learning innovation and system reform. He says that we “need not feel threatened by powerful digital trends, as technology is merely a tool, much like a pencil or any other tool.”

“Technology is here to stay, so it is our challenge to infuse its use into good pedagogy, so that we can better prepare our children for a future that does not yet exist.”

DeForge, the Alberta principal, agrees. He says we are “leading and learning in an age of ‘squirrel,’” because of all the distractions, particularly with regard to technology.

“It is our challenge, as educators, to turn distraction into advantage. We should strive to integrate technology seamlessly into our instruction and leadership so that it becomes something that engages the learner, rather than diverts their attention from the learning.”

So, as long as the task is rich and project-based, the technology can only enhance the learning experience.

Breakspear notes there “are so many innovative ways to leverage technology so that it works to our advantage by enhancing our ability to celebrate, communicate and collaborate within a world of distraction.”

He notes teachers and principals simply need to be willing to approach the challenge “with an entrepreneurial spirit and an open mind, and the doors will begin to open.”

Lifelong Learning

Perhaps the most important aspect of teaching for a new digital norm is the fact that educators, more than ever, will be required to become inveterate learners. They will need to become increasingly aware of newer technological trends but not necessarily at an expert level.

In fact, many teachers complain that the training their schools and school systems provide for them overly focuses on how to use a program – not necessarily how to use it meaningfully in a teaching and learning context. In some cases, teachers will need to fight for this focus and ask for the professional development time that will help them create meaningful learning opportunities for their students.

Breakspear points out that while “overcoming the digital divide will ensure access to content for a greater number of people, the greatest challenges we face in education concern the motivational divide.”

“Quality teachers will increasingly need to develop the capacity to be activators and designers of learning. These roles will only become more important, not less as digitization continues.”

Collaboration

With the digitization of learning comes the great opportunity to improve collaboration in our classrooms. The use of technology can be a highly effective way to bring a classroom to life, with improved student engagement and enriched education.

The best teachers are using technology to support teamwork and collaborative assignments, rather than standing at the front of a class and telling students exactly what will be done. The thoughtful use of technology can break these habits and help spark a new mindset for educators of any age. Rather than using vast technology simply to ‘find information,’ the best educators encourage a transfer of control from the teacher at the front of the class to students who are actually helping one another learn.

— Roderick Benns is the publisher of Leaders and Legacies. He also spent nine years as Senior Writer within the Student Achievement Division of the Ontario Ministry of Education.

Benns: How can we ensure quality teaching continues in the face of powerful digital trends? What might it look like? 

Breakspear: Whilst the digitisation of educational resources will enable more and more content to be accessible online, the most powerful elements of learning have always been deeply human. Whilst overcoming the digital divide will ensure access to content for a greater number of people, the greatest challenges we face in education concern the motivational divide. Quality teachers will increasingly need to develop the capacity to be activators and designers of learning. These roles will only become more important, not less as digitisation continues.

Benns: Like all bureaucracies, school systems are notoriously slow to change. How can they adapt to a more lithe and nimble mindset to help move students toward a future that is relevant for them?

Breakspear: It’s time to stop talking about the ‘why’ for educational change, and focus on the ‘how’.  New forms of agile leadership will be crucial for supporting sustainable and contextually appropriate change at the level of the local school.  Leaders need to adopt an evolutionary mind set which seeks to build on the best of the past, but relentlessly design for the future of learning.

Large scale change is best achieved by local level leaders starting small, learning fast, and be willing to fail well.  As local innovators generate promising new pedagogical practices, these must be spread across networks of schools to ensure their benefits reach all young people. The role of system leaders must shift from driving top down agendas for change towards becoming enablers of local innovation.

Benns: In a world of increasing diversity, is it good educational leadership to emphasize character and civics in the classroom? Why? 

Breakspear: Absolutely! The point of education is to build a vibrant democratic society. Through my own research analysis I have critiqued the dangers of following narrow test based definitions of the ends of our education system. Education has always traditionally sought to achieve social and democratic ends above and beyond cognitive development.  As our cities become enriched by increasing diversity, and the borders between countries become increasingly permeable, young people must be given the opportunity to develop their capacities to be active and engaged local and global citizens.

Benns: How can we ensure quality teaching continues in the face of powerful digital trends? What might it look like?

DeForge: It is important for educators to see that quality teaching , if rooted in authentic learning practices like Project Based and Inquiry Learning, can be enhanced by technology. With businesses looking more towards the soft skills as an area of need, educators can use technology to provide new opportunities for innovation and communication.

I believe it is most critical that we centre our focus on a shift to allowing students to make meaning of their own learning, as they create with technology, rather than just curate with it.

We need not feel threatened by powerful digital trends, as technology is merely a tool, much like a pencil or any other tool. Technology is here to stay, so it is our challenge to infuse its use into good pedagogy, so that we can better prepare our children for a future that does not yet exist.

We are leading and learning in an age of ‘squirrel.’ Distraction exists all around us, especially with the ever increasing influence of technology and new devices. It is our challenge, as educators, to turn distraction into advantage. We should strive to integrate technology seamlessly into our instruction and leadership so that it becomes something that engages the learner, rather than diverts their attention from the learning. Remember, technology is simply a tool; we have the influence over how we yield that tool.

There are so many innovative ways to leverage technology so that it works to our advantage by enhancing our ability to celebrate, communicate and collaborate within a world of distraction. We just have to be willing to approach it with an entrepreneurial spirit and an open mind, and the doors will begin to open.

Benns: What is another school-level trend happening in Alberta that you believe is good for educators and good for students?

In Alberta, I have seen a shift towards students driving their own learning and a focus on the 3 E’s: Entrepreneurial Spirit, Ethical Citizen, and Engaged Thinker. This has lead to policies around Learning Commons development, Maker Spaces and a Learning and Technology and Policy Framework, which all serve to put learning into the hands of the students.

Educators benefit because they can become engaged in the process, much like the students. It’s inspiring to see the energy and enthusiasm emanating from both staff and students as opportunities for passion-based learning is fostered.

Benns: We hear a lot about student voice and its capacity to change school leadership looks. How do you see this?

DeForge: I am a big advocate of student voice and choice in their learning. As adults we all too often make decisions about students without students. We claim to know what is best for children and then move forward to make decisions about their learning without consulting them.

As educational leaders, I believe it is imperative to truly look at data collected from student surveys and verbal feedback and act on it. According to Donald H. McGannon, “Leadership is action, not position,” so we have an obligation to do something with the feedback from our students. Information collected from them can help us develop School Plans and make some simple adjustments to suit the learning needs of the children in our schools.

If we are open to it, student voice can help school leaders self-reflect and provide a more engaging and authentic learning experience within the walls of their school. Students have the right to be a part of a culture of collaboration so that they can explore creative new ways to express themselves and meet their diverse learning needs.

It is exhilarating to see the excitement and engagement of students as they craft their own learning when we allow for student voice and choice in the educational process.

Benns: How is school leadership evolving across Canada?

Leithwood: Four features of today’s school leaders’ work in Canada capture much of this evolution.

A learning orientation. A very high proportion of school leaders across Canada have adopted a “learning orientation” to their work and have left behind the “managerial” orientations that dominated school leaders’ conceptions about their roles historically. This learning orientation awards priority to student outcomes and school improvement as the end game for leadership, with various types of organizational changes viewed as means to that end.

“Instructional leadership” is a popular term used to signify this learning orientation; but that commonly- invoked term does a poor job of capturing what Canadian principals are now expected to do. Many principals in Canada, as elsewhere, run very large and always complex organizations with large budgets, significant physical facilities, serving diverse student populations in a context of ever-changing policy expectations from their districts and provinces. Aligning all of this complexity in the service of student learning is the job of school leaders, however that job might be labelled.

Leadership distribution. Many Canadian school principals also strongly encourage some form of leadership distribution in their schools. While research about shared and distributed educational leadership is relatively recent, the practice of leadership distribution –or at least delegation – has been common in schools from the time the one-room school house began to be dismantled. What is relatively recent about this approach to leadership is the extent to which formal structures for its exercise have been established.  “Professional learning communities,” for example, have spread like a virus across Canadian schools. Whatever their accomplishments (some impressive, others a waste of time), they are one of the most visible manifestation of today’s school leaders’ willingness and desire to share leadership with their teaching colleagues.

Accountable policy contexts. The context in which Canadian school leaders work is increasingly similar to the context faced by school leaders in most Western countries today. It is a highly accountable context replete with external student tests, standards of practice for teachers and school leaders, various forms of inspection and increasingly codified performance appraisal procedures. These similarities are largely a function of global policy-copying not robust evidence about what will best achieve the goals we value for students on a large scale. To be candid, however, it is not that the results of such policy copying are necessarily bad. Rather we just don’t know the consequences of their use with any degree of certainty whereas we have considerable experience with what they replaced and much of it was disappointing.

Tightly coupled. There was a time when the claim that schools were “loosely coupled” organizations seemed right. Few Canadian school leaders today would imagine such a claim applying to the relationship they have with their district, a consequence of the highly accountable context in which they work. School leaders in most parts of Canada are strongly tied or connected to their districts. In some of the highest performing districts, however, this tight coupling works both ways. That is, districts are as attentive to the work and advice provided by their school leaders as school leaders feel compelled to pay close attention to the priorities of their districts. The tightly coupled relationship between school and district leaders has yet to be adequately reflected in most conceptions of successful school-level leadership. Most such conceptions, at least implicitly, adopt a CEO-like orientation to the principal’s role, a vastly simplified version of the reality now experienced by either American or Canadian principals. Indeed, it is not much of an exaggeration to suggest that there is an inverse relationship between one’s professional autonomy and one’s position in the organizational hierarchy, The further “up” the hierarchy you travel, the less autonomy you have over the decisions for which you are responsible.

Benns: What has been the most discernable result of the changing face of principal leadership? How have schools been affected as a result?

Leithwood: The press to adopt a “learning orientation” to one’s job along with the need to align one’s responses to external demands for change (demands which often entail greater external accountability) to that learning orientation capture much of what is changing for principals.

Leaders’ focus on instruction. While the consequences of these changes are believed, by many, to be creating a job which is impossible for mere mortals to do well, the principals’ job has been described as “hectic and fast paced” since empirical studies of the job were first reported in the early 1970s. It is likely fair to say that the job remains hectic and fast paced; the best available evidence suggests that today’s principals work a total of 50 to 55 hours per week and this is not much different from the time devoted to work by their predecessors. But the work has a much more dedicated focus on improving the outcomes for students. So for teachers it means their principals are much more likely to have an abiding interest in the quality of their instruction. This interest often plays itself out in much more visibility of principals in individual classrooms, much greater participation by principals in collaborative teacher work (including participation in PLCs), along with the implementation of procedures for judging and improving the quality of instruction in classrooms such as “walkthroughs”.

Greater uses of reliable evidence for decision making. The accountable policy context in which leaders work drives the need to justify claims about school achievements using “objective” or systematically collected data. While much of this data is about student achievement, the need to base one’s decisions about how to improve such achievement places educational research results in a more central position than has been the case previously. Most Canadian principals (and superintendents) at least have John Hattie’s massive synthesis of research on their book shelves[1]. Helping school staffs unpack the results of provincially collected test results for purposes of instructional decision making occupies a fair bit of time on the part of both school and district leaders.

Many highly educated and economically well off parents are much less likely, than in the past, to simply trust schools to do the  best for their students; they want to know what the school is doing for their children and expect the school to take parents’ ideas seriously.

Responsiveness to parents. Greater demand for external accountability has also resulted in the need for principals and their teaching colleagues to be much more responsive to parents’ interests and demands. These demands can take two extreme forms. Many highly educated and economically well off parents are much less likely, than in the past, to simply trust schools to do the  best for their students; they want to know what the school is doing for their children and expect the school to take parents’ ideas seriously.

Collaboration with other agencies. At the other extreme, parents who are struggling economically, come from quite different cultures and/or face significant social and health-related challenges want the best for their children also. But these parents need the support of educators who appreciate the challenges they face, can identify the family assets potentially available to the school and are willing to work with parents outside the formal boundaries of the school. Responding well to the needs of these parents often means forging partnerships with other agencies in the community and coordinating the work of the school with the work of these other agencies. This has proven to be extremely challenging work

Benns: Does it take a different set of leadership skills and orientations to be a skilled leader in schools or systems with diverse populations? If so, what do such successful leaders bring to the table?

Leithwood: My interpretation of research relevant to this question is that there are a set of core capacities and dispositions useful to school leaders in virtually all plausible contexts. For example, at some point in their work, almost all school leaders need to be able to: create a sense of purpose for their schools that is widely shared by staff and other stakeholders; help develop their staff’s capacities to accomplish those purposes; align their organization’s structures and cultures in support of those purposes; and staff their schools with the right people to accomplish those purposes. Optimism, resilience, persistence, proactivity, and systems thinking are traits that contribute to leaders’ success in almost all contexts[2]. So these capacities and traits will certainly be useful to principals leading schools serving diverse populations, as well.

In addition to these core traits and dispositions, serving diverse student populations certainly requires a willingness to take seriously the “all” as in “learning for all students,” something requiring considerable persistence in the face of failure. Many school staffs have not yet had the opportunity to appreciate the changes required to their instruction and to their relationships with families if they are to serve their diverse student groups as well as they would like.  Successful leaders in schools serving diverse student groups also requires a willingness to adopt an “assets based” orientation to school improvement, as we noted above.

Benns: You have written before about teacher confidence or self-efficacy on the part of teachers as an important component of good leadership. How do we ensure we see more of this?

Leithwood: There is a considerable body of evidence about the causes and consequences of self-efficacy, including self-efficacy on the part of teachers, in particular. This evidence, much of it attributed to Albert Bandura[3], points to four influences on the development of self-efficacy.

Leaders create mastery experiences for their teaching colleagues by providing them with opportunities to take on new challenges that stretch their capacities, while at the same time ensuring enough support to safeguard against premature failure.

The most powerful of these sources is mastery experiences or feelings of success at some task. Such feelings of success increase one’s anticipation of success at subsequent tasks and nurture resilience in the face of failure. Leaders create mastery experiences for their teaching colleagues by providing them with opportunities to take on new challenges that stretch their capacities, while at the same time ensuring enough support to safeguard against premature failure.

A second source of self-efficacy is vicarious experiences provided by examples. Seeing someone else succeed as a result of persistence and sustained effort contributes to the belief that “I can do that.” When a school leader goes into a teachers’ classroom and attempts a new instructional technique being considered by the staff, it is the school leaders’ willingness to risk failure and her demonstration of persistence that contributes most to the teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. Contrary to popular belief and practice, it is not the experience of seeing a highly accomplished demonstration of some new practice that contributes to self-efficacy, it is the experience of seeing what it takes to learn that new practice. Indeed, a highly accomplished performance might just as easily result in a teacher deciding that “I could never do that”.

Verbal persuasion is a third source of self-efficacy. Teachers are likely to believe they can succeed when others express confidence in their abilities. Many teachers have few opportunities to know how other professionals judge their instructional expertise, for example. And this uncertainty can undermine their confidence. Knowing that a trusted and respected “other,” perhaps their principal, has confidence in their ability to master some new practice boosts their own confidence and their resolve to learn.

The final source of self-efficacy is emotional arousal processes. Self-efficacy is influenced by one’s mood. When leaders create a positive and optimistic atmosphere in their schools, a sense that we are all in this together and if we persist we can accomplish our goals, then everyone’s mood become more upbeat and self-efficacy improves.

Benns: Out of the four leadership pathways that you note are important, what is the least understood pathway in terms of importance and why might this be?

Leithwood: For those not familiar with the four pathways alluded to in this question, I have labelled them the Rational, Emotional, Organizational and Family paths[4]. The Rational path includes features of schools and classrooms typically considered the “technical core” of schooling such as instruction, curriculum and the priority awarded academic work by the school and its various stakeholders. The Emotional Path includes mostly teacher-related dispositions such as commitment to students, instructional self-efficacy, and trust in colleagues, parents, and students. How schools are structured or organized to do their work defines the meaning of the Organizational Path including such variables as structures for decision making, uses of instructional time and cultures supporting professional collaboration. These three paths receive considerable attention by most leaders and their staffs as they pursue their school improvement goals.

Far less attention is typically devoted to the fourth path, the Family Path. There are good reasons for the neglect of this path in leaders’ school improvement planning. Families lie outside the taken-for-granted boundaries of schools, the considerable attention devoted to such hard-to-change features of families such as socio-economic status persuades many that nothing can be done. As well, many administrators and teachers feel unprepared to partner with families in their school improvement efforts.

This path, however, includes many malleable characteristics of families (not socio-economic status) that have a significant impact on children’s chances of success at school. Among the most powerful of these characteristics are parental expectations for their children, both at school and in life more generally, and the nature of parent-child communication in the home (closely related to parenting styles). Parents’ social and intellectual “capital” related to schooling, a third powerful family variable, includes both the understanding parents have about the schooling process and how to influence it on behalf of their children, as well as parents’ connections with others able to extend that influence. Compelling evidence now indicates that family educational cultures, including such characteristics, explain as much or more of the variation in student achievement across schools as everything that happens within the school’s walls. This evidence also indicates that many parents are open to partnering with schools to improve the educational culture of their homes and that school staffs are capable of providing such assistance.

[1] Hattie, J. (2010). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge.

[2] I have drawn on the Ontario Leadership Framework as my source for these examples (Leithwood, K. (2012). The Ontario Leadership Framework with a Discussion of its Research Foundations. Toronto: Institute for Educational Leadership)

[3][3] See for example, Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

[4] Leithwood, K., Patten, S., Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how leadership influences student learning, Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 5, 671-706