Journal of Information Techology for Teacher Education

ISSN: 0962-029X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe19

Leadership, technology, and education: achieving

a balance in new school leader thinking and
behavior in preparation for twenty-first century
global learning environments

Ian W. Gibson

To cite this article: Ian W. Gibson (2002) Leadership, technology, and education: achieving a
balance in new school leader thinking and behavior in preparation for twenty-first century global
learning environments, Journal of Information Techology for Teacher Education, 11:3, 315-334,
DOI: 10.1080/14759390200200140

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390200200140

Published online: 20 Dec 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1079

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpe20
Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2002

Leadership, Technology, and

Education: achieving a balance in
new school leader thinking and
behavior in preparation for twenty-first
century global learning environments

IAN W. GIBSON
Wichita State University, USA

ABSTRACT Expectations for education are changing. The knowledge base of

education is changing. Conceptions of how individual learning occurs are
changing. The tools available to ‘do’ education are changing. The roles of
teachers are changing. Understandings of what should be learned, who should
be learning, how they learn, where they learn, and when they learn, are
changing. So, in the face of this changing twenty-first century education it is
not surprising that expecting school leaders to recreate their conceptions of
appropriate leader behavior presents quite a challenge. This article explores
the necessity of incorporating authentic global technology experiences in the
preparation of school leaders and presents a description of the rationale and
developmental stages of the Global Forum on School Leadership. Based on
the existing practices of reflection and dialog found in the leader preparation
program at Wichita State University in the United States, this Forum brings
together leadership perspectives on common practices from a variety of global
locations in an asynchronous, Internet-based discussion format. This learning
experiment focused on incorporating a needed global orientation to leadership
preparation following the September 11 and Bali tragedies, and emphasizes
the use of appropriately selected technologies to achieve expanded course
objectives at the same time as transforming the learning model traditionally
employed in leader preparation programs.

Background
Stuff changes! Whenever stuff changes, people have to look for different and
more effective ways of thinking, doing, and reflecting about everyday events
and activities. Those impacted by the changing stuff have to learn to use the
tools at their disposal more effectively, in a more focused and exploratory

315
Ian W. Gibson

way to break away from the comfortable pathways of common practice that
the changing stuff has made redundant, ineffective, or inappropriate. One
method of reacting to this situation is to interact with people who think
differently (De Grave et al, 1996), or to establish relationships or partner-
ships beyond common, everyday interactions.
The Global Forum on School Leadership is designed to do just that!
Aimed at school improvement and the generation of alternative models of
thinking about school, learners, the learning process, and the roles of those
involved in education, the Global Forum on School Leadership described in
this article is aimed at encouraging school leaders to consider alternatives,
to think differently, and to reflect on their knowledge, their skills, and their
dispositions as leaders of learning enterprises. The role that technology
plays in this process is to provide the environment within which these
alternative learning conceptions can grow, and to provide an experiential
base from which future school leaders can launch themselves as reflective,
technology-sensitive, educational leaders, rather than the managers of
educational organizations that the traditional conception of the role has
constrained them to.
Yogi Berra (in Abrahamson et al, 1997) said it clearly when he
suggested that the future ain’t what it used to be! If he had been an
educator, he would be declaring that many of the ‘unchanging’ truisms in
education that parallel the motherhood, apple pie, and flag-waving stability
of the good old days were changing! He would be scoffing at the habit that
many have adopted, of providing comfort by referencing the unchanging,
perennial, stable, and bedrock stability of our unfailing, traditional
conception of schools, of learning, of the roles of teachers, principals, and
students in the hitherto unquestioned and safe environment of the little red
schoolhouse. All of this, whilst everything in the world of education was in
turmoil or undergoing massive upheaval, restructuring, downsizing, or
consolidation. Part of the recent chaos of educational change takes the
shape of an increasing emphasis upon virtual learning, an increase in on-line
course availability and on-line learning activities, the growth of interactive
communications usage, a growing dependence on asynchronous interactions
and non face-to-face learning, and increasing numbers of international
education and business relationships and partnerships.
These innovations in learning suggest that a smarter way of thinking
about technology use is on the horizon, represented not by a focus on
technology but a focus on the intent of the learning activity and the way the
learning environment is conceived and structured. It is here that there is
increasing need to position traditionally conceived managerial and
leadership practices more solidly in a pedagogic framework. Concomitantly,
the purpose of the learning objectives and goals established for individual or
organizational growth and development appears to have been placed back in
the center of the spotlight. This focus on learning is attended by the
discovery of ways that technology can most effectively assist in reaching and

316
 GLOBAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

exceeding established goals and transforming the activity into more

meaningful exchanges and interactions between educators, learners, and
partners in the learning process, regardless of their location.
So the focus in this article is on what good can come from using
technology in ways that support individual growth, professional
development, and the transformation of commonly accepted cultural
stereotypes of organizational behaviors as they relate to leading in
educational contexts. Richard Riley, former US Secretary of Education,
recognized the value of this approach to learning:
In this new global environment when you can email a colleague in Japan
or download a chapter of a book from Paris – we have many more
opportunities to learn from each other. This new education era is
defined by the freedom of information, a freedom that will surely
enhance the power of individuals to make choices about their lives ...
this opportunity to learn from each other allows all of us to improve the
education of all of our children.

It would be my hope that every elementary and secondary school in the

United States, public and private, would establish a relationship with a
school from another country to build these types of classroom to
classroom connections. This would give all children a broader world
view, and I hope that it would encourage many more American children
to learn a foreign language. (Riley, April 2000)

Conceptual Framework
The motivation for the Global Forum on School Leadership evolved from a
series of concepts related to constructivist learning and the recognition of a
transformational culture developing around technology-based learning
environments. The concepts form a story beginning with an analysis of
learning paradigms that focus on the learner and the infrastructure designed
to support a changing, student-based learning environment. References to
distance education, virtual learning opportunities, and electronic learning
communities lead the discussion to consider the role of leaders in these new
environments, the real control they have over school-based innovations, and
the direction of professional development in the process of supporting a new
way of thinking about schooling. Emphasis is also placed on the need to
develop leadership confidence and self-efficacy, along with the recognition
that technology-mediated learning environments require the development of
certain leadership characteristics, and a clear and informed vision of what
new learning environments might look like. The message in this story is that
technology is making some of our stuff change, and new school leaders need
to be ready for their role in that process.

317
Ian W. Gibson

As the world rapidly embraces the technologies of the Information Age,

the impact on learning will effect every aspect of education. The vast
capacity inherent in this age of technological access, storage, and
transmission of information will generate new learning environments and
will lead to a redefinition of where and how learning occurs.
Toffler & Toffler (1995) described extensive shifts in the distribution
and nature of work in a third wave of transformational change in
civilization. Resulting from the current technological revolution, with its
concomitant impact upon world economies, some claim this third wave is
providing the means for transforming the role of teaching and learning in
educational contexts (Perelman, 1992). Learning paradigms are transforming
and massive increases in access to information resources are occurring
without any recognized sector of society championing the change.
Technological innovations are placing traditional conceptions of
learning on a collision path with technology-based learning environments. In
an environment where the last technologies to have had a lasting impact on
the organization and practice of schooling and learning were the textbook
and the blackboard (Hodas, 1993), any significant threat to the established
traditions of schooling is likely to be met with distrust (Hodas, 1993; Tyack
& Cuban, 1997; Wesley & Franks, 1994). As Hodas has suggested, the more
an approach is viewed as innovative, the more it will be critiqued and viewed
as threatening. Despite this institutionalized resistance, however, no longer
is the essence of education centered upon the instructional process as it is
provided to learners. The focus is shifting to the role of discovery in the
learning process and to action generated by the learner (Perelman, 1992).
Bossert (1997) suggested that the current information and
telecommunication technology revolution has rendered the traditional
learning infrastructure irrelevant, pointing out that the potential for
communities learning together and sharing resources in non-traditional ways
is immense. It is clear in this rapidly changing environment that the role of
the school as a central location for educational experiences has become less
important and choices provided by technological environments continue to
change the nature of educational experiences (Dierker, 1996).
For example, the earliest form of distance education was referred to as
‘study by correspondence’ (Kerka, 1996, p. 1). The newest forms of this
phenomenon of ‘learning at a distance’ involve email, bulletin boards or
newsgroups, access to interactive course materials, interactive tutorials,
interactive conferencing, training intranets, and informational databases
(Wulf, 1996). The development of these capabilities into what is now being
referred to as virtual learning has been an inevitable and desired educational
reaction to technological and conceptual innovations like the Internet and
World Wide Web. The opportunities available in a virtual learning context
offer learners a range of synchronous or asynchronous experiences with
access to resources such as subject experts as well as the chance to
participate in extended dialog and discussion (Paquette, 1998). According to

318
 GLOBAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Paquette, advantages of Internet-based learning systems include overcoming

distance as a barrier to common opportunities, facilitating lifelong learning,
offering just-in-time learning, providing autonomy to the learner, and
remaining open and adaptable to new directions selected by the learner, and
the teacher, as active participants in the learning process. New Internet-
based environments such as those typical of virtual learning contexts
continue to transcend and surpass the boundaries and restrictions typical of
classrooms limited by the physical and conceptual presence of four walls
(Metes et al, 1995).
Electronic learning communities also transcend these boundaries and
provide an avenue for learners to engage in knowledge-sharing activities
with others around the world while at the same time partnerships with other
learning organizations are developed (Speidel, 1995). McLellan (1998) stated
that ‘The model of an Internet-based virtual learning community, with
students interacting dynamically with the content, the technology, and most
importantly, each other, offers a powerful and convivial approach to
providing education at a distance’ (p. 92). The power of this type of distance
and on-line learning environment is such that some have suggested that it
may become the ‘defining educational technology of the next century’
(Follows, 1999, p. 100) due to its ability to integrate course content and
transcend traditional lines of separation between content and participants.
Morgan (1997) concurred, suggesting that virtual learning opportunities
would dissolve the constraints of time and space and link workers in
integrated activities across the globe. Further, in an on-line learning
environment, more learning than teaching takes place (Peterson, 1996).
Many of these innovations, however, require the support of school leaders to
achieve success.
Increasing acknowledgement of the central role of school leaders in
the successful integration of technology into learning environments and the
concomitant transformation of traditional paradigms of learning, pedagogy,
and schools is gaining momentum nationally and internationally. It is
becoming increasingly clear that the importance of administrative support
(in the shape of informed school leaders, i.e. school senior managers,
curriculum coordinators, heads of departments, school superintendents, and
principals, etc.) in the integration of technology, curriculum, and instruction
is understated and under supported.
Stories detailing the role of teachers in the process of technology
integration abound throughout the literature, yet only recently does a focus
on the role of administrators in the process become apparent. To increase
the likelihood that teachers will be successful in their efforts, educational
administrators in every learning context need to be actively involved in the
integration of technology into the learning environment. Despite this
apparently obvious conclusion, however, Stegall (1998) claimed that school
administrators did not mention technology leadership as an area of
administrative responsibility.

319
Ian W. Gibson

Moreover, Bennett (1999) indicated that many administrators acted to

‘retain the present order’, and felt threatened with the power of technology.
He also indicated his concern about the control administrators had over
budget dollars, suggesting that administrators without technology
knowledge or awareness held inordinate control over the fate of technology
decisions in any learning context. Bennett concluded that administrators
might eventually become supporters of technology-based learning after they
came to understand computer technology and how it could assist in fulfilling
the demands for school improvement and the achievement of increased
student learning.
According to MacNeil & Delafield (1998), one of the first steps to
building a successful technology program was for administrators ‘to create a
supportive environment conducive to maximizing technology integration
into the curriculum’ (p. 297). In support of this contention, Stegall (1998)
suggested that principals should model technology use, including using the
Internet, participating in personal and professional in-service training,
reading technology books and journals, attending technology conferences,
joining technology organizations, finding ‘experts’ to help and give advice,
asking questions of technology sales representatives, and visiting schools
that were successfully integrating technology into their curricula. Stegall
also discussed the importance of ‘dreaming’. He felt that administrators
should brainstorm and create a wish-list of technology needs that would
enhance or build technology programs. Both Stegall, and Levinson & Surrat
(1999) felt that being involved in the writing of a technology plan was a very
important step for an administrator in supporting technology integration.
Rodriquez & Knuth (2000) and Revenaugh (2000) referenced administrator
involvement in the development of a technology plan and in professional
development activities. Emphasis upon vision directed professional
development (Farmer, 1998), leading to a complete overhaul in thinking
about schools and learning (Kephart & Kinnaman, 1998), and an increase in
the degree of self-efficacy related to technology leadership was stressed. It
was the development of self-efficacious behavior stemming from the
motivation and confidence of the school leader in responding to new tasks
or requirements that was the focus of such activities (Oliver, 1996).
Self-efficacy and change potential – for example, viewing an expanding
global network as a viable field for personal involvement and interactivity on
a personal level – presents challenges to traditional conceptions of learning,
and barriers to those who have not broached the challenges of forming
social connections and relationships on an international level. Through
participation in successful experiences in new learning environments (such
as the Global Forum on School Leadership), an individual’s sense of
influence in defining their learning grows and shapes future commitment to
new learning opportunities and relationships within a global learning
system. As Bandura (1998) suggested: ‘People’s judgments of how well they
will be able to perform largely determine what outcomes they expect their

320
 GLOBAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

actions to produce’ (p. 53). The less control and direct impact that
individuals perceive to have over accelerating changes determines their level
of anxiety and focus on perceived deficiencies. The level of motivation and
action of individuals is often more a result of what they believe to be true
than what might exist in reality (Bandura, 1995).
In contrast, those individuals with a positive sense of efficacy help
mobilize effort and resources to overcome challenges in the change process
(Bandura, 1998). The ability to manage changing situations involved the
development of cognitive and behavioral tools to chart positive action.
Raising the confidence of people regarding their own capabilities, providing
opportunities to experience success, and focusing on self-improvement and
skill acquisition are important characteristics of leaders seeking to bring
about self-efficacious behavior in others (Bandura, 1995).
Concern generated by technology adoption must be supported through
the development of individual and collective self-efficacious behavior within
the organization. Because innovations typically require large investments of
energy, the attention given to the social system and the development of
shared purpose will assist organizations in keeping up with the rapid force
of change. Involvement in non-traditional learning experiences during the
formative period of leadership preparation programs is then a crucial step in
ensuring self-efficacious attitudes towards innovation and change
possibilities in future leadership environments for these neophyte school
leaders.
Developing skill in other leadership areas sustains self-efficacious
behavior in increasingly challenging, technology-dependent learning
environments. An analysis of leadership characteristics, summarized by
Teare et al (1998), established the following attributes as essential in leading
successful technological implementation:

o adapting to continual change;

o listening and responding to identified issues;
o being mindful of the future;
o planning a culture that values learning;
o having a clear sense of vision;
o possessing strong communication skills;
o displaying a sense of sincerity and confidence;
o having the ability to motivate through personal energy.

Writing in the same area, Gardner (1995) suggested that acquiring

increasing levels of technical expertise was a trend affecting twenty-first
century leadership. He believed that informed leadership decisions meant
developing the skills to access an ever-growing body of knowledge and
conveying its relevance to organizational goals.
Trotter (1997), adding to the discussion, stated that there was ‘a link
between [an] administrator’s ability to make informed technology decisions

321
Ian W. Gibson

and their personal use of technology’ (p. 30). Others suggested that leaders
must commit to acquiring technology skills and understanding the necessary
time and competence required for effective staff implementation (Ritchie &
Rodriquez, 1996). To nurture individual adoption of technology, school
leaders must provide inspiration to move beyond simple implementation of
an innovation to a commitment to the goal of the organization and
responsibility for professional growth. ‘The idea is that people are going to
make a difference, provided that they perceive an opportunity to learn’
(Roth & Niemi, 1996, p. 212). Bandura (1998) stated that ‘it requires
efficacious, inspiring leadership to create unity within diversity’ (p. 68)
among people, needs, and levels of competence.
It is generally recognized that the leader influences the total
organization through developing a strong vision, understanding the
capacities and process of change, exhibiting technological skill, and
possessing the ability to motivate others (Fullan, 1999). Leadership and
vision are required for the necessary cultural transformation needed in
schools (Wahl, 1998). School leaders must provide a clear and sustainable
vision for successful technological implementation, funding to support this
vision, and an environment that promotes learning and support for the
achievement of goals (McKinsey & Co., 2000). They are unable to do so
without the intimate personal experience that comes from participation in
and reflection upon the value of non-traditional, global learning experiences.
The Global Forum on School Leadership is designed to provide that
experience.

On the Shoulders of Giants

In providing a conclusion to the discussion of the conceptual origins of the
Global Forum, it became necessary to stand on the shoulders of the giants in
this particular field of study in order to see beyond the miniscule trappings
of daily life in the context of school leadership. The following collection of
quotations serves as a summary of the motivations behind the development
of the Global Forum for School Leadership. They also serve as a beacon for
considering technology-based educational change that is yet to come.
Technology is expanding the possibilities; human choice will determine
the actualities. (Nickerson, 1988, p. 9)

As we move into a new era, our economic opportunities and perhaps

our survival as a nation will depend on our ability to take a lead in the
development and effective use of technology. Schools must play a
central role in meeting this challenge. (Glenn, 1999, p. 17)

A move into the next century includes not only a response to adapting
technology to our world, but accepting the educational transformation

322
 GLOBAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

taking place because of advancements in technology. (McLellan, 1996;

Wesley & Franks, 1994)

A virtual learner can choose the best learning opportunities from

around the globe. (Peterson & Facemyer, 1996, p. 57)

As traditional schools are threatened, the implications for ignoring or

embracing global learning through the Internet and virtual school may
dictate the ‘primary brokers of learning and education’. (Schank, 2000,
p. 57)

In the final analysis, the fundamental question remains: how do we

balance our cherished traditions with the innovations of the information
age to meet new market demands, more selective students, resource
limitations, and competition? (Olcott, 1999, p. 30)

Rationale for the Global Forum on School Leadership

The Global Forum on School Leadership is based on the belief that exposure
to alternative conceptions of familiar practices and traditions will lead to a
change in thinking (De Grave et al, 1996). It was designed to provide
prospective school leaders the opportunity to explore and critique their
foundational knowledge through inquiry and reflection in an authentic and
unique learning environment, combining theory and practice in dialog
around school improvement issues. The rationale also focused on the need
to overcome the impact of initial socialization on new leader attitudes
during early formative years where the establishment of leader practice and
associated philosophies and beliefs normally occurs. Further, including
global perspectives in the preparation of leaders supports new century
conceptions of schooling, particularly in a post-September 11 and post-Bali
world environment.
Moreover, the likelihood of neophyte leaders developing deeper
reflective skills and understandings of their roles and professional
responsibilities, relevant for tomorrow’s schools, increases after exposure to
views and experiences differing from those in their immediate context.
Alternative conceptions of, and solutions to school issues and problems are
expected to be conceived more fluidly following exposure to alternative
cultural perspectives contained in this global learning environment.

Description of the Context of the Project

The school leadership preparation program at Wichita State University is
predicated on the notion that to lead today’s schools into the future, there is
need for proactive, visionary leaders who are capable of creating effective
learning environments through reflection, competent and informed

323
Ian W. Gibson

leadership, productive and purposeful relationships, and through practiced

and refined leadership expertise. In addition to strong emphases in systems
thinking and educational futures, the Masters’ degree in educational
administration and supervision provides theoretical and practical experience
in school improvement and curriculum processes, finance and resource
management, personnel and supervision, research inquiry and data-based
decision-making, and in the means of developing learning communities.
Teamwork and collaboration are program values pervading all activities and
interactions.
Further, there is a strong field-based component to the program.
Focusing upon extensive practicum experience, with regular applied inquiry
and action research aspects to coursework requirements, this program
separates itself from more traditional school leadership programs with an
emphasis upon integrated coursework, cohort support structures,
contextualized curriculum and a team orientation to the teaching and
learning environment.
In an earlier description of this program, Gibson (2002) elaborated on
the theoretical bases of the program concept:
Based upon a theoretical framework derived from problem-based
learning (PBL) (Boud, 1985; Boud & Feletti, 1991; Bridges, 1992), this
program functions with the belief that authentic problems of practice,
explored in collaborative team settings lead to learner-directed and
setting-enhanced learning. Faculty believe that these problem situations
raise the important concepts and principles associated with the content
domain and that they are perceived by graduate students as real
problems of practice (Savery & Duffy, 1995). In the dynamic and
situated learning environment that is representative of daily life within
this leader preparation program, meta-cognitive scaffolding is provided
by faculty and peers (Savery & Duffy). The underlying propositions of
constructivism (Savery & Duffy), including the ideas of cognitive
dissonance and negotiation of meaning, are core program components.
In pursuing this approach, much program activity comprises the
research-based exploration of authentic, contextualized problems of
practice in collaboration with administrators, teachers, and other
educational personnel from local school districts. (Gibson, 2002)
The program also features a strong belief in sharing the ownership of
learning with students. The work of De Grave et al (1996) has indicated that
intellectual and dialogic engagement with alternative ideas in a group
setting often leads to change in perception and cognitive pathways,
particularly during the initial stages of the analysis of problem settings. This
work corroborates aspects of the program that emphasize activities
encouraging the use of prior knowledge and the activation and elaboration
of new knowledge through the integration of alternative viewpoints. An
emphasis upon incorporating the values of a constructivist philosophy, a

324
 GLOBAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

growing trend in education preparation programs (Heath, 1997), is in

evidence in this program as are efforts to maximize the transformational
impact of emerging technologies on constructivist learning environments
(Hannafin & Land, 1997).

Statement of Need
While prospective school leaders in this program are well prepared for the
context of educational leadership in regional Kansas, recent national and
international events have indicated a need to reassess the adequacy of
isolationist, regional orientations to any human endeavor. There is a need to
overcome the staid and often unreflective thinking so typical of many school
administrators ensconced in traditional views of traditional school leadership
practices, and to enhance personal meta-cognitive experience through
recognition of a diversity of world views, decision-making processes,
leadership perspectives, and actions. The need to recognize the expertise
and wisdom resident in other cultures and other educational traditions is
rapidly becoming a requirement for the school leaders of tomorrow, who will
be responsible for the education of an increasingly diverse student
population. These global insights and orientations are currently missing
from the program of school leader preparation at Wichita State University.

Description of the Global Forum for School Leadership

This project focuses on the development of an international web-based
dialog geared to supporting the professional education of entry-level
administrators in school leadership positions who are engaged in Master’s-
level study. The goal of the project is to establish a global component to the
pre-service school leader preparation program through the creation of a
global discussion forum for new or soon to be new school administrators as
they talk about issues of relevance to them in their programs and in the first
stages of their careers. A website designed to act as a showcase for the
results of field-based action research projects, associated with the
international interactive dialog, will parallel the development of the Global
Forum on School Leadership.

Statement of Purpose
The goal of this project was to develop an interactive, global discussion
group for school leaders in training, i.e. principals or other school leaders
who are participating in a school leader preparation course, or who have
just begun their careers as principals, assistant principals, etc. The purpose
is to create a forum wherein topics of current interest, issues in school
leadership, and concerns of beginning principals are explored and responded

325
Ian W. Gibson

to from a variety of cultural perspectives. The intent would be to inject

cross-cultural perspectives into the dialog and cross-fertilize thinking about
school leadership in ways that might free up traditional methods of dealing
with issues within each culture, and to encourage reflective thinking
practices tied to school leadership decision-making processes.
In addition to the forum for dialog on school leadership issues, a
complementary website has been established to provide global access to
field-based research and action research projects that have been conducted
around issues of school leadership. The website acts as a corollary to the
interactive dialog being conducted on a global basis. While this site will be
maintained at one university, other scholars and practitioners will be able to
submit the results of their scholarly and research endeavors to this site for
the use of their colleagues who hold school leadership positions around the
globe.
The Global Forum could be viewed as a self-help forum for new and
potentially new school leaders, designed to provide an opportunity to study
school leadership from an international perspective with a variety of
international students and practitioners, without leaving the comfort of their
own workstations. These shared, asynchronous forums will assist in the
development of a meta-course of theory and practice, mediated by unique
cultural experience that will inform and expand perspectives, practices, and
philosophies unrestricted by borders, cultural imperatives, or continental
locations. These connections between cultures are intended to yield unique
revelations of value to the way school leadership is considered and
conceptualized in each location.
Students enrolled in this program are teachers wanting to be school
administrators or are already acting in administrative positions. While in the
program they will participate in student-led, free-ranging, or mediated dialog,
exploring school leadership issues with international colleagues and their
own classmates. Exploring problems that are authentic, analyzing leadership
behaviors and orientations from philosophical and practical perspectives, de-
constructing daily activities and decisions, and challenging personal
orientations comprise the intended form of the Global Forum. It is intended
that these existing groups of school leadership students, or in the future,
groups of new school leaders, will collaborate in the analysis of relevant
issues to their chosen careers. The value of the Forum is in introducing new
global and cultural perspectives to these professional courses of study.
Likely topics include the analysis of cultural and practical differences that
might exist in various global locations related to strategic, organizational,
instructional, political, and community leadership responsibilities. Other
possible topics for dialog are listed below:

o current and effective administrative practice;

o applied inquiry and action research;
o applying the results of research to the world of practice;

326
 GLOBAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

o leading effectively and sensitively in a diverse and complex context;

o timely and informed action in resolving conflicts and problems in
professional settings;
o reflective practice in professional contexts;
o professional development and lifelong learning;
o a systems approach to problem solving in complex, dynamic, and
unstable environments;
o reflecting upon the capabilities and expertise of practitioners;
o mutual support for the growth and development of others;
o contextualized authentic assessment of self and others;
o information management and problem solving;
o applying relevant theories to practice;
o long-range planning;
o theory-based, data-driven, team-oriented continuous improvement
processes;
o information and communication technology in the leadership process;
o maintaining effective interpersonal relationships;
o integrating classroom learning experiences with ‘hands-on’, field-directed
activities;
o authentic problems of practice and situated learning;
o data-based decision making;
o the educability of students;
o the inclusion of all members of the school community;
o a willingness to continuously examine one’s beliefs, values, and
assumptions;
o the benefits that diversity brings to the school community;
o a safe and supportive learning environment;
o schools operating as an integral part of the larger community.

Interactive Communications Technology and Human Support

Infrastructure. During the early conceptual stages of this project, faculty
were concerned about the logistics of bringing together potentially disparate
groups of students, professors, and administrators into one functioning and
efficient technological arena. The major concern related to the need to have
the technology become ‘invisible’ during the process as early as possible so
that the main learning purpose of the Forum would become predominant in
participants’ minds rather than being overshadowed by the difficulties of
connection. For each individual participant the sole technological
infrastructure requirement selected for this purpose centered upon access to
the Internet. With this access assured, easy connection to Wichita
University’s website and to software resident at that site (eg Blackboard in
this case, or FirstClass or similar course management software) became the
interface between participants from around the globe, regardless of the
uniqueness of their computers, or their service providers. Once this gateway
had been established, all participants, local or global, would be registered,

327
Ian W. Gibson

trained in the use of the course management software, and introduced to the
procedures of the Forum. Initial concerns regarding the difficulties that this
stage of the process would present were nullified as the first phase of the
Global Forum on School Leadership comprised participants familiar with
Internet use and with the use of Blackboard, the course management system
selected for use. Further, each was enrolled in a course where this form of
communication was a requirement. Subsequently, the school leadership
learning purposes of the Forum were quickly in focus during this phase as
the technology requirements had largely been achieved.
The initial design of the Forum had incorporated the use of a
standalone website designed to supplement the mediated and threaded
discussions through access to full text versions of locally developed research
studies, conceptual writings, etc. relevant to the interactive dialog. The
intent was also to make this resource site available to others outside the
registered list of participants. To support this function, a class of Masters
students had previously developed the ‘Resources for School Leaders’
website (http://www.education.wichita.edu/scholleaders/) and placed a
selection of applied and action research studies there as demonstration
pieces.
A university project development team provided further support for
this Forum. This team was a stipulation written into the small seed grant
program supported by the University to establish a global learning focus in
coursework across the campus. The expertise of this team, gathered initially
to apprise and ensure project feasibility, would remain available throughout
the life of the project. The team comprised representatives from the College
of Education, the University Library, the division of Human/Computer
Interface, the Media Resource Center, the University Computing and
Telecommunication Services division, and students familiar with the host
leader preparation program.
The remaining support function required by the Forum focused on the
creation of an international teaching team to assist in the development,
management, mediation, evaluation, and logistics of the Forum. Clearly, this
international team would also provide access to students or school leaders
willing to participate in the Forum. They would also assist in the
development of procedures, protocols, and selection of the most appropriate
topics designed to drive the dialog of the Forum towards achieving its
established goals. In essence, each of these supporting groups, while
responsible for disparate components of Forum procedures, would
contribute to the consolidation and enhancement of the technological,
pedagogical, and content knowledge goals that formed the core of the forum
concept.

328
 GLOBAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Pedagogical Strategy
While this section might more appropriately be labeled ‘andragogical
strategy’ because of the adult-learning principles contained in the concept, it
is clear that the learning approach adopted for the Forum owes much to the
learning environment of the graduate programs in school leadership at
Wichita State University. As described in an earlier section of this article,
these graduate programs are heavily collaborative and team based in their
situated, authentic, problem-based approach to the learning process.
Previously, Gibson (2002) suggested that this learning foundation:
… would generate an authentic approach to the study [of leadership],
replicating as closely as possible the working environment most
common to school leadership in highly effective schools. Program
activities focus around authentic problems of practice, explored in
collaborative team settings, and generating learner-directed and setting-
enhanced learning. Within this environment, technology integration is
modeled by faculty (Blomeyer & Clemente, 1997; Gibson, 2001; Gibson,
2000a). A strong emphasis upon students actively constructing their
own knowledge (Savery & Duffy, 1995), and being responsible for their
own education and growth, and the education and growth of their team
is a core program feature. In addition to preparing effective leaders for
schools, this program has also adopted the task of emphasizing the
transformational role of technology on the process of learning. (Gibson,
2002)
Much has been written about the transformational impact of technology on
learning environments. In deference to this growing awareness, the graduate
programs, which form the learning context for the Global Forum on School
Leadership, also incorporate a strong emphasis on a heavily integrated
approach to technology usage. Gibson (2002) explains:
The approach adopted for the graduate program in educational
administration at Wichita State University requires the acquisition of
high levels of expertise with selected program technologies designed to
provide efficient and customized personal and professional productivity.
In this program, students are dependant upon a foundation of
technology expertise as they assume the role of participant, collaborator,
colleague, leader, and follower, in a variety of learning environments
such as seminar, field study, content presentation, data manipulation,
research reporting, group/individual comprehensive examinations.
Program graduates acquire, among other things, an understanding of
the impact of information technology on their roles as visionary leaders
of schools of the future and experience the transformational potential of
technology on their own learning process. (Gibson, 2000b)
An additional feature of these graduate programs is the focus on
conceptualizing learning in authentic professional situations where the

329
Ian W. Gibson

scaffolding provided by university personnel, school-based mentors, and a

strong cohort support system support the integration of curriculum, theory,
and practice into meaningful professional discourse where research,
reflection, and collaboration inform the profession issues in context. Gibson
(2002) suggested that it was this focus on interactivity and dialog in a field
situation, emphasizing ‘meaningful participation in Internet searches,
literature review, field reports, data analysis, report generation, research
presentations, file sharing, information retrieval, collaborative study, and
sharing of research resources’, that leads to the successful and seamless
integration of technology components into authentic and meaningful
learning experiences.

Global Forum Interactions and Criteria for Project Success. With the
philosophical and conceptual base of a project like the Global Forum on
School Leadership being resident in a graduate program focused on a
constructivist framework towards the learning environment, evaluating the
experience must be an holistic and collaborative exercise. While traditional
approaches to assessment tend to reflect unconnected analyses of
knowledge, skills, and dispositions, the behaviors exhibited by students
interacting in a reflective, international, technology-based dialog around
specific school leadership issues require a more sophisticated approach.
Although it is clear that evidence of insights into leadership issues, synthesis
of research, theory, and practice, and understanding of content knowledge
will be gathered during this process, data related to changed perceptions,
student reflections, and procedural issues will also feature in this project
evaluation. Data of this type will be considered in formative terms and will
inform subsequent phases of the Forum.
In asking students to be accountable for the success of the Forum by
sharing ownership and responsibility, it becomes necessary to incorporate
their evaluations into future program success. Evaluation items will focus on
increases in their cultural understandings, their awareness of the impact on
school leadership decisions related to cultural diversity implications, and the
process they use to rationalize their leadership behaviors. The assessment
process will also include review approaches suggested by participants, an
analysis of reflective logs (an existing graduate program requirement), and
the data provided by the course management software related to the
number, time, and frequency of postings to the dialog. In combination, these
data will provide the means of refining the learning experience, the
procedures, and the overall effectiveness of future iterations of the Global
Forum on School Leadership.

Conclusion
It is clear that school leadership in the twenty-first century will require new
skills, new knowledge, new behaviors and dispositions, and a new vision.

330
 GLOBAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Without providing alternatives to the mental models that new school leaders
are often socialized into accepting, leader preparation programs around the
nation and the world renege on their responsibility to encourage change and
continual growth in new generations of school leaders. The Global Forum
on School Leadership represents an example of incorporating a balance
between leadership skills, and experience in a technology-mediated
environment designed to achieve the objective of developing new school
leader thinking and behavior in preparation for twenty-first century global
learning environments.

Acknowledgement
The author wishes to acknowledge that similar sections of this article,
relating to the rationale and context of the project, and descriptions of the
pedagogical approach governing the project, have been used in papers
presented at the EdMedia and ICCE conferences during 2002.

Correspondence
Ian W. Gibson, Department of Administration, Counseling, Educational
and School Psychology, 105M Hubbard Hall, Wichita State University,
1845 Fairmount, Wichita, KS 67260, USA (ian.gibson@wichita.edu).

References
Abrahamson, V., Meehan, M. & Samuel, L. (1997) The Future Ain’t What it Used to
be: 40 cultural trends transforming your job, your life, your friends. New
York: G.P. Putman’s Sons.
Bandura, A. (1995) Exercise of Personal and Collective Efficacy in Changing
Societies, in A. Bandura (Ed.) Self-efficacy in Changing Societies, pp. 1-45.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1998) Personal and Collective Efficacy in Human Adaptation and
Change, in J.G. Adair, D. Belanger & K.L. Dion (Eds) Advances in
Psychological Science: social, personal and cultural aspects, pp. 51-71. Hove:
Psychology Press.
Bennett, F. (1999) Computers as Tutors: solving the crisis in education, Faben, Inc
[on-line]. Available at: http://www.cris.com/~faben1/tofc.shtml
Blomeyer, R. & Clemente, R. (1997) Technological Competencies: implications for
educational leadership, in J. Willis, J. Price, S. McNeil, B. Robin & D.A. Willis
(Eds) Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1997. Charlottesville:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Bossert, P.J. (1997) Horseless Classrooms and Virtual Learning: reshaping our
environments, NASSP Bulletin, 81(592), pp. 3-15.

331
Ian W. Gibson
Boud, D. (1985) Problem-based Learning in Perspective, in D. Boud (Ed.) Problem-
based Learning in Education for the Professions, pp. 13-18. Sydney: Higher
Education Research Society of Australasia.
Boud, D. & Feletti, G. (Eds) (1991) The Challenge of Problem-based Learning. New
York: St Martin’s Press.
Bridges, E.M. (1992) Problem-based Learning for Administrators. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management, ED 347 617.
De Grave, W.S., Boshuizen, H.P.A. & Schmidt, H.G. (1996) Problem-based Learning:
cognitive and metacognitive processes during problem analysis, Instructional
Science, 24, pp. 321-341.
Dierker, R.A. (1996) The Future of Electronic Education, in E. Boschmann (Ed.) The
Electronic Classroom: a handbook for education in the electronic
environment, pp. 228-234. Medford: Learned Information.
Farmer, L.S.J. (1998) Workshops for Teacher Partners in Technology Integration,
Book Report, 16(5), pp. 15-18.
Follows, S.B. (1999) Virtual Learning Environments, T.H.E. Journal, 27(4),
pp. 100-106.
Fullan, M. (1999) Change Forces: the sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Gardner, H. (1995) Leading Minds: an anatomy of leadership. New York: Basic
Books.
Gibson, I.W. (2000a) Information Technology and the Transformation of Leadership
Preparation Programs: a response to calls for reform in educational practice, in
D.A. Willis, J.D. Price & J. Willis (Eds) Technology and Teacher Education
Annual, 2000. Charlottesville: AACE.
Gibson, I.W. (2000b) At the Intersection of Technology and Pedagogy: considering
styles of learning and teaching. ERSC Seminar Series Paper, Keele.
Gibson, I.W. (2001) Technology Standards and Reform in Educational Practice: the
role of information technology in the transformation of a leader preparation
program, in T.J. Kowalski & G. Perreault (Eds) 21st Century Challenges for
School Administrators: ninth NCPEA yearbook, 2001, pp. 203-220. Lanham:
Scarecrow Education Division.
Gibson, I.W. (December, 2002) International Partnerships, Collaborative Learning,
and Interactive Communications Technology: using a global forum on school
leadership to enhance the preparation of school leaders. CD- RomProceedings
of the International Council on Computers in Education, Auckland, New
Zealand.
Glenn, J. (1999) Preparing Schools and School Systems for the 21st Century.
Arlington: American Association of School Administrators.
Hannafin, M.J. & Land, S.M. (1997) The Foundations and Assumptions of
Technology-enhanced Student-centered Learning Environments, Instructional
Science, 25(3), pp. 167-202.
Heath, M.J. (1997) Instructional Design Models for Emerging Technologies. Paper
presented at the Eighth International Conference of the Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando.

332
 GLOBAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Hodas, S. (1993) Technology Refusal and the Organizational Culture of Schools.

Seattle: Horse Horse Lion Lion. ERIC Document Reproduction Service,
ED 366 328.
Kephart, D. & Kinnaman, D.E. (1998) Professional Development: what we know and
what we need, Curriculum Administrator, 34(2), pp. 42-43.
Kerka, S. (1996) Distance Learning, the Internet, and the World Wide Web [on-
line]. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed395214.html
Levinson, E & Surrat, J. (1999) Taking Control of Technology Planning, Converge,
September. Available on-line at: http://www.convergemag.com/Publications/
CNVGSept99/TechFromTop/TechFromtheTop.shtm
MacNeil, A.J. & Delafield, D.P. (1998) Principal Leadership for Successful School
Technology Implementation, in S. McNeil, J.D. Price, S.B. Mehall, B. Robin &
J. Willis (Eds) Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1998, pp. 296-300.
Charlottesville: AACE.
McKinsey & Co. (2000) Connecting K-12 Schools to the Information
Superhighway [on-line]. Available at: http://www.uark.edu/mckinsey/
McLellan, H. (1998) The Internet as a Virtual Learning Community, Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 9(2), pp. 92-112.
Metes, G.S., Gutierrez, R., Rocher, V.L., Valdez, A. & Jimenez, R. (1995) BESTNET
International: a case study in the evolution from a distance education
experiment to a virtual learning environment, in E. Boschmann (Ed.) The
Electronic Classroom: a handbook for education in the electronic
environment, pp. 195-202. Medford: Learned Information.
Morgan, G. (1997) Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Nickerson, R.S. (1988) Technology in Education in 2020: thinking about the not-
distant future, in R.S. Nickerson & P.P. Zodhiates (Eds) Technology in
Education: looking toward 2020, p. 317. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Olcott, D. (1999) Distance Learning in R1 Institutions: recommendations and
strategies, Syllabus, 12(9), pp. 28-30.
Oliver, K.M. (1996) A Critical Analysis of Hypermedia and Virtual Learning. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, ED 412 925.
Paquette, G. (1998) Virtual Learning Centers for XXIst Century Organizations, in
F. Verdejo & G. Davies (Eds) The Virtual Campus: trends for higher education
and training, pp. 18-33. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Perelman, L.J. (1992) School’s Out: hyperlearning, the new technology, and the
end of education. New York: William Morrow.
Peterson, N.S. (1996) Administering a Virtual School to Create Real Outcomes, in
B. Robin, J.D. Price, J. Willis & D.A. Willis (Eds) Technology and Teacher
Education Annual, 1996, pp. 729-731. Charlottesville: AACE.
Peterson, N.S. & Facemyer, K.C. (1996) The Impact of the Internet on Learners and
Schools, NASSP Bulletin, 80(582), pp. 53-58.
Revenaugh, M. (2000) No More Excuses, Curriculum Administrator, 36(4), p. 25.
Riley, R. (2000) Generation www.Y [on-line]. Available at:
http://www.genyes.org/genwwwy/curriculum/t7.htm

333
Ian W. Gibson
Rodriquez, G. & Knuth, R. (2000) Critical Issue: providing professional
development for effective technology use [on-line]. Available at:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000.htm
Roth, G.L. & Niemi, J. (1996) Information Technology Systems and the Learning
Organization, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 15(3), pp. 202-215.
Savery, J.R. & Duffy, T.M. (1995) Problem-based Learning: an instructional model
and its constructivist framework, Educational Technology, 35(5), pp. 31-38.
Schank, R.C. (2000) A Vision of Education for the 21st Century, The Journal, 27(6),
pp. 43-45.
Speidel, G.E. (1995) Taking a Giant Step into our Technological Future: a talk with
Diana Oshiro, Kamehameha Journal of Education, 6, pp. 127-33.
Stegall, P. (1998) The Principal – Key to Technology Implementation. Paper
presented at the 95th annual meeting of the National Catholic Education
Association, Los Angeles, April.
Teare, R., Davies, D. & Sandelands, E. (1998) The Virtual University: an action
paradigm and process for workplace learning. New York: Cassell.
Toffler, A. & Toffler, H. (1995) Creating a New Civilization: the politics of the third
wave. Atlanta: Turner.
Trotter, A. (1997) A Test of Leadership, Education Week, 27(11), pp. 30-33.
Tyack, D.B. & Cuban, L. (1997) Tinkering Toward Utopia: a century of public
school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wahl, M.W. (1998) An Information Technology Model, The Michigan Community
College Journal, 4, pp. 99-102.
Wesley, M.T. & Franks, M.E. (1994) The Virtual Classroom and Vertically Integrated
Technology Training for Education: new paradigms for telecommunications
technology training of school personnel. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Nashville.
Wulf, K. (1996) Training via the Internet: where are we?, Training and
Development, 50(5), pp. 50-55.

334