Running head: PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 1

Excellence in Professional Practice: An Analysis of the Academy of Early Learning

James (Zan) Wiggins
Coastal Carolina University
EDIT 760, Section D1
June 20, 2018
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 2

Introduction

Standard three from ISTE NETS-A addresses the promotion of learning and innovation

that empowers educators to utilize technology to enhance student learning. According to

Yorulmaz and Can (2016), administrators must utilize technology during evaluation activities, as

well as encouraging the use of technology during education and instructional technology. By

acquiring and improving their skills in utilizing technology in instruction, administrators will

motivate their faculty to utilize and integrate technology into their lessons (Yorulmaz & Can,

2016). I will be, again, analyzing the application and implementation of these indicators in the

Academy of Early Learning, a pre-kindergarten program in the Marion County School District.

According to the study by Metcalf and LaFrance (2013), principals perceive their

preparedness on standard three as the second highest of the five, behind digital citizenship. In

interviewing the principal of the Academy of Early Learning, and from speaking with the faculty

as well as my own observations, the administration of the school as well as the district excel in

standard three as a whole. However, because of the lack of a technology plan at the school or

district level, we must evaluate each of the four indicators for standard three to ensure that all

aspects of standard three are met.

Performance Indicators

The first indicator under standard three of the ISTE NETS-A guidelines address the

allocation of resources, including time, financial, and hardware, to ensure ongoing professional

growth related to the integration and fluency of the classroom technology. Because of the

varying methods of delivery for training on technology use and integration, such as in-person,

online courses through the district, or courses through local higher education institutions,

teachers have some autonomy in what and how they wish to learn. Therefore, the administrator’s
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 3

role in relation to the allocation of resources is to identify and address the need of the teacher to

successfully integrate technology into their classroom (Zhong, 2017). The faculty all report that

the administration provide them with various technology training opportunities, both formally

and informally. Additionally, the principal states she attempts to seek-out additional trainings on

integrating technology within her school particularly since they are a new program in the district

and a somewhat rarity in the state. These trainings are both for the faculty and for the principal

herself, since the principal is well aware that she must be an expert on the technology utilized in

her school. This principal does seem to fully meet indicator one, so I have no concerns on this

aspect of standard three.

Secondly, Zhong (2017) reports that building a digital learning community, thereby

promoting opening communication and idea exchanges between all faculty and staff, is a part of

meeting standard three. This coincides with indicator two, where administrators should facilitate

participation in the study and use of technology, as well as participate themselves. Though there

are not formal expectations for faculty to utilize technology in instruction, there are understood

best practices throughout the school, such as using the interactive whiteboards and specified

applications for teaching reading. I observed the principal visiting a classroom during one of the

lessons and utilizing the interactive whiteboard for a lesson on reading, so she models the

appropriate use of technology within the classroom. I do have some concerns with having clear

expectations of the use of technology within the school, since there is no formal plan or clearly

defined expectations on technology use. By formalizing these expectations, all faculty and staff

will be aware of and adhere to these expectations.

The third indicator for standard three addresses the communication and involvement of

stakeholders, including persons outside of the district, using appropriate digital-age tools. As in
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 4

the study by Zhong (2017), primary communication with parents is via recorded phone calls and

text messages, but an email system is also in place. Because of the district having slightly under

90% of students at or below the poverty line (South Carolina State Report Cards, 2017), the

school must use a variety of avenues to communicate with parents, as well as with outside

constituents. The school collects cell phone, home phone, email and even neighbor or emergency

contact numbers and emails for each of the students at the start of the school year. According to

the faculty, though, these numbers can change several times throughout the year, so the school

has even resorted to having a teacher or instructional assistant visit the home of the parent or

emergency contact to obtain updated information.

A second issue that can arise with involving the community outside of the school in a

learning community focused on learning in the digital age is resistance to change. Because of the

poverty level and lack of access to current technologies, some stakeholders may not see the need

to incorporate technology into the classroom. Faculty report that for the majority of the students’

parents, they are of a later generation so they understand the importance of technology in

learning, but those students who are being raised by grandparents or elderly family members

have a lack of technology in their homes, so their learning curve with technology is larger. The

elderly family members also do not encourage the students to complete their assignments

electronically nor do the check the progress of their students through the teacher’s online

classroom. With these barriers in place, strong leadership must come from the administration of

the school and district to consistently show the effectiveness of technology in the classroom. As

the guardians of the students become generations that have had more access to technology

throughout their academic careers, these barriers should lessen.

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 5

The final indicator for standard three is to be aware of and utilize current trends and

research in technology implementation in the classroom, as well as listen to the faculty

implementing the technology in instruction to determine the effectiveness and potential to

improve student learning. Sustainment of the digital learning environment is imperative to utilize

the resources that have been purchased or implemented in schools (Zhong, 2017). With the

Academy of Early Learning being a small school, and with the principal making a point to visit

each classroom daily, informal feedback on all trainings is constantly present. Additionally, the

district has each participant conduct an end-of-course evaluation for each training, professional

development, or lecture they attend. The principal and district administrators utilize opportunities

to further develop their faculty, such as utilizing state funds for faculty to further their education

or, as they did with me, asking what programs or classes an outside entity has that can help them

become better teachers. Teachers report having attended trainings delivered in a variety of

methods, both face-to-face, individual instruction, and online. I am not concerned with the

school and district maintaining their knowledge of current research and trends, but I am worried

that new technology that would be appropriate for the Academy of Early Learning would not be

purchased because the district would look at where resources would make the most impact, and

the Academy of Early Learning is a very small percentage of the students in the district.

Summary

The ISTE NETS-A standard three focuses on providing and promoting keeping all

stakeholders abreast of the infusion of technology in the classroom, through learning, evaluation,

and communication. Yorulmaz and Can (2016) found that administrators performed better on

technology leadership, visionary leadership, and digital citizenship if they had taken and in-

service training on technology. Though those standards are not specifically under standard three,
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 6

they all play a part in the communication and infusion of technology. School administrators are

previous school faculty, so by incorporating more in-service trainings, the future school

administrators should become better technology leaders. Hyashi and Fisher-Adams (2015) found

that school leadership preparation programs are being more effective with educating future

administrators on technology use in instruction, but to be a technology leader, one must strive to

constantly research and learn emerging technologies for the classroom. The current principal at

the Academy of Early Learning seems to meet this goal, but she cannot let roadblocks to

implementation of new technology, such as budgetary constraints or lack of parental

involvement, diminish her drive to provide the best education possible for her students.
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 7

References

Hayashi, C.A., & Fisher-Adams, G. (2015). Strengthening leadership preparation to meet the

challenge of leading for learning in the digital age: Recommendations from alumni.

Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 26,

51-67.

Metcalf, W., & LaFrance, J. (2013). Technology leadership preparedness: Principals’

perceptions. Journal of Research in Education, 23(1), 58-75.

South Carolina State Report Cards (2017). Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov/data/report-

cards/state-report-cards/2017/view/?y=2017&t=D&d=3410&s=000.

Yorulmaz, A., & Can, S. (2016). The technology leadership competencies of elementary and

secondary school directors. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 11(1),

47-61.

Zhong, L. (2017). Indicators of digital leadership in the context of K-12 education. Journal of

Educational Technology Development & Exchange, 10(1), 27-40.