You are here:

An Innovation Framework for Holistic School Transformation: Ten Critical Conversations for the 21st Century
PROCEEDINGS

, , , Microsoft Worldwide Education, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Tampere, Finland ISBN 978-1-939797-08-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Abstract

Abstract: Meeting individual and community needs in many schools requires complex holistic transformation. Using technology as the only solution will not solve these challenges. Even when introduced in schools with the necessary physical infrastructure, simply giving each learner a computer will typically not produce superior learning without additional changes in the nature of the school's teaching, learning and assessment practices. Effective change requires a more holistic approach to completely transform the learning experience of the learners and the broad outcomes of schooling. To guide these changes, an Innovation Framework was proposed and examined in a recent symposium by over 100 education leaders, policy makers and officials within Ministries of Education from countries around the world. This paper provides the research basis for the framework and a summary of the framework’s application by education leaders at national, regional and school levels.

Citation

Cavanaugh, C., McCarthy, A. & East, M. (2014). An Innovation Framework for Holistic School Transformation: Ten Critical Conversations for the 21st Century. In J. Viteli & M. Leikomaa (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2014--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1560-1569). Tampere, Finland: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
  2. Cavanaugh, C. & Dawson, K. (2010). Design of Online Professional Development in Science Content and Pedagogy: A Florida Pilot Study. Journal of Science Education and Technology 19(5):438-446.
  3. Cavanaugh, C., Dawson, K., Lyskawa, C. & Buraphadeja, V. (2009). Laptops for Learning: Florida Digital Educator Program. Research report for the Florida Department of Education.
  4. Cavanaugh, C., Dawson, K., Nash, R. & Ritzhaupt, A. (2008). Florida Digital Educator Program. Research report for the Florida Department of Education.
  5. Cavanaugh, C., Dawson, K., White, S., Valdes, N. & Ritzhaupt, A. (2007). Leveraging laptops: Effective models for enhancing student achievement. Project research report for the Florida Department of Education.
  6. Cavanaugh, C., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A.D. (2011). An evaluation of the conditions, processes and consequences of laptop computing in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research 45(3) 359-378.
  7. Cavanaugh, C., Hargis, J., Soto, M., & Kamali, T. (2013). Substitution to augmentation: Faculty adoption of iPad mobile learning in higher education, Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 10 (4).
  8. Cavanaugh, C. & Hargis, J. (2014). College “Learn By Doing” Ideas Picnic: Faculty-Led Faculty Development for Authentic Instruction. Journal of Transformational Learning 2, 47-64.
  9. Collaborative Assessment Alliance. (2014). Program Guide. Online at http://www.caa21.org/alliance Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., & Anree, A. (2010). How High Achieving Countries Develop Great Teachers. Stanford, CA: Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
  10. Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C. & Ritzhaupt, A. (2012). ARTI: An Online Tool to Support Teacher Action Research for Technology Integration, pp. 375-391. In Hartshorne, C. Heafner, T. & Petty, T. (Eds.) Teacher Education
  11. Dawson, K., Ritzhaupt, A., Liu, F., Drexler, W., Barron, A., Kersaint, G., & Cavanaugh, C. (2011). Charting a Course for the Digital Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Classroom Research and Evaluation Report, for the Florida Department of Education.
  12. Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student: A design-based research case study of student constructed personal learning environments in a middle school science course. Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida. Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
  13. Fullan, M. (2011). Whole system reform for innovative teaching and learning. Microsoft-ITL Research (Ed.), Innovative Teaching and Learning Research, 30-39.
  14. Fullan, M., Langworthy, M., & Barber, M. (2014). A Rich Seam. London: Pearson.
  15. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a New End: New Pedagogies for Deep Learning. Seattle, WA:
  16. Gargiulo, R.M., & Metcalf, D.J. (2013). Teaching in today's inclusive classrooms: A universal design for learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  17. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press.
  18. Hord, S., & Roy, P. (2014). Reach the Highest Standard in Professional Learning: Learning Communities. Corwin Press.
  19. Jensen, B., Hunter, J., Sonnemann, J. And Cooper, S. (2014). Making time for great teaching. Carlton, Australia: Grattan Institute
  20. Jensen, B. & Sonnemann, J. (2014). Turning around schools: it can be done. Carlton, Australia: Grattan Institute.
  21. Jonassen, D. (2012). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.
  22. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1).
  23. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. Routledge, Taylor& Francis Group. Florence, KY.
  24. Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for Professional Learning. Http://learningforward.org/standards#.UzrAUKxOWM8 Lubbers, J.H., Repetto, J.B., & McGorray, S.P. (January 01, 2008). Perceptions of Transition Barriers, Practices, and Solutions in Florida. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 5, 280-292.
  25. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 108 (6), 1017-1054.
  26. OECD. (2012). Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
  27. Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta, Ga: Longstreet Press.
  28. Patrick, S., Kennedy, K., & Powell, A. (2013). Mean what you say: Defining and integrating personalized, blended and competency education. Vienna, VA: iNACOL.
  29. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Puentedura, R., 2009. As We May Teach: Educational Technology, From Theory into Practice. Http://tinyurl.com/aswemayteach Repetto, J.B. (April 01, 1995). Curriculum beyond School Walls: Implications of Transition Education. Peabody Journal of Education, 70, 3, 125-140.
  30. Sessums, C.D. (2009). The path from insight to action: The case of an online learning community in support of collaborative teacher inquiry. Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida.
  31. Shear, L., Gallagher, L., & Patel, D. (2011). Innovative Teaching And Learning Research. Menlo Park: SRI International. Unesco & UNICEF. (2007). A human rights-based approach to education for all: A framework for the realization of children's right to education and rights within education. New York, NY: UNICEF.
  32. UNESCO. (2012). A Place to Learn. Montreal, Canada: Author.
  33. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  34. Weber, C., Biswell, C., & Behrens, W. (2014). Exploring critical issues in gifted education: A case studies approach. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  35. Winthrop, R., Smith, M.S., & Brookings Institution. (2012). A new face of education: Bringing technology into the classroom in the developing world. Washington, DC: Global Economy and Development at Brookings.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Slides