Note References may not meet APA guidelines per professor's instructions.

Standard I: Technology Operations and Concepts

"TF/TL Standard I: Technology Operations and Concepts ensures that schools have skilled personnel" (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 25). This standard is specifically in place, first and foremost, to provide the overall framework for the remaining seven standards. Further, it sets the standard (no pun intended) for what is going to be required of facilitators and leaders in regards to their own skills. In my own experience, I have found that (while not impossible) it is very difficult to teach what you are not proficient in yourself. How would I be able to help a teacher begin using Excel to disaggregate student test scores if I wasn't able to do this myself? How can I be expected to provide leadership and vision regarding technology if I am unfamiliar with it to begin with? Further, since this is the standard that is most closely related to the credentials or credibility of being able to lead and train other educators, it is imperative that I am familiar with appropriate training methods such as modeling and giving specific, meaningful examples that can be easily transferred (Bransford & Cocking, 1999). This standard can, in my humble opinion, be rephrased as "the basics you need to know; try to keep up." That is to say, it is important that you have a baseline understanding of certain technology principles as well as the willingness to be a "lead-learner" (Wagner, 2006). This is probably the easiest of all the standards and simultaneously the most daunting. It's certainly one thing to believe you are comfortable with computers/technology and another entirely to try and keep up with current trends and changes in technological innovation. My mentor actually experienced this phenomenon when I convinced him to go to the TCEA 2010 conference. As the campus lead technology teacher, his knowledge and skill with regards to technology far surpassed that of the nearest faculty member. However, after attending a couple of sessions and discovering the world of social media (etc.) he quickly realized just how much he had to learn.

References used in this reflection:
Bransford, J. & Cocking, P. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Wagner, M. (2006, December 16). Passion and professional development: Four philosophies for lead learners [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://edtechlife.com/?p=1551

Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste's technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every k-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Standard II: Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences

Today's students are not the same as the peers of current educators as they passed through the educational system. The students staring blankly at us (or, more likely, staring at the phone they are trying to hide under the desk) are quite different indeed. They are enveloped in a world of social connection, just-in-time information, and tabbed browsing. Schools have not only the obligation, but the opportunity to help students move from just playing with these tools into actually using them constructively for a specific educational purpose. As noted by education authors Lynne Schrum and Gwen Solomon, "the role of teachers will be to guide students in using the new tools for academically rigorous investigations and presentations" (2007, loc. 455). Standard II, Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences, is essentially that. However, there are a number of disagreements that arise within the context of instructional design with regard to educational technology. The perceived main area of disagreement is the role of technology within the classroom. Some teachers feel that the learning environment is obtruded by technology. Technology will distract students from their learning goals, they might say. Some teachers feel as though technology is a nicety for occasional projects (typically of the "research" variety) but couldn't possibly be implemented on a daily basis. Yet another group of teachers feel as though technology is "the answer." These are the ones you might hear in the hallway saying, "if only we had more computers, then these kids might be engaged." (To this, perhaps most dangerous attitude, I respond, "technology doesn't fix instruction.") Another group still believe that technology is merely another medium in which to educate. That is, the learning environment can be drastically altered by technology, but not for technology's sake. Instead, the learning environment and learning activities are drastically altered for the explicit purposes of their namesake: learning. As Dr. Rae Niles notes regarding a one-to-one initiative, "it wasn't really about the technology at all. It was about the teaching and the learning and how the technology had transformed what was ocurring within the school walls" (n.p. as cited in Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 5) Another important issue that arises within the framework of this standard is that of access. Will all students have the opportunity to use the same tools? The answer to this question could determine who will be successful and who will be left behind (Jenkins, 2009). Will learning activities be designed in such a way that they specifically meet the needs of each of the diverse learners? As Schrum and Solomon note, "as society and the world of work change, the skills that students need to live and thrive in it also change" (2007, loc. 420). This standard, then, is ensuring that this can take place as it designs the very place where these skills will be developed as well as the process by which they will be developed.

References used in this reflection:
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (Kindle edition)

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E.R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schrum, L, & Solomon, G. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools (Kindle Edition)

Standard III: Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum

Where the previous standard looked at the environment in which students learn, that is to say, how they learn, this standard looks at what they are learning (Williamson & Redish, 2009). In terms of the impact of this particular standard on the individual, it has never had more importance than now, as we stand at the precipice of a sea change in the way our students learn. As a millennial myself, I can hear and feel much of the frustration expressed by my students as they are forced to conform to a system that does not make sense to them, “learning” material that is readily available to them. I often find myself frustrated on their behalf, knowing that what they are being told is “education” is often so irrelevant and useless that it's little wonder more of them don't abandon it (the system, not to be confused with the learning process) altogether. However, while there is certainly a marked difference in the way today's students learn, there are certain markers in their behavior that have never changed. Students have always been more focused on the whole than the individual pieces. They are, after all, a whole child and they quickly and readily integrate the various puzzle pieces that is their life into a great tapestry that, more often than not, adults try to separate, segment, and isolate (Dewey, 1902/1966). The question, then, is what do we do moving forward? For starters, it becomes clear that there must be clear alignment between what our students are learning and the world they live in. This could, effectually, be boiled down to the age-old question: “When will I ever use this?” There is little doubt that the world our students live in and the rooms they occupy during the time that is known as school are worlds apart, both in content and in form/structure. Where Standard II dealt with the physical learning spaces, Standard III ensures that technology facilitators are proficient in dealing with the actual curricula students are presented and asked to master. Thus, the “big question” of Standard III is essentially, “What are we teaching them?” Henry Jenkins argues, for example, that the influx of new technology does not mean we are pushing out everything that is not digital. On the contrary, he argues that textual literacy is of utmost importance if students are to be able to fluently participate in today's society (2009). Many seem to think technology is the magic pill that, by simply adding to existing learning structures, will act as a cure-all. However, this is patently false. Technology must be aligned with existing structures and curricula to provide media-rich environments and new ways for students learn, particularly as the rest of the world, including business leaders, parents, government officials, and even parents are concerned that students are not being prepared for the world they will soon inherit (Williamson & Redish, 2009). Thus is the role of the technology facilitator according to Standard III.

References used in this reflection:
Dewey, J. (1902/1966). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (Kindle edition)

Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste's technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every k-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Standard IV: Assessment and Evaluation

The now-infamous law known as No Child Left Behind set forth two key requirements in the area of accountability in that every state must now set standards for grade-level achievement as well as develop a system that will measure each student as well as each subgroup/demographic according to those standards (Paige, 2004). This has direct implications on Standard IV which delineates the knowledge and proficiency of a technology facilitator in the area of assessment and evaluation. This standard predominantly involves the development and execution of varied methods for assessment and evaluation, including technology-based tools. This area has the most potential, assuming those at the highest levels of educational policy development are willing to listen to professionals in the field as well as what the most current research states. For example, there is essentially no research in existence that points to a single-modality, multiple-choice, paper-based exam as the best or most effective way to assess the learning of students. However, as John Schacter notes in a report that even pre-dates No Child Left Behind, students in “technology rich” environments as well as students with special needs in similar environments all saw marked increases in achievement beginning as early as preschool and continuing through higher education (Schacter, 1999). Why, then, are we as facilitators charged with the task of finding new and innovative ways to assess and evaluate student learning when all that is valid or credible at the state and federal level is a paper-based, multiple-choice test that, if we're honest, is more based on fact-regurgitation than application, synthesis, or evaluation? However, it does appear as though there are a number of technology-assisted assessments that are be developed and may even begin to constitute evaluation beyond just that of “choose the best answer” (Williamson & Redish, 2009). Imagine a testing environment where some students are playing games, others are building a model of a historical object, others are developing a comprehensive report and presentation, and yet others are creating a multimedia presentation to serve as a cumulative portfolio of their learning. This is what is expected of instruction and it won't be long before this is the realm we find ourselves in when it comes to testing, assessment, and evaluation. If our instruction should match the individual learning needs of students (differentiation, universal design for learning), shouldn't our assessment of their learning?

References used in this reflection:
Paige, R. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Public Affairs. (2004). A guide to education and no child left behind Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/guide.pdf

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Retrieved from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf

Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste's technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every k-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Standard V: Productivity and Professional Practice

Several years ago, using calculators in a school setting was considered “technology integration.” Today, for many teachers, Microsoft Office is “technology.” For our students, “technology” means cell phones and iPads. Is technology changing that fast? Or is our definition of technology shifting steadily with each new development? What is considered “technology” for one generation does not receive the same label. It is as though something is only “technology” if was developed after our birth (Hartman, Moskal, & Dziuban, 2005). However, with each new advancement comes new potential. This standard is, at its core, about tapping into that potential and affecting the way educators operate on a daily basis, changing everything from teaching and learning to community communication to participation in professional growth activities (Williamson & Redish, 2009). One of the most important things I can do as an educator and as a technology facilitator/leader of the future is to encourage my colleagues to commit themselves to learning. Technology certainly has a role in this, especially with the rise of social networking sites such as Ning, Plurk, Facebook, and Twitter for the purpose of expanding an educator's practice and professionalism. It would be all too easy, however, to say that this standard is about finding new and creative ways for teachers to use new technologies that will make their lives easier/simpler/faster/cheaper. It would additionally be a gross oversimplification that radically misses the heart of the message presented by Williamson and Redish who, citing Michael Fullan, argue that, “addressing productivity and professional practice in schools... requires leveraging technology to support the 'reculturing' of schools” (1999; 2009). Through the use of technology, I am called not only to help teachers implement new tools that will support their own learning and productivity and their students' learning and productivity, but also completely change the culture of the organization. This can only occur if I have facilitated a culture of learning and change. The organization itself cannot change nor can it learn unless the members that make up that organization are themselves learning individually (Senge, 1990/2010). This, then, is my call: facilitate an environment and even a culture of learning within the organization of which I am a member and thus model what I expect to see from my coworkers. Innovation and a culture of change starts with me.

References used in this reflection:
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer.

Hartman, J, Moskal, P, & Dziuban, C. (2005).Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow (Excerpted from Educating the Net Generation), Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/EducatingtheNetGeneration/PreparingtheAcademyofTodayfort/6062

Senge, P.M. (1990/2010). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (Kindle edition)

Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste's technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every k-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Standard VI: Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues

This standard might be the most pressing issue facing technology in education today. There has been much talk over the past several years about the difference between today's students and teachers, even to the extent that they have been labeled based on this difference (Prensky, 2001). Narrowly defined, the issue is what to do with ethical and moral issues that technology use brings with it. In the arena of social, ethical, legal, and human issues, I have worked diligently, even before knowing that it was considered a tenet of being a successful technologist. In surveying the educational landscape, I am keenly aware that today's teachers, almost exclusively members of older generations, believe today's students to be inherently proficient with technology. Further complicating the issue, because many in older generations are not as comfortable with the latest in technology, they have opted to disengage from the dialogue that must occur to keep our students safe, productive members of a digital society. There are indeed unique challenges that the proliferation and ubiquity of computer use and Internet access have brought upon our schools, particularly with the introduction of web 2.0 and social technologies (James, 2009). What I find most interesting is the intersection of my own story with the story of public education, particularly in the area of technology. As schools face challenges adapting to new styles of learning and different educational needs expressed by students, along with the social and ethical issues raised with “digital natives,” I have realized that I have found myself with a foot on either side of this chasm. On the one hand, I myself am a digital native. I “speak the language” if you will. My own learning preferences are in tight alignment with those of my students and, in reading many different articles and pieces about how to relate to the “Net Gen,” I frequently finding myself asking if the author was genuinely ignorant of that topic prior to their discovery of it or if they really believe they point they are trying to make is ground-breaking. As such, I am faced with the proposition of attempting to relate and work with “digital immigrants.” So, in reading about how to relate to my own generation, I am learning more about how to relate to the generations that I will be responsible for moving forward in my career as a technologist. Keeping in mind, naturally, that just because people are born in one generation or another does not make them ignorant nor proficient with technology. Instead, research is increasingly showing what Prensky hinted at and what was later illuminated further in a report released in aggregate by Educause: experience with technology matters more than your birth date (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; 2001). Thus, the issues of digital equity, privacy of electronic student records, students' online safety, and copyright infringement must be addressed and we must actively engage ourselves in promoting policy and procedure that “promotes benefits for all and the exclusion of none (Williamson & Redish, 2009). Kids don't inherently know what is right or wrong, even though they've always had technology around them. Teachers haven't spent enough time learning about these pressing issues. The result, of course, is a major disconnect and one that must be closed if we, as social architects and culture-shapers, are to develop a system that is engaging and relevant, not just for children, but for the nation as a whole.

References used in this reflection:
James, C. (2009). Young people, ethics, and the new digital media: A synthesis from the good play project (Kindle edition), doi: 0262513633

Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or it: First steps toward understanding the net generation[Excerpted from Educating the Net Generation, 2005]. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/EducatingtheNetGeneration/IsItAgeorITFirstStepsTowardUnd/6058

Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On The Horizon, 9(5), Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20-%20digital%20natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf

Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste's technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every k-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Standard VII: Procedures, Policies, Planning, and Budgeting for Technology Environments

According to Williamson and Redish, lack of access to technology is the number one complaint lodged by teachers when asked about technology integration in their classrooms (2009). For this reason, Standard VII is crucial to the success of districts wishing to progress in their technology use. By establishing the infrastructure carefully and strategically, administrators and technology leaders can position district teachers for success. This particular standard really emphasized the importance of thoughtful, careful planning, which is all-too-easy to overlook in the midst of a zeal for new purchases. In a prior class, Web Development and Design, we discussed many of the same topics in this regard. Just like planning for a new home, all of the details must be thought out in advance (Kaiser, 2006). Perhaps the most striking comment made throughout the Williamson and Redish text was the difference between an experienced technology leader and a novice: the ability to be extremely thorough in planning, support, and follow-up (2009). In fact, technical support and training is largely considered the most important piece of technology integration strategies as it is both the teachers' main interaction with district technology decisions as well as the key to ensuring that the hardware and software is not only working correctly but also being implemented well (Williamson & Redish, 2009). Further, research shows that technology implemented well is linked to student learning and success (Broad & Newstrom, 1992). From purchasing equipment aligned to district goals to implementation strategies to technical support staff and training, it is crucial for programs to give full consideration to every conceivable scenario regarding the new technologies.

References used in this section:
Broad, M., & Newstrom, J. (1992). Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments. New York: Perseus

Kaiser, S. (2006). Deliver first class websites: 101 essential checklists (PDF download), doi: 0-9758419-0-4

Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste's technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every k-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Standard VIII: Leadership and Vision

Standard VIII is the easiest for me to get excited about. Leadership and vision is what makes or breaks any organization. A number of leaders much smarter and certainly more experienced than I have discussed the differences between “leading” and “managing” and it certainly rings true in the realm of technology in education. In fact, Williamson and Redish cite a number of sources that point to these differences, such as establishing rules and procedures versus building teams and coalitions (Northouse, 2007 as cited in Williamson & Redish, 2009). I think Seth Godin beautifully and succinctly illustrates this chasm, “human nature is to need a map. If you're brave enough to draw one, people will follow” (2011, p. 9). The use of technology may or may not depend on the vision and direction of leaders. There are plenty of examples of districts that have used technology to simply reinforce traditional learning styles and methods, only now they feel satisfied because they are “using technology”. Likewise, there are plenty of districts that have all the necessary hardware and software, but no support and no initiative to do something about it. Thus, the district is full of expensive paperweights and dust-collectors. However, when someone with vision, passion, and purpose takes the reigns and begins to look for ways to innovate, the entire district can be turned upside down. It is in this culture of strong, clear leadership that change happens. However, it cannot stop with just one charismatic personality. The leader must infect others with the contagion of technology-enabled success through the pluralism of an urgency to dump the status quo while arguing for changes necessary to success (Williamson & Redish, 2009). In this way, the leader is in the people business, not the technology business. The leader must move from one stage to the next, all the while winning stakeholders to the belief that the only way our students can be successful is in an environment where they are challenged and where technology provides the vehicle to make that a reality. After all, “our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure” (Williamson, M., 1992; as quoted in Pressfield, 2011, loc. 803).

References used in this section:
Godin, S. (2011). Poke the box [p. 9]. (Kindle Edition), doi: 1936719002

Pressfield, S. (2011). Do the work [loc. 803]. (Kindle Edition), doi: 1936719010

Northouse, P., (2007). Leadership theory and practice (p. 10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage


Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste's technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every k-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Williamson, M. (1992). A return to love: reflections on the principles of a course in miracles. New York, NY: Harper Collins.


Internship Documents

Internship Application-


Internship Reflections (Google Doc)

Internship Log/Plan-


Internship Log by Standard-

Internship Summary Report-


Comprehensive Examination-


Web Conferences

Week 1- I was unable to attend the Week 1 Web Conference. Tuesday night I was giving a Digital Parenting (Parent Technology Workshop) training and Wednesday I was lecturing at the Tyler Youth Professionals Conference about the rise of the Net Generation. However, I was able to catch up on what I missed from colleagues and from the transcript. I have not found prior web conferences particularly helpful and, as such that I am thoroughly confused by conflicting instructions given by varying professors and Instructional Associates, I was looking forward to having some (shared) concerns addressed. However, my emotions were not assuaged when more vagary was dispensed. For example, we have yet to receive a definite, single answer as to what is actually required regarding our reflections, specifically for the Internship activities we have participated in over the past year. I will admit to this being simultaneously disconcerting and somehow freeing. On the one hand, it appears that my grade (and, at this stage of the game, my entire degree) might hinge on who ends up grading my final products, based on whose instructions I choose to utilize in its development. However, this is simultaneously freeing because, within the cohort, there is enough conflicting documentation to quite easily make a case that at least one professor's requirements were satisfied which should, in theory, result in an "effort grade." That is, I have worked incredibly hard for 18 months and have work to prove it, which should count for something, even if it doesn't fit in the nice, neat boxes provided for me. This is, in essence, the way it should be anyways. Genius, after all, rarely conforms to a series of standards. "The American people... have a stake in non-conformity. For they know that the American genius is a non-conformist." -Henry Steele Commager

Week 2- I was, again, unable to attend the web conference. However, in reading through the transcript, it does not appear as though I really missed much. The only thing that was new was that we are to use the 2011 Horizon Report rather than the 2010 Horizon Report K-12. This is a small change, but the documents are completely different. I found it strange that they have decided to use a list of upcoming technologies that (by very nature of the differing reports) are not to be expected as identical as the technologies predicted in the K-12 sphere, which is what our degrees focus on. My personal belief is this is a desire to stay "cutting edge" or "current" by using the latest report, even if it isn't actually the report we should be utilizing. Naturally, I have a problem with that. It would be the equivalent of, say, having a twelve year old signing up for an email address. They'll be thirteen soon enough, but by jumping the gun by just a few weeks or months, they will be ahead of the curve, even if it isn't appropriate and things might change between now and then. I suppose, however, these details are of little importance since it is assumed that there will naturally be some overlap and what happens at the collegiate level normally trickles down to the K-12 system. It's all hypothetical anyway, right?

Week 3- Yet again, I was unable to attend the web conference. The transcript, however, revealed many of the same pieces of information that have been asked and relayed over the past two conferences. Perhaps if the first conference was mandatory, subsequent web conferences would either become completely ancillary or at least more productive so time is not wasted answering questions that, frankly, could have been answered by either reading the syllabus or by reading prior weeks' chat logs. That being said, I highly doubt I will attend either of the next two, as the conferences so far have not been extremely helpful.

Week 4- I did not attend the web conference this week. In reading over the transcript, it appeared to be another round of question-and-answer about some of the details that are required, such as whether or not to put your personal or business address on your CV. I have effectively taken the stance that minutiae like this will not, ultimately, matter in relation to the content of what is in our CV. Beyond that, there wasn't really anything of substance discussed that doubly pertained to my own situation. Thus, I am in effect writing this entire paragraph for the express purpose of gaining a single point in the grade book.

Week 5- In reading over the transcript, it appears as though everyone is done but perhaps the faculty wasn't quite prepared for the short week. Many people are not getting their papers back until Thursday or Friday and the assignment itself is due Saturday. However, there was one direction given that I thought was going to be very helpful, as they are asking for the Comprehensive Exam to be turned in and not the assignment. In attempting to do so, I discovered that I was not permitted to turn in my Comprehensive Exam in place of the Week 5 assignment document. Thus, there really wasn't anything in this web conference that pertained to me, causing me to write yet another paragraph for the sake of a single point.

Course-Embedded Reflections

5306




5364
5366
5368
5363
5365

References:
Bransford, J. & Cocking, P. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Broad, M., & Newstrom, J. (1992). Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments. New York: Perseus

Dewey, J. (1902/1966). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer.

Hartman, J, Moskal, P, & Dziuban, C. (2005).Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow (Excerpted from Educating the Net Generation), Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/EducatingtheNetGeneration/PreparingtheAcademyofTodayfort/6062

James, C. (2009). Young people, ethics, and the new digital media: A synthesis from the good play project (Kindle edition), doi: 0262513633

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (Kindle edition) Godin, S. (2011). Poke the box [p. 9]. (Kindle Edition), doi: 1936719002 Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or it: First steps toward understanding the net generation[Excerpted from Educating the Net Generation, 2005]. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/EducatingtheNetGeneration/IsItAgeorITFirstStepsTowardUnd/6058
Kaiser, S. (2006). Deliver first class websites: 101 essential checklists (PDF download), doi: 0-9758419-0-4

Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2005, November 2). Teen content creators and consumers. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/Teen-Content-Creators-and-Consumers.aspx

Northouse, P., (2007). Leadership theory and practice (p. 10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Paige, R. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Public Affairs. (2004). A guide to education and no child left behind Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/guide.pdf

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E.R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On The Horizon, 9(5), Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20-%20digital%20natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf

Pressfield, S. (2011). Do the work [loc. 803]. (Kindle Edition), doi: 1936719010

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Retrieved from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf

Schrum, L, & Solomon, G. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools (Kindle Edition) Senge, P. M. (1990/2010). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (Kindle edition)
Wagner, M. (2006, December 16). Passion and professional development: Four philosophies for lead learners [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://edtechlife.com/?p=1551

Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste's technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every k-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Williamson, M. (1992). A return to love: reflections on the principles of a course in miracles. New York, NY: Harper Collins.