This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona]On: 28 October 2014, At: 01:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

American Journal of Distance EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

Collaboration Through Role Play AmongGraduate Students in EducationalLeadership in Distance LearningBarbara B. Howard a , Terry W. McClannon a & Paul R. Wallace aa Appalachian State UniversityPublished online: 06 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Barbara B. Howard , Terry W. McClannon & Paul R. Wallace (2014) CollaborationThrough Role Play Among Graduate Students in Educational Leadership in Distance Learning, AmericanJournal of Distance Education, 28:1, 51-61, DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2014.868665

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.868665

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Amer. Jrnl. of Distance Education, 28:51–61, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0892-3647 print/1538-9286 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08923647.2014.868665

Collaboration Through Role Play Among GraduateStudents in Educational Leadership in

Distance Learning

Barbara B. Howard, Terry W. McClannon, and Paul R. WallaceAppalachian State University

This project addresses the challenge of preparing educational leaders for future roles in administra-tion in K–12 schools. Through a project-based learning scenario set in a 3-D virtual world, graduatestudents in school administration and instructional technology worked together in simulated schoolteams to develop proposals for integrating technology into a fictitious school. The scenario providedparameters within which each team developed a proposal to a superintendent for the use of iPads,which included developing plans for professional development, collaboration among faculty andstaff, infrastructure to support the technology, alignment with curriculum, and budgets. Teams workedindependently of classes to develop proposals that were then posted in the virtual world for review byinstructors and other students. The simulation offered opportunities to develop shared leadership andskills in collaboration outside the usual comfort zone of graduate school classes. Student perceptionof the value of participation provided insight into the design of the project, which will inform futuresuch collaborative efforts among faculty. Results of student surveys and written reflections are sharedas examples of the types of data collected for this project.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT

A core challenge of K–12 schools is improving student achievement (Goldring et al. 2009).Graduate programs in educational leadership strive to prepare school leaders in the areas oftechnology, administration, and curriculum to address challenges faced by K–12 schools (Bush2009; Cray and Millen 2010; Fuller, Young, and Baker 2011). To better prepare graduate stu-dents who will effectively address the global issues of the twenty-first century in their futureroles, educational leadership programs must recognize challenges faced by leaders in turbulenttimes as well as the interdependency of fields of study that may have been more discrete in thepast (Brockmeier, Pate, and Leech 2010). Students must have the opportunity to collaborate withthose preparing to serve in a variety of leadership roles in schools. Students must move beyondthe comfort zone afforded by traditional programs of study in cohorts of like-minded individuals

Correspondence should be sent to Barbara B. Howard, Department of Leadership and Educational Studies,Appalachian State University, Office 216B, ASU Box 32086, 151 College Street, Boone, NC 28608. E-mail: howardbb@appstate.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:14

28

Oct

ober

201

4

52 HOWARD, MCCLANNON, WALLACE

taught only by those steeped in the literature and paradigms of that particular leadership (Briggs2007). Only through collaboration of faculty can such meaningful learning experiences take placefor students.

Yet, as good as faculty collaboration sounds theoretically, definite challenges exist in mostinstitutes of higher education. Prior to transforming students’ perspectives, faculty must be pre-pared to adjust their own paradigms by dismantling the traditional silos found among highereducation programs. Silos are constructed when programs operate in isolation without benefitof communication leading to exchange of ideas. By removing traditional barriers and becomingcross-curricular collaborators themselves, faculty model practices of collaboration and problemsolving. The expectation is that the learning outcomes of such projects will transfer to the real-life school educational leadership practices their graduate students may encounter in their futureroles as school leaders.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The theories of transformative learning (Mezirow 1997; Taylor 2008) and social constructivist(Powell and Kalina 2009) formed the theoretical framework for this project. When students areplaced in situations calling for them to develop new paradigms based on interactions with othersoutside their field, they have the opportunity to expand their learning by recognizing the lim-itations of their own ethnocentric positions (Johnson 2008; Mezirow 1997; Perez et al. 2011).Ethnocentrism, as defined by Mezirow (1997), is the “predisposition to regard others outsideone’s own group as inferior” (6). If ethnocentrism exits unexposed among various leadership roleswithin schools, it may actually threaten the ability of these roles to work together for the benefitof the school. The cross-program project offered a way to challenge the frames of reference grad-uate students develop by working within one field of study (Briggs 2007). Such a challenge maylead to a diminishing of ethnocentrism, which might ultimately improve the ability to understandand work with others (Mezirow 1997).

Social constructivism is built on the idea that students construct concepts based on prior knowl-edge that is relevant and meaningful to the situation (Powell and Kalina 2009). In the projectdescribed here, students contributed knowledge specific to their field of study through socialinteraction thus allowing the group to construct a new approach. Through social interaction asyn-chronously through e-mail and shared documents, or synchronously through videoconference or3-D virtual environments, students explored broader definitions of leadership beyond their indi-vidual fields of study. Students brought together their prior knowledge gathered from courseworkwithin their disparate fields of study and their experiences working in various schools to constructa solution to the proposed task. No one student garnered all the resources or knowledge necessaryto solve the problem posed in the project. Students were encouraged to socially construct a newsolution to a realistic problem.

CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT

The Department of Leadership and Educational Studies of a midsize university in the southeast-ern United States began the process of breaking down the silos in 2009, with the first serious

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:14

28

Oct

ober

201

4

COLLABORATION THROUGH ROLE PLAY 53

foray into cross-program collaboration involving faculty members from the following programs:school administration, instructional technology, library science, and doctoral studies in educa-tional leadership. Most, if not all, courses are taught through distance education. Working withina 3-D virtual world, the intent was to utilize this platform to bring diverse students from dif-ferent school districts around the state with different lenses based on their programs of study todiscuss educational issues. In its early stages, it was not an effort to conduct a sustained projectbut rather to provide a stage for professional conversations that might be sustained through stu-dent initiative. The initial meeting was held online with a panel of guest speakers to kick off theconversations. Students were assigned to groups that included representatives from all programareas. In an effort to build networking among the members of the groups, several forums such asblogs and wiki spaces were established. Group members were told at the initial meeting to usethese spaces for networking and discussion of current educational issues.

These early efforts did not gain the results hoped for due to a variety of reasons. Severalissues in implementation emerged, which served to inform subsequent efforts. One of the majorissues was the lack of collaboration among all the faculty members involved. Although sev-eral preliminary meetings were held, it became obvious that a common understanding of theproject, its objectives, and its format did not result. Some faculty members encouraged theirstudents to attend the initial meeting only, without any follow-up direction or support. Othersattempted to engage students in deeper conversations and integrated the project into course-work. Some faculty viewed this early attempt as a one-night presentation online, whereas othersbelieved the initial meeting to be a kickoff to more sustained conversations. As a result, awide range of student expectations emerged, with higher levels of frustration among those stu-dents who believed that members were to have the same high level of commitment and courserequirements. If the course instructor did not expressly refer to the cross-program collabora-tion following the first meeting online or, as in some cases, told students that participationwas entirely voluntary and beyond the parameters of the course, the groups failed to meet ona regular basis, and there was little or no participation on the electronic forums. It simply didnot appear to be a strong enough incentive for graduate students to participate in somethingfor which they would not be held accountable or receive a grade. Understandably, althoughdisappointing for those desiring to provide intellectually stimulating experiences for the purelove of learning, students tended to turn their energies and attention to course requirements andabandoned their cross-program groups if the instructor failed to integrate the project into thecoursework.

Another issue that quickly became obvious during the first attempt was the sheer numberof faculty members involved. As a new venture, the idea appealed to a broad audience withinthe department. Many faculty members jumped into early efforts of cross-program collaborationwithout the necessary level of commitment. With numbers of full-time faculty that exceeded ten,it became impossible to schedule the necessary meetings to support and sustain the project.

Valuable lessons from these early experiences led to sharpened interpretations and greaterunderstanding of the dynamics of collaborative leadership among the graduate school faculty.Ironically, the ethnocentricity each instructor brought to the table actually hampered early effortsat designing projects. For example, instructors began with their own biases grounded in years ofbeing steeped within specific bodies of literature and research. Several approached the projectwith the idea that their students would naturally assume leadership of the group and impose thelens of their discipline on the project. Suggestions of the roles and expectations for other program

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:14

28

Oct

ober

201

4

54 HOWARD, MCCLANNON, WALLACE

areas indicated such biases. Several instructors valued their own required coursework and did notencourage participation beyond the initial meeting.

Variations in coursework requirements resulted in resentment among students who felt over-burdened with responsibility for success of the project if their participation was required whenthat of others was not. Group members became frustrated and in some cases actually reinforcedstereotypes of other program areas, which defeated a major purpose of the cross-program collab-oration. These lessons informed subsequent attempts in successive semesters following 2009 tolead to the project described here. Collaboration among faculty is a primary foundation of theseprojects, requiring that participating faculty exhibit a high commitment level to meet, plan, anddiscuss progress of the project throughout the semester. Written descriptions and expectations forgraduate students shared in course syllabi are a cornerstone of such projects, which avoids thevague nature of the original project that dissolved so easily. Coordination of efforts has replacedindependent attempts in the name of academic freedom. Narrowing the scope of the project to nomore than one hundred students and fewer than five faculty members at any given time has madethese projects much more manageable as well. The lessons learned from earlier attempts tend toinform and strengthen later efforts as cross-program collaboration continues to develop withinthe department.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

In the cross-program project described here, two instructors from Instructional Technology andone from School Administration developed and implemented a simulation of a realistic task forschool leaders. The graduate students involved were preparing for one of the following schoolleadership roles: principal, technology facilitator, or curriculum specialist. Most of these graduatestudents were current classroom teachers, technology facilitators, or administrators. All had aminimum of three years experience working in a K–12 school setting.

From earlier attempts, one important caveat for success was that providing one set of directionsto all graduate students establishes a common set of expectations as all are then held account-able for the same outcomes. Faculty members collaborated to develop specific parameters of theproject while taking care to address the course objectives and curriculum requirements of eachprogram of study. In this case, the agreed-upon purpose of the project was to provide an oppor-tunity for students preparing for different leadership roles in preK–12 schools to engage in arealistic simulation, which called for collaborative leadership, critical-thinking skills, knowledgeof current research, and skill in problem solving.

Students were assigned roles to play (principal, assistant principal, technology facilitator, cur-riculum specialist, teacher) as part of the school leadership team of a fictitious elementary, middle,or high school. Within each team, a graduate student was randomly selected to serve in the roleof “teacher” because this was important to the realism of the scenario. Leadership teams in mostschool settings include the teacher voice, so it was important not to exclude that voice by notproviding for a student to represent it. The teams were told that the superintendent of the districthad funding to provide a set of two hundred iPads and would provide them only to the schoolwith the best plan for implementation. Each team was to present a detailed proposal for use of theiPads in their school. The superintendent and district leadership team (represented by the courseinstructors) would select the best proposal submitted to award the iPads.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:14

28

Oct

ober

201

4

COLLABORATION THROUGH ROLE PLAY 55

It was important to design the project so that each role would hold key information that mustbe shared to contribute to the overall success of the team. Within the individual courses, it wasthe responsibility of the instructor to ensure that students had the prerequisite knowledge andskills necessary to contribute to the groups’ efforts. The requirements of the proposal includedthe following:

1. Description of the school complete with a name and brief description of the demographicand cultural climate of the school;

2. Professional development plan for teachers;3. Specific student outcomes in learning beyond test scores;4. Specific applications for integrating the iPad hardware and software into classrooms;5. Alignment with the North Carolina curriculum or Core Curriculum;6. Alignment with the National Educational Technology Standards for students;7. Specific number of iPads requested (not to exceed the available two hundred) including a

justification for the requested number based on intended use;8. Plan for distributing these iPads among students and teachers;9. Plan for upkeep, maintenance, and technical support; and

10. Plans for telecommunications access, support for connectivity, and Internet security.

The scope of these requirements purposefully captured the expertise required of an administra-tor, curriculum facilitator, or technology facilitator, which were the roles for which these graduatestudents prepared. Each graduate student would have a responsibility within the group, much aswould be experienced in a real leadership team.

For this project, the students in the School Administration and Curriculum Specialist pro-grams completed an environmental scan of a school earlier in the semester, which informedthe first two requirements of the project. Additionally, these students had studied aspects ofschool accountability and measures of student learning, which could inform the third requirement.Curriculum specialists were expected to bring a deeper understanding of the state curriculum. TheInstructional Technology students were to bring to the groups their knowledge in the remainingareas. Through small-group discussions held in the 3-D virtual world outside class meeting times,the groups were expected to draw on each other’s levels of expertise, much as they would in areal school setting.

Along with this detailed description of the intended outcomes of the project, students wereprovided parameters concerning expectations for group work. In previous collaborative projects,teams floundered due to a lack of such parameters. The first of these involved the logistical expec-tations of instructors, in which each instructor agreed to post and review the written objectivesof the project during at least one online class meeting held in the 3-D virtual world. Instructorsagreed to assign students to teams and inform them of their roles within the first week of thesemester. The students agreed to play the role assigned. Instructors prepared their students towork within group settings by reviewing the literature of group dynamics and group leadershipskills during one class of each course.

Most, if not all, students in these programs are full-time employees of schools in districtswithin a one-hundred-mile radius of campus. Some online students may be even farther away.Courses in these programs are all delivered on satellite campuses across the state as well as online.Face-to-face meetings were impractical. However, the use of online platforms made collabora-tion across such geographic distances possible. Students chose Skype, e-mail, wiki, or Teleplace,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:14

28

Oct

ober

201

4

56 HOWARD, MCCLANNON, WALLACE

which was our 3-D virtual world. The one caveat was that all members of the team had to becomfortable with the selected platform. The students in Instructional Technology were expectedto guide the selection of an appropriate platform for group discussions.

The project directions specified that although all team members would be held accountablefor the participation as a course requirement, additional requirements might be expected basedon instructor preference. For example, only the school administration students were required topost regular weekly blogs in the course Moodle site to share the progress of their group andengage other school administration students in discussions concerning challenges in group lead-ership. An additional requirement for school administration students was a culminating reflectionpaper based on their self-assessment of the development of leadership skills aligned with lead-ership theories studied during the course. A reflection paper supports the theoretical frameworkof transformational learning underpinning the development and implementation of this type ofproject (Johnson 2008; Merriam 2004; Taylor 2008). Instructional technology students were notrequired to complete the reflection paper or post weekly blogs, but they were required to maintainconsistent communication with the instructors and to attend each group meeting.

EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT

Method

It was essential that an evaluation of the project target not only the specific student learning out-comes as represented by the completed projects but also the changes in perspective as revealedthrough reflection papers, blog postings, and student surveys. Utilization of the project by gradu-ate students to develop skills and knowledge of leadership in preparation for assuming these rolesin real schools was a primary concern. The model of utilization-focused evaluation enabled adetermination of its value in terms of student perception of impact of participation on developingleadership skills and providing a realistically relevant project in preparation for their chosen areas(Patton 2008). Multiple sources of data allowed triangulation of findings while further assist-ing in developing necessary instructor skills to continue with such projects. Evaluation of theproject informed practice as well as theories of adult teaching and learning, which are groundedin transformative learning (Mezirow 1997; Taylor 2008) and social constructivism (Annand 2011;Bryceson 2007; Fox and Riconscente 2008; Powell and Kalina 2009).

DATA ANALYSIS

Student Projects

Student teams were required to post their proposals in a specially designed learning space inTeleplace, our 3-D virtual world campus (see Figure 1). Instructors were able to enter this forum atany time to read and “score” the proposal. Students also had access to the space to read and com-ment on each other’s proposals. Of the sixteen teams established for the project, all successfullycreated a project that met the stated criteria.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:14

28

Oct

ober

201

4

COLLABORATION THROUGH ROLE PLAY 57

FIGURE 1 Student Projects in 3-D Virtual World.

Survey

Seventy-eight students across three program areas participated in the project. The response rateto the online survey was 62% (n = 49). Approximately twenty students completed their graduateprogram requirements at the end of the semester, which may account for the low number ofrespondents as the survey was administered the last week of the semester.

The purpose of the survey was to collect data regarding student perceptions concerning therelevancy, realism, practicality, and impact on leadership skills. Students responded using aLikert-type scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree). The frequency ofresponses within each choice is displayed as a percentage of total respondents (N = 49). Theoverall results for the forced choice items are displayed in Table 1. A major goal of the projectwas to create a realistic and relevant simulation in which students could practice leadership skillsin preparation for their future roles. Responses to the survey items addressing this goal tended tobe overwhelmingly positive, indicating it had been realized by a majority of the students involved.

Open-Ended Responses on Survey

In addition to the forced choice survey items, students could provide feedback on the strengthsand weaknesses of the project. Forty-four students (90%) of the forty-nine respondents providedfeedback on the strengths of the project. The following two major themes developed from theresponses addressing strength of the project: (a) opportunity for collaboration and (b) devel-opment of leadership skills. Of those responses, twenty-five (53%) focused specifically on theopportunity to collaborate with others outside their field and share ideas to develop the project.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:14

28

Oct

ober

201

4

58 HOWARD, MCCLANNON, WALLACE

TABLE 1Student Responses to Forced Choice Items on Survey

ItemStrongly

agree Agree Neutral DisagreeStronglydisagree

Allowed me to practice my future role. 9 (18%) 31 (63%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 0I became comfortable working with other members of

my group.12 (24%) 25 (51%) 9 (18%) 2 (4%) 1 (2%)

I valued contributions made by other team members. 19 (39%) 22 (45%) 5 (10%) 3 (6%) 0The project strengthened my leadership skills. 8 (16%) 28 (57%) 10 (20%) 2 (4%) 1 (2%)This was a realistic simulation of a potential challenge

that might be faced by a leadership team.16 (33%) 22 (45%) 9 (18%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)

Participation strengthened my skills of group leadership. 8 (16%) 27 (55%) 11 (22%) 2 (4%) 1 (2%)I would participate in future similar projects. 6 (12%) 17 (35%) 19 (39%) 3 (6%) 4 (8%)Participation in this project built upon prior or current

coursework in my program.9 (18%) 30 (61%) 6 (12%) 3 (6%) 1 (2%)

I plan to use this knowledge/skill in my future role as aschool leader.

7 (15%) 27 (56%) 11 (23%) 2 (4%) 1 (2%)

Participation in this project increased my ownknowledge of technology.

10 (20%) 30 (61%) 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 1 (2%)

Leadership development appeared in twelve (27%) of the responses. Other responses were lessclustered and ranged from “The biggest strength was being able to talk with ‘admin’ who weren’tup on the latest technology. It was good practice for me!” to “We were forced to meet in non-traditional methods, which I feel is only going to continue in professional development,” whichgave a nod to the use of online rather than face-to-face meetings.

Thirty students (61%) offered suggestions for improvement of the project. The majority ofsuggestions involved group work logistics including some way for the instructors to hold individ-uals responsible for carrying their share of the workload in the project. Students also complainedabout the difficulty of arranging mutually acceptable times for the group members to meet. Twostudents even suggested that the project be kept within the cohorts to facilitate collaboration,which would defeat the purpose entirely!

Reflection Papers

Students in school administration submitted weekly forum postings and a culminating reflectionpaper focusing on the impact on their leadership skills as a school administrator. To begin theanalysis of the papers, a holistic coding system allowed a preliminary scan of key terms or con-cepts linked to the desired outcomes of the project. Following preliminary coding, pattern codingestablished a smaller set of themes or constructs that emerged (Saladana 2009). From the secondcoding, five themes emerged as follows:

1. Communication;2. Expectations of roles and responsibilities;3. Collaboration;4. Perceived power of the principal in making decisions; and5. Scheduling of meetings.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:14

28

Oct

ober

201

4

COLLABORATION THROUGH ROLE PLAY 59

In terms of communication, most students reported that they found the need to improve theirown listening skills in order to fully understand the technological and curriculum issues of theproject. They were forced in many cases to depend upon the expertise of their team members inorder to prepare a “winning” proposal.

In the area of roles and responsibilities, the majority of the students expressed positive feelingsconcerning their perception of the realism of the simulation. They offered examples of how theyused their leadership skills gained in coursework to guide the group, address group dynamics,facilitate discussions to keep them on track, and not dominate the discussion or decision making.One comment seemed representative of this theme:

I learned a lot about having to let go and let others do their jobs. I tend to want to have my hands ina little bit of everything, but, this time, I made a strong effort to sit back and monitor the progress ofthe group.

Many students expressed comments that indicated the project allowed them to actually tryout their leadership styles in a safe yet realistic environment. Throughout the reflection papers,patterns of self-evaluation and metacognition emerged.

Collaboration among different team members appeared as a major theme as students com-mented on the level of cooperation apparent within the team. Comments were either positiveor negative depending on the level of participation of individual team members. Most studentsexpected a level of collaborative teamwork, and many reported positive experiences that strength-ened this experience. The following quote is representative of the many positive experiences:“The main lesson that can be taken from participation is that each member has a contributionthat adds to the success of a project.” However, a small number reported issues with establish-ing a sense of collaboration among team members who either did not attend meetings or didnot participate in the development of the proposal. In these cases, students tended to reflect onhow leadership in a true school setting might address and build a stronger sense of collaborationamong faculty and staff.

The role of the principal emerged as a theme complementary to that of collaboration. Studentsnoted that the true power of a principal came in the ability to lead others to work collaborativelyto develop a successful plan. As principal, the school administration student had to rely on theinstructional technology student or the curriculum specialist student to inform development ofspecific parts of the proposal. The principal could not take the project and write it up alone andexpect the rest of the team to accept it. A representative quote included the following: “I learned. . . as a leader to guide other people to the right persons to allow problem solving . . . it was notsomething I could solve on my own.”

The majority of negative comments and experiences with the project emerged as schedul-ing and communication issues. Frustration was most commonly experienced in setting up onlinemeetings with team members they had never met face-to-face. Limiting interactions to onlineplatforms, although necessary due to the logistical problems of establishing face-to-face meet-ings, led to a lack of trust among some of the group members. Some expressed frustration atnot being able to establish a common synchronous meeting time. Others felt that the lack of per-sonal contact blocked the development of relationships found in many collaborative school teams.There seemed to be a heightened awareness of the importance of establishing sound interpersonalrelationships among team members.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:14

28

Oct

ober

201

4

60 HOWARD, MCCLANNON, WALLACE

CONCLUSION

The overarching goal of the project was to prepare students for work in twenty-first-centuryschools grounded in shared leadership and collaboration. The idea was to increase the pre-paredness of our students to assume highly demanding positions in schools. This pragmaticand contextual approach to teaching fostered the necessary skills in problem solving and col-laboration. Many students were able to overcome the challenges presented by scheduling andcommunication issues through collaborative problem solving. Most students tended to recognizethe value in participating in a realistic simulation and focused on the dynamics of the group workand process rather than the product, which was the completed proposal. Instructors purposefullydid not interfere with the group dynamics or the process itself. The simulation provided onlythose parameters necessary to allow the opportunity for success while allowing students the free-dom to work together and discover their own skills in leadership. This level of interaction has thepotential to transform students’ thinking and allow them the opportunity to construct their ownmeaning of leadership.

For future projects of this nature, instructors will continue to build on the lessons learned fromthe issues that tend to emerge with each successive project. A longitudinal study of student skill inthe types of collaborative skills and shared leadership will be proposed once a sufficient numberof students has completed the programs and become established in roles of school leadership. It isnecessary to determine the true impact of such a project on student development due to the laborand time intensiveness demanded of faculty involved. Further study is needed to determine if theoutcomes support the theory that students who engage in this level of leadership developmentdemonstrate superior knowledge and skill in the areas of problem solving, shared leadership, andcollaboration while not suffering in major areas of knowledge within their fields of studies. Withstructured development, which tends to go beyond the typical internship experience, it is hopedthat students will be able to transfer these experiences into practical applications of problemsolving.

REFERENCES

Annand, D. 2011. Social presence within the Community of Inquiry framework. International Review of Research inOpen & Distance Learning 12 (5): 40–56.

Briggs, C. 2007. Curriculum collaboration: A key to continuous program research. Journal of Higher Education 78 (6):676–711.

Brockmeier, L. L., J. L. Pate, and D. Leech. 2010. Principals’ use of computer technology. Journal of TechnologyIntegration in the Classroom 2 (3): 85–90.

Bryceson, K. 2007. The online learning environment: A new model using social constructivism and the concept of ’Ba’as a theoretical framework. Learning Environments Research 10 (3): 189–206.

Bush, T. 2009. Leadership development and school improvement: Contemporary issues in leadership development.Educational Review 61 (4): 375–389.

Cray, M., and E. M. Millen. 2010. Rural superintendents’ perceptions of principal preparation. Rural Educator 31 (3):30–37.

Fox, E., and M. Riconscente. 2008. Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky. EducationalPsychology Review 20 (4): 373–389.

Fuller, E., M. Young, and B. D. Baker. 2011. Do principal preparation programs influence student achievement throughthe building of teacher–team qualifications by the principal? An exploratory analysis. Educational AdministrationQuarterly 47 (1): 173–216.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:14

28

Oct

ober

201

4

COLLABORATION THROUGH ROLE PLAY 61

Goldring, E., A. Porter, J. Murphy, S. N. Elliott, and X. Cravens. 2009. Assessing learning-centered leadership:Connections to research, professional standards, and current practices. Leadership & Policy in Schools 8 (1): 1–36.

Johnson, H. H. 2008. Mental models and transformative learning: The key to leadership development? Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly 19 (1): 85–89.

Merriam, S. B. 2004. The role of cognitive development in Mezirow’s transformational learning theory. Adult EducationQuarterly 55 (1): 60–68.

Mezirow, J. 1997. Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education74:5–12.

Patton, M. Q. 2008. Utilization-focused evaluation, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Perez, L. G., C. L. Uline, J. F. Johnson, C. James-Ward, and M. R. Basom. 2011. Foregrounding fieldwork in leadership

preparation: The transformative capacity of authentic inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly 47 (1): 217–257.Powell, K. C., and C. J. Kalina. 2009. Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom.

Education 130 (2): 241–250.Saladana, J. 2009. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Taylor, E. W. 2008. Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education 119:5–15.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:14

28

Oct

ober

201

4