The role of a sponsor in a virtual community of practice (Module 4, ISTE-CS 4)

I’d like to preface my post by saying there’s a lot of research to be found about CoPs in business. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder’s (2002) reformulation of the communities of practice theory (compared to Wenger’s original work in 1998) is written in a way that appeals to the business world, so it didn’t surprise me that the research I found this week comes from business. I know it can be controversial to link education with business, but I think the research done on CoPs in business can certainly inform us as we try to implement them in education, even if we have to adjust or completely rethink some of that information.

This week we are turning our focus to the role of administration in supporting teachers in technology-related professional learning programs as we continue to investigate ISTE Coaching Standard 4: Professional development and program evaluation. This focus led me to my investigation question:

What does research say about the role of leadership in a community of practice (CoP) or virtual community of practice (VCoP)?

Leadership roles in CoPs

In my search, I quickly found research which uses the set of community roles identified through a study conducted by the Institute for Knowledge Management (Fontaine and Prusak, 2004):

• Subject matter experts
• Core team members
• Community members
• Community leaders
• Sponsors
• Facilitators
• Content coordinators
• Journalists
• Mentors
• Admin/Events coordinators
• Technologists (p. 125)

Bourhis, Dubé, and Jacob (2005) proposed adding this role to the above list:

• Coach (p. 26)

Among these roles, the role of sponsor piqued my interest. Fontaine and Prusak’s (2004) definition reads:

Sponsors, who’re generally not part of the community, are senior managers who recognize the strategic importance of the community and its contribution to the overall business objectives of the organization. Sponsors help secure needed resources, nurture and protect the community, and ensure its exposure in the organization. (p. 126)

Fontaine and Prusak (2004) list the primary responsibilities of the sponsor as follows:

• Tie the community and its benefits to the organization’s strategic objectives
• Measure and evaluate the community’s contributions to business objectives
• Allocate budget and resources for the community
• Advocate acceptance and recognition for the community
• Work with Community Leader to support additional community roles (pp. 127-128)

This role is intriguing to me because it puts the job of securing support from the larger body of “management” on an intermediate person in management, not on someone from the community. The sponsor is already, or has become, sold on the value of the CoP – they no longer need to be convinced – and they act as a fighting voice for the CoP within management; the job of the sponsor was found to require 5.7% of the sponsor’s time per week (p. 126), which amounts to slightly less than 2.5 hours in a 40 hour work week. What this means to me is that the community leader would focus on maintaining the support of a single person (the sponsor), rather than trying to win over the support of a large body of people (management in general). This seems like a more manageable task for the community leader, or for someone who sees the potential to develop a CoP in their workplace but is struggling to get the upper-level support needed.

How sponsors make a difference in VCoPs

I’m operating on the assumption that VCoPs can be used to support and extend the learning done in teacher professional development (PD). Whether the initial PD happens in person or virtually, giving the participants a virtual space to continue discussion seems like it could have a lot of potential to support their learning. I have a lot of questions about how to implement and encourage this sort of continued engagement, and when and how to develop that continued engagement into a VCoP. For this week, I found a study that narrows in on how management can support VCoPs.

Bourhis, Dubé, and Jacob (2005) report on the successful management practices of eight VCoPs. In their study, they use the community roles listed above from Fontaine and Prusak’s (2004) study, and the additional role of a coach who supports the community leader. In general, they found that “the leadership team, especially the organization management team and the sponsor, needs to take actions so as to ensure that the [community] leader, supported by his/her coach, can effectively play its role in the community” (p. 31).

In regard to the role of the sponsor in intentionally-form VCoPs, they report that even just the identity of the sponsor can have an impact on: (1)  the community members’ perceptions of how successful VCoP would be, and (2) the community members’ initial and continued involvement in the VCoP. I wish there was more information about what traits the sponsor should be identified as having in order for the identity of the sponsor to positively impact the community members’ participation and optimism that the VCoP will succeed.

As far as active support for a VCoP, the study found that the management team and sponsor can play a crucial role in: (1) selecting a strong community leader (if using a top-down approach when building a VCoP), (2) selecting the right coach to support the community leader, (3) providing resources needed for the VCoP, and (4) “helping solve major issues as they occur” (p. 33).


Together, these studies suggest that management can support a VCoP by helping the community leader fulfill his or her role, and the connection between management and the community leader is primarily supported by the sponsor. Despite Bourhis et al.’s (2005) study being done on virtual CoP’s, their findings on what management can do to support the VCoPs didn’t include a whole lot of information that relates to technology. What was mentioned was related to management providing funding for appropriate VCoP technology (p. 29) and replacing a community leader “because he could not adjust to the new software used by the VCoP” (p. 30).

As far as supporting community members in using the VCoP technology, Bourhis et al. (2005) describe this responsibility as being directed to community leaders in the VCoPs studied. Considering Fontaine and Prusak’s (2004) set of community roles, this suggests that in these VCoPs, the community leader also played the role of the technologist.


Bourhis, A., Dubé, L., & Jacob, R. (2005). The success of virtual communities of practice: The leadership factor. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management3(1), 23-34.

Fontaine, M., & Prusak, L. (2004). Keeping communities of practice afloat: Understanding and fostering roles in communities. In Lesser, E., & Prusak, L. (Eds.), Creating value with knowledge: Insights from the IBM Institute for Business Value (pp. 124-133). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

ISTE: International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for coaches (2011). Retrieved from

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.

Designing platforms for PD: Web 2.0 and knowledge management (Module 3, ISTE-CS 4b)

For Module 3, we were prompted to look into the “digital age best practices” part of ISTE Coaching Standard 4b – design, develop, and implement technology rich professional learning programs that model principles of adult learning and promote digital age best practices in teaching, learning, and assessment.

I’d like to write a bonus blog for sharing something I want to say about the process I went through during this module, but for now I’ll get straight to the point. What I found during this module were a few terms that help me ask my question using words that help me find information I’m looking for. The new terms are Web 2.0 and knowledge management (KM), and my reformulated question is:

What best practices are associated with using Web 2.0 technologies and knowledge management systems for the purpose of continuing engagement in professional development through virtual communities?

Be aware that the term “knowledge management” seems to be a business term and so I expect that the business aspect of this term may not always map directly to education. Nevertheless, the term seems very helpful to me because of the vein of information I can find by using it since there is a lot of overlap between business and education – especially when it comes to collaboration.

I’ve come to the conclusion that, in general, if you want definitions for ideas which are consistently used everywhere, you’ll probably be out of luck. And since I currently want some flexibility in the definitions, I’m going to use Wikipedia to define the terms:

Web 2.0: “A Web 2.0 website may allow users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to the first generation of Web 1.0-era websites where people were limited to the passive viewing of content. Examples of Web 2.0 features include social networking sites and social media sites (e.g., Facebook), blogs, wikis, folksonomies (“tagging” keywords on websites and links), [and] video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube)…” (Web 2.0, n.d.).

Knowledge management: “Knowledge management is the process of creating, sharing, using and managing the knowledge and information of an organisation” (Knowledge management, n.d.).

Designing platforms for PD

During Module 1 this quarter (blog here), I read that learning management systems (LMSs) aren’t designed for professional development (PD), and we need platforms which are (Spirrison, 2016). I don’t know how true that statement is, or why Spirrison claims that, but I’ve been puzzling over it ever since and I’ve been wondering:

What makes a platform ideal for PD versus some other purpose (like running a class, for example)?

With that question in mind, a quote from a dissertation I’ve been referencing, titled Constructing Guidelines for Building Communities of Practice for Supporting Faculty Professional Development in Electronic Environments (Bond, 2013), stood out to me: “Early results indicate that both Facebook and Twitter may provide the social structures for building community, but lack infrastructure for knowledge creation and sharing” (p. 20). This sentence suggests to me that there are two big things that a platform designed for supporting PD needs to do: support social structures and support knowledge creation and sharing.

I can rewrite this claim using the new terms -> There are two big things that a platform designed for supporting PD needs to have: well-developed Web 2.0 technologies and KM technologies. I think integration of these two things is what platforms like Microsoft Teams and Slack are trying to do. Frost (2013) says that the mapping of Web 2.0 principles to KM is referred to as “KM 2.0” – another good term which would probably be valuable for me to investigate.

My experience as insight

My own experience as a graduate student suggests that what is lacking from your typical LMS is the social-structures support. I don’t think LMSs are devoid of social-structures support, but I don’t think they strongly support the social side of the equation. I’d have to think more about why, but that’s what I’m inclined to say at the moment. It could be more about the way we tend to use the tool than it is about the features and capabilities of the tool itself, and that could lead us to thoughts about best practices for using LMSs as a Web 2.0 tool, not just a KM tool.

So what I’m left with for this module are not thoughts about best digital age practices, but thoughts that put me in a better position to ask about, and search for, best digital age practices for extending PDs beyond face-to-face time.



Bond, M. A. (2013). Constructing Guidelines for Building Communities of Practice for Supporting Faculty Professional Development in Electronic Environments (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University).

Frost, A. (2013). Groupware Systems & KM 2.0. Retrieved from

ISTE: International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for coaches (2011). Retrieved from

Knowledge management. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved Feb. 18, 2018,  from

Spirrison, B. (2016). Five reasons continuous learning platforms are the future of PD [blog post]. Retrieved from

Web 2.0. (n.d.) In Wikipedia. Retrieved Feb. 18, 2018,  from

Essential features of community platforms (Module 2, ISTE-CS 4b)

My main question by the end of my last module post was something like:

What features are essential for platforms which are hosting a PLC?

This module follows up on that question.

Recall that this quarter is all about investigating ISTE Coaching Standard (CS) 4: Professional development and program evaluation. For Module 2, I’m looking specifically at ISTE CS 4b – design, develop, and implement technology rich professional learning programs that model principles of adult learning and promote digital age best practices in teaching, learning, and assessment.

Communities of practice

Communities of practice, as defined by Wenger (1998), is not a theory of learning that is specific to adults. As I understand it, it’s a theory of learning that can be applied to all ages. (Though more recent reformulations of communities of practice – i.e. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder, 2002 – focus on their applicability to the workplace, which can be assumed to be adult-focused. See Cox (2005) for more on the different formulations of communities of practice.)

In short, Wenger’s (1998) conceptualization of a community of practice is a group of people who develop and use a shared repertoire of tools to mutually engage in the pursuit of a joint enterprise. “Learning” is a form of identity development and done through learning to participate in the community – through developing a shared meaning of what the community is and what it means to participate. What it means to participate is inherently flexible and under constant re-negotiation; thus, participants are continuously learning by virtue of participation in the community.

According to Schlager and Fusco (2003),

Researchers and reform advocates consistently cite participation in communities of practice as an integral factor in achieving effective, sustainable professional development systems. … The recognition that communities of practice can play important direct and catalytic roles in teacher learning has spurred great interest in how to harness the power of communities of practice in the context of systemic school reform and professional development projects. ( p. 206)

For clarity, I should note that one critique of communities of practice – and therefore, implicitly, the related body of literature – is that Wenger (1998) and Wenger et al. (2002) conceptualize communities of practice in sufficiently different ways. Based on these differences, Cox (2005) suggests that people using communities of practice pick one formulation of the theory and stick with it; I suspect that much of the communities of practice literature uses the two conceptualizations without distinction. On a different note, Schlager and Fusco (2003), draw a distinction between communities of purpose and communities of practice, claiming that professional development communities are often better defined as communities of purpose; they also elevate the question “what counts as a community of practice?”

All this to say, unless indicated otherwise, I now approach the mention of communities of practice with the assumption that those speaking of it aren’t making a distinction between the two conceptualizations of it; and I wonder if there is a justifiable argument to be made for carefully combining the two conceptualizations in a way that better fits the communities that can form in professional development. Or to put it a different way, is there a way to justifiably redraw the boundaries of “what counts” as a community of practice, which draws on both conceptualizations, so that we can better “harness the power” of communities of practice in PD contexts?

Platform features that support online communities

The above critiques and questions aside (for now), and working from the assumption that communities of practice can support teacher learning in PD, I was pleasantly surprised to find that Wenger et al. (2002) actually made a list of seven “online facilities that are among the most useful to communities”:

(1) A home page to assert their existence and describe their domain [compare to joint enterprise] and activities.
(2) A conversation space for online discussions.
(3) A repository for documents, including research reports, best practices, and standards.
(4) A good search engine to find things in the knowledge base.
(5) A directory of membership with some information about members’ areas of expertise in the domain.
(6) In some cases, a shared workspace for synchronous electronic collaboration, or to enhance teleconferences with visuals.
(7) Community management tools… These might include the ability to know who is participating actively, which documents are downloaded, how much traffic there is, which documents need updating, and so forth. (p. 197)

I also found two other lists: one from Feverbee (2012), and one from Serrat (2017). It is unclear to me how these two resources generated their lists, and Serrat’s (2017) references appear to be incorrect/incomplete. However, I found no other resources to compare to Wenger et al. (2002).

Out of curiosity, I color coded the lists for like elements (I took liberties with what I counted as the “home page” element).

Colors are used to highlight like-features across lists. The list from Bond says: "Wenger et al. (2002) identified the seven online technology infrastructure considerations that are critical for knowledge sharing (1) a home page, (2) a conversation space for online discussions, (3) a repository for documents, research reports, best practices, and standards, (4) a search engine to find things in the knowledge base, (5) a directory of membership, (6) a shared workspace for collaboration, and (7) community management tools including page counters, participation tracking, etc." (Bond, 2013, p. 63). The list from Serrat says: "Contents • Home page: relevant information and news, latest news on the progress of related activities and projects, ongoing activities and online discussions • About the community: background information, expected outcomes and impact • News and announcements: news archives, email newsletter archives • Library (repository of relevant documents and tools) • Discussions (online discussions on particular topics of interest) • Members: list of members with background information and email addresses • Photo gallery • Links to other websites • Help (information on how to use the site and how to get assistance) • Contact us Tools • Search facility • Email this page/notify members of this page • Download and print this page • Optional: online chat facility, an events calendar" (Serrat, 2017, pp. 586-587) From <>. The list from Feverbee says: • "Discussion area. Members need a place in which they can interact. This will usually be a forum-based.  • Notifications. Members need to be notified when people have responded to their posts. This keeps members coming back. It sustains activity.  • Analytics. You need to be able to properly track what's going on. You need to know what's going on beneath the surface.  • Member profiles. Members need to create and use a consistent identity within the community. These profiles don't have to be overlook" (Feverbee, 2012) From <>.
The image shows three separate lists of essential platform features for community platforms, from Bond, 2013; Feverbee, 2012; and Serrat, 2017.

The observations which I think are worth pointing out are:

  • there are only two features that show up on all three lists: a discussion space and a list of members.
  • if a feature showed up on only two lists, it did show up on Wenger et al.’s (2002) list.
  • “notifications” only showed up on Feverbee’s (2012) list.
My top three most important features
  • Notifications
  • Member tagging
  • Two levels of threaded conversation

Notifications is one of my top two essential features of communication platforms; the other being member tagging, which is related to notifications, and not on any of the lists. I agree with Feverbee (2012) that “members need to be notified when people have responded to their posts. This keeps members coming back. It sustains activity.” And tagging supports conversation by directing someone’s attention to a specific place.

I can’t say this feature is essential… but I think it’s extremely valuable: at least one extra level to threaded conversations. I think we can assume that most platforms have a commenting feature, which is the first level of threaded conversations – someone can make a post and that thread contains the post with its comments. So the extra level I’m referring to is being able to reply to a comment, giving you a second level of threaded conversations in that post. I think having at least two levels of threaded conversation is helpful because it supports linked (but possibly diverging) conversations by keeping conversations/responses more organized.

I couldn’t find a more recent academic list, but I do suspect that notifications and member tagging would make the cut on a list of essential elements of community platforms, and I suspect that I’m not the only one who sees multiple levels of threaded conversation as beneficial. I wish I could find a more recent academic resource on the topic, and without a formal study, I wonder what I would learn if I compared common features of the most popular social networking sites.

It would still be worth considering what activities people in PLCs engage in that make the PLCs successful, and then generating my own list of platform features from there (like I mentioned in my Module 1 blog post). Towards that end, Pappas’ (2016) blog post 8 Tips To Build An Online Learning Community would be a good resource to refer back to.



Bond, M. A. (2013). Constructing Guidelines for Building Communities of Practice for Supporting Faculty Professional Development in Electronic Environments (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University).

Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of information science31(6), 527-540.

Feverbee. (2012). Essential elements of community platforms [Blog post]. Retrieved from

Pappas, C. (2016). 8 tips to build an online learning community [Blog post]. Retrieved from

Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The Information Society19(3), 203-220.

Serrat O. (2017) Building Communities of Practice. In: Knowledge Solutions. Springer, Singapore. Retrieved from

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.

What counts as PD? And on platforms to use with PLCs. (6106 Module 1, ISTE-CS 4a and 4b)

This quarter, our blogging efforts are focused on ISTE Coaching Standard (CS) 4: Professional development and program evaluation. Our investigation prompt for Module 1 was “how should we design professional development that utilizes educational technology?” which led me to two main questions:

1.   What counts as PD?
2.   What platforms are the best for hosting a PLC?

1.   What counts as PD?

In education, we talk about PD a lot. My own understanding of PD comes primarily from reading and talking about it with classmates (who are often people working in K-12), and from doing research with a grant-funded project, Focus on Energy, which has a large PD component.

I was talking with my program director, Dr. David Wicks, about the idea that people in my program could offer PD, and trying to imagine myself offering a PD made me ask “…what actually counts as PD?” So before thinking about how to design PD that utilizes technology, I needed to know more about what we all mean by “professional development.”

The answer is simple, in that it’s not simple…or something. My research indicates that PD is a very broad term (Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner, 2017; The Glossary of Education Reform, 2013; Schwartz, and Bryan, 1998), and can take just about any form. In a paper titled What is Staff Development, Schwarts and Bryan (1998) write,

Staff development means something different to each person. In its most basic form it can be as simple as a plan to provide opportunities for staff to grow professionally or personally. (p. 5)

In a report on effective professional development, Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner (2017) write,

…we define effective professional development as structured professional learning that results in changes to teacher knowledge and practices, and improvements in student learning outcomes. We conceptualize professional learning as a product of both externally provided and job-embedded activities that increase teachers’ knowledge and help them change their instructional practice in ways that support student learning. Thus, formal PD represents a subset of the range of experiences that may result in professional learning. (p. 2)

See The Glossary of Education Reform for “a representative selection of common professional-development topics and objectives for educators.”

I also found a document from the Stafford Township School District in New Jersey which outlines what they count as x-hours of PD (here). This leads me to conclude that what counts as hours earned of PD, in a technical sense, depends on the decisions made by the employer. My follow-up question to this would be:

Say you want to develop an organization which offers PD to educators. What needs to be, or needs to happen, for the workshops (etc.) offered by your organization to count as PD in a given district or school?

2.   What platforms are the best for hosting a PLC?

Feeling like I had a better sense of what counts as PD, as broad in scope as it is, I felt ready to think a little more about the link between technology and PD. I did a simple search for “professional development online” and started poking around. I found one particular blog post by Spirrison (2016) that inspired a lot of questions for me (here). Spirrison, claims that:

  • continuous learning platforms are the future of PD
  • learning management systems (LMSs) aren’t designed for professional development
  • knowledge is best transferred through professional learning communities (PLCs)

Spirrison doesn’t define what continuous learning platforms are, and I would like to know. It seems like Twitter might count, based on what he says throughout the article. I would also like to better understand his claim that LMSs aren’t designed for PD – he seems to be claiming that as a platform, they are not good enough, but I don’t fully understand why. I’d like to know what features LMSs do and don’t have that support or hinder PD and PLCs. In a similar vein, what features do continuous learning platforms have that are especially well suited to support PD and PLCs?

All this seems to be circling around the idea that we need technology that supports engagement in PLCs. But in order to investigate that I have to go backwards:

How do you create a thriving PLC? What are the features of a thriving PLC? What sustains a thriving PLC? What do we know about PLCs that can help us determine how technology can support a PLC – to determine what features are necessary in a platform that hosts an online PLC?

Then we can ask:

What platform features most support PLCs? What are the necessary features? What are the helpful features? What platforms exist which fit these needs? Do standard educational platforms not fit these needs? Why? Is there a platform that is best suited to support an online PLC? If not, what are the workarounds? 

I don’t currently have answers to these questions – they are big questions. But they help me understand the steps towards picking a platform:

  1. Research what activities people in PLCs engage in that make the PLCs successful. This closely aligns to ISTE CS 4a: Conduct needs assessments to inform the content and delivery of technology-related professional learning programs that result in a positive impact on student learning. While it is important to read what literature has to say about what people do in PLCs that sustains the PLC, it is also necessary to conduct a needs assessment to understand the exact needs of a specific PLC group – what activities will they be engaging in?
  2. Analyze and pick platforms based on their ability to facilitate these activities. This closely aligns with ISTE CS 4b: Design, develop, and implement technology rich professional learning programs that model principles of adult learning and promote digital age best practices in teaching, learning, and assessment. In order to design, develop, and implement, you must assess pieces of technology against the needs of the PLC.

Look how easy it would be to figure out. Just two tasks! (Kidding. This is surely oversimplified.) I may return to these questions in future blog posts throughout the quarter.



Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from

ISTE: International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for coaches (2011). Retrieved from

Schwartz, R. A., & Bryan, W. A. (1998). What Is Professional Development? New Directions For Student Services1998(84), 3-13.

Spirrison, B. (2016). Five reasons continuous learning platforms are the future of PD [blog post]. Retrieved from

Stafford Township School District. (n/d). What counts for professional development. Retrieved from

The Glossary of Education Reform. (2013). Professional development. Retrieved from

Compatibility between peer coaching and the ISTE-CS (Module 3)

After thinking hard about what peer coaching is and isn’t, I decided that it was time to go back to the ISTE Coaching Standards (CS). I had a few things on my mind, but overall, I was wondering:

How can I incorporate the ISTE-CS into my new understanding of peer coaching? Is the kind of coach described in the ISTE-CS compatible with peer coaching?

Incompatibility Between the ISTE-CS and Peer Coaching

My first impression of the compatibility between the ISTE-CS and a peer coach is that they are not necessarily compatible, but I should definitely elaborate on what I mean. What I mean is, if I imagine a person embodying all the things stated in the ISTE-CS, I imagine a person who is leading by example and actively advocating for the meaningful integration of technology and education; neither of these characteristics are in line with the goal of peer coaching. They are by no means negative characteristics, they are just not characteristics of peer coaching.

I say this because I think “leading by example” is fairly synonymous with “leading as expert.” The idea of “leading by example” is to say “this example is one to follow and emulate,” and following in someone’s footsteps is a completely different picture than working as peers to discover the coachee’s path. When leading by example, the answers reside within the person leading, not within the person emulating; this is the opposite of peer coaching, where the answers reside within the coachee.

Additionally, ideally, a peer coach shouldn’t be pushing any sort of agenda, and I think “actively advocating for the meaningful integration of technology and education” is starting to cross that line. I want to reiterate that this advocacy is not bad, it’s just not the goal of peer coaching. Of course, as humans, we can’t eliminate all biases from our work as a peer coach, but we should be careful when actively advocating for something.

Making the ISTE-CS Compatible with Peer Coaching

All that said, I do think that the ISTE-CS can inform peer coaching. Since “asking questions” is a hallmark of peer coaching, I decided that I wanted to try and use the ISTE-CS to come up with questions that I could ask, as a peer coach. I tried to keep the technology focus a separate part of the questions, when I could, to reduce the advocacy angle. My goal was to look at the indicator and come up with one or more questions that could get at what the indicator was talking about.

After doing that, I decided I wanted to pull out as few words as possible from the indicator to summarize what the indicator was talking about; this is what is bolded at the start of every number. It was something I personally needed to do, for myself, to “see the landscape” of everything in the standards – or to see the document as a whole. There are a lot of similar words in the ISTE-CS, and I felt like I couldn’t see the forest for the trees. (Doing this actually gave me insight I didn’t have before. I half thought that some indicators repeated themselves in terms of the ideas being focused on, but really they don’t overlap all that much!)

Peer Coaching Questions Based on the ISTE-CS
  1. Visionary Leadership
    1. Vision: What is your vision of how technology could be incorporated into the instructional environment?
    2. Planning: What is your plan to reach your vision? How will you evaluate the success of implementation? Do you need to communicate with anyone about your plan?
    3. Support: What policies, programs, and funding exist to help you implement your plan? What procedures must you go through to implement? Does your plan align with the school’s or district’s technology plan and guidelines?
    4. Sustaining: What challenges might stop you from implementing or sustaining your plan?
  2. Teaching, learning, and assessments
    1. Standards: How does this technology-enhanced learning experience address content and technology standards?
    2. Diverse needs and interests: What research-based instructional strategies and assessment tools can address the diverse needs and interests of all of your students? What are the diverse needs of your students for assessment? For instruction? Are there technologies that can help you meet their diverse needs?
    3. Real-world problems: Are there local or global communities that your students could interact with during the learning experience? Is there a way they could assume a professional role and research real-world problems? Could they collaborate with anyone outside the classroom? Could they produce a meaningful and useful product?
    4. Creativity, higher-order thinking skills: How does the learning experience allow for creativity, higher-order thinking skills and processes, and developing mental habits of mind? Are there technologies that could help your students engage in these things during the learning experience?
    5. Differentiation: How can the learning experience be differentiated for students? Can technology be used to aid in differentiation?
    6. Research-based best practices: What does research say about best practices for ____?
    7. Formative and summative assessments: What kinds of formative and summative assessments do you use? Are there other kinds of assessments you could use that might help students convey their ideas in new ways? How can technology help create a rich variety of formative and summative assessments?
    8. Student achievement data: What kinds of student achievement data could be collected during the learning experience? Who will use it? How will it be interpreted? Who will it be communicated to, and how?
  3. Digital age learning environments
    1. Classroom management and collaborative learning: Does the learning activity create any challenges with classroom management? Is technology creating classroom management challenges? Does the learning activity incorporate collaborative learning? Is there a technology that could help with classroom management or collaborative learning?
    2. Maintain and manage tools: How do you manage digital tools for yourself? For your students? How can students manage their own digital tools?
    3. Online and blended learning: Is there any blended learning incorporated into the classroom? Could there be? Could digital tools increase student choice in the activity?
    4. Assistive technologies: What assistive technologies do you use? What assistive technologies would be helpful to your students? Can you incorporate any of these into your classroom?
    5. Troubleshooting: How do you troubleshoot problems (tech problems or otherwise)? How do your students troubleshoot? How can you teach troubleshooting skills? What do you need in your classroom to teach troubleshooting skills?
    6. Select and evaluate digital tools: What is your school or district’s technology infrastructure? How do you ensure that you select tools which are compatible with your school or districts’s technology infrastructure?
    7. Communicate locally and globally: What digital communication and collaboration tools do you use in your classroom to increase communication and collaboration between: you, students, parents, peers, and the community?
  4. Professional development and program evaluation
    1. Needs assessment: What technology-related professional learning do you feel like you would most benefit from?
    2. Professional learning programs: In response to (a), can you get this professional development through your school or district? Can we do anything to support your professional development?
    3. Evaluate results: What does research say about the results of specific professional learning programs?
  5. Digital citizenship
    1. Equitable access: What do students have equitable access to in your classroom? Where do you feel like equitable access could be improved? How can we improve equitable access? Can a technology help?
    2. Safe, healthy, legal, and ethical uses: Where are some opportunities in the curriculum to talk about safe, healthy, legal, or/and ethical uses of digital information and technologies?
    3. Diversity, cultural understanding, and global awareness: Where are some opportunities to promote diversity, cultural understanding, and global awareness? Can a technology help promote those things?
  6. Content knowledge and professional growth
    1. Content and pedagogical knowledge: Is there a technology you would like to learn more about for classroom use? Maybe a technology you have never used before, or one that you would like to deepen your knowledge about?
    2. Organizational change and leadership: What are the dispositions of your leadership regarding technology in the classroom? What kind of change can you advocate for within your school or district? How can you advocate for that change?
    3. Reflect: What are some professional practices you have in place that you feel work really well? What are some things that you feel could run smoother? How do your beliefs and dispositions about technology affect your practice? How do the dispositions of your peers affect their practice?

The exercise of turning all the indicators into questions was quite valuable. It made me realize that this is something you can (probably) do with any set of standards, and I feel like it made the standards more manageable. Some of my questions were geared towards taking the first steps in the direction of the indicator, but I envision an iterative process where we use an indicator to come up with questions to pursue, and then come back to the indicator to come up with follow up questions.

For even more questions, there’s always questions like: “but what do we really mean by ‘troubleshooting’?” I find these to be enjoyable and enlightening rabbit holes of their own. I did not include these kinds of questions in my list above, but they are often the kinds of questions I pursue.


ISTE: International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for coaches (2011). Retrieved from