Introduction Summaries Value And Effects Of Instructional Technology
Over the past 10 years, researchers, educators, and administrators have debated the value
and effects of instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools. In spite of the
conflicting results reported on the effectiveness of instructional technology in the K-12
educational environment, educational policy specialists and administrators have made a
concerted effort to increase the presence of technology in classrooms (Kay, 2006). The principal
is a key facilitator in the effort to infuse technology into the school; therefore, technology
training for principals as well as for teachers should be a priority. According to Dawson and
Rakes (2003), leadership that promotes change is the missing factor when it comes to merging
technology and instruction as this was found in a 1997 study conducted by Merkley, Bosik, and
Oakland. No matter how much training teachers receive to prepare them for technology
integration, most will not successfully employ that training without encouragement from the
principal (Dawson & Rakes, 2003).
The following statement was made in a study conducted by McCain:
We are doing a really good job of providing education, but the kind of education
we provide is increasingly irrelevant to the modern changing world in which we
live, a world driven by four trends: global digital networks, technological fusion,
emerging strategic alliances, and access to personal computers for everyone
(Finn,
2006, 3).
In addition, Putt (n.d.) believes: “Technology is dominated by two types of people:
those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not
understand.” Today’s principal must be able to understand technology in order to manage it
properly.
Technology implementation in schools has shifted from the access stage to effective
integration into the curriculum. As technology becomes an agent of change in school reform
movements, the role of administrators changes from sideline spectator to active participant in
technology integration. This role is of vital significance for the success of technology integration
to be realized (Persaud, 2006).
Background of the Study
School principals of today must be leaders and managers of information and instructional
practices. The traditional role of the building principal has been the manager, keeping the dayto-
day events of the school running smoothly. The leader of an organization creates a vision for
change and the manager plans and implements the details of that change. Today’s principal must
serve as both leader and manager and be prepared to support a change in school culture to
sustain vision and facilitate the change process. As an instructional leader of the 21st Century,
the principal is now required to play an integral role in technology integration.
The individual with the most direct influence on a school is the building principal. No
successful large-scale change or school reform has advanced very far without the support of the
leadership in the system that is most closely connected to those that need to change (Kozloski,
2006).
Instructional Leadership
According to the study performed by Wilmore and Betz in 2000, the principal’s role is an
important component to the success of technology integration. They summarize the success of
technology integration by proposing that information technology will only be successfully
implemented in schools if the principal actively supports it, learns it, provides adequate
professional development and supports his/her staff in the process of change (Kozloski, 2006).
Wilmore and Betz further noted that leaders who are immersed in technology while they are
studying theory are much more successful at understanding it and then placing it in the context
of teaching and learning. Educational leaders must seek to understand, promote and implement
the notion that technology integration is not just about technology; it is about focusing on future
generations and leading teachers to a change in pedagogy to support these generations with 21st
century teaching and learning strategies that increase student achievement (Kozloski, 2006).
According to Langran (2006), the principal’s role in technology decisions is essential in creating
schools that effectively integrate technology. In other words, by evaluating teachers’ use of
technology in the classroom and modeling its proper use, principals create an expectation for
technology integration in the classroom.
According to research, there are mixed views on the relationship between technology
integration and student achievement. However, there are vast benefits to its usage, as federal,
state, and city educational systems are continually instituting it within their programs. Within a
study conducted by Judge, Puckett, and Bell (2006), access to a home computer, a computer area
in classrooms, the Internet, and proficiency in computer use correlated positively with higher
academic achievement. Two reports from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
emphasized the progress the nation has made over the last decade in technology access and
highlighted the role of schools in achieving parity in computer and Internet access for children
(NCES, 2006). The nation’s continued investment in school-based technology has resulted in
significant progress toward closing the digital divide. Studies conducted on the effectiveness of
technology in the classroom often have mixed results, thus making it difficult for one to
generalize about the overall impact of technology in improving learning. The gap in access to
computer technology is cause for concern if one assumes that academic achievement is
facilitated by access to computers at home and at school. Digital equity is a social justice goal,
ensuring that all students have access to information and communication technologies for
learning regardless of socioeconomic status (SES), disability, language, race, gender, or any
characteristic that has been linked with unequal treatment (Judge, Puckett, & Bell, 2006).
According to Persaud (2006), administrators are proficient in technology for data management
and analysis and for administrative purposes. However, they are deficient in areas of
instructional technology. The reason for this deficiency according to Persaud’s study, was the
lack of training. Based on the results of this study, it is not realistic to expect that principals and
superintendents on their own will become trained in technology for instruction. The interviews
indicated that unless they see technology as valuable and part of their leadership role they will
not take time for training. In addition, Dawson and Rakes (2003) determined that the influence
of a principal’s technology training on the integration of technology within the school correlated
significantly with actual technology utilization within the school. Using a survey, a study was
conducted involving 398 principals from across the United States who were Internet users. They
discovered that the amounts and types of technology training possessed by K-12 principals
affected technology integration. In other words, the more technology training and/or experience
attained by a school administrator, the more likely technology would be incorporated within the
school (Dawson & Rakes, 2003). Consequently, staff development and other forms of
technology training are vital in the preparation of educational leaders.
Technology Staff Development and Other Training
According to Kozloski (2006), technology staff development for educational leaders has
been focused on skills needed for principals to use technology in a productive manner. These
staff development programs have not been effective at helping building leaders see the need to
move beyond productivity to innovation and instructional leadership for technology integration.
In addition, staff development programs have also not been able to identify specific methods and
strategies for technology leadership and how these may correlate to the current state of
technology as it exists in their buildings (Kozloski, 2006). Understanding the needs of principals
is key when it comes to strategic planning and the development of effective schools. According
to a study conducted by Finn (2006), high school principals believe that significant needs exist in
the areas of technology planning, support, and resources.
In instances where technology is properly supported and training is adequate for both
principals and teachers, its utilization has been visible within school settings. According to
Weber (2006), Texas elementary principals reported high level computer technology use,
especially with the computer tools involving communication. Within that same study, a
statistically significant positive relationship between principals’ computer technology use and
personal variables of training and perceived risk-benefit existed. For example, principals who
used computers and personally took the initiative toward obtaining technology training viewed
technology implementation as a benefit.
Although there are other explanations for the uneven impact of technology in school,
many current efforts have assumed different results from a failure of leadership that can be
resolved by providing better pre-service and in-service principal training. In Byrom and
Bingham’s 2001 study, it was found that lack of leadership and poorly trained administrators
were two primary reasons for the failure to fully integrate educational technology in the school
(Weber, 2006). However, little attention has been given to training pre-service and in-service
administrators in technology. Despite the lack of attention and training, administrators continue
to face increased responsibilities of infusing technology into their schools (Weber, 2006).
According to Telem in 1993, with training there is the possibility of principals using instructional
technology as an aggressive educational leadership tool and proactive management tool.
According to Schmeltzer’s 2001 study, many technology courses offered for school
administrators have emphasized skills-based training that show administrators how to use
presentation, spreadsheet, and database software rather than how to assure that technology is
used to support instruction. School administrators may have the basic skills to use technology
successfully in their daily on-the-job activities, but they may not have had training regarding the
effective integration of technology in classroom instruction (Weber, 2006). To address the need
for technology implementation training for school administrators, the Collaborative for
Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) led an initiative to develop and
document a national consensus on what PK-12 administrators should know about and be able to
do to optimize benefits of technology use in schools (NCES, 2005). Ertmer, Bai, Dong, Khalil,
Park and Wang’s study found that there is very little research delineating best practices for
preparing administrators to be technology leaders thereby acquiring their technology knowledge
on the job or from occasional training by vendors, professional organizations and in some cases,
colleges and universities (Kozloski, 2006).
Statement of the Problem
Technology is a tool that has the potential to empower educational leaders at all levels—
whether they are superintendents, principals, or teachers. Technology allows for the
dissemination of accurate information and advanced communication capabilities. Technology
has the ability to improve management and operations, as well as improve instructional methods.
Administrators benefit from understanding and competently using technology as they manage
and set priorities for a school or even a school district. Experience as a hands-on user helps
administrators understand the change process that students, teachers, and staff must undergo
when integrating technology. Effectively utilizing technology also empowers administrators to
manage large amounts of information and make data-driven decisions.
However, research is limited in measuring administrators’ technological training. In
addition, research is limited in measuring administrators’ technology use, and the actual
percentage of administrators who require and/or actively integrate technology within their
respective schools, in spite of national, state, and local mandates.
Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to examine how
principals’ technological leadership contributes to the implementation of technology in their
school. The overarching question was this: What is the relationship between the principals’
technological leadership and their schools’ use of instructional technology? To guide the study,
the researcher responded to the following subquestions:
1. What is the personal assessment of two middle school principals in a Central Savannah
River Area (CSRA) school district regarding their technological leadership?
2. What do media specialists of two middle schools in a CSRA school district believe is the
current integration and use of technology for student instruction in their school?
3. What do core teachers of two middle schools in a CSRA school district believe is the
current integration and use of technology for student instruction in their school?
4. What is the relationship between principals’ technological leadership and integration and
use of technology for student instruction in their school?
Significance of the Study
School systems are facing increasing pressure to use technology to enhance learning,
teaching, and administration. Principals are expected to be the leaders in this endeavor.
Technology usage is highly encouraged within the educational setting. The typical educational
budget was designed to accommodate technological needs (i.e. training, equipment, and other
support) of the school. As a result of the overwhelming attention being given to educational
technology, it is vital to ensure that principals are trained and competent in its usage within their
schools, so that they can pass on that knowledge to their teachers and students. Technology
integration has the potential to improve teaching strategies as well as learning practices. The
practical significance of this study was to assist in the determination of whether principals’
technology training positively affects the implementation of technology within the school. Some
of the practical problems that currently exist include the lack of appropriate training for
principals. If principals are not trained to use technology, chances are that it will not be used or
it will not be used optimally to support instruction. Therefore, one of the intentions of this study
was to identify the significance of technological training for school administrators as one of the
remedies for successful educational technology implementation. Competency with technology is
one of many skills that is essential within our technology-oriented society and educators must be
competent in this area in order to teach and pass on those skills to their students.
The professional significance of this study was to establish the concept that providing
administrators with sufficient technology training, both in pre-service and in-service settings,
would ultimately benefit the classroom. This study would be of benefit to Georgia Southern
University and other institutions that offer educational leadership programs. Although the data
gathered was from only one very small area of the United States, the information generated can
provide useful data for departments of education, school districts, and administrator preparation
programs to develop strategies that assist principals in their acquisition of knowledge and skills
regarding technology in schools.
The policy significance of this study was important as a result of the existence of the
requirements of the educational technology division under the No Child Left Behind Act. In
addition, all Georgia educators are required to satisfactorily master a computer competency test
in order to maintain their certification. This information can help policy makers, who are
designing technology integration training, develop appropriate training for principals.
The personal significance of this study was two-fold: (1) as a business education teacher
for seven (7) years who taught computer concepts daily, the researcher understood that the
utilization of technology was crucial to functioning efficiently within society, and (2) the
researcher found that as an administrator that it was imperative that school leaders work smart
and use any and all tools that have been proven to improve/expedite learning and administrative
tasks. Therefore, the findings of this study would benefit the educational sector, current and
future administrators, as well as the researcher.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, technological leadership was defined as the concept of
providing adequate guidance, support, and resources in the area of technology. Technological
leadership was explored in the following two areas: the use of technology in schools and
principals’ influence upon the use of technology.
Delimitations of the Study
The following aspects were delimitations of the study:
1. Only the principals of Burns County were assessed.
2. The small number of respondents limited the generalizability of the study.
3. This was an exploratory study, designed to discover relationships among the variables
rather than investigate cause-effect relationships.
Procedures
The initial step was to request permission from the Superintendent of Burns County
School System to secure the data needed for this study (see Appendix A). The next step was to
obtain research permission from the Georgia Southern University Institutional Review Board
(IRB) (see Appendix D). Following approval of the superintendent, the middle school
principals, teachers, and media specialists within the school system were interviewed (see
Appendix B). The next step was to review the data received from the individuals participating in
the interviews. The final research step was to analyze the data, and it is from this data that the
researcher was able to formulate conclusions to determine the relationship between the
principals’ level of technological leadership to their schools’ actual implementation of
instructional technology.
Research Design
For the purpose of this research, a descriptive study using qualitative inquiry methods
was implemented. Interview data was used to obtain information on the influence of principals’
technological leadership upon the integration of technology within the curriculum. According to
Gay and Airasian (2003), a descriptive survey determines and describes the ways things are. In
the case of this study, data was obtained using interviews.
Participants
This investigation specifically sought descriptions and explanations of integrating
technology from middle school principals, teachers, and media specialists. The participants
within the study included 2 principals, 2 media specialists, and 16 core teachers (7 teachers from
School #1 and 9 teachers from School #2) within two middle schools of Burns County.
Therefore, the number of participants was 20.
Sampling
The researcher randomly selected two of the ten middle schools within Burns County for
the purpose of this study. The researcher placed the names of all the middle schools in a hat and
withdrew two names. The principals and media specialists were selected for this study using a
convenience sample. The teachers were selected using random purposeful sampling. A random
purposeful sample is defined as a group of cases that are selected by random sampling methods
for the purpose of establishing that the selection of the cases was not biased (Gall, Gall, & Borg,
2007). The teachers were selected purposefully by the researcher to ensure all academic areas
from various grade levels were represented. It was the researcher’s goal to obtain teachers’
responses using the focus group approach.
Instrumentation
The researcher devised interview questions for the principals and then different interview
questions for teachers and media specialists (see Appendix B). The principals’ interview
questions sought after input regarding principals’ technological training, the use of technology in
schools and principals’ influence upon computer usage. The media specialists’ and teachers’
interview questions sought input regarding the use of technology in the school and principals’
influence upon technology usage within each school.
Data Collection
Interviews are used extensively in educational research to collect data about phenomena
that are not directly observable: inner experience, opinions, values, interests, and the like. They
also can be used to collect data about observable phenomena more conveniently than by direct
observation (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). The researcher interviewed all participants and all
interviews were recorded and transcribed.
Data Analysis
After data responses were reviewed, the data was analyzed, and it is from this data that
the researcher was able to formulate conclusions. The researcher used a category system to
analyze data. The researcher used grounded theory principles and the method of constant
comparison to compare entries within and across categories (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). This
allowed the researcher to generate constructs, themes, and patterns to form the categorical data.
The researcher organized the qualitative interview data. Within the principals’ interviews,
questions 1-2 measured each principal’s technological training. Interview questions 3-5
measured the principals’ personal/professional use of technology. Interview questions 6-11
measured the principals’ influence upon technology integration.
The media specialists and teachers were asked the same interview questions. Within the
interviews with the media specialists and teachers, interview questions 1-4 measured technology
use within the school and interview questions 5-7 measured principals’ influence upon
technology integration.
Research question one (What is the personal assessment of two middle school principals
in a CSRA school district regarding their technological leadership?) was analyzed to produce
findings regarding the two principals’ views regarding their technological training, their
personal/professional technology use, and their influence upon technology integration within
their schools. Research question 2 and research question 3 (What do media specialists/core
teachers of two middle schools in a CSRA school district believe is the current integration and
use of technology for student instruction in their school?) was analyzed to produce findings
regarding the actual use of technology in schools and principals’ influence upon technology
integration. Research question 4 (What is the relationship between principals’ technological
leadership and integration and use of technology for student instruction in their school?) was
analyzed to produce findings of whether there was a relationship between what the principals
perceived to be occurring in their school in terms of technology verses what their media
specialists and teachers identified is commonplace in the school in terms of technology. In other
words, the researcher was able to determine if there was a relationship between technology
leadership and technology integration for each individual middle school.
Summary
The transformation of integrating technology within the curriculum is everyone’s
responsibility but the primary responsibility resides with the school’s principal being receptive
and competent in the area of technology before its consistent implementation is visible within the
school. It is imperative to utilize technology and its capabilities to its fullest potential in order to
progress within global society.
The integration of technology is not a new concept, but it has now become a requirement
of every school system within the United States through the National Technology Education
Plan. Principals must take on the primary responsibility of its implementation within their
schools in order to provide students with the particular technological knowledge base that will
benefit them in many aspects of their lives and this task possibly may require more technological
training of school personnel—but specifically from the school’s principal. A technologically
competent leader has more of a tendency of passing on technology-related characteristics within
their school.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine how principals’ technological
leadership contributed to the integration of technology in their school. This study was conducted
within the Burns County School System, as two of the county’s middle schools’ principals,
media specialists, and teachers were examined within the area of their individualized technology
usage and training. Discovering the relationship between principals’ technological leadership
and their schools implementation of technology was the ultimate objective of this study. Despite
noted benefits of technology to students, teachers, and administrators, its actual implementation
is often ignored. Therefore, this study was intended to identify whether there was an actual
relationship between leadership and actual implementation. In addition, this study was
significant, as it added an additional knowledge base within the educational arena in the area of
educational technology.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Not since television has a single technological advance had a greater impact on daily life
and educational environments than computers. The huge infusion of technology in classrooms
gives students access to computers to assist in their learning process. In the past, every typical
family owned a television. In the 21st Century, the typical family has numerous televisions and a
computer in the home. People entering the workplace must be competent in computer usage.
According to Salpeter (2003), learning in educational settings needs to be relevant to real-life.
As a result of preparing students for real-life, they should be prepared for the technological
world in the classroom through the use of integrating technology within the curricula.
Effectively using technology means rethinking almost every facet of education. The integration
of technology in education is no longer a new idea. Because technology has become such an
integral part of society, it is necessary to integrate its use in education in a variety of ways.
Computers can be used as tools to create instructional materials or as presentation devices to
provide information in ways never before possible. Improving teacher performance and student
learning can be amplified through an increased understanding and use of technologies.
Administrators also gain benefit from the use of technology in forms such as in monitoring
student achievement and accommodating individual needs. The technology that has so
dramatically changed the world outside our schools is now changing the learning and teaching
environment within them. This change is driven by an increasingly competitive global economy
and the students themselves who are born and comfortable in the age of the Internet (Thomas,
2005). However, in order for teachers and students to fully reap and perceive the benefits of
technology integration its usage must be supported and modeled by school administrators.
An emerging body of literature documents the effectiveness of computer integration in
the educational setting. Information in this review of literature has broad implications for a
larger population of educational administrators.
As a result of preparing students for real-life, students should be prepared for the
technological world in the classroom through the use of integrating technology within the
curricula (Duhaney, 2001). Many school districts and universities fail to provide proper training
for school administrators and teachers (Wetzel & Zambo, 1996). It is quite difficult for an
educator to teach students to use a tool in which the educator is incompetent. Technology
integration must be implemented in a meaningful practical manner in order for its benefits to be
realized, which requires appropriate resources and administrative support.
Significance of Technology Integration
According to Goddard (2002), computer technology can provide a number of different
instructional environments that allow for a variety of learning styles. According to Swan and
Mitrani (1993), studies have been done that prove that computers can change the nature of
teaching and learning at its most basic level—the level of interactions between students and
teachers. Student-teacher interactions tend to be more student-centered and individualized
during computer-based teaching and learning than during traditional teaching and learning.
According to Yamagata-Lynch (2003), businesses and other organizations throughout the world
have been made more efficient because of their better application of technology. As a result of
technology taking an increasingly critical role in our society, American educators have become
accountable for preparing technology-literate students as indicated in the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act (2001). Consequently, there have been pressures from the business sectors and the
government for schools to prepare technology-literate future citizens. However, because of the
organizational constraints in schools, teachers have faced limited technology support, which has
hindered them from infusing technology into their curricula. Colleges and universities must
shape their educational leadership programs in a manner in which the curriculum is relevant and
current. School districts should also increase the amount of technology training specifically
designed for school administrators that focuses on infusing technology into the curriculum
(Mullen & Cairns, 2001). Technology integrated curricula can be maintained long-term through
the aid of administrative support (Hill, 1999). School leaders, and aspiring school leaders, must
be taught how to incorporate technology within the classroom because their skills in the area of
technology will carry over into their respective schools. The challenge of integrating technology
has proven to be less of a hassle when principals are committed to implementing technology and
voice their commitment in terms of supporting the innovation and their teachers (Staples,
Pugach, & Himes, 2005). According to Foster (2004), findings support the growing recognition
that competent administrative and teacher leadership contribute to school success and reinforce
leadership as a shared social influence process.
Technology Education Legislation
The United States Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology (OET)
resides in the Office of the Secretary of Education and its core purpose is to maximize
technology’s contribution to improving education. OET develops national educational
technology policy and implements that policy department-wide supporting the goals of NCLB
and other initiatives (Office of Educational Technology, 2006a).
The portion of the NCLB Act known as Enhancing Education Through Technology Act
of 2001 (E2T2) has a goal: To assist every student in crossing the digital divide by ensuring that
every student is technologically literate by the time the student finishes the eighth grade,
regardless of the student’s race, ethnicity, gender, family income, geographic location, or
disability. The primary goal of the Title II, Part D (Enhancing Education through Technology)
program is to improve student academic achievement through the effective use of technology in
schools and to encourage the effective integration of technology through teacher training and
curriculum development to establish successful, research-based instructional methods. Title II,
Part D maintains that school systems will spend 25 percent of all funds from this program on
high-quality professional development for teachers (Georgia Department of Education, 2004).
Educator proficiency is one of the seven essential components under the National Technology
Program. Access to technology alone does not ensure effective instructional or administrative
use of technology. Such outcomes depend on a workforce that is proficient and comfortable
using technology to support learning. There are currently five national standards for teachers
and administrators: (a) designing, implementing, supporting, and evaluating effective learning
experiences supported by technology, (b) designing and implementing curriculum plans that
include applying technology to maximize learning, (c) applying technology to facilitate a variety
of effective technology-supported assessment and evaluation strategies at the classroom, school,
and system level, (d) using technology to enhance professional productivity and practice, and (e)
understanding the social, legal, and ethical issues related to technology use and applying that
understanding to practice. In addition, national standards for administrators include: (a)
inspiring a shared vision for comprehensive integration of technology, (b) fostering a culture
conducive to the realization of that vision, and (c) ensuring the integration of technology to
support productive systems for learning and administration (Georgia Department of Education,
2004). Funded through NCLB, Georgia provides grants to local educational agencies on the
basis of their proportionate share of funding under Title I, Part A. The Georgia Department of
Education considers this a local control issue to be defined by each district (Georgia Standards,
n.d.)
NCLB requires the Secretary of Education to update a national long-range technology
plan based on an assessment of the continuing and future needs of the nation’s schools in
effectively using technology to provide all students the opportunity to meet challenging state
academic standards. The plan highlights seven action steps that states, districts, and schools can
take to evaluate their use of technology to improve student achievement (Office of Educational
Technology, 2006b). The seven action steps include (a) strengthen leadership, (b) consider
innovative budgeting, (c) improve teacher training, (d) support e-learning and virtual schools, (e)
encourage broadband access, (f) move toward digital content, and (g) integrate data systems
(U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
As a part of state school reform legislation, House Bill 1187 (A Plus Education Reform
Act) was passed in 2001. Georgia educators were required to demonstrate competency in the
area of technological ability through a test approved by the Professional Standards Commission
(PSC) or through a PSC-approved course, such as In-tech. Every educator of Georgia must have
demonstrated this competency by June 30, 2006. Noncompliance of this requirement resulted in
the educator’s certification not being renewed and an electronic block was placed on the
certificate. If the certificate expired because an educator was unable to satisfy the competency
requirement, the school system had the option of requesting a waiver for one year (Georgia
Professional Standards Commission, 2004). The only state approved test of computer skill
competency was Georgia AccessOnline, which measured educators’ technological skills in six
areas to include (a) Windows operating systems, (b) word processing, (c) spreadsheets, (d)
databases, (e) presentation tools, and (f) internet navigation. An educator’s overall score must
have been at least 175 (with the maximum score being 300) in order to meet this requirement
(Georgia Professional Standards Commission, 2001).
The State of Georgia’s Technology Integration Goal is: Technology will contribute to
increased student achievement of core academic and technology integration standards in the
Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) (Georgia Department of Education, 2004). Objective four of
The State of Georgia’s K-12 Technology Plan is to increase educators’ proficiency to use
technology effectively to enhance student learning and business operations in elementary and
secondary schools (Georgia Department of Education, 2004). Educators will use technology to
enable new ways of implementing instruction and accessing learning, develop instructional
strategies targeted toward needs, and enhance their professional skills and knowledge (Georgia
Department of Education, 2004).
Georgia is leading the country in the use of technology in education, according to a
national report. Georgia was the only state to receive an “A” in the annual “Technology Counts”
report released by Education Week on March 29, 2007. The report scores states in the following
three areas: access to technology, use of technology, and capacity to use technology (Tofig,
2007). In addition, Georgia is one of very few states that have technology requirements for
teachers and administrators seeking certification or recertification. Compared with other states,
the following statistics apply to the state of Georgia:
1. It is 1 of 45 states to include it in teacher standards.
2. It is 1 of 36 states to include it in administrator standards.
3. It is 1 of 19 states to include it in initial teacher-license requirements.
4. It is 1 of 9 states to include it in initial administrator-license requirements.
5. It is 1 of 9 states to include it in teacher-recertification requirements.
6. It is 1 of 5 states to include it in its administrator-recertification requirements
(Technology Counts, 2007).
The Burns County School System has many technology goals to enhance learning for all
students as well as to increase knowledge and skills for teachers and administrators. Several
technology-related gaps have been identified, such as access to technology, instructional uses,
administrative uses, and communication. However, the school system has several tactics in place
to bridge this technological gap within the county (Georgia Department of Education, 2008).
Instructional Technology and Technology Leadership
According to The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)
Definitions and Terminology Committee, instructional technology is defined as the theory and
practice of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and
resources for learning. Instructional technology is a growing field of study, which uses
technology as a means to solve educational challenges, both in the classroom and in distance
learning environments. While instructional technology promises solutions to many educational
problems, resistance from faculty and administrators to the use of technology in the classroom is
not unusual. This reaction can arise from the belief, or fear, that the ultimate aim of instructional
technology is to reduce or even remove the human element of instruction. Most instructional
technologists however, would counter with this claim that education will always require human
intervention from instructors or facilitators. In the education industry, the terms instructional
technology and educational technology are often used interchangeably (Ely, 2008).
Principals are being admonished to be “instructional leaders” without much clarity about
what that means. In addition, there is very limited research that examines how instructional
supervision works to influence teacher in-classroom behavior and attitudes toward student
learning that in turns may affect student achievement levels (Glanz, Shulman, & Sullivan, 2007).
Having a technology leader properly certified will ensure that instructional technology is
implemented and supported properly (Lesisko & Wright, 2007). The requirement for a single
individual to do conduct all aspects of instructional technology is not realistic. According to
Lesisko and Wright (2007), the most obvious solution is to hire two people, one being a systems
manager with significant technical training and background, and the other individual being an
educator with a specialization in educational technology supervision and leadership. The lack of
technology integration stems from a lack of confidence by the educator. Well-trained educators
do not hesitate to provide technology experiences for their students. Administrators and teachers
have to be trained in curriculum and methods. If technology is not apart of the curriculum and
methods program, then it will be viewed as “extra”. Curriculum supervisors, superintendents,
and administrators who are not technologically prepared do not expect results from teachers
using technology.
Technology utilization is unavoidable within today’s educational environment and
therefore, it is imperative to have educators who are technologically competent. The principal’s
role has become increasingly complex. Even though most principals bring a strong sense of
purpose to their work and welcome challenges, contemporary educational leaders definitely need
to utilize technology to its fullest potential. School administrators and teachers are increasingly
relying on sophisticated technology systems to provide support and service in completing their
daily tasks in schools (Mullen & Cairns, 2001). A myriad of tasks associated with operating a
school has been integrated into the school’s instructional and administrative functions.
Regardless of an administrator’s level of technological competence, it is her/his duty as an
effective leader to channel personal ego needs away from himself or herself and into the larger
goal of the institution. Their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves
(Collins, 2001).
The National Center for Education Statistics (2005) indicates that principal leadership
has been described as one of the most important factors affecting the effective use of technology
in schools. Principals who are knowledgeable about technology and technological issues are
important advocates for the integration of technology into schools. Administrative support is
crucial in determining whether or not teachers would integrate technology. Research supports
that when administrators offered their teachers emotional and moral support by showing interest
in changes the teachers instituted in their classrooms that favorable results were evident. In
addition, by working with their staff to create a shared vision for the future, effective
administrators eased tensions among teachers and fostered teacher collaboration rather than
competition (Kincaid & Feldner, 2002). In their study, Abbott and Faris (2000) noted that when
student teachers were provided instruction and exposure to technology it was credited for
increasing positive attitudes towards computers that resulted from instructional approaches,
meaningful assignments requiring technology, and a supportive faculty.
Technology Preparation in Higher Education Institutions
School districts and universities must increase the amount of technology training
specifically designed for its aspiring school administrators that focuses on infusing technology
into the curriculum. In order for public education to benefit from the rapidly evolving
development of information and communication technology, leaders at every level—school,
district, and state—must not only supervise, but also provide informed, creative, and
transformative leadership for systematic change. Leadership in this area can be strengthen by
investing in leadership programs to develop a new generation of tech-savvy leaders at every level
and by retooling administrator education programs to provide training in technology decision
making and organizational change (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Georgia Southern
University’s College of Education has adopted Reflective Educators for Diverse Learners as its
theme for its conceptual framework within its educator preparation programs. There are four
commitments that makeup this framework: (a) commitment to the knowledge, skills, and
disposition of the profession, (b) commitment to diversity, (c) commitment to technology, and
(d) commitment to the practice of continuous reflection and assessment. Georgia Southern
University’s philosophy pertaining to its commitment to technology is to recognize the critical
role of technology in all facets of the educational process, thus providing all candidates with
experiences that allow exploration of a broad range of technologies. Initial and advanced teacher
education candidates integrate technology and other multimedia resources to maximize learning
opportunities for all students (Georgia Southern University, n.d.). Many teacher education
programs have integrated technology experiences into professional educational courses
(Duhaney, 2001). In their 1996 study, Wetzel and Zambo found that colleges of education might
be tempted to avoid the issue of placing student teachers in classrooms where technology was
used interactively. However, such experiences are critical during student teaching because
student teachers are likely to adopt the beliefs and practices that provide student teachers with
exposure to and practice using technology in student teaching. Despite the challenges
encountered in integrating technology in teacher education programs, a number of institutions
are successfully preparing teachers who are competent in using technology to accomplish
teaching and learning objectives (Duhaney, 2001). This is a very significant step, particularly
within this study, because ultimately some of those teachers will pursue advanced careers within
the educational arena and bring that knowledge base with them into their own schools as leaders.
According to Staples, Pugach, and Himes (2005), principals bring along with them the skills and
knowledge that were attained throughout their careers and they tend to implement and support
learning techniques with which they are most familiar.
Technology Standards for Administrators
According to Foster (2004), principal leadership is an important factor that affects the
effective use of technology in classrooms. Moreover, principals who are knowledgeable about
technology and technological issues are important advocates for the integration of technology
into schools. As a result, administrative support is crucial in determining whether or not teachers
would integrate technology. The principal’s role in technology decisions is essential in creating
schools that effectively integrate technology. By evaluating teacher’s use of technology in the
classroom and modeling, principals create an expectation for technology integration in the
classroom. By building leadership in others, principals and technology coordinators contributed
to a distributed leadership model to sustain change despite shifting personnel. Truth is a
component that is also important as it increases opportunities of risk-taking and the likelihood of
innovation implementation while reducing the sense of overload (Langran, 2006).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2005), standards for administrators
generally focus on their role as leaders in enhancing learning and school operations through the
use of technology. Standards established by national organizations and state education
departments often represent a consensus among educational stakeholders regarding what
measures can best assess effective school leadership as it affects the comprehensive use of
technology in schools.
The following sets of standards, referred to as the Technology Standards for School
Administrators (TSSA), has been published by a broad coalition of national principal,
administrator, and school board organizations. It provides a basis for assessing administrator
technology competency.
I. Leadership and Vision:
Educational leaders inspire a shared vision for comprehensive integration of
technology and foster an environment and culture conducive to the realization of that
vision.
II. Learning and Teaching:
Educational leaders ensure that curricular design, instructional strategies, and learning
environments integrate appropriate technologies to maximize learning and teaching.
III. Productivity and Professional Practice:
Educational leaders apply technology to enhance their professional practice and to
increase their own productivity and that of others.
IV. Support, Management, and Operations:
Educational leaders ensure the integration of technology to support productive
systems for learning and administration. V. Assessment and Evaluation:
Educational leaders use technology to plan and implement comprehensive systems of
effective assessment and evaluation.
VI. Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues:
Educational leaders understand the social, legal, and ethical issues related to
technology and model responsible decision-making related to these issues (National
Educational Technology Standards for Administrators, 2005).
Technological Changes and Barriers
American education is being bolstered by the increasing use of educational technology,
greater accountability, and growing new partnerships between tech-savvy students and teachers.
There are several components of NCLB, but the integration of technology is an aspect that
requires consistent implementation of school administrators and faculty to stimulate student
learning. Research has proven that the use of technology within the classroom exposes students
to a variety of perspectives, which enhances students’ overall learning experience.
When used properly, technology becomes an accelerator of momentum, not a creator of it
(Collins, 2001). Integrated, interoperable data systems are the key to empower educators to
transform teaching and personalize instruction. However, states, districts, and schools must
establish a plan to integrate data systems so that administrators and educators have the
information they need to increase efficiency and improve student learning, use data from both
administrative and instructional systems to understand relationships between decisions,
allocation of resources and student achievement, ensure interoperability, and use assessment
results to inform and differentiate instruction for every child (U.S. Department of Education,
2004). At least 15 states provide some form of virtual schooling to supplement regular classes or
provide for special needs, and about 25 percent of all K-12 public schools now offer some form
of e-learning (electronic learning) or virtual school instruction (Thomas, 2005).
Leaders cannot make a series of good decisions without first confronting the brutal facts
of reality (Collins, 2001). Lack of training, equipment, time, and support are all possible
circumstances of reality that possibly can prohibit the smooth transition to a state of greatness in
educational technology. However, the key is to consider the Stockdale Paradox, which is a
concept, that stresses the importance of retaining faith and prevailing in the end regardless of the
difficulties and confronting the most brutal facts of current reality, whatever they might be
(Collins, 2001).
While technology has traditionally been seen as a positive influence on education, many
have also noted the potential dangers of inequitable access as well. If students cannot have
access to the same tools and become as fluent in using those tools as their peers, technologies
may actually deepen rather than relieve social disadvantages (Georgia Department of Education,
2004). Change, complexity, and uncertainty are dominant characteristics of the environment to
which organizations today must nimbly adapt.
A growing body of literature addresses the need to find new and better ways to lead under
unstable and unpredictable conditions that confront organizations. Essentially, the leader in
these circumstances is confronted with the need to deal with two very different kinds of
problems—technical and/or adaptive. Problems confronting schools today, particularly problems
of school reform are clearly adaptive problems and require adaptive leadership concepts and
techniques (Owens, 2004). According to Kozloski (2006), schools are currently doing well at
using technology and applying it as an instructional strategy but their weakest link is having the
necessary infrastructure, which includes the people, funds, and resources to do so.
Further, three themes about what changes as a result of technology integration were mentioned:
(a) changes in the education environment, (b) more support at all levels, and (c) a commitment
for the future (Kozloski, 2006). The principals who felt the strongest about these themes were
those who use technology regularly in their daily professional and personal lives. Educational
leaders must seek to understand, promote and implement the notion that technology integration
is not about the technology, but instead is about focusing on future generations and leading
teachers to a change in pedagogy to support future generations with 21st Century teaching and
learning strategies that increase student achievement (Kozloski, 2006).
Staff development and other training are often used to introduce or expose educators to
desired concepts. However, implementation is a key domain for the principalship in the
integration of technology into the operation of the school. Staff development programs often fail
because not enough attention is given to implementing the program once it is designed and
scheduled. However, many professional development opportunities are in the form of one-time
seminars and are insufficient to bring the teaching profession up to speed with emerging
technologies. Only 12 or fewer states currently require technology-related professional
development for teachers, technology training for initial administrator licensure, and
technologyrelated professional development for administrators. Such data suggest that states
consider policies, procedures, and resources directed to technology-related staff development and
improving technology support (Georgia Department of Education, 2004). Problems arise when
actual support, particularly from the principal, and follow through are inadequate, when the unit
of operation is the school district rather than the school, and when the time provided for
acquiring new skills is not sufficient. Problems such as these are eliminated when principals
involve the faculty in program planning and evaluating post-training performance, and when the
principal encourages and arranges for school faculty to serve as trainers and leaders (Clark &
Denton, 1998). In their study, Dawson and Rakes (2003) determined that the principal’s
technology training had a direct influence upon the integration of technology within the school.
Using a survey, they conducted an experimental study involving 398 principals from across the
United States who were Internet users. Researchers discovered that the amounts and types of
technology training possessed by K-12 principals affected technology integration. In other
words, the more technology training and/or experience acquired by a school administrator, the
more likely technology integration was incorporated within the school.
A report released by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills advocates that in order to cope
with the demands of the 21st Century, people need to know more than core subjects. They need
to know how to use their knowledge and skills-by thinking critically, applying knowledge to new
situations, analyzing information, comprehending new ideas, communicating, collaborating,
solving problems, and making decisions (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2003). A digital
divide based less on economics than on leadership and community support exists when it comes
down to technology-related issues. According to the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN)
(n.d.) research, while 38 percent of school leaders report increases in their technology funding,
33 percent are experiencing funding decreases, with more than half of these decreases being
described as significant (Salpeter, 2006).
Administrators, teachers, and school district officials must work collaboratively to
develop curricula that would increase the use of technology across the various courses. It is a
brutal fact that provisions within the NCLB have to be met, including those of the National
Technology Education Plan. As a result, educators will be held accountable to its stated
provisions. Interventions that may increase technology integration are (a) adequate technology
equipment, (b) proper training of equipment usage for administrators and teachers, (c)
district/state regulations that require its implementation (i.e., House Bill 1187 that requires all
educators to become technologically competent), and (d) administrative support. The success of
educational technologies ultimately depends upon the acceptance of teachers, who generally
enjoy the autonomy of choosing the tools they use in their classrooms, and administrators who
support its implementation within the classroom. Litigation often occurs when a school system’s
views regarding academic freedom are not in congruence with a teacher’s perception of
autonomy in determining specific subject matter for a particular class, appropriate teaching
methods, or the selection of appropriate materials. Although courts have recognized that
teachers have the right to academic freedom, as with other constitutional rights, it is not absolute
and must be balanced against the competing interest of the larger society (La Morte, 2005).
Technology is a larger part of education than ever before, and as a result administrators are
spending billions of dollars each year on hardware and software. Digital technologies have not
only gained increases in school budgeting, but in training and administrative routines as well.
Nine out of every ten schools in the country have access to the Internet, and schools have an
average of one computer for every six students (Staff of Education Week, 2000). In fall 2005,
nearly 100 percent of public schools in the United States had access to the Internet, compared
with 35 percent in 1994. The ratio of students to instructional computers with Internet access in
public school was 3.8 to 1 in 2005, 4.4 to 1 in 2003, and 12.1 to 1 in 1998 (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2006).
Margaret Honey, Vice President and Director of Education Development Center’s Center
for Children and Technology stated that “unfortunately, in the schools that have the most
pressure on them to improve test scores, technology often takes a back seat, along with the arts
or anything that is seen as peripheral” (Salpeter, 2003, Technology’s Role Today Section, ¶ 2).
According to Gonzales, Pickett, Hupert, and Martin (2002), the Regional Educational Assistance
(RETA) program provided professional development opportunities for teachers and
administrators to improve teaching performance, educational leadership, and student learning
through increased understanding and use of learning technologies. The finger of responsibility
must point to supervisors and administrators, even if they delegate to a curriculum committee or
group of teachers. Principals are not always formally assigned the task of technology leader.
Other individuals such as technology coordinators, media specialists, and others may be charged
with this responsibility; however, the principal should be actively involved within the process.
The results of the study conducted by Langran (2006) indicated that technology coordinators
within the explored school division had roles that varied greatly across schools, which cause
problems. Thus defining the role of a technology coordinator is essential.
Some educators, such as computer guru Seymour Papert, and the author of the book
Growing Up Digital (1998), Don Tapscott, have presented the notion of schools as an “outdated
locomotive”, chugging through a high-tech landscape. In short, most existing approaches to
teaching and learning are incompatible with recent developments in the computer/digital age.
Both teachers and students must be connected to information technology, informed by it,
enriched and empowered through it, and use it in their educational environments on a regular
basis. Money should not be an excuse. School districts with limited budgets need to find
creative ways for enhancing information and electronic literacy by pooling resources on a
regional basis; developing partnerships with nearby libraries, colleges, and universities; seeking
advice and assistance from local, regional, and national computer companies; and finally,
requiring all teachers and administrators to upgrade their technological skills on a regular basis
(Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2004).
According to Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, and Woods (1999), integrating technology in
schools, like any other significant change, requires systematic planning. Furthermore most
educators have little background and even fewer resources with which to conduct the necessary
type of planning. Educators and others must think critically about computers in the classroom.
Technological advances, especially in the use of technology, are an ongoing endeavor.
In their 1999 study, Ertmer et al. examined the relationship between first- and
secondorder barriers to technology implementation by surveying, observing, and interviewing
several teachers within a single school who had achieved varying levels of integration.
Researchers discovered that first-order barriers (i.e., lack of equipment, time, training, and
classroom help) were experienced by all teachers while second-order barriers (i.e., beliefs about
teaching and learning, preferable instructional methods, lack of relevance, mismatch with
classroom management style, and lack of confidence) were mentioned by teachers who used
computers as a supplement to the curriculum. Barriers to change were the extrinsic and intrinsic
factors that affected a teacher’s innovative implementation efforts.
According to Hill (1999), problem-centered activity based approaches emerge for
creating learner-centered environments for teaching computer technologies to teachers and
students. This method promotes the idea of allowing individualized learning, as opposed to
mastery learning, that supports the notion that progression is not made within the classroom until
the majority of the students have satisfactorily met the requirements of the concept.
Technological Culture
School administrators, alternatively referred to as technology leaders, must establish and
become advocates for the purpose of the philosophy that includes the vision, mission, values,
and beliefs. The technology leaders must insure access and productivity by breaking down
barriers and driving out fear of technology. They must realize that achieving quality can only be
accomplished when schools reconsider how students learn and teachers teach. Therefore,
schools must adopt new paradigms of teaching and learning, and develop different methods of
evaluation that includes conceptualizing the role that technology tools will play.
Transformational leadership is concerned with the process of how certain leaders are able
to inspire followers to accomplish great things. This approach stresses that leaders need to
understand and adapt to the needs and motives of followers. Transformational leaders are
recognized as change agents who are good role models, who can create and articulate a clear
vision for an organization, who empower followers to achieve at higher standards, who act in
ways that make others want to trust them, and who give meaning to organizational life
(Northouse, 2004).
It has been reported that administrators within a district in Texas have recently used
palmOne handhelds to assist them within their numerous administrative tasks. The
administrators carry the handheld instruments and are able to move about their schools with
student and teacher information easily at their disposal. A student’s class schedule, grades,
attendance, and contact information can quickly be obtained without much effort.
Administrators can advise on the run—not having to use their office as frequently for
disciplining and advising students. Teacher documentation is also maintained on the palmOne.
The advantage of this tool is that it allows for better and more precise documentation using
programs such as ePrincipal and MVAL to assist in immediate and quick decision-making
situations (Jenkins, 2004). The demands of excessive paperwork are taking precious time,
money, and attention away from education nationwide at the expense of academic achievement
among students.
Proper planning is essential in the execution of an effective integration system.
Principals believe that significant needs exist in the areas of technology planning, support, and
resources (Finn, 2006). Findings also revealed that some administrators are proficient in
technology for data management and analysis and for administrative purposes. However, they
are deficient in areas of instructional technology. Based on the results of this study it is not
realistic to expect that principals and superintendents on their own will become trained in
technology for instruction (Persaud, 2006). A large amount of planning, resources, and
leadership is built within the notion of integrating technology, and requires the continual use of
proper planning, adequate resources, and supportive leadership to keep the implementation
moving along a productive direction.
A technologically based curriculum tends to have the following features: (a) more
specific and less general, (b) more complex and less linear, (c) more visual and less verbal, (d)
more administrative driven and less teacher centered, (e) more interactive and less unidirectional,
and (f) more global and less parochial. A curriculum designed for technology emphasizes a
means-end orientation. The starting point is to identify goals and then all that matters is
designing the means to accomplish those goals. Numerous studies have concluded that
integrated curriculums have resulted in better achievement and improved attitudes toward
schooling (Brandt, 2000). As mentioned above, the role of an administrator within a
technologically based curriculum is to lead the way by institutionalizing a logical and consistent
system of technology within the school.
President Harry Truman summed up the heart of the administrative process in the famous
slogan he kept on his desk in the Oval Office: “The Buck stops here.” Ultimately,
administrators must make and be responsible for decisions. The ability to make decisions is the
most important single ingredient of administrative and supervisory behavior. Administrators
must be able to sense when they can fulfill the desires of their followers for immediate decisions
and when they should suspend judgment until more facts are available. Administrators who
render snap judgments and call them correctly will certainly gain status. On the other hand, once
they start to make bad decisions and suffer unpleasant consequences, they can plummet in the
eyes of their followers (Oliva & Pawlas, 2004).
Technology Usage Within the Data-Driven Decision Making Process
Educational administrators constantly analyze data and make decisions based upon reasoning
and/or research. By applying and integrating technology into the day-to-day functions,
administrators, educators, and students are better prepared for the 21st Century. Computer
proficiency for administrators is mandatory in order to automate tasks to best facilitate the needs
of students. The leadership of a system must determine when and how to incorporate the
emerging practices around technology into the culture of the system. School leaders must
understand the need for a particular change related to technology before attempting to set it into
motion (Rudd, 2006).
The mere presence of computers within a school does not denote that teachers and
students have access to actually use the computers. If computers are not located in a particular
classroom, then the teachers and the students in that class may be incapable of utilizing the
schools’ technology effectively for learning. By placing a resource outside of the normal
working space of teachers and students it makes it more difficult to integrate computer activities
with the other instructional and learning activities going on in the classroom. On the other hand,
when computers are located in a teacher’s class, technology integration may be problematic
because not having a computer for each student in the class will make it more difficult to
coordinate activities for an entire class of students (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999).
The National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for administrators, developed
through the Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA), identifies knowledge and
skills constituting the “core” of what every P-12 administrator needs to know and be able to do
with technology regardless of specific job role (National Educational Technology Standards for
Administrators, 2005). As one of the components of the National Technology Plan under NCLB,
leaders are expected to embrace, support, and implement technology integration within the
classroom through their personal understanding and usage within their positions.
Data-driven decision making—or as it is often called, DDDM OR D3M—is referenced in
nearly all educational reform and accountability issues. This drive to gather meaningful, usable
data has been compounded by accountability requirements set forth under NCLB, which calls for
increased accountability, data collection and analysis and more rigorous reporting requirements.
Data-driven decision making can be a powerful tool for continuous improvement. Technology
makes it possible to gather, connect, analyze and share information quickly in order to make
sound decisions regarding education (Consortium for School Networking, n.d.).
There are currently numerous technological tools within the educational sector.
However, personal digital assistants (PDAs) are now used in the schools by administrators to
assist with administrative and disciplinary matters. At McKinley Technology High School in
Washington, D.C., PDAs are turning out to be more effective than hall monitors. The PDAs
enable administrators to search student schedules and determine whether an individual hanging
out in the hallway actually belongs in algebra class and whether he or she has been involved in
any fights or other disruptions that day. All devices have access to the same information, which
empowers school officials by providing this type of consistency. When a student disruption
occurs, an administrator can pull up pertinent information on the spot without leaving the scene
of the encounter. The system also can be programmed to issue alerts after a designated number
of incidents with the same student, and reports can be generated anytime, sorted by student, time,
or type of problem. The mobile data system has proven to be beneficial for this school as it now
has fewer truancy and incident reports than other nearby schools (Derringer, 2006). This tool
equips the administrators with access to important data instantaneously, which allows the
administrator to make better data-driven decisions. Not only are PDAs (handheld computers)
useful in disciplinary matters, but also they are useful in data analysis for school improvement
(i.e. student achievement). The miniaturization of technology is spreading to school districts
throughout the country. Educators must learn to use these resources to tap into the multiple
intelligences of their students and help them meet state and national standards (Bell, 2006).
According to Weber (2006), elementary principals involved within a study reported high level
computer technology use, especially with the computer tools involving communication. In
addition, the study revealed a significant positive relationship between principals’ computer
technology use and personal variables of training and perceived risk-benefit.
School principals must use knowledge derived from educational research to assist in their
decision-making. Principals with more professional education were more likely to respect, know
about, and use research knowledge—which supports the fact that principals should seek out
more professional training and spend more time reading and thinking about the challenges faced
within the educational sector (Biddle & Saha, 2006). Moreover, educational technology research
has proven to yield many benefits. Technology can help on the administrative side by providing
tools for collecting and managing data, assessing learning, documenting activities, disseminating
information, and enhancing research productivity. Technologies such as handheld datacollection
devices, Global Position Systems (GPS), and assistive technologies have been integrated within
some schools (Lessen & Sorensen, 2006).
John Q. Porter, Montgomery County’s (Rockville, Maryland) Assistant Superintendent,
spearheaded the creation of a state-of-the-art data management system. The system, Integrated
Quality Management System (IQMS), allows data to move from one department or program to
another, which allows everything from tracking student grades to teacher performance to occur.
For example, in reviewing teacher performance, the system has the ability to create professional
development for each individual teacher and administrators are able to correlate instruction and
see what professional development program(s) teachers are in need of—which is imperative to
the accountability factor that exists within educational improvement plans. According to Mr.
Porter:
There’s not enough time in the day: our enemy is time and technology is the only way to
combat that. You have to have a staff that understands technology. There’s a level of
technology every superintendent needs to know, a basic understanding they should have.
I think there are some superintendents who don’t understand the importance of technology. I
think also the level that technology people are in, in some districts, is too low. It should be a
cabinet-level (Esposito, 2006, 52).
Administrators must utilize all tools that assist in school improvement. Research
supports the fact that technology improves instructional conditions—that is why educational
technology departments exist within school systems and that is also why a National Technology
Plan exists. Within our technologically advanced world, a clear understanding of technology is
crucial. To improve educational conditions, data must be analyzed and decisions must be
made—both tasks, which can be managed promptly with the use of technology. Time cannot be
wasted—administrators must use technology maximally to yield benefits for the educational
arena.
Technology Leadership and Technology Integration
The intended purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of technology
leadership and technology integration within two middle schools of the CSRA school district. In
a study of the correlation between teachers’ perceptions of principal’s technology leadership and
the integration of educational technology, Rogers (2000) found that teachers who had positive
perceptions about the principal’s role in supporting the integration of technology were more
likely to integrate technology themselves.
In a case study of three urban elementary schools, Staples found that the more closely the
technology is connected to the curriculum, the smaller the barrier to integration. She further
argues that it is important for the principal to understand the complexity of technology and set
the tone for the goals and progress of technology integration (Staples, 2005).
According to Ertmer, Bai, Dong, Khalil, Park, and Wang (2002), administrators’ ideas
about technology integration and technology leadership changed while participating in a
semester-long online professional development course. Pre- and post-course surveys indicated
significant changes in ideas about technology integration as well as methods used to support
teachers’ integration efforts. In addition, the study revealed that administrators view technology
leadership as a “shared responsibility” that requires both administrative skills and technical
knowledge.
Schools experience difficulty connecting technology infrastructure with effective
leadership in order for students, faculty, staff, and the community to reap the benefits from
technology. Despite the fact that administrative leadership may be the single most important
factor affecting schools’ successful integration of technology, surprisingly little attention focuses
on the technology-related needs of school administrators (Dikkers, Hughes, & McLeod, 2005).
While a strong infrastructure will be necessary to initiate technology into the school culture,
strong leaders will be necessary to promote and sustain it. Abundant access and ongoing training
will not lead to effective use if teachers are not encouraged, or expected, to use computers in
meaningful ways. Without a doubt, strong leadership is critical (Anderson & Dexter, 2000).
Concluding Thoughts
Without question, it is important for students to be taught and led by educators who are
technologically competent. However, the transformation of integrating technology within the
curriculum is everyone’s responsibility but the primary responsibility resides with the school’s
principal being receptive and competent in the area of technology before its consistent
implementation is visible within the school. It is a proven fact, that when technology is
integrated within the curriculum, student achievement improves, which in turns reflects that
students are better prepared to function efficiently within a technology-driven society. It is
imperative to utilize technology and its capabilities to its fullest potential in order to progress
within global society.
School leaders must become technology leaders. They must articulate and model the
technological mission, vision, values, and beliefs of their school and district. They must also
drive the technology plan by providing opportunities for teachers and students to achieve the
plan’s goals and objectives. In addition, they must demonstrate excitement and interest in
technology while modeling the behavior expected from teachers and students. Most importantly,
school leaders must realize that her/his role in technology growth is to be responsible for
technology development and implementation within the educational environment (Richardson,
Blackbourn, Ruhl-Smith, & Haynes, 1997).
The integration of technology is not a new concept but it has now become a requirement
of every school system within the United States through the National Technology Education
Plan. In order for this technology plan to reach its fullest potential, or in other words, in order
for this plan to be great, it will take the involvement of everyone—principals, teachers, students,
board members, parents, and community members. However, principals will have to take on the
primary responsibility of its implementation within their schools in order to provide students
with the particular technological knowledge base that will benefit them in many aspects of their
lives. This task may possibly require more technology training for school personnel—but
specifically from the school’s principal. A technologically competent leader has more of a
tendency of passing on technology-related characteristics within their school.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
As a result of preparing students for real-life, they should be prepared for the
technological world in the classroom by integrating technology within the curricula. Many
school districts and universities fail to provide proper training to school administrators and
teachers in this particular area. It is quite difficult for an educator to teach students to use a tool
in which the educator is incompetent. Technology integration must be implemented in a
meaningful practical manner in order for its benefits to be realized and as a result requires
appropriate resources and administrative support.
Technology is a tool that has the potential to empower educational leaders at all levels—
whether they are superintendents, principals, or teachers. Technology allows for the
dissemination of accurate information and advanced communication capabilities. Technology
has the ability of improving management and operations systems, as well as improving
instructional methods. Administrators benefit from understanding and competently using
technology as they manage and set priorities for a school or school district. Experience as a
hands-on user helps administrators understand the change process that students, teachers, and
staff must undergo when integrating technology. Effectively utilizing technology also empowers
administrators to manage large amounts of information and make data-driven decisions.
However, the concept of technology integration has not been studied in depth to discover the
specific needs and training of principals. In addition, research is limited in measuring
administrators’ technology use, their leadership behaviors, and the actual percentage of
administrators who actually request and/or actively integrate technology within their respective
schools, in spite of national, state, and local mandates.
Despite the importance of technology, many principals ignore technology integration
within their schools. Administrators commonly are proficient in technology for administrative
purposes; however, they are deficient in areas of instructional technology. Therefore, that is the
gap in which the researcher explored within this study. The purpose of this correlational study is
to investigate whether the technological leadership of a principal influences the integration of
technology within their schools.
Design
This study was descriptive in nature and the researcher used qualitative inquiry methods.
This investigation specifically sought descriptions and explanations of integrating technology
from middle school principals, teachers, and media specialists. Qualitative research is a
multimethod focus involving an interpretive and more naturalistic approach to its subject matter.
In this method, the researcher is personally involved in the data collection process and seeks to
make sense of personal stories and their application as a parallel to leadership practice (Kozloski,
2006). Qualitative researchers aim to acquire an in-depth understanding of human behavior and
the reasons that govern human behavior. They investigate the why and how of decision making.
Qualitative research categorizes data into patterns as the primary basis for organizing and
reporting results. Qualitative researchers typically rely on four methods for gathering
information: (1) participating in the setting, (2) direct observation, (3) in-depth interviews, and
(4) analysis of documents and materials. For the purpose of this study, the researcher will rely
upon in-depth interviews.
A descriptive study using interview data to obtain information on the influence of
principals’ technological leadership upon the integration of technology within the curriculum was
used for the purpose of this research. Technological leadership was explored in the following
two areas: the use of technology in the school and principals’ effect upon the use of technology.
Specifically, the study was designed to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the personal assessment of two middle school principals in a CSRA school
district regarding their technological leadership?
2. What do media specialists of two middle schools in a CSRA school district believe is the
current integration and use of technology for student instruction in their school?
3. What do core teachers of two middle schools in a CSRA school district believe is the
current integration and use of technology for student instruction in their school?
4. What is the relationship between principals’ technological leadership and integration and
use of technology for student instruction in their school?
Population
This investigation specifically sought after descriptions and explanations of integrating
technology from middle school principals, teachers, and media specialists. The participants
within the study included 2 principals, 2 media specialists, and 16 teachers (7 teachers from
School #1 and 9 teachers from School #2) within the two middle schools of Burns County. The
teachers were selected purposefully by the researcher to ensure all academic areas from various
grade levels were represented. In securing a random purposive population, the researcher placed
the names of all the teachers in a hat and selected the participants. However, the researcher
continued to pull the names of participants until all academic areas (Mathematics, Science,
Social Studies, Science) and grade levels (sixth, seventh, and eighth) were represented. This
process was followed individually for each participating school. Therefore, the number of
participants was 20.
Instrumentation
The researcher devised interview questions for the principals and then different interview
questions for the teachers and media specialists (see Appendix B). The principals’ interview
questions sought input regarding their technology training, the use of technology in their school,
and their influence upon the use of technology in their school. The media specialists and
teachers’ interview questions sought input regarding the use of technology in the school and the
principals’ influence upon the use of technology.
At the beginning of the interview, participants were informed of the interview protocol that had
been established. Interviews were recorded for research review and transcribed at a later date.
Data Collection and Analysis
Interviews are used extensively in educational research to collect data about phenomena
that are not directly observable: inner experience, opinions, values, interests, and the like. They
also can be used to collect data about observable phenomena more conveniently than by direct
observation (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The
recording of interviews allowed for data transcription by the researcher in the process for the
purpose of presenting an unbiased view of the interview data. Throughout the interview, notes
were taken on a standard form (see Appendix C). The researcher interviewed both of the middle
school principals individually. The same approach was used for the media specialists. However,
the teachers were interviewed through focus groups. Focus group interviewing relies heavily on
facilitation or moderator skills. Focus group interviewing depends on interaction within the
group, stimulated by the researcher’s questions (Glesne, 2006).
After data responses were reviewed, the data was analyzed and it is from this data that
the researcher was able to formulate conclusions. The researcher used a coding/category system
to analyze data. The researcher used grounded theory principles and the method of constant
comparison to compare entries within and across categories (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). This
allowed the researcher to generate constructs, themes, and patterns from the categorical data.
Constant comparison occurs when the researcher uses the initial interviewee’s responses to form
categories and codes/compares the subsequent interviews to the categories established from the
initial interview (Dick, 2005). Grounded theory is a research method that discovers theory from
data. The goal is to understand the action in a substantive area from the point of view of the
individuals involved. The method is “grounded” because a theory is systematically obtained
from a broad array of data through a rigorous process of constant comparison (Adolph, Hall, &
Kruchten, 2008). Coding is a progressive process of sorting and defining and defining and
sorting those scraps of collected data (i.e., observation notes, interview transcripts, memos,
documents, and notes form relevant literature) that are applicable to the research purpose
(Glense, 2006, 152). Open coding involves the examination, comparison, conceptualization, and
categorization of data. Raw data are examined for similarities and differences, and initial
conceptual categories or phenomena are identified.
The researcher organized the qualitative interview data. Within the principals’
interviews, questions 1-2 measured each principal’s technological training. Interview questions
3-5 measured the principals’ personal/professional use of technology. Interview questions 6-11
measured the principals’ effect upon the use of technology.
The media specialists and teachers were asked the same interview questions, however,
their interview questions differed from the interview questions asked of the principals. Within
the interviews with the media specialists and teachers, interview questions 1-4 measured
technology use within the school and interview questions 5-7 measured the principals’ effect
upon the use of technology.
Research question one (What is the personal assessment of two middle school principals
in a CSRA school district regarding their technological leadership?) was analyzed to produce
findings regarding the two principals’ views regarding their technological training, the use of
technology use in the school, and the principals’ effect upon the use of technology in their
schools. Research question 2 and research question 3 (What do media specialists/core teachers
of two middle schools in a CSRA school district believe is the current integration and use of
technology for student instruction in their school?) was analyzed to produce findings regarding
the actual use of technology in schools and principals’ effect upon the use of technology within
each school. Research question 4 (What is the relationship between principals’ technological
leadership and integration and use of technology for student instruction in their school?) was
analyzed to produce findings of whether there was a relationship between what the principals
perceived to be occurring in their school in terms of technology verses what their media
specialists and teachers identified as actually occurring in the school in terms of technology. In
other words, the researcher was able to determine if there was a relationship between technology
leadership and technology integration for each individual middle school by comparing the
responses of the participants.
After the completion of this study, the results of the study (i.e., audiotapes/transcripts)
were discarded.
Delimitations of the Study The
following aspects were viewed as delimitations of the study:
1. Only the principals of Burns County were assessed.
2. The small number of respondents limited the generalizability of the study.
3. This was an exploratory study, designed to discover relationships among the variables
rather than investigate cause-effect relationships.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Burns County School System is located with the CSRA district of Georgia. The system has more
than 50 schools. Approximately 70% of the schools made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP),
while 30% did not. Roughly 33,000 students are enrolled within the schools within the district.
The composition of the student population is as follows: 73% Black, 22% White, 2% Hispanic,
1% Asian, and 2% Multiracial. About 67% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch.
Nearly 22,000 students are transported each day. The county employs around 2700 certified
employees. .
School #1 is composed of approximately 500 students. The composition of the student
population is as follows: 90% Black, 7% White, 1% Hispanic, and 2% Multiracial.
Approximately 93% of the students receive free/reduced lunch. There are about 46 certified
teachers and three administrators within the building.
School #2 is composed of approximately 400 students. The composition of the student
population is as follows: 61.1% Black, 32.2% White, 2.5% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 2.2%
Multiracial. Approximately 59% of the students receive free/reduced lunch. There are about 30
certified teachers and two administrators within the building.
Both schools involved in the study are middle schools located within the same county.
The researcher interviewed the principals and the media specialists individually. However, the
researcher interviewed the teachers using focus groups; each school formed a separate focus
group.
Table 1.
Demographics of Principals
Principal #1
Principal #2
Race
Black
White
Gender
Female
Female
Highest Degree
Specialist
Doctorate
Years in Education
16
25
Years as a Teacher
5
16
Years as an Assistant Principal
3
3
Years as a Principal of another school
5
3
Years as Principal of current school
3
3
Received In-Tech Training
Yes
Yes
Table 2.
Demographics of Media Specialists
Media Specialist #1
Media Specialist #2
Race
Black
White
Gender
Female
Female
Years in Education
25
13
Years as a Media Specialist
7
7
Years as Media Specialist at current school
4
3
Table 3.
Demographics of Teachers of School #1
Teacher’s Name
Race
Gender
Grade/Subject Teach
Years of
Experience
Teacher #1
Black
Female
8th Grade/Language Arts
2
Teacher #2
White
Male
6th Grade/ Social Studies
10
Teacher #3
White
Female
6th-8th Grade/Special
Education (all classes except
Math)
36
Teacher #4
Black
Female
6th-8th Grade/ Technology
17
Teacher #5
Black
Male
8th Grade/Math
4
Teacher #6
White
Male
8th Grade/Science
4
Teacher #7
Black
Female
8th Grade/Science
26
Table 4.
Demographics of Teachers of School #2
Teacher’s Name
Race
Gender
Grade/Subject Teach
Years of
Experience
Teacher #1
White
Male
6th Grade/Math
22
Teacher #2
White
Female
Instructional Coach
19
Teacher #3
Black
Female
6th Grade/Math
13
Teacher #4
White
Female
Special Education
5
Teacher #5
White
Female
8th Grade/ Science
25
Teacher #6
White
Female
8th Grade/ Math
15
Teacher #7
Black
Female
7th Grade/Language Arts
14
Teacher #8
White
Male
Business Education
9
Teacher #9
Black
Female
7th Grade/Math
25
Principals and media specialists were asked their years of experience in education as well
as their years of experience in their current position. Teachers were asked to identify the grade
level and subject matter in which they taught as well as their years of experience in education.
Both of the principals were veteran educators having at least 16 years in the school system and
both have served three years as principal of their current school. Teachers from various core
curriculum courses, special education, and business education participated in the study. The
years of experience of teachers from School #1 ranged from 2 to 36. The years of experience of
teachers from School #2 ranged from 5 to 25. Participants were directed to speak directly about
their current school. The interviewer attempted to follow the interview questions in order;
however, some questions became redundant with the interviewees’ responses. In these cases,
after an active listening response was given back to the interviewees regarding the question, the
researcher asked the participants if they had any additional information on the topic.
A descriptive study using interview data to obtain information on the influence of
principals’ technological leadership upon the integration of technology within the curriculum was
used for the purpose of this research. Technological leadership was explored in the following
two areas: the use of technology in the school and principals’ effect upon the use of technology.
Specifically, the study was designed to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the personal assessment of two middle school principals in a CSRA school
district regarding their technological leadership?
2. What do media specialists of two middle schools in a CSRA school district believe is the
current integration and use of technology for student instruction in their school?
3. What do core teachers of two middle schools in a CSRA school district believe is the
current integration and use of technology for student instruction in their school?
4. What is the relationship between principals’ technological leadership and integration and
use of technology for student instruction in their school?
After transcribing the interviews of all of the participants, the data was further analyzed
by the researcher. This section of the results reported themes that emerged throughout the
interview as they related to the research question and its subquestions.
In response to research question one (What is the personal assessment of two middle
school principals in a CSRA school district regarding their technological leadership?), it was
determined that both principals felt that their effective leadership style influenced technology
usage within their schools. Both principals pointed out that they involved their teachers within
the process of utilizing technology by respecting and implementing the ideas of the teachers
along the pathway. Both principals stressed the significance of modeling their expectations and
found such an act to help define their leadership. Also it was determined that both principals
have received formal training with technology (i.e. In-tech and other available training
opportunities). Both administrators acknowledged the fact that their effective leadership styles
highly influenced technology usage within their buildings. Both principals used various
leadership approaches to support technology integration within their building. However,
transformational leadership and ideas-based leadership appeared to be most commonly used.
Both administrators found that the primary way of creating intellectual capital within their
buildings was to put emphasis on the development of a strong knowledge, competency, and skill
base among their stakeholders.
Principal #1: Principals’ Technological Training
Principal #1 began technological training during the earlier years of her career as a
teacher and has always taken advantage of the technology training offered by the county.
However, both principals recently took advantage of training sessions with Data Director, a
software program that the county uses to assess student, school, and county data. Principal #1
felt that In-tech training was most valuable as the 7-day session taught her how to properly use
Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Email, and the Internet. Principal #1 revealed that she received more
training and continues to take advantage of training opportunities as they present themselves. She
stressed that as the leader she must be trained to make sure she knows the look-fors in ensuring
teachers and students are using the technology properly.
Principal #1: Technology Use
Both principals identified email as a significant technology tool. However, Principal #1
also mentioned Publisher, Excel, Data Director, School Max, and EBIS as programs used almost
daily. Principal #1 noted the computer was the most beneficial technology tool while Principal
#2 stated email. Principal #1 pointed out that the computer had everything (the internet, email,
spreadsheets, and housed all of her data). She also revealed that she used technology on a
regular basis to check email. She stated that she used technology to generate data to figure out
the overall path of the school in order to drive instruction. She also noted that most of her
teachers had Promethean Boards in their classrooms and those teachers who did not currently
have them would have them this school term. All of her teachers received Promethean Board
training. There was also a portable Promethean Board within the school. Several of the
classrooms had projectors and the principal labeled overheads as outdated technology. School
#1’s media center was outfitted to have flat screens and the most updated technology by the end
of this school term. School #1 received Title I funding and received a grant for more technology.
Both principals stressed the significance of technology within the curriculum and
required that teachers utilize their available technology resources to promote learning within the
classroom. Principal #1 cited that the use of technology within student instruction kept the
students actively engaged and allowed them hands-on opportunities. She further identified
instructional software programs, such as Destination Math, Destination Reading, and Online
Assessment System (OAS), as additional tools used to assist students. School #1 offered a
Keyboarding and Computer Literacy class as well as a Technology class. Within the
Keyboarding class, basic keying and computer literacy was taught. However, in the Technology
course, the students were taught skills such as interior design and architecture and editing of
music in 4-D on new computers received through a grant. Principal #1 stressed the significance
of technology within instruction as it offered learning in a participatory manner that made
learning more exciting to the students. She also mentioned that it was important that everybody
understood how to use technology. The teachers needed to be able to help students with
technology and enhance their classes through technology. She felt that if technology was
brought in the classroom more students would enjoy school more. Principal #1 stated that when
there was a lack of technology that there was a lack of engagement from the students. She
further brought up that when technology was not used, students were missing out on extra
learning. She pointed out that each classroom had a teacher computer and an extra computer or
two for student use. The school had three computer labs (one for each grade level). Both
principals gave a rating of 8 (on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the strongest) when asked to
rate their belief of whether or not technology made a significant difference in the classroom.
Principal #1’s justification for her rating was that some teachers had the ability to have their
students engaged without any technology. She also revealed that technology was not the teacher,
but was simply a great tool for the teacher to use.
Principal #1 stated her first goal was to complete the outfitting of the Promethean Boards
in the school, then remove all of the non-flat screen computers from the Media Center into
classrooms and update the Media Center with flat screens and updated software. ELMOs
(document cameras) were already ordered to replace the overhead projectors and PC tablets were
ordered for administrators to complete observations. She mentioned that she wanted to stay
abreast of the latest technology and its trainings. She declared that it was important that not only
the teachers were trained to use technology but she as the school leader was capable of utilizing
the tool properly as well.
Principal #2: Principals’ Technological Training
Principal #2 was more technologically focused than Principal #1. Principal #2 explored
with technology on a continuous basis while Principal #1 focused on training that was specific to
her needs at that specific time. Principal #2 described her training in the area of technology as
basic and identified her training with instructional technology as not extensive. However,
Principal #2 also had recently taken advantage of training sessions with Data Director. She
found that learning on her own within her position was the most valuable form of training. She
also felt the training she received had little to no effect upon her leadership. She described
herself as “pretty technologically savvy”. She pointed out that she tried to keep her teachers
abreast of technology, but it was helpful when they were actually able to use what they were
being taught. However, under her leadership she encouraged her teachers to use what they had
and she supported them in using it. Principal #2 cited that part of her ongoing professional
learning was to keep teachers updated with their use of web pages and the Internet, constant
communication with parents through email, and the use of Gradebook and Attendance. She
declared that she tried to make teachers’ technology use more proficient for students and for their
personal use.
Principal #2: Technology Use
Principal #2 also identified email as a significant technology tool. However, she declared
that she used a personal digital assistant (PDA) and text messaging. Principal #1 noted the
computer was the most beneficial technology tool while Principal #2 stated email was. Principal
#2 cited that she preferred to communicate via the email as opposed to other forms of
communication because it was convenient and a time-saver. The administrator pointed out that
she used technology on a regular basis to communicate with teachers, parents, and colleagues.
Unlike Principal #1, Principal #2 described technology within her school as limited. Most
classrooms did not have modern computers and thereby inhibited the use of technology for
student instruction. School #2 was a non-Title I school and was recently denied a grant for
technology.
Principal #2 also felt that the use of technology within student instruction was very
valuable and felt that her school was missing that link to the 21st Century. She noted that her
school was barely on track with technology. Like School #1, School #2 used software programs
such as Destination Math and Destination Reading for instruction. Principal #2 stated:
“A large number of our kids have computers at home and do have computer capabilities,
but then at school where we should be teaching kids about cutting edge, that is what we
are missing. While we might do our very best and nothing can take the place of a
teacher, we are missing out on a whole piece that we could add to bring our level of
instruction to meet a whole different plane. I think our students are at a disadvantage
when they do not have that.”
Principal #2 declared that a teacher that integrated technology into their classroom use was
implementing a motivating tool for students. She further noted that she noticed that in classes
where the teachers were logging in the hours and students had lots of training with Compass
Odyssey (another instructional software program), that those students made higher and had
higher test scores on the CRCT than teachers who were not utilizing the software to its fullest
potential. Both principals gave a rating of 8 (on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the strongest)
when asked to rate their belief of whether or not technology made a significant difference in the
classroom. Principal #2’s justification for her rating was that some students (that might not be
otherwise) would be motivated by the use of technology. She further mentioned that a teacher
could have all the technology in the world and not know how to properly use it and that would
not yield desired results. The administrator cited that part of her school improvement plan was
to continue to add technology. She stated that she would continue to look for grants and/or
community partnerships to support this endeavor because she felt as a school system that the
funding was unavailable for her particular school. Principal #2 noted that technology was very
important and that she felt very comfortable with the fact that her teachers were using what they
had to enhance instruction for their students.
In response to research questions two (What do media specialists of two middle schools
in a CSRA school district believe is the current integration and use of technology for student
instruction in their school?), evidence revealed that both schools incorporated some form of
instructional technology within their curriculum. Both media specialists found that the building
level principals’ expectations of technology usage strongly motivated technology integration
within their schools.
Media Specialist #1: Technology Use
School #1 utilized instructional technology quite a bit more than School #2 simply as a
result of the availability of resources (i.e. equipment and funding). Media specialist #1 declared
that technology was very assessable to all of the students in the school. They had three computer
labs, 2-3 computers and an LCD projector in each classroom, Promethean Boards, digital
cameras, and camcorders for their use. Media specialist #1 cited that technology is used for
CRCT practice, framework benchmark, differentiation, Destination Success, and for research.
She pointed out that the Promethean Boards were used across all subject matters and it allowed
the students to interact directly with a technology tool. She also brought up that her principal
was a big fan of technology and tried to provide the finances and support for technology. In
addition, she responded that technology provided numerous advantages because it provided its
users with feedback and remediation.
Media specialist #1 brought up that her principal was very dedicated to technology as it
was evident within the school. Of the approximate 40 classrooms, 26 of the classes already had
Promethean Boards. The remaining 14 classes without Promethean Boards would receive theirs
in the very near future; they had already been ordered. The principal managed to ensure that
teachers actually used the technology that was provided to them. The teachers actually used it
within their instruction; they received training on its use and the principal assisted them as needed
as well. Media specialist #1 felt that her principal was really geared toward most of the programs
that utilized technology and required its integration within classroom instruction. The media
specialist mentioned that she felt that technology opened up many doors for the students and that
students were normally technologically literate and it should have been used to enhance the
learning environment.
Media Specialist #2: Technology Use
Media specialist #2 brought up that technology was very minimal at her school. She
mentioned that there were three computer labs and at least one modern computer in all but three
classrooms. She also noted that there was 1 LCD with an Active Board within the school (and
that it is located in the Mathematics Lab) that was not utilized to its fullest potential because the
teachers had not been properly trained in its use. In addition to the basic computer class, both of
the middle schools offered a separate technology course. She revealed that there are 12
classrooms that have LCDs and those classes used their LCD for instruction, one LCD within the
Special Education Department, one LCD in the Mathematics Lab, and one additional LCD in the
Computer Lab (a total of 15 LCDs in the building). United Streaming and Compass Odyssey
were two instructional websites identified to assist in instruction. She noted that the Special
Education Department within the school also had technology and software that were used for
their special needs students but the county purchased those items. The media specialist
identified the TVator as the most frequently used technology tool because most of the teachers
used it to give students their assignments as the TVator made the assignment more visible.
Media specialist #2 declared that her principal was quite comfortable with technology.
She mentioned that her principal strongly encouraged the use of email and frequently uses
PowerPoint in faculty meetings. She stated that her current principal was more
technologyoriented than any other principal she had ever worked for. Media specialist #2 cited
that “technology makes a world of difference”. She further pointed out that its usage captured
students’ attention in that most students were already very knowledgeable and comfortable with
using technology. She felt that it was important to provide students with as much 21st Century
learning as possible; as it made them more marketable globally. Media specialist #2 pointed out
that her principal was very dedicated to the use of technology in the classroom. She revealed
that her principal was constantly trying to provide students with as much technology as she could
but was often not granted the funding to have updated technology. In recently search of a
technology grant, the school was denied funding. One of the committee’s reasons for denial was
that none of their “feeder” schools had technology. Some of the school’s current technology had
been funded through the Pay-As-You-Go Committee/Grant. Media specialist #2 revealed that
the availability of training, technical support, and physical support of technology exists but
financial support was significantly lacking. She further reiterated that her principal strongly
desired to have more technology within the building. Specifically, one of the school’s goals was
to purchase more Active Boards to be used in classrooms. Media specialist #2 declared that it
was extremely frustrating not to have the financial support necessary in acquiring technological
equipment. She further added that Title I schools had an overwhelming amount of technology
equipment and they were being held accountable to the same standards but without the support
they needed.
Table 5.
Available Technology
School #1
School #2
2-3 modern computers per classroom for
student use
At least 1 modern computer per classroom in
most classes (primarily for teacher use)
15 LCD projectors
1 LCD with an Active Board within the school
Majority of the classrooms had Promethean
Boards
None of the classrooms had Promethean
Boards
3 computer labs (each lab has an LCD
projector)
3 computer labs (without LCD projectors)
Televisions in each classroom
Televisions/TVators in each classroom
Overhead Projectors
Overhead Projectors
Large variety of technology within Special
Education Department
Large variety of technology within Special
Education Department
Business Education class contained all modern
computers
Business Education class had 9 out of 30
modern computers
Instructional technology was available in each
classroom and in all computer labs
Instructional technology was only available in
the computer labs
Students participated in instructional technology
in all classes daily
Students only participated in instructional
technology within their Mathematics and
Language Arts classes on a rotational basis (i.e.
every 7-9 days)
Both schools utilize the following instructional software: United Streaming, Compass Odyssey,
Online Assessment System (OAS), Destination Math, and Destination Reading
In response to research questions three (What do teachers of two middle schools in a
CSRA school district believe is the current integration and use of technology for student
instruction in their school?), evidence confirmed that both schools utilize technology however on
various levels. It was determined that both sets of teachers used technology instructionally
within their classrooms (or computer labs) to some degree as was expected/required by their
administrator.
Teachers of School #1: Technology Use
Teachers from School #1 all had some type of technology within their classroom and had
access to technology throughout the school. The majority of their classrooms were equipped
with Promethean Boards, computers, televisions, DVD players, overhead projectors, and LCD
projectors. The Special Education teacher had a large array of technological tools within her
classroom to include computers, scanners, a black/white printer, a color printer, a DVD player, a
television, VCR, and a piece of equipment that takes dictation. Teachers from School #1
declared that technology was used constantly. Some of the ways in which they used technology
within instruction included the following: the Internet was used to do background enrichment,
and PowerPoints were used to identify the daily components of standards based instruction. They
watched videos in the form of DVDs and online also. Some of the teachers utilized the
supplementary technology that was a part of the textbook. Most of the teachers pointed out that
they used instructional websites such as United Streaming to support their instruction. It was
also revealed that the students actually use the Promethean Boards within the classrooms. Both
Business Education teachers utilized technology, especially the computers daily within their
instruction as outlined by the state curriculum. The teachers of School #1 noted that the use of
PowerPoint, the internet, instructional websites, instructional videos, the Promethean Board, and
scanning of text were their most frequent uses of technology. The Business Education teacher
mentioned that she used Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint daily within her course. The
teachers of School #1 mentioned that they utilized their classroom computer to satisfy
administrative tasks (i.e. communicating through email). Teachers from School #1 cited that
students generally enjoyed the hands-on of technology. The use of technology within instruction
stimulated the learners and encouraged students to be participatory. It was also mentioned that
technology assisted with differentiated instruction as it captured the attention of both visual and
auditory learners. All of the teachers of School #1 felt that technology usage made a significant
difference within the classroom. One of the teachers pointed out that when assessments were
taken on the computer, immediate feedback was provided to both the student and the teachers
and found that to be extremely advantageous. There was a consensus among the group that
technology made learning a bit more captivating, motivating, and interesting to the students.
One of the teachers brought up that the “old way” of teaching, such as lecturing and giving
bookwork, was obsolete to an extent and that the incorporation of technology was very vital.
One of the teachers mentioned that she has noticed a difference in student achievement when
technology was utilized; the students’ scores tended to increase favorably.
The teachers from School #1 noted that Principal #1 was very dedicated to the integration
of technology as was apparent in the amount of available up-to-date technology within the
building. On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being high), the interviewees rated the principal
individually from 7-10. The teachers from School #1 stated that instructional technology was a
top priority of the principal. One of the teachers mentioned that new technology, specifically
Promethean Boards, was constantly being added to the inventory. The teachers of School #1
cited that technology was here to stay and that the more one learned about technology to utilize
in the classroom the better classroom management and cooperation a teacher would receive from
the students. In addition, allowing them to utilize technology not only assisted them with their
schooling but also prepared them to be more marketable when seeking employment. It was also
mentioned that students generally had an appreciation of technology and it should be used in a
manner to increase student achievement. However, the teachers revealed a couple of downfalls of
technology to the negligence that provided adequate training in utilizing the equipment.
Teachers were given an introductory course but no follow-up training. Also once the training
was given, new teachers were not given the opportunity to apply their new learning. Another
drawback of technology noted was the opinion that a number of instructors become dependent
upon its use and are “lost” if the equipment is inoperable. Properly updating software
(countywide) was also cited by the teachers as a vital component.
Teachers of School #2: Technology Use
Teachers from School #2 revealed that technology was “very” limited. It was cited that
there was generally one computer in each classroom and that the computer was utilized by the
teacher. Each classroom has a TVator and possibly an overhead projector. The math teacher
brought up that the computer lab was assessable to the math teachers within the building every
seven days for use. Math and Language Art teachers have LCD projectors in their classrooms.
However, similar to the Special Education Teacher at School #1, she has a large amount of
technology. Like the teachers of School #1, the teachers of School #2 stated that they also used
instructional websites such as United Streaming, Compass Odyssey, and Destination Math and
Reading. The utilization of PowerPoint presentations and TVators were also mentioned as
technological tools used in instruction. The teachers of School #2 cited that the use of the
TVator, overhead projector, the math lab, LCD projector, and graphing calculators were ways in
which they most frequently used technology in the classroom. The Business Education teacher
of School #2 pointed out that he had a class of thirty computers, but only nine were considered to
be “modern” (up-to-date). He brought up that most of his computers were nine years old. As a
result, he had to teach the same concept to his students in at least three different versions in order
to accommodate the difference in software equipment. All of the teachers of both schools
mentioned that they utilized their classroom computer to satisfy administrative tasks (i.e.
communicating through email).
The teachers of School #2 brought up that the principal is trying to place a Promethean
Board in every classroom. The teachers even mentioned that she used technology when she
presided over faculty meetings. It was also revealed that the principal used email frequently to
communicate. One of the teachers stated, “She models what she wants us to do”. Similarly to
the teachers of School #1, it was noted by the teachers of School #2 that their principal used
technology constantly by communicating through email, and utilized technology (PowerPoint
and LCD projectors) within faculty meetings. The teachers of School #2 stressed that the lack of
technology in their school was unfair and described their frustrations of its lacking within their
school. They all agreed that it engaged the students more and allowed for differentiated
instruction. They stated that their students were more exposed to technology at home rather than
in school and that the opposite should be true. The teachers of School #2 revealed that their
principal was very dedicated as she attempted several times to seek additional technology for
their school only to be denied. They declared that she was trying but was limited by funding.
They all agreed that if they had the technology, she would definitely support it. The teachers of
School #2 pointed out that Principal #2 constantly attempted to add technology to their school
but was limited by financial support. The teachers brought up that they currently do not have the
resources to purchase technology. One teacher made the following comment: “The more
successful your school is, the less you get. If you are failing, you get everything, brand new
computers, laptops, Active Boards for every classroom. You get the whole nine yards”. One of
the teachers of School #2 made the following comment: “I know that if we had more, our
teachers would use it. We have a group of teachers who do so well with the limited technology.
Imagine what we could do if we had what other schools have at their fingertips”.
In response to research question #4 (What is the relationship between principals’
technological leadership and integration and use of technology for student instruction in their
school?), the researcher determined that there is a direct relationship between principals’
technological leadership and the use of technology for student instruction. It was evident that
both administrators exemplified characteristics of efficient technological leadership. They both
led by example. Transformational leadership was one leadership style that was portrayed, as
both leaders were capable of adapting to the available technology accommodations within their
schools. Both principals stated that they modeled what they expected their teachers to
implement. A connection was established between leadership and implementation. Principals’
persistent approach of requiring the utilization of available technological tools forced teachers to
perform expected duties, such as incorporating technology within their classroom instruction.
Not only did both principals communicate via email, but also within their instruction to their
faculty (i.e. faculty meetings), the leaders used technology tools such as computers, projectors,
and/or Promethean Boards. It was the expectation of both administrators for their teachers to
utilize the available technological equipment within each respective school. Both principals
mentioned that they monitored teachers’ instructional technology practices by physically
performing classroom/lab walk throughs and by reviewing their teachers’ lesson plans. Evidence
from the teachers (and media specialists) supported the essence that technology integration was
expected from their administrators and that they acted accordingly by utilizing what was
available to them. In every instance, teachers and media specialists directly related to their
principal as a guiding factor as it pertained to technology integration within their school.
Summary of Interview Data
Both of the schools involved in the study found technology integration to be vital in the
learning process of its students. However, one of the two schools had more technology resources
than the other. This advantage, however, did not guarantee an increase in student achievement,
which was evident in Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) indicators. During the 2007-2008 school
year, School #1 with technology funding did not make AYP while School #2 without technology
funding did. Despite this difference, both principals required technology usage in the classroom.
Even though School #2 had considerably less technology, Principal #2 expected her teachers to
use what they had to its fullest potential.
Table 6.
AYP Status
Title I School
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
School #1
Yes
Met
Did Not Meet
Did Not Meet
School #2
No
Did Not Meet
Did Not Meet
Met
Two common themes emerged from this study: (1) the principals’ consistent
technological leadership in guiding the implementation of technology for both instructional and
administrative practices, and (2) the teachers’ adherence of instructions in the area of technology
usage within their various curricula. The interview data analysis revealed that while schools are
currently using technology within its instruction (at various levels), that its weakness lies with
the existing infrastructure (i.e. equipment, funding, and training).
There was a direct relationship between principals’ technology leadership and integration
and the use of technology for student instruction. Both principals personally used technology
within the educational setting and expected the same from their teachers. Principals modeled
and monitored their expectations of instructional technology. The leadership style of both
principals exemplified the essence of “inspecting what is expected”. The leadership
characteristics of both administrators demonstrated that persistence, knowledge, and support all
contributed to the teachers’ conceptions of the significance of technology integration and thereby
positively influencing instructional technology within their curriculum to enhance the students’
learning environment.
Both administrators were committed to idea-based leadership, which communicated to
teachers, that they were respected, autonomous, committed, capable and morally responsive
adults. Both principals modeled the use of effective technology, encouraged the use of
technology to improve instruction, tried to allocate adequate budgeting to support technological
practices, and proved professional learning for teachers to become more proficient in the use of
technology. In addition, both administrators found that their leadership practices guided the
application and views of their teachers in terms of its implementation and both principals agreed
that particular approach within their leadership highly effected technology usage within their
respective schools.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY
As mentioned in Chapter I, educational leaders must seek to understand, promote and
implement the notion that technology integration is not just about technology; it is about
focusing on future generations and leading teachers to a change in pedagogy to support these
generations with 21st Century teaching and learning strategies that increase student achievement.
As noted by Wilmore and Betz in 2000, the principal’s role is an important component to the
success of technology integration. They summarize the success of technology integration by
proposing that information technology will only be successfully implemented in schools if the
principal actively supports it, learns it as well, provides adequate professional development and
supports his/her staff in the process of change (Kozloski, 2006).
A descriptive study using interview data to obtain information on the influence of
principals’ technological leadership upon the integration of technology within the curriculum
was used for the purpose of this research. Technological leadership was explored in the
following two areas: the use of technology in schools and principals’ influence upon the use of
technology.
Specifically, the study was designed to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the personal assessment of two middle school principals in a CSRA school
district regarding their technological leadership?
2. What do media specialists of two middle schools in a CSRA school district believe is the
current integration and use of technology for student instruction in their school?
3. What do core teachers of two middle schools in a CSRA school district believe is the
current integration and use of technology for student instruction in their school?
4. What is the relationship between principals’ technological leadership and integration and
use of technology for student instruction in their school?
Based upon the findings of this study, there was a relationship between principals’
technological leadership and their schools implementation of technology. The two middle school
principals utilized leadership styles that exemplified characteristics of a transformational leader
who modeled expectations for its followers. The leadership practices utilized by the
administrators communicated the message to stakeholders (i.e. teachers) that technology
implementation was significant and expected within each respective school. The commitment to
provide adequate equipment, resources, and training was provided by each administrator,
however, at varying levels, to provide a basis for the institution of instructional technology based
curricula.
Analysis of Research Findings
The major findings of the study include the following: 1) principals were consistent in
their technological leadership by personally utilizing technology for both instructional and
administrative practices, and (2) teachers’ adhered to the model and/or instructions from their
administrator in terms of technology usage within their various curricula. The interview data
analysis of this study supports the essence that principals’ technological leadership influenced
technology implementation within classroom/lab instruction.
Discussion of Research Findings
Principals were consistent in their technological leadership by personally utilizing
technology for both instructional and administrative practices. In their study, Dawson and Rakes
(2003) determined that the principal’s technology training had a direct influence upon the
integration of technology within the school. Both principals have received formal technology
training and utilize those trainings within their professions to some extent. According to Foster
(2004), findings support the growing recognition that competent administrative and teacher
leadership contribute to school success and reinforce leadership as a shared social influence
process. A technologically competent leader has more of a tendency of passing on
technologyrelated characteristics within their schools. Problems confronting schools today,
particularly problems of school reform are clearly adaptive problems and require adaptive
leadership concepts and techniques (Owens, 2004). Specifically, Principal #2 did not use “lack
of technology” as an excuse for not implementing instructional technology within her school.
Instead, she adapted to the situation, and utilized what was available to her and her faculty.
According to Foster (2004), principal leadership is an important factor that affects the effective
use of technology in classrooms. Moreover, principals who are knowledgeable about technology
and technological issues are important advocates for the integration of technology into schools.
This was evident within the study by both administrators as both of them demonstrated
characteristics of strong technological leadership within their schools.
Teachers adhered to the model and/or instructions from their administrator in terms of
technology usage within their various curricula. According to Salpeter (2003), learning in
educational settings needs to be relevant to real-life. As a result of preparing students for reallife,
students should be prepared for the technological world in the classroom through the use of
integrating technology within the curricula. According to Kozloski (2006), schools are currently
doing well at using technology and applying it as an instructional strategy but their weakest link
is having the necessary infrastructure, which includes the people, funds, and resources to do so.
While School #1 was quite resourceful with technological tools, School #2 was extremely
limited. In a study of the correlation between teachers’ perceptions of principal’s technology
leadership and the integration of educational technology, Rogers (2000) found that teachers who
had positive perceptions about the principal’s role in supporting the integration of technology
were more likely to integrate technology themselves. Despite the fact that School #2 was at a
disadvantage with its limited technological tools, the positive attitude of the administrator and
teachers proved the fact that success did not solely reside with its technological inventory.
Conclusions of the Study
The researcher identified four conclusions as a result of this study. They are as follows:
1. Within this particular situation, the Title I school (School #1) had more money to fund
technology in comparison to the non-Title I school (School #2). Regardless of available
resources, administrators found that their technological leadership guided the use of
technology within their schools.
2. Technology integration can be facilitated even with limited access to technology
resources. Despite the varying degree of available resources, both media specialists
provided evidence that technology integration is in existence within their schools.
3. Principals and teachers must receive technological training, specifically instructional
technology training, frequently in order to execute instructional technology effectively
within classroom instruction.
4. Principals’ technological leadership has a direct relationship with their schools’ usage of
technology.
The first conclusion of this study is that the involved Title I school had an overwhelming
amount of technology in comparison to the involved non-Title I school. According to the
Principal of School #1 she customized her budget to allocate extra funding (after allotting funds
for salaries, parental involvement, etc.) in the area of technology to provide as many classrooms
as possible with the latest technological tools. All schools are held accountable to the same
standards but are offered varying types of resources. Funded through NCLB, Georgia provides
grants to local educational agencies on the basis of their proportionate share of funding under
Title I, Part A. The Georgia Department of Education considers this a local control issue to be
defined by each district (Georgia Standards, n.d.). In fall 2005, nearly 100 percent of public
schools in the United States had access to the Internet, compared with 35 percent in 1994. The
ratio of students to instructional computers with Internet access in public school was 3.8 to 1 in
2005, 4.4 to 1 in 2003, and 12.1 to 1 in 1998 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006).
The researcher found it difficult to conceive that funding for School #2 was contingent upon
another school’s, their feeder school’s, technological stance. School systems should award
funding based upon commitment and evidence that the recipient will use the funds responsibly
for its intended us. The researcher was quite surprised that parental involvement was not
obtained to improve School #2’s technology inventory. Despite the diverse availability of
technological resources between the two involved schools, principals exercised technological
leadership that resulted in the implementation of technology integration within both schools.
The second conclusion is that technology integration can be facilitated even with limited access
to technology resources. In their 1999 study, Ertmer et al. examined the relationship between
first- and second-order barriers to technology implementation by surveying, observing, and
interviewing several teachers within a single school who had achieved varying levels of
integration. Researchers discovered that first-order barriers (i.e., lack of equipment, time,
training, and classroom help) were experienced by all teachers while second-order barriers (i.e.,
beliefs about teaching and learning, preferable instructional methods, lack of relevance,
mismatch with classroom management style, and lack of confidence) were mentioned by
teachers who used computers as a supplement to the curriculum. School districts with limited
budgets need to find creative ways for enhancing information and electronic literacy by pooling
resources on a regional basis; developing partnerships with nearby libraries, colleges, and
universities; seeking advice and assistance from local, regional, and national computer
companies, and finally, requiring all teachers and administrators to upgrade their technological
skills on a regular basis (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2004). School #2 should seek financial
assistance from organizations within the area. For example, there are two four-year colleges and
several technical colleges within the county. A partnership between School #2 and the local
colleges could be established to provide School #2 with updated technology equipment. Both
schools had some level of instructional technology incorporated within its facility. However, in
the case of School #2, computer labs were the primary location where technology integration
occurred. The principal, media specialist, and teachers of School #2 all expressed their
frustrations of having majority of their students’ technological experience to occur within the
computer lab. The teachers of School #2 noted that students traveled to the computer labs within
their Mathematics and Language Arts teachers on a rotational basis. Students, on average,
visited the computer labs every 7-9 days. The researcher did not find that favorable and there is
research that supports the notation that computer labs are not the most beneficial setting to
institute instructional technology. In computer labs, students have “limited “ time in which to
utilize the equipment. The mere presence of computers within a school does not denote that
teachers and students have access to actually use the computers. By placing a resource outside
of the normal working space of teachers and students it makes it more difficult to integrate
computer activities with the other instructional and learning activities going on in the classroom
(Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999). People oftentimes equate leadership with how much technology
they have and this study provides evidence that that is not necessarily the case in all situations.
Media specialists are usually responsible for ordering and maintaining the inventory of technology
equipment within a school. In the case of both schools, technology existed at varying levels and
both media specialists supported the fact that their principal encouraged technology integration
within instruction.
The third conclusion is that principals and teachers must receive technology training,
specifically instructional technology training, frequently in order to execute instructional
technology effectively within classroom instruction. Fewer than 12 states currently require
technology-related professional development for teachers, technology training for initial
administrator licensure, and technology-related professional development for administrators.
Such data suggest that states should consider policies, procedures, and resources directed to
technology-related staff development and improving technology support (Georgia Department of
Education, 2004). Abundant access and ongoing training will not lead to effective use if teachers
are not encouraged, or expected, to use computers in meaningful ways. Without a doubt, strong
leadership is critical (Anderson & Dexter, 2000). The researcher finds that it is extremely
important that administrators, teachers, and students actually put their newly gained knowledge
into action immediately following the completion of their training. If they do not have the
opportunity to use that knowledge, then it will eventually be lost. The researcher found it
interesting that all of the teachers regardless of their degree of available resources, made
provisions for their students to have opportunities of utilizing technology for instructional
purposes. However due to School #2’s limited technology, their teachers (and administrator)
should be given frequent “refresher” courses to help them maintain a current knowledge base in
properly utilizing the equipment for instructional purposes. Otherwise, they will “loose” that
knowledge in which they are incapable of actually applying on a regular basis.
The final conclusion of this study is that principals’ technological leadership has a direct
impact on their school’s use of technology. Findings reveal that some administrators are
proficient in technology for data management and analysis and for administrative purposes.
However, they are deficient in areas of instructional technology. It is not realistic to expect that
principals and superintendents on their own will become trained in technology for instruction
(Persaud, 2006). Principals with more professional education are more likely to respect, know
about, and use research knowledge—which supports the fact that principals should seek out more
professional training and spend more time reading and thinking about the challenges faced
within the educational sector (Biddle & Saha, 2006). In their study, Dawson and Rakes (2003)
determined that the principal’s technology training had a direct influence upon the integration of
technology within the school. The more technology training and/or experience acquired by a
school administrator, the more likely technology integration was incorporated within the school.
Both administrators were committed to idea-based leadership, which communicated to
teachers, that they were respected, autonomous, committed, capable and morally responsive
adults. Teachers of both school was able to join with the leader in a common commitment to
making practices, such as technology integration, within the school work for the better of the
students, parents, and other stakeholders. Both principals modeled the use of effective
technology, encouraged the use of technology to improve instruction, tried to allocate adequate
budgeting to support technological practices, and proved professional learning for teachers to
become more proficient in the use of technology. In addition, both administrators found that
their leadership practices guided the application and views of their teachers in terms of its
implementation and both principals agreed that particular approach within their leadership highly
effected technology usage within their respective schools. Both administrators identified
technology as a key component of basic skills required of every current educator. It was also
agreed by both principals that a leader with high capacity building skills created intellectual
capital by emphasizing the development of knowledge, competence, and skill of parents,
teachers, and other stakeholders in the school community. This intellectual capital was believed
to be the foundation for a high level of student achievement.
Implications
The researcher found that principal leadership was a primary factor within the utilization
of technology within instruction. It is the opinion of the researcher that administrative support
and/or guidance yielded favorably results of instructional technology implementation. Further, it
is the opinion of the researcher that a lack of administrative support would have yield results of
just the opposite.
The researcher noted two conditions from this study that should be further explored: (1)
the need for additional funding and support from the county to equalize technological resources
for 21st Century learning and (2) the need of continual technology training amongst teachers to
enhance their usage of technology to its fullest potential. The interview data analysis revealed
that while both schools are currently using technology in their instruction (at various levels), that
the weakness lies with the existing infrastructure (i.e. equipment, funding, and training). In
addition, training should not be offered only as introductory courses. It is imperative to offer
constituents follow-up technological courses to ensure knowledge is attained.
It is the desire of the researcher that the findings of this study provide a basis within the
educational arena as it relates to preparing current and future administrators for the role as
instructional leader. It is imperative that building leaders demonstrate their competency in all
instructional areas, specifically in terms of technology usage. The federal government has
identified technology was a critical concept that is required of all stakeholders within the
educational system—students, teachers, and administrators. Therefore, it is critical that
educational leaders gain any and all training in the area of instructional technology in order to
provide their respective schools with the necessary tools in providing teachers and students with
21st Century teaching and learning skills.
Recommendations For Further Study
This study was limited to two middle schools within the same county of the CSRA
district of Georgia. To further validate this research, additional data gathering and analysis,
across the county, state, or country would be helpful in supporting the conclusions of this study.
The findings may not be generalizable. The study may be furthered by examining the use of
technology within elementary and/or high schools. In addition, comparing the instructional
technology practices of male and female teachers and/or veteran and new teachers could extend
the study. Also, the technology leadership practices of male and female administrators and/or
veteran and new administrators could be explored.
Summary
There is a relationship between principals’ technological training and their school’s
implementation of technology. Principals must model practices, which they expect their teachers
and students to replicate. Technology leaders at all levels must understand all of the components
within the educational system that are required to lead technology integration as an instructional
strategy and assist in making technology a transparent tool in teaching and learning.
A technologically competent leader has a greater tendency to pass on technology-related
characteristics within his or her school. The transformation of integrating technology within the
curriculum is everyone’s responsibility but the primary responsibility resides with the school’s
principal being receptive and competent in the area of technology before its consistent
implementation is visible within the school. It is imperative to utilize technology and its
capabilities to its fullest potential in order to progress within global society.
School leaders that are technology leaders see more use of technology in their schools.
They articulate and model the technological mission, vision, values, and beliefs of their school
and district. They also drive the technology plan by providing opportunities for teachers and
students to achieve the plan’s goals and objectives. Principal leadership is a vital factor that
affects the effective use of technology in classrooms. When used properly, technology becomes
an accelerator of momentum and makes learning more interactive and captivating for the average
student. Principals must use that ideal to their advantage to not only prepare students for the 21st
Century but to enhance learning within the educational arena as is prescribed by local, state, and
federal mandates.
