Supportive Administration in Technology Integration in schools:
The role of the principal
Akhlaq Hossain
Spring 2005
CECS 6220
Dr.Knezek
Abstract
The main issue of school computer utilization has shifted from mere access to the more fundamental issue of how to effectively integrate technology into the curriculum. There are several factors that influence the successful integration of technology in education. One of these variables is the role played by the “Principal” to insure effective integration of technology in schools. In this paper I will look at the importance of “Administrative Support and Leadership” in the success of technology integration process. I will also discuss the guidelines set by TSSA (Technology Standards for School Administrators) Collaboration and how these guidelines have been adopted by ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) to establish NETS*A (National Educational Technology Standards for Administrators).
Introduction
One may ask the question, “Why do we have schools?” One of the primary reasons for the need to have schools is to transmit and transfer “Skills and Knowledge” to the next generation. According to Webber (2003), “the impact of technology is one of the most critical issues of education” today and “we continue to grapple with how we might best make use of interaction and communication technology in schools”. Although the “department of education officials and elected politicians determine” the policy frameworks for schools, it is the Administrator/ Principal who interprets the policies and applies them to the school curriculum (Webber, 2003).
Flanagan and Jacobsen (2003) look at “ways that the technology for teaching and learning has impacted the traditional roles and responsibilities of the school principal”.
In the last 15 years as prices of computer technology dropped, more and more schools have invested on hardware, software, and network infrastructure. But this greater access to computer technology did not necessarily mean more use of such technology. “The gap between technology presence and use in high school is wide – the presence of technology alone seldom leads to widespread teacher and student use” (Flanagan and Jacobson, 2003).
One of the main barriers to technology integration in education is the “lack of informed leadership”. Most principals have not received any type of special training that would have better prepared them in their role as technology integration leaders. Therefore most of these principals do not have the necessary skills to “develop both the human and technical resources necessary to achieve the technology integration goals of their schools.
Schools have been busy with goals of “acquiring equipment, setting up labs and wiring buildings” without giving any consideration to necessary “organizational and cultural changes” needed for the effective use of this new technology. “As a result, many schools have expensive computer labs that are being used for typing, games, and drill, if they are being used at all” (Flanagan and Jacobsen, 2003).
Framework
Flanagan and Jacobsen (2003) have developed a contextual framework which can be used by school principals in their new role as technology leader. This five-part leadership model is based on a “framework for analyzing the principal’s role as a technology leader” provided by the Calgary Board of Education’s (2000) Leadership development program. The principal should play a key role in these five areas:
1) “Leader of learning”
2) “Leader of student entitlement”
3) “Leader of capacity building”
4) “Leader of community”
5) “Leader of resource management”
(Flanagan and Jacobsen, 2003)
For each of the five key roles to be undertaken by the principals, the model provides essential goals, tasks and outcomes.
Yee (2000) defined eight types of technology leadership: “equitable providing, learning focused envisioning, adventurous learning, patient teaching, protective enabling, constant monitoring, entrepreneurial networking and careful challenging”. Yee (2000) in a qualitative study of the principals in ten technology enriched schools in Canada, New Zealand and the United States, noted that the “principals in the study demonstrated these eight roles, but in varying degrees”.
Recent Case Studies
Case 1
The date for this case study is based on the “Second International Information Technology in Education study-module1 (SITES-M1), undertaken by the Center for Information Technology in Education (CITE) of the University of Hong Kong. The study looks at “the findings of the analysis on models of change in 18 schools” in their effort at technology integration access the schools curriculum.
The main focus of the study was to “explore leadership issues” in technology integration at these 18 schools. The results of the study indicate that the “school leader’s vision and understanding of the role and impact of information and communication technology in the curriculum” strongly influence the strategy that is used to make this change. Therefore the school leader directly influences the resulting success of the technology integration process (Law et al, 2003).
Case 2
According to Schiller (2003), “Principals need to assume a major responsibility for initiating and implementing school change through the use of technology”. Unfortunately many of the principles at schools today, do not have the necessary skills and experience with computers and technology and therefore are not prepared for this role as technology leaders. This study uses data gathered from a survey of elementary and secondary school principals in New South Wales, Australia. The results show that there “were considerable variations in the use of technology by principals and in their perceived competencies” (Schiller, 2003). This variation between principals was evident “regardless of age, gender, school size, experience with technology and their perceived competency” (Schiller, 2003).
Principals progress through stages in their technologically skill development levels, therefore it is critical to develop activities and training for these different stages. Schiller uses the CBAM-model to explain the variations between the principals responses, “different interventions are needed for individuals” who are different “stages of concern” or different “levels of use”. Therefore the need for professional development opportunities for principals.
Case 3
This empirical survey involves interviews with school principals in South Africa. A phone survey was conducted, with 52 principals of schools representing 26,417 students. When asked to suggest ways to improve technology integration in schools, the majority of the answers fell into the following four categories.
1) Financial support from the department of Education
2) Partnership between schools and the private sector
3) Training of teachers in computer technology
4) Training of parents in Computer technology
Category 2 and 4 may be more appropriate for South Africa then here in the United States or developed countries. Thus far we have seen in all of the above three-case studies, it is critical that the principals have the necessary training and background so that they will be able to carryout their role as a technology leader in an effective way.
Case 4
Dawson and Rakes (2003) conducted a study to investigate the effects of training received by principals, on technology integration into classrooms, 398 principals participated in the survey. “The study examined the levels of technology integration into the school curricula with regard to the amount and types of technology training received by K-12 school principals”. The one dependent variable was the overall level of integration of technology into the curriculum of schools. (As measured by the school technology and readiness chart assessment). The dependent variable was examined to determine its relationship with independent variables.
The Seven independent variables:
- Age
- Sex
- Years of administrative experience
- School size
- Grade Levels of the schools
- Amount of technology training
- Type of technology training
(Dawson and Rakes, 2003)
The results:
· “Age of Principal did significantly influence technology integration”.
· “Principals sex and years of administration experience did not have any significant influence in technology integration”.
· “Neither school level nor did school size have any significant influence in the level of technology integration”.
· “Amount of technology training received in the preceding 12 months did significantly influence the level of technology integration”.
· “Type of technology training received did have an influence in the levels of technology integration into the curriculum”.
(Dawson and Rakes, 2003)
This study’s findings are in agreement with a study by Crandall and Loucks (1982), which also indicated that the “amount” and “type” of technology training received by the principals did have a significance influence in the level of technology at their schools. The higher the amount of training the greater the level of technology integration. When the training is geared towards the individual needs of the principal, the level of technology integration at their school improves.
Even when all these studies and literature review point towards more technology training for the principals, in reality it just is not happening. More research is required to find out the percentage of principals that are receiving technology integration training, and also the type of training that they are receiving.
Now that we know that the Principals level of technological competencies has a significant influence in the success of technology integration, what about the personality of the principal does it have any influence. Schiller (1991) has classified three – “facilitation styles” that are used by principals.
1) “Principals who let it happen”
2) “Principals who help it happen”
3) “Principals who make it happen”
(Schiller, 1991)
Schiller (1991) was able to show from his data analysis that a “relationship between change facilitation style of the principal and implementation success” exists. Principals who “make it” happen were most successful in technology implementation and principals who “let it” happen were the least successful in technology implementation. According to Albion and Otto (2002) the role of the principals’ “beliefs and understandings” are also a key element in determining his/her vision towards the schools technology integration process.
Standards
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has adopted the Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) standards as the National Educational Technology Standards for Administrators (NETS*A). These standards should not be the maximum standard that has to be met, but only the minimum. This will give everyone an equal platform to build on and the standard can be adapted to meet the local conditions.
Two other guidelines are listed below, many such lists are available and they all have the goal to improve the technology integration process.
An eight-step guide for administrators:
1) “Set Proper Strategy”
2) “Learn the technology”
3) “Commit needed resources”
4) “Involve others in the process”
5) “Plan a tactical training program for teachers/staff”
6) “Develop plans to outcome organizational anxiety”
7) “Rely on specialists”
8) “Manage legal liability”
(Attran and Vanhaar, 2001)
Kearsley and Lynch (1992), lists the following example of skills needed by principals:
1) “Ensure equal access and opportunity to technology resources”
2) “Establish policies for ethical use of computers”
3) “Ensure facilities for technology are appropriate”
4) “Establish priorities for technology use in schools”
5) “Provide released time for technology training”
6) Reward outstanding technology applications”
7) “Seek out funding sources for technology”
Technology Integration and Adoption: Models
The three categories of technology integration theory/models. (Knezek)
- Elimination of Barriers.
- Amplification of Human Capacity.
- Catalyst for change.
Model/Theory: Examples.
Elimination of Barriers / Barriers to adopting technology( P.Rodgers) / Diffusion of Innovation
(E.Rodgers) / Concerns-based Adoption model
(CBAM)
Amplification of Human Capacity / Multiple intelligences
(H. Gardner) / Zone of Proximal Development
( Vygotsky) / Model of Technology Integration (Knezek)
Catalyst for change / Cuban's History of Technology / Seven dimensions for gauging progress. (Milken) / Computers in Education Study
(Knezek)
(Matrix Based on class notes & discussions: CECS 6220 with Dr. Knezek)
CBAM – Concerns Based Adoption Model was developed at the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education at the University of Texas at Austin. It is a conceptual framework for introducing change and innovation in individuals.
The three diagnostic dimensions of CBAM:
1) “Stages of Concern – reactions that educators experience”
2) “Levels of Use – behaviors educators develop”
3) “Innovation Configurations – ways in which teachers adapt innovations”
(Hord et.al, 1987)
CBAM has been successfully utilized by researchers in many countries across the world. We are also able to see that one specific model does not have all the answers; there is always the need for new research (Anderson, 1997).
So which is the best framework? They all sound good on paper, and have the research data to support their merits. We will only know in the future which framework yielded the best outcome, it is important to note that new frameworks will evolve over time, meeting the needs of future.
Conclusion:
Although there has been extensive research on the integration of technology in schools at K-12 levels over the last 20 years, more research is needed to study the role of leadership in technology integration, more specifically the role of the school principal as the change agent in technology integration. We have seen that most of the case studies and research material covered in this paper highlight the importance of the role played by the school principal in the technology integration process.
References
Anderson, S.E. (July, 1997). Understanding Teacher Change: Revisiting the concerns
based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3).
Attaran, M. and Vanhaar, I. (2001). Managing the use of school technology. An eight-
step guide for administration. The journal of Management Development, 20 (5/6).
Crandall, D.P. and Loucks, S.F. (Mar, 1982). Preparing facilitators for implementation:
Mirroring the school improvement process. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York.
Dawson, C. and Rakes, C.R. (2003). The influence of principals’ technology training on
the integration of technology into schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(1).
Flanagan, L. and Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty first century
principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142.
Hord, S.M., Rutherford, W.L., Huling-Austin, Leslie and Hall, G.E. (1987). Taking
Charge of change. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Kearlsey, G. and Lynch, W. (1992). Educational Leadership in the age of Technology:
The New Skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(1).
Law, N., Yuen, A., and Wong, K.C. (2003). ICT implementation and school leadership.