The Technology Principal

Abstract

This case provides principal licensure candidates a strategic perspective on leading and managing educational technology initiatives. It presents issues related to vision setting, planning, implementation, organizational structure, and decision making. The case narrative is presented from the perspective of a principal, but it can also be used to prompt reflection from the perspective of a central office administrator such as a superintendent, assistant superintendent, technology director, or professional development coordinator. The case includes a preliminary knowledge-building activity and discussion questions, which, combined, prepare administrators to exercise technology leadership for school improvement through environmental scanning, organizational analysis, and performance measurement.

Keywords

technology leadership decision making

Case Narrative

The Invitation

Principal Rebecca Williams was nearing the end of her fourth year in the Milton School District. During her brief time as principal, the middle school to which she was assigned reported significant gains in student achievement scores, with an average gain of seven percentage points in reading and six points in math. Principal Williams felt she was just beginning to get her bearings, when in early February she received an email from Superintendent Jones, requesting that she meet him at his office. During the meeting, Superintendent Jones praised Principal Williams for her creativity and effectiveness as a new principal, and he requested that she consider being reassigned to Harrison Middle School. Harrison’s current principal recently secured a position in a neighboring district and announced that he would not be returning to Harrison in autumn. After taking a week to consider Superintendent Jones’ request, Principal Williams agreed to the move. With the new school year beginning in less than 6 months, Principal Williams needed to act quickly to gather information about Harrison and prepare for her new assignment.

About Harrison Middle School

Harrison is one of four middle schools in the Milton School District. With an enrollment of 542 students in Grades 6 to 8, it is the most racially and economically diverse school in the large suburban district. The residents in the neighborhoods surrounding Harrison include a mix of young professionals and working-class families, with 68% of adults holding a bachelor degree or higher. Many of the adults in the community are employed in the information technology, health, and financial services industries.

The Milton School District has a total of 18 schools (2 high schools, 4 middle schools, and 12 elementary schools) and serves over 15,000 students. The district’s student achievement is relatively high when compared with other districts in the county and state. However, Harrison Middle School and its 2 feeder elementary schools stand out as the lowest achieving schools in the district. Over the past 5 years, the percentage of Harrison’s sixth-grade students at and above the proficient level in reading and math has hovered around 71% and 74%, respectively. These scores are lower than the 3 other middle schools that have an average of 94% of sixth-grade students at and above the proficient level in reading and 92% at and above the proficient level in math. Ideally, the district would like the percentage of sixth-grade students at and above the proficient level in reading and math to be 90% or greater. To reach this goal, Superintendent Jones has asked Harrison’s staff to work to increase the percentage of sixth-grade students at and above the proficient level from 71% to 82% in reading and 74% to 88% in math within the next 3 years. Because of Harrison’s low achievement scores in comparison with other middle schools in the district, over the past 5 years, enrollments have declined by 9%, with families choosing to send children to nearby charter and private schools. Given that many of the students who left the district historically performed well on achievement tests, Harrison’s current principal mentioned to Superintendent Jones that their absence could result in the building reporting even lower achievement scores.

In reaction to community pressure, district leaders began working with Harrison’s current principal to put in place several initiatives to improve academic performance. All middle schools in the district adopted new math, English language arts, science, and social studies curricula to meet revised academic standards, deepen students’ content knowledge, and further develop students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Most of the new instructional materials encouraged an inquiry-oriented approach to learning, involved multi-step problem solving, and attempted to develop students’ literacy within content areas. Several teachers have noted that students who do not have strong reading skills and who do not already have a strong foundation in content areas will need remediation support to make full use of the new curricula. In addition to adopting new curricula, Harrison Middle School increased efforts to involve parents in their child’s education, and decided to launch a one-to-one student laptop program.

Planning the Laptop and Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT) Programs

Harrison’s laptop program is currently in its first year of implementation. Dr. Greg Wright, Milton School District’s former assistant superintendent, came up with the idea to start a laptop program at Harrison 3 years ago. While away at a national school leadership conference, Dr. Wright attended a presentation that featured representatives from an urban school district explaining how laptops were instrumental to increasing students’ achievement test scores. Inspired by the urban district’s success story, and reflecting on the Milton School District’s existing efforts to provide assistive technologies to students with disabilities, Dr. Wright envisioned Harrison Middle School’s students using laptops to practice and prepare for state achievement tests, which would raise scores and help attract families back to the district.

As planning began for a laptop program at Harrison, it was not long before other teachers and principals began to ask whether the district would also provide laptops to all their students. Concerned about the cost of a district-wide laptop program, Dr. Wright asked the technology director to assemble a committee to develop plans for a district-wide Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT) program. Initiating a BYOT program would not only quell other school’s request for a one-to-one program, but could also reduce the cost of replacing laptops at Harrison Middle School in 4 years.

It took 1 year for the district’s technology director to negotiate a deal with a local software company to provide matching funds so that the district could purchase laptops and install additional wireless access points throughout the building. During the following year, the district worked to purchase, install, and test equipment. At the end of that year, Dr. Wright left the Milton School District to become superintendent in another district. With plans for the laptop program well underway, he was able to leverage his role as the program’s champion and chief architect as one of several selling points during his interview.

Year 1 of the Laptop Program

This is the first year of Harrison Middle School’s laptop program. The summer prior to the current school year, anticipation of the program generated a great deal of excitement in the community. The local newspaper ran a story, explaining how the program would allow students to use the laptops in class and then take them home to complete assignments. Enthusiasm for the program resulted in 27 students returning to the school, and led to positive local and national press for the software company that provided financial support for the program. In two news articles, the software company’s public relations representative was quoted as saying,

This laptop program will prepare students to work in a knowledge-based and global economy by providing students access to productivity software, the information highway, and a broad array of tools for communication and creativity. This will help prepare students for 21st century jobs—many of which have not yet been created.

Unfortunately, enthusiasm for Harrison’s laptop program was short-lived. Within the first few months of the current school year, several teachers and parents contacted central office to complain about the program. Teachers’ complaints centered on implementation issues, and parents voiced frustration over students’ lack of laptop use for educational purposes. Superintendent Jones was concerned that it was only a matter of time before the local press learned about the complaints and ran an unflattering story, suggesting that the district’s and software company’s investments were a waste of time and money.

Historically, the Milton School District had a decentralized structure, and Mr. Jones considered himself to be a hands-off administrator. However, with Dr. Wright, the initial champion of the initiative, no longer working for the district, Superintendent Jones began to worry that his approval and support of the laptop program was a mistake. Interested in knowing what, if anything, was being done with the laptops, Superintendent Jones requested that Harrison’s departing principal conduct a survey to find out if and how teachers were using them.

Teachers’ Survey Responses

Survey results were not encouraging. They revealed few teachers and students frequently used the laptops to support teaching and learning due to a variety of implementation issues. Out of Harrison’s 36 teachers, only 9 reported using the laptops at least once a marking period. Of those 9 teachers, 4 teachers used laptops on a weekly basis, and 1 used them daily. The remaining 27 teachers reported that they used laptops with students once or never. Of the 9 teachers who used laptops with students at least once a quarter, 6 stated that students used them to complete a lesson aligned with the new inquiry-oriented curriculum, 1 teacher directed students to use the laptops as an enrichment activity to play educational games, another teacher had students visit a website that had programmed instruction and assessments for standardized test preparation, and 1 used laptops to “flip” the classroom, instructing students to view her video-recorded lectures for homework so that class time could be used for completing assignments and receiving assistance.

The survey also included open-ended questions that asked teachers to describe what barriers, if any, they encountered that limited their ability to use laptops with students. Teachers provided examples of multiple barriers. Many reported that they were focused on enacting new curriculum and working with parents, and that professional development prior to the start of the program was not helpful because it primarily focused on hardware functionality and the productivity software that came pre-loaded on the laptops. Several teachers reported that students were using the laptops inappropriately at school to update social media pages, pass notes, play games, and read entertainment news. Three teachers mentioned that they were uncomfortable with students knowing more about how to use the laptops than themselves, and others felt there simply was not enough time during the day to plan and monitor technology-enriched lessons. One teacher provided a lengthy response, elaborating that she and her colleagues resented being required to submit a help request e-ticket to the technology department each time they wanted to download new software or visit a blocked website. She mentioned that such policies suggested that the district did not trust their professional judgment to download software and visits sites that addressed teaching needs. A final concern voiced by 6 teachers was that the out-going principal did not seem to understand how much time and energy it took teachers to integrate technology in their instruction. Instead of acknowledging issues associated with educational uses of the laptops, he seemed to only care about whether they were used, and thus encouraged teachers to use them for administrative purposes such as emailing parents and district employees and for updating the student information system. Although the 1 teacher who used the laptops with students on a daily basis mentioned that she also experienced complications, she was determined to continue using the laptops because she felt they were critical to her ability to teach inquiry-oriented lessons and keep students engaged. However, the majority of teachers viewed the program as an unnecessary distraction.

Preparing for the Upcoming School Year

Having accepted the new administrative assignment, and with less than 6 months remaining before the start of the next school year, Principal Williams was not sure where to begin to prepare to improve the technology program and the school overall. She was uncertain about the extent to which she or someone else in the district was ultimately responsible for the laptop program’s success. Dr. Wright, the assistant superintendent who initially championed the program, was no longer with the district. Although the district had a technology director on staff, this person had training as a technology expert, not as a teacher or educational leader. Furthermore, the school did not seem to have a technology committee.

Principal Williams considered asking Superintendent Jones if she could suspend the laptop program to simplify school improvement efforts, but she recalled from her preservice training and prior experience as a teacher that technology could be used to support student learning and lead to academic achievement gains. Much was at stake, with both the district’s and Principal Williams’ reputations on the line. Despite the risks, Principal Williams was hopeful that if her first year at Harrison was a success, then not only could student achievement scores increase, but students’ academic motivation may also improve. Furthermore, the school could model educational uses of technology to inform the upcoming BYOT initiative, and the school would be better positioned to seek funding for future initiatives. Principal Williams was up to the task and needed to act strategically to start the next school year on the path to success. Concerning the laptop program, she decided to focus her attention on balancing administrative and shared decision making to refine the vision, address leadership and implementation weaknesses, and use data to inform continuous improvement.

Teaching Notes

Information and communication technologies have been described as a societal change to which schools must respond (Riffel & Levin, 1997). Due to continual advancements, technology can now be used throughout virtually all aspects of the educational system (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009; Halverson, Grigg, Pritchett, & Thomas, 2007). Given the increasing options in when, where, and how learning can take place, it is important that school leaders develop the skills to work with teachers, technology specialists, vendors, and community members to ensure that technology initiatives are implemented in ways that support, instead of hinder, teaching practice and the achievement of district and school goals (Anthony, 2011; Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003; Kearsley & Lynch, 1992; Levin & Schrum, 2012).

Technology leadership is an emerging role that has been found to have a greater impact on schools’ educational uses of technology than access to equipment and technological infrastructure (Anderson & Dexter, 2005). Although multiple administrative standards highlight the importance of technology leadership (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008; International Society for Technology in Education, 2009; National Policy Board for Education Administration, 2011), historically, many preparation programs have been slow to prepare leaders who are equipped to prevent and address issues unique to school technology use (Dikkers, Hughes, & McLeod, 2005; Hughes, 2005), resulting in administrators who often do not possess the knowledge and skills to effectively lead such efforts (Davis, 2008). In addition to a lack of formal preparation, the work of leading a school technology program is further complicated when program details, including expectations for who is responsible for planning and implementation, differ widely across school settings and can even fluctuate within a given school or district throughout the life of a program.

This case is not only intended for principal preparation candidates enrolled in a technology leadership course but can also be incorporated into an introductory educational administration course, as well as an instructional leadership or educational change course. Instructors can also modify discussion questions for candidates preparing for positions as superintendents, technology directors, professional development coordinators, or teacher leaders. The sections below describe two learning activities: (a) a preliminary knowledge-building activity that students can complete prior to reading the case narrative, and (b) the case narrative discussion questions. Used in concert, these exercises provide candidates learning experiences for conducting an environmental scan, analyzing the school organization, and learning about theories of logic regarding various educational uses of technology. The exercises will enable candidates to gain and demonstrate content knowledge for Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) 2011 Standard Element 2.4 (National Policy Board for Education Administration, 2011), which indicates that candidates should have knowledge of technology and its uses for instruction in the school and that they should have knowledge of structures for ongoing support, review, and planning of instructional technology. In addition to gaining knowledge, these activities help prepare students to carry out an independent learning activity such as a field experience, during which they can practice and demonstrate technology leadership professional skills in an authentic educational setting.

Preliminary Knowledge-Building Activity

This activity prepares candidates to identify important issues in the case narrative. Candidates will conduct an environmental scan and develop a rich appreciation for the many ways technology can be used to support instruction. They will consider the instructional, technological, and administrative support required for a given educational technology initiative, which will enable them to make informed decisions as future leaders. Having conducted an environmental scan in a course, they will be better positioned as leaders to guide staff in conducting periodic scans to improve instructional initiatives. Figure 1 displays the assignment description, and Figure 2 suggests an evaluation rubric for this activity.

Figure 1.

Knowledge-building activity description.

Figure 2.

Knowledge-building activity, content knowledge assessment rubric for Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) 2011 Standard 2.4.

Begin by organizing candidates into groups of 5 or 6. Assign each group an educational use of technology that members will investigate individually. The assigned use of technology can be broad (e.g., technology for math) or narrow (technology for middle school math students to learn computation). Figure 3 provides examples of broad and narrow uses of technology. The critical concern in assigning technology uses for students to investigate is that candidates’ attention be initially focused on desired learning goals as opposed to technologies such as social media or mobile devices. Allow candidates at least 1 week to conduct independent investigations. Descriptions about how technology can be used should go beyond a basic definition to also include a discussion of the rationale and examples of technology use, as well as infrastructures for planning, review, and ongoing support.

Figure 3.

Examples of general and specific educational uses of technology.

As a part of this activity, instruct candidates to write a brief report that summarizes investigation findings. Ask candidates to bring reports to class so that they are prepared to engage in a 1-hr round robin discussion with group members. Encourage candidates to use technology (e.g., presentation software, word processing software, a wiki) to record discussion notes that can be projected to the class during a 10-min group presentation. During the oral presentation, and in the discussion notes, candidates will summarize common and divergent themes resulting from group members’ investigations. Group notes should be electronically distributed to all class members so that everyone will benefit from the collaborative learning experience. Thus, if there are five separate groups, at the conclusion of all presentations, candidates will have extensive notes on five different uses of technology. Such notes can be archived so that each year the course is taught, candidates can access and learn from notes recorded during previous years.

When introducing this activity to candidates, instructors should be mindful to prompt them to access and evaluate information from a variety of sources—including scholarly, news media, and professional publications, as well as conducting a school visit. The use of multiple information sources should be encouraged because no one source will provide candidates with both an in-depth and contemporary picture of how technology can be used in schools. Although news media and professional publications may highlight some inventive ways of using technology, a school visit will also enable candidates to learn about implementation challenges. Scholarly literature, however, will complement these descriptions by explaining the rationale behind technology use, specifying intended outcomes and possible performance measures, and providing a conceptual discussion of implementation challenges and what can be done to avoid them.

As a result of individual investigations and group discussions, candidates may describe some of the infrastructures for supporting educational uses of technology, including the importance of providing teachers and students access to reliable equipment (Keane, Gersick, Kim, & Honey, 2003; Loveless, 1996; O’Dwyer, Russell, & Bebell, 2004) and software relevant to curricular goals (Means et al., 1993). Candidates may mention that instructional support should include subject-specific professional development (Becker, 1994; Ertmer, 2005; Glazer & Hannafin, 2006; Schrum, 1999) that is ongoing instead of occurring during a one-time workshop (Cobb, McClain, Lamberg, & Dean, 2003; McNamara, Grant, & Wasser, 1998), and that allows teachers to explore technology and design instructional materials (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Candidates may mention administrative support such as providing visionary leadership and promoting a school culture of digital learning (International Society for Technology in Education, 2009), budgeting (McNabb, Valdez, Nowakowski, & Hawkes, 1999), collecting data on if and how technology supports school improvement efforts (Davidson, 2003; Hawkins, Spielvogel, & Panush, 1996; McNabb, Hawkes, & Rouk, 1999; Picciano, 2006), engaging in continuous program improvement (Anthony, 2012), and ensuring that the program is legal and ethical (Quinn, 2003). Group discussions may highlight the distributed nature of technology leadership (Dexter, 2008) and variations in how technology director positions can be staffed across districts (Gray & Lewis, 2009).

Case Narrative Discussion

By reading and discussing the case narrative, candidates can build upon insights gained from the knowledge-building activity, apply administrative theories, and use analytical tools to develop solutions to address problems of practice. Assuming the perspective of Principal Williams, candidates will consider how to ensure that educational technology initiatives include critical factors that can lead to success. The previously described knowledge-building activity will enable candidates to develop prior knowledge that can be used to identify the contrasting visions of the former assistant superintendent, funder, and 6 teachers who frequently use the laptops in their classrooms. Candidates will also consider how pursuit of the separate visions may require different instructional, technological, and administrative forms of support. Candidates who have previously read about the schools as social systems model (Hoy & Miskel, 2013), shared decision making (Hoy & Tarter, 1993), vision setting (Senge, 2006), and implementing innovations in organizations (Rogers, 2003) will be most prepared to contribute to the discussion.

A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis is a common strategy tool for organizational analysis. Taking note of such issues will prompt students to keep track of critical case details as they consider discussion questions and work to develop solutions. A SWOT analysis template is provided in Figure 4. Through completing the preliminary knowledge-building activity and analyzing the case, candidates should learn that a vision is important for the success of educational technology initiatives (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Keane et al., 2003; Kleiman, 2000). Visions help provide administrators and staff direction and motivation. They can reduce uncertainty and stress for all parties involved because as individuals in organizations carry out work, they draw not only on tangible resources but also on their individual and shared understandings of the greater purpose behind their work (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Once developed, a vision can also inform plans for professional development (Elmore, 2002). By developing a vision that is informed by academic standards, students’ learning needs, pedagogical expectations, and a theory of action for how technology will support teaching and learning, a school can avoid sending conflicting messages regarding the initiative (Anthony & Clark, 2011).

Figure 4.

Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threat (SWOT) analysis template.

This case encourages candidates to reflect on the underutilization of technology, which is a common concern for many schools (Fleming, 2011; Smerdon et al., 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 2007, 2008). Candidates can discuss complications that may arise when all teachers in a school have access to technology, yet only a small portion choose to use it. Ensuring that instructional, technological, and administrative infrastructures are in place will foster school-wide implementation, which will enable staff to monitor program effectiveness.

In leading the case discussion, the instructor can help candidates grasp that many of the problems associated with the laptop initiative are internal to the district and school and can be addressed through effective leadership, planning, and support. As the principal, Ms. Williams’ dilemma centers not only on whether technology will be used to support teaching and learning at Harrison but also on determining what her leadership role will be in relation to the program. Will she be an autocratic leader, mandating top-down decisions regarding the ways and extent to which technology must be used? Or, will she empower teachers and foster participatory decision making? Principal Williams may need to periodically adjust her role as technology leader as the laptop program has potential to generate complications that will hinder school improvement efforts, or it can be channeled as a resource for supporting school improvement. Drawing on research regarding the diffusion of innovations in organizations, advisory decision making tends to work best early in the planning process (Rogers, 2003). Advisory committees enable school leaders to support and approve decisions that address intricacies of subject matter, students’ needs, teaching practice, and technology. However, if a program is well established in that equipment is available, the vision and expectations are clear, and professional development has been provided, then the principal is positioned to enforce policies and make decisions that help the program continue to run smoothly.

Despite the possibility of decision making responsibilities shifting throughout the life of a school technology initiative, it is imperative that the principal be actively involved so that she can ensure that there are financial, staffing, space, equipment, and instructional resources, as well as adequate technical and instructional support for teachers. In addition, principals can initiate collaborative vision-setting discussions; ensure that the initiative is instructionally, ethically, and legally sound; and enforce policies. The principal is uniquely positioned to encourage the initiative to support building and district goals, reward outstanding applications of technology, and effectively communicate details about the initiative with staff, central office administrators, students, and others (International Society for Technology in Education, 2009; Kearsley & Lynch, 1992; Thomas & Knezek, 1991; Yee, 2000).

The following questions will guide candidates’ reflection of the case. Instructors can direct candidates to read and orally discuss the case during class immediately after the knowledge-building activity group presentations, or candidates can write a response to the questions so that they can be discussed in class the week after completing the knowledge-building activity.

Discussion Questions

Conduct a Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threat (SWOT) analysis of Harrison Middle School’s laptop program. Upon completion of the SWOT analysis, use administrative theories to rearticulate the most critical issues (e.g., organizational culture, structure).

The case narrative mentions at least 3 different visions for technology use at Harrison. Describe the three visions. What outcomes and performance measures can be associated with each vision?

What challenges may result from the existence of multiple technology visions? How might a shared technology vision impact the laptop program? What are the potential consequences of Principal Williams developing the school’s technology vision on her own?

Select 1 of the 3 visions you indicated in response to Question 2, and explain the instructional, technological, and administrative support that would enable all teachers to use the laptops for that purpose.

How can technology leadership for instructional, technological, and administrative support be distributed among Principal Williams, teachers, the technology director, and other central office staff? What may prompt each group’s involvement as technology leaders?

Develop a plan of action for Principal Williams to carry out over the next 6 months so that she will be prepared to serve as an effective principal at Harrison.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The authors are grateful for the helpful comments of Wayne Hoy and Erica Brownstein on earlier drafts of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Anika Ball Anthony is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Studies at The Ohio State University. Her research focuses on technology implementation, technology leadership, and school structure.

Supawaree Patravanich is a graduate of the Educational Administration program in the Department of Educational Studies at The Ohio State University.

References

Anderson

R. E.

Dexter

S. L.

(2005). Technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 49-82.

Anthony

A. B.

(2011). Innovation in educational organizations: Implications for research and administrative practice. In DiPaola

Forsyth

(Eds.), Leading research in educational administration: A festschrift for Wayne K. Hoy (pp. 163-182). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Anthony

A. B.

Clark

(2011). Examining dilemmas of practice associated with the integration of technology into mathematics classrooms serving urban students. Urban Education, 46(6), 1300-1331

Anthony

A. B.

(2012). Activity theory as a framework for investigating district-classroom system interactions and their influences on technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(4), 331-352.

Baylor

A. L.

Ritchie

(2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 29, 395-414.

Becker

H. J.

(1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 291-321.

Cobb

McClain

Lamberg

Dean

(2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13-24.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Pages/educational-leadership-policy-standards.aspx

Davidson

(2003). A new role in facilitating school reform: The case of the educational technologist. Teachers College Record, 105, 729-252.

10.

Davis

M. R.

(2008, January 23). The knowledge gap. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2008/01/23/3leadership.h01.html

11.

Dexter

(2008). Leadership for IT in schools. In Voogt

Knezek

(Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 543-554). New York, NY: Springer.

12.

Dikkers

A. G.

Hughes

J. E.

McLeod

(2005). A bridge to success. T.H.E. Journal, 32(11), 20-24.

13.

Elmore

R. F.

(2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

14.

Ertmer

P. A.

(2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 25-39.

15.

Flanagan

Jacobsen

(2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 124-142.

16.

Fleming

(2011, March). Tailoring mathematics for young minds. Education Week, 30(25), 12-15.

17.

Glazer

E. M.

Hannafin

M. J.

(2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 179-193.

18.

Gray

Lewis

(2009). Educational technology in public school districts: Fall 2008. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

19.

Greenhow

Robelia

Hughes

J. E.

(2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38, 246-259.

20.

Halverson

R. R.

Grigg

Pritchett

Thomas

(2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 159-194.

21.

Hawkins

Spielvogel

Panush

E. M.

(1996). National study tour of district technology integration: Summary report. CCT Reports, Issue No. 14. New York: EDC Center for Children and Technology.

22.

Hoy

W. K.

Miskel

C. G.

(2013). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

23.

Hoy

W. K.

Tarter

C. J.

(1993). A normative model of shared decision making. Journal of Educational Administration, 31, 4-19.

24.

Hughes

J. E.

(2005). School technology leadership: Theory to practice. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(2), 51-56.

25.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2009). National Educational Technology Standards for Administrators (NETS-A). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-administrators.aspx

26.

Keane

J. T.

Gersick

Kim

Honey

(2003). Toward a sustainability framework: Lessons from the literature and the field. In Dickard

(Ed.), The sustainability challenge: Taking EdTech to the next level (pp. 27-46). Washington, DC: Benton Foundation With EDC Center for Children and Technology.

27.

Kearsley

Lynch

(1992). Educational leadership in the age of technology: The new skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25, 50-60.

28.

Kleiman

G. M.

(2000). Myths and realities about technology in K-12 schools. Leadership and the New Technologies (LTN) Perspectives. Retrieved from http://www.edtechleaders.org/documents/myths.pdf

29.

Levin

B. B.

Schrum

(2012). Leading technology-rich schools: Award-winning models for success. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

30.

Loveless

(1996). Why aren’t computers used more in schools? Educational Policy, 10, 448-467.

31.

McNabb

M. L.

Hawkes

Rouk

(1999). Critical issues in evaluating the effectiveness of technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Conference on Educational Technology. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/techconf99/confsum.pdf

32.

McNabb

M. L.

Valdez

Nowakowski

Hawkes

(1999). Technology connections for school improvement: Planners’ handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20060427023722/http:/www.ncrel.org/tplan/tplanB.htm

33.

McNamara

Grant

C. M.

Wasser

J. D.

(1998). Using technology to support systemic education reform (Hanau Model School Partnership Project Description Research Monograph). Cambridge, MA: Technical Education Research Centers (TERC).

34.

Means

Blando

Olson

Middleton

Morocco

C. C.

Remz

A. R.

Zorfass

(1993). Using technology to support educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offices.

35.

Mishra

Koehler

M. J.

(2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.

36.

National Policy Board for Education Administration. (2011). Educational Leadership Constituents Council (ELCC) Standards. Retrieved from http://npbea.org/2012/06/2011-elcc-building-level-standards/

37.

O’Dwyer

Russell

Bebell

(2004). Elementary teachers’ use of technology: Characteristics of teachers, schools, and districts associated with technology use. Boston, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College.

38.

Picciano

A. G.

(2006). Educational leadership and planning for technology (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

39.

Quinn

D. M.

(2003). Legal issues in educational technology: Implications for school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 187-207.

40.

Riffel

J. A.

Levin

(1997). Schools coping with the impact of information technology. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 25, 51-64.

41.

Rogers

E. M.

(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

42.

Schrum

(1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83-90.

43.

Senge

(2006). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.

44.

Smerdon

Cronen

Lanahan

Anderson

Iannotti

Angeles

(2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

45.

Thomas

L. G.

Knezek

(1991). Providing technology leadership for restructured schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24, 265-279.

46.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Teachers’ use of student data management systems to improve instruction. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

47.

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). National educational technology trends study: Local-level data summary. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

48.

Yee

D. L.

(2000). Images of school principals’ information and communications technology leadership. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 9, 287-302.