A cross-case analysis of five case studies of team-based technology leadership in middle schools with laptop programs identifies systems of practice that organize teams’ distributed leadership. These cases suggest that successfully implementing a complex improvement effort warrants a team-based leadership approach, especially for an improvement concerned with using technology to support teaching and learning. Not only does such an effort include technical and curriculum/instruction issues, but the constantly changing nature of technology has implications for teaching and learning. A group of people working together on a technology leadership effort makes it more likely that the necessary amount of expertise is available and that the team can keep up to date and address all technology leadership needs. Key artifacts that organize important leadership practices include sharing a technology vision, providing instructional support personnel, aligning technology resources to the curriculum, and ensuring opportunities for teachers to learn, share, and provide input to the leadership team.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonR. E., & DexterS. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and impact. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 49–82.
2.
BiancarosaG., BrykA. S., GreenbergS., CorM. K., HaertelE., FountasI. (2010, May). Piloting a performance-based assessment of literacy coaching. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
3.
BransfordJ. D., BrownA. L., & CockingR. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4.
CamburnE., RowanB., & TaylorJ. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 25, 347–373.
5.
ChrispeelsJ. H. (2004). The dynamics of sharing and distributing leadership. In ChrispeelsJ. H. (Ed.), Learning to lead together (pp. 3–20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
CollinsA. C., & HalversonR. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America.New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
Compass Intelligence. (2010). U.S. education information technology expenditures by education level, 2009–2014.Scottsdale, AZ: Compass Intelligence.
8.
CubanL., KirkpatrickH., & PeckC. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
9.
DexterS., AndersonR. E., & RonnkvistA. (2002). Quality technology support: What is it? Who has it? and What difference does it make?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 287–307.
10.
DexterS., SeashoreK. R., & AndersonR. E. (2002). Contributions of professional community to exemplary use of ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4) 489–497.
11.
DexterS., Seashore LouisK. R., & AndersonR. E. (2009). The roles and practices of specialists in teamed instructional leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 445–465.
12.
DuFourR., & EakerR. (1998). Professional learning communities at work.Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
13.
FlanaganL., & JacobsonM. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124–142.
14.
FrankK. A., ZhaoY., & BormanK. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–172.
15.
GallucciC., Van LareM., YoonI., & BoatrightB. (in press). Instructional coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal.
16.
GazielH. H. (2007). Re-examining the relationship between principals’ instructional/educational leadership and student achievement. Journal of Social Studies, 15(1), 17–24.
17.
GoldsteinJ. (2004). Making sense of distributed leadership: The case of peer assistance and review. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 26, 173–197.
18.
GrayL., ThomasN., & LewisL. (2010a). Educational technology in U.S. public schools: Fall 2008 (NCES No. 2010–034). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
19.
GrayL., ThomasN., & LewisL. (2010b). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES No. 2010–040). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
20.
HallingerP., & HeckR. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157–191.
21.
HalversonR. (2003, October 10). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://epaa.asa.edu/epaa/vlln37/
22.
HalversonR. (2005, November). A distributed leadership perspective on how leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the University Council of Education Administration, Nashville, TN.
23.
HalversonR., & CliffordM. (2003, August). Evaluation in the wild: A distributed cognition perspective on teacher assessment. Paper presented at the meeting of the University Council of Education Administration, Kansas City, MO.
24.
HsuP. S., & SharmaP. (2006). A systemic plan of technology integration. Educational Technology & Society, 9(4), 173–184.
25.
JulianD. (1997). The utilization of the logic model as a system level planning and evaluation device. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(3), 251–257.
26.
LawN., PelgrumW. J., & PlompT. (Eds.). (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study.Hong Kong: CERC-Springer.
LeithwoodK., & MeinziesT. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A review. Educational Policy, 12, 325–346.
29.
MarshJ. A., McCombsJ. S., & MartorellF. (2010, May). Reading coach quality: Findings from Florida middle schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
30.
MarzanoR. J., WatersJ. T., & McNultyB. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
31.
McLeodS., & RichardsonJ. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 216–240.
32.
MishraP., & KoehlerM. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
33.
MurphyJ. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
34.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
RonnkvistA. M., & AndersonR. E. (2001, March). The impact of professional community on technology integrated teaching practices. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwest Sociological Association, St. Louis, MO.
36.
RonnkvistA., DexterS., & AndersonR. (2000). Technology support: Its depth, breadth, and impact on America's schools: Teaching, learning, and computing 1998 survey (Report No. 5). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information, Technology, and Organizations at the University of California, Irvine. Retrieved February 2, 2001, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/technology-support/
37.
SpillaneJ. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. Educational Forum, 69, 143–150.
38.
SpillaneJ. P. (2006). Distributed leadership.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39.
SpillaneJ. P., & DiamondJ. B. (Eds.). (2007). Distributed leadership in practice.New York: Teachers College Press.
40.
SpillaneJ. P., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30, 23–28.
41.
SpillaneJ. P., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 3–34.
42.
SpillaneJ. P., & OrlinaE. C. (2005). Investigating leadership practice: Exploring the entailments of taking a distributed perspective. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 157–176.
43.
SRI International. (2002). The integrated studies of educational technology: Professional development and teachers’ use of technology.Washington, DC: SRI.
44.
WilliamsL. A., AtkinsonL. C., CateJ. M., & O'HairM. J. (2008). Mutual support between learning community development and technology Integration: Impact of school practices and student achievement. Theory Into Practice, 47(4), 294–302.
45.
WindschitlM., & SahlK. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
46.
YuenA. H. K., LawN., & WongK. C. (2003). ICT implementation and school leadership: Case studies of ICT integration in teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 158–170.
47.
ZhaoY., & FrankK. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.
48.
ZhaoY., PughK., SheldonS., & ByersJ. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104, 482–515.
49.
ZuckerA. A. (2008). Transforming schools with technology: How smart use of digital tools helps achieve six key education goals.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
ZuckerA. A., & LightD. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science, 323(5910), 82–85.
