This research, looking through the lens of Fullan (1991) regarding the complexity of implementing school wide change, sought to explore preparation and requirements of new administrators with respect to the integration of technology by first gathering data regarding licensure and course requirements from state departments of education and educational institutions. Overall, most states and institutions do not require any formal preparation in understanding or implementing technology for instructional purposes, and likely their graduates are not prepared to implement technology systemically in their school. Given that these data were remarkably uniform and next researchers sought to gather experiences, training, and perspectives of technology-savvy administrators as to how they learned what they know and how they lead their schools in the 21st century. We learned that administrators do learn on their own, have a dedication to these changes, and promote their staff members’ implementation through professional development, by modeling its use, and purposefully setting goals for their school.
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.
AtkinsN. E., & VasuE. S. (2000). Measuring knowledge of technology usage and stages of concern about computing: A study of middle school teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 279–302.
3.
CamburnE., RowanB., & TaylorJ. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347–373.
4.
CaseyH. B., & RakesG. C. (2002). An analysis of the influences of technology training on teacher stages of concern regarding the use of instructional technology in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(4), 124–132.
5.
ClausenK. W., AquinoA.-M., & WidemanR. (2008). Bridging the real and ideal: A comparison between learning community characteristics and a school-based case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 444–452.
6.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
DawsonC., & RakesG. (2003). The influence of principals’ technology training on the integration of technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 29–49.
9.
ErtmerP. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
10.
FullanM. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
FullanM. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reforms.New York: Falmer Press.
12.
FullanM. (1999). Change forces: The sequel.Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
13.
FullanM. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
HessF. M., & KellyA. P. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal-preparation programs?Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244–274.
15.
HollandL., & Moore-StewardT. (2000). A different divide: Preparing tech-savvy leaders. Leadership, 30(1), 8–10, 37–38.
16.
HulpiaH., & DevosG. (2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 565–575.
17.
JonesB. A. (2001). Supply and demand for school principals: A nationwide study.Columbia, MO: Consortium for the Study of Educational Policy.
18.
KleinerB., ThomasN., & LewisL. (2007). Educational technology in teacher education programs for initial licensure (NCES No. 2008-040). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
19.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(4), 249–280.
20.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112–129.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
MurphyJ. (2001). The changing face of leadership preparation. School Administrator, 58(10), 14–17.
24.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology.Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education.
25.
RitchieD. (1996). The administrative role in the integration of technology. NASSP Bulletin, 80, 42–52.
26.
SergiovanniT. J. (2006). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective.Boston: Pearson Education.
27.
SpillaneJ., CamburnE., & ParejaA. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the school principal's work day. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 103–125.
28.
SpillaneJ. P., & ZuberiA. (2009). Designing and piloting a leadership daily practice log: Using logs to study the practice of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 375–423.
29.
StegallP. (1998). The principal: Key to technology implementation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED424614)
30.
StuartL. H., MillsA. M., & RemusU. (2009). School leaders, ICT competence and championing innovations. Computers & Education, 53, 733–741.
WangL., ErtmerP. A., & NewbyT. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231–250.
33.
WeberR. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34.
WhaleD. E. (2003). The new technology standards for school administrators: Findings from the first large-scale survey of high school principals. Connections: Journal of Principal Preparation and Development, 5.
35.
WilliamsP. (2008). Leading schools in the digital age: A clash of cultures. School Leadership and Management, 28(3), 213–228.
