This research examined how technology leadership functioned in the first year of a tablet computer (iPad) learning innovation in one U.S. high school and its district. This article presents a descriptive case study of leader interactions that contributed to setting direction, providing professional learning, and making the organization technologically ready. Qualitative data, collected through interviews and observations, revealed a “bottom-up” innovation with “top-down” support. Yet, the school's entrenched structural and cultural practices undermined attempts to enact the learning-focused vision. This study emphasizes the need for a truly distributed vision, in which all organizational structures, practices, policies, and expectations are reconsidered.
AndersonE. E., & DexterS. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect.Educational Administration Quarterly,41(1), 49–82. DOI: 10.1177/0013161x04269517
2.
AndersonR. E., & DexterS. L. (2000). School technology leadership: Incidence and impactCenter for Research on Information Technology and Organizations (CRITO) and University of Minnesota.
3.
BeckerH. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right?Educational Policy Analysis Archives,8(51), 1–32.
4.
BennettN. (2008). Distributed leadership in IT. In VoogtJ., & KnezekG. (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 597–613). New York, NY: Springer.
5.
CreswellJ. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
6.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
CubanL. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
DeCuir-GunbyJ. T., MarshallP. L., & McCullochA. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project.Field Methods,23(2), 136–155.
9.
DedeC., HonanJ. P., & PetersL. C. (Eds.) (2005). Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational improvement.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
DexterS. (2008). Leadership for IT in schools. In VoogtJ., & KnezekG. (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 543–554). New York, NY: Springer.
11.
DexterS. (2011). School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice.Journal of School Leadership,21(2), 166–189.
12.
DexterS., AndersonR. E., & BeckerH. J. (1999). Teachers’ views of computers as catalysts for changes in their practice.Journal of Research on Computing in Education,31(3), 221–239.
13.
EmersonR. M., FretzR. I., & ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
14.
FarmerL. S. (2013). Librarians’ roles in informatics to support classroom incorporation of technology. In KeengweJ. (Ed.), Research perspectives and best practices in educational technology integration (pp. 129–147). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
15.
FirestoneW. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research.Educational Researcher,22(4), 16–23.
16.
FullanM. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th edition). New York, NY: Teachers College.
17.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Chicago: Aldine.
18.
HughesN. (2014, March 17). Mac education sales have grown in US since iPad debut, weakening Apple cannibalization worries, appleinsider. Retrieved from http://appleinsider.com
19.
ISTE. (2009). National Educational Technology Standards for Administrators (NETS-A) 2009.Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
20.
JohnstonM. P. (2012). Connecting teacher librarians for technology integration leadership.School Libraries Worldwide,18(1), 18–33.
21.
LaiK., & PrattK. (2004). Information and communication technology (ICT) in secondary schools: The role of the computer coordinator.British Journal of Educational Technology,35(4), 461–475.
22.
LeithwoodK., MascallB., & StraussT. (Eds.) (2009). Distributed leadership according to the evidence.New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
LinF., & ChiouG. (2008). Support-seeking and support-giving relationships of school technology coordinators.British Journal of Educational Technology,39(5), 922–927.
24.
McLeodS., & RichardsonJ. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage.Journal of School Leadership,21(2), 216–240.
25.
MerriamS. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
The new digital learning playbook: Understanding the spectrum of students’ activities and aspirations. (2014). Speak Up 2013: Project Tomorrow.
27.
Nussbaum-BeachS., & HallL. R. (2012). The connected educator: Learning and leading in a digital age.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
28.
RichardsonJ. W., & McLeodS. (2011). Technology leadership in native American schools.Journal of Research in Rural Education,26(7), 1–14.
29.
RussellG. S., & HughesJ. E. (2014). iTeach and iLearn with iPads in secondary English language arts. In MillerC., & DoeringA. (Eds.), The new landscape of mobile learning: Re-designing education in an app-based world (pp. 292–307). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
SchachterR. (2010). A call for technology leadership.District Administration,46(10), 41–45.
31.
SchrumL., GalizioL. M., & LedesmaP. (2011). Educational leadership and technology integration: An investigation into preparation, experiences, and roles.Journal of School Leadership,21(2), 241–261.
32.
SchrumL., & LevinB. B. (2013). Leadership for twenty-first-century schools and student achievement: Lessons learned from three exemplary cases.International Journal of Leadership in Education,16(3), 379–398.
33.
SelwynN. (2011). Schools and schooling in the digital age: A critical analysis.Hoboken: Routledge.
34.
SheppardB., & BrownJ. (2014). Leadership for a new vision of public school classrooms: Technology-smart and learner-centered.Journal of Educational Administration,52(1), 84–96. DOI: 10.1108/JEA-03-2012-0027
35.
SpillaneJ. P. (2006). Distributed leadership.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
36.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
37.
HuesT. T. (2013). Student leaders as change agents: Benefits emerging from a curricular change.Visions of Research in Music Education,23(1), 1–25.
38.
TondeurJ., van KeerH., van BraakJ., & ValckeM. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom; Challenging the potential of a school policy.Computers & Education,51(1), 212–223. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.003
39.
TwiningP. (2008). Framing IT use to enhance educational impact on a school-wide basis. In VoogtJ., & KnezekG. (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education.New York, NY: Springer.
40.
Wallace Foundation. (2011). The school principal as leader; Guiding schools to better teaching and learning.Louisville, KY: Wallace Foundation.
41.
WarschauerM., ZhengB., NiiyaM., CottenS., & FarkasG. (2014). Balancing the one-to-one equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs.Equity & Excellence in Education,47(1), 46–62. DOI: 10.1080/10665684.2014.866871
42.
WinslowJ., DiôkersonJ., Cheng-YuanL., & GeerG. (2012). Mobile technologies: Tools for organizational learning and management in schools.International Education Studies,5(4), 188–195. DOI: 10.5539/ies.v5n4p188
43.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
ZhaoY., PughK., SheldonS., & ByersJ. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations.Teachers College Record,104(3), 482–515.
