A multifaceted conceptual framework of principals’ technology leadership informed the design of a mixed methods case study exploring leadership practices across three school jurisdictions in Alberta, Canada. Leadership practices of K-12 school principals involved in making school-wide improvements integrating technology were examined The intent of this article is to discuss how the conceptual framework influenced the research process as an interconnection of learning theory based on the learning sciences, transformative knowledge-building pedagogies, and the complexities for school leaders as they cultivate a growth-oriented culture. Findings are related to three key areas: (1) leadership preparation is needed in instructional leadership and technological fluency; (2) online networks can support professional learning; and (3) practitioner–researcher partnerships can support innovation in schools.
AndersonT. (2013). Design-based research. In RicheyR. C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of terminology for educational communications and technology (pp. 79–80), New York, NY: Springer.
7.
AndersonT., & ShattuckJ. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?Educational researcher,41(1), 16–2. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11428813.
8.
BarabS., AriciA., & JacksonC. (2005). Eat your vegetables and do your homework: A design-based investigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning.Educational Technology,45(1), 15–21.
9.
BarabS., & SquireK. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,13(1), 1–14.
10.
BeachR. (2012). Can online learning communities foster professional development?Language Arts, The National Council of Teachers of English, 89(4), 256–262.
11.
BorthwickA., & PiersonM. (Eds.) (2008). Transforming classroom practice: Professional development strategies in educational technology.Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
12.
BrownB. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning environment. In RicheyR. C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of terminology for educational communications and technology (pp. 304–305), New York, NY: Springer.
13.
ChangI.-H. (2012). The effect of principals’ technological leadership on teachers’ technological literacy and teaching effectiveness in Taiwanese elementary schools.Educational Technology & Society,15(2), 328–340.
14.
ChangI. -H., ChinJ. M., & HsuC. M. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of the dimensions and implementation of technology leadership of principals in Taiwanese elementary schools.Educational Technology & Society,11(4), 229–245.
CoxD., & McLeodS. (2014). Social media strategies for school principals.NASSP Bulletin,98(1), 5–25. doi: 10.1177/0192636513510596.
17.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
18.
CreswellJ. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
19.
DaiD. Y. (Ed.) (2012). Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning.New York, NY: Routledge.
Darling-HammondL., MeyersonD., LaPointeM., & OrrM. T. (2010). Preparing principals for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
DelwicheA., & HendersonJ. J. (Eds.) (2013). The participatory cultures handbook.New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
DeryakuluD., & OlkunS. (2009). Technology leadership and supervision: An analysis based on Turkish computer teachers’ professional memories.Technology, Pedagogy and Education,18(1), 45–58.
25.
DexterS. (2011). School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice.Journal of School Leadership,21(2), 166–189.
26.
diSessaA. A., & CobbP. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments.Journal of the Learning Sciences,13(1), 77–103. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4.
27.
FlanaganL., & JacobsenM. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal.Journal of Educational Administration,41(2), 124–142.
28.
FriesenS., & JardineD. (2009). 21st century learning and learners.Western and Northern Canadian Curriculum Protocol.
29.
FriesenS., & LockJ. (2010). High performing districts in the application of 21st century learning technologies: Review of the research. Retrieved from College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS) website: http://www.cass.ab.ca/cass_research_papers.
30.
GresalfiM., BarabS., & SommerfeldA. (2012). Intelligent action as a shared accomplishment. In DaiD. Y. (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 41–64). New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
HarrisA. (2008). Distributed school leadership: Developing tomorrow's leaders.New York, NY: Routledge.
JenkinsH. (with PurushotmaR., WeigelM., ClintonK., & RobisonA. J.) (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
KaplanL. S., & OwingsW. A. (2013). Culture re-boot: Reinvigorating school culture to improve student outcomes.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
39.
LeithwoodK., & LouisK. S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [Kindle Digital Editions version].
40.
LeithwoodK., LouisK. S., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: Review of research (Report). Retrieved from The Wallace Foundation: http://www.wallacefoundation.org.
LevinB. (2008). How to change 5000 schools: A practical and postive approach for leading change at every level.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
43.
LukensJ., & DiSalvoC. (2012). Speculative design and technological fluency.International Journal of Learning and Media,3(4), 23–40. doi:10.1162/IJLM_a_00080.
44.
MartinezS. L., & StagerG. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the. classroom.Torrance, CA: Constructing Modem Knowledge Press. [Kindle Digital Editions version].
45.
MarzanoR. J., WatersT., & McNultyB. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From, research to results.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Retrieved from ebrary Academic Complete docID= 10089219.
46.
McGarrO., & KearneyG. (2009). The role of the teaching principal in promoting ICT use in small primary schools in Ireland.Technology, Pedagogy and Education,18(1), 87–102.
47.
McLeodS., & LehmannC. (Eds.) (2011). What school leaders need to know about digital technologies and social media.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
48.
McLeodS., & RichardsonJ. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage.Journal of School Leadership,21(2), 216–240.
49.
MerriaxnS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
50.
MishraP., & KoelerM. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.Teachers College Record,108(6), pp. 1017–1054.
51.
RavitchS. M., & RigganM. (2012). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
52.
ReevesD. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
53.
ReevesD. B. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
54.
RichardsonW., & MancabelliR. (2011). Personal learning networks: Using the power of connections to transform education, Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
55.
RobinsonV. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges.Leadership and Policy in Schools,9(1), 1–26. doi: 10.1080/15700760903026748.
RobinsonV., LloydC., & RoweK. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.Educational Administration Quarterly,44(5) 635–674. doi:10.1177/0013161X08321509.
58.
SaldanaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
59.
SawyerR. K. (Ed.) (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
60.
SawyerR.K. (2008). Optimising learning: Implications of learning sciences research. In OECD (Ed.), Innovating to learn: Learning to innovate (pp. 45–62). Centre for Research and Innovation: OECD.
61.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
62.
SchleicherA. (Ed.) (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons from around the world.OECD Publishing, doi: 10.1787/9789264xxxxxx-en
63.
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.
64.
ShirkyC. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations.New York, NY: Penguin Books.
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis.New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
67.
Wallace Foundation. (2012, January). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning (Report). Retrieved from The Wallace Foundation website: http://www.wallacefoundation.org.
68.
Wallace Foundation. (2013, February). Districts matter: Cultivating the principals urban schools need (Report). Retrieved from The Wallace Foundation website: http://www.waUacefoundation.org.
69.
WangR., WiesemesR., & GibbonsC. (2012). Developing digital fluency through ubiquitous mobile devices: Findings from a small-scale study.Computers & Education,58(1), 570–578. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.013.
70.
WiskeM. S., FranzK. R., & BreitL. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
71.
YinR. (2006). Case Study Methods. In GreenJ., CamilliG., & ElmoreP. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 111–122). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
72.
ZhangJ., ScardamaliaM., ReeveR., & MessinaR. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge building communities.Journal of the Learning Sciences,78(1), 7–44.
73.
ZhaoY., PughK., & SheldonS. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations.Teachers College Record,104(3), 482–515.
