Keys to Technology Leadership

Miracle Worker According to Fullan (1998), the job of principal as an instructional leader has become more complex and constrained. He further suggested that an advertisement for a principal might read: “Wanted: A miracle worker who can do more with less, pacify rival groups, endure chronic second-guessing, tolerate low levels of support, process large volumes of paper, and work double shifts. He or she will have carte blanche to innovate, but cannot spend much money, replace any personnel, or upset any constituency” (p.6).

The Dangers of ignorance Principals and administrators who “…lack sophistication about computers will make poor decisions about hardware/software selection or implementation that limits their usefulness” (Kearsley, 1988, p. 66)

An Essential Element Principals as technology leaders must have a working knowledge of the benefits of technology in the classroom and how to assist classroom teachers in utilizing it in an effective manner (Schmeltzer, 2001).

Wisniewski (1999) also added that school leadership determines the outcome of technology usage in a school; however, if the principal does not understand how to use technology, they will be making very poor decisions and spend a lot of money on unnecessary purchases or make none at all.

The Need for Support No matter how much preparation for integrating technology teachers receive, unless they have the leadership of their administrator, they may be unable to successfully use that technology (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).

Teachers cannot be forced to integrate technology, but they need to progress at their own pace. Teachers will use technology if they believe that it will benefit their students.

A Leader’s Role Creighton (2003) showed that campus leaders are in an exclusive position to inspire a vision for technology, to assign funds and personnel to ensure teachers receive the professional development, technical support and classroom resources which will make them successful.

Leader’s role (continued) School leadership has been found to be an important element that often determines whether or not technology is integrated with the teacher’s daily lessons and curriculum (Sandholz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997; McLeod, et.al, 2005; Mehlinger & Powers, 2002

Leader’s role (continued) “The litmus test of all leadership is whether it mobilizes people’s commitment to putting their energy into actions designed to improve things. It is the individual commitment, but above all its collective mobilization” (Testerman, Flowers & Algozzine, 2002, p.9).

Leader’s role (continued) “Without a leadership style that is supportive of the change that is expected of teachers to improve student achievement, the innovation will probably fail” (Reksten, 2000, p.2). Brockmeir, Sermon, and Hope (2005) also believed that, “even though teachers have been identified as initiators of change, it has been left up to the principal’s leadership to lead the technology revolution.” Supporting this, Cooley and Reitz (1997) stated, that “principals are the leaders of a school. It’s accepted that they are key individuals in the adoption and integration process of computer technology and as role models (as cited in Kelley, Kinard, & Hope 1999, p. 479). “Principals must accept the challenge to create supportive conditions, which would foster innovative use of technology “(Price et. al. 1999, p. 482).

Leader’s role (continued) According to Dempsey (1999), principals must be behind the initiatives to move change forward rather than chasing it. Once principals initiate change in schools, their schools will be known as places for the effective use of technology. The principal as the instructional leader should ensure that positive changes are being promoted (Dempsey, 1999). Ways to cultivate innovative classrooms and schools must be sought out by principals in order for teachers to be encouraged to use emerging technologies that aid in the improvement of student achievement.

Leader’s role (continued) Depending upon paper and pencil for teaching and learning is no longer effective in schools (Hope, Kelley & Kinard, 1999). “The change process is a difficult one to negotiate; especially if what’s being used now is getting the job done. In some ways, the principal’s use of computer technology requires a shift in the way work is conceptualized” (Hope, Kelley & Kinard, 1999, 478). It is now widely accepted that the instrumental agents of adoption and integration of technology in schools are today’s principals (Hope, Kelley & Kinard, 1999).

Leader’s role (continued) West (2003) found that district level leadership is essential if teachers are to receive necessary support for change. According to West (2003), “unless the vision from the principal is clear, implementation of technology in the classroom falls short.” Researchers such as West (2003) have noted that attention of school districts should be placed upon those who are entrusted with instructional leadership, namely the campus principal.

Leader’s role (continued) Principals at the helm of every campus are now required to make decisions in the purchasing of technologies, in the form of software and hardware, for their campus. They must also make decisions on staff development to support instructional technology integration.

Steps toward change the culture “A school leader must be able to recognize a well designed, technology rich lesson; however, it may be even more important to be able to provide support and encouragement to improve those lessons that are not as well developed” (Schrum & Levin, 2009, p. 100).

Little (1982) stated that Teachers as adults respond best when keeping in mind the following tow significant factors. First adult learning is improved when others demonstrate respect, trust and concern for the learner. Second, adults, more than anything, wish to be originators of their own learning; that is, they wish to select their own learning objectives, content, activities and assessment.

Change in teachers does not happen quickly or by osmosis, when innovative materials are placed at their disposal (Manoucherhi & Goodman, 2000;Craford, Chamblee & Rowlett, 1998). On the job professional development programs are most beneficial when they are long term, focused upon student learning and linked to curricula (Nir & Bogler,2008;Somech & Bogler, 2002).