Skip to content Skip to navigation
Summary: With heightened accountability on student learning, 21st century educational leaders’ roles and responsibilities as instructional leaders have grown to unprecedented levels and expectations. Among the latest expectations is direction and guidance in instructional technology or instruction supported by powerful teaching tools. This paper outlines specific actions that should be taken in order to foster and encourage the use of these learning tools to increase the achievement of all students.
The publication of A Nation at Risk was a driving catalyst for the accountability movement in public education as reported by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983. The resulting reform movement manifested itself into federal intervention in the form of Goals 2000 (Heubert & Hausner, 1999) and, more recently, No Child Left Behind. State legislatures dashed into action grasping and acting upon federal guidelines. As a result of legislative actions, evaluation was generally reduced to a series of high-stakes tests to measure academic achievement, establishing accountability directives for school districts with the principal at the forefront (Heubert & Hausner, 1999)
As a result of the emphasis on accountability, the role of 21st century educational leaders has been transformed, as the educational leaders of schools have come under more pressure than ever before to be accountable for student achievement (Murphy, 2002, Murphy & Louis, 1999). Increasingly, educational leaders’ roles as instructional leaders have gained importance, while their managerial role has diminished (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2002). Within this context, educational leaders include administrators, teacher leaders, parents, board members, other elected officials and several others as each has an important role in increasing student achievement.
Instructional Technology Leadership
Instructional leadership is manifested in several ways. The educational leaders’ skills in building school climate and organizing the instructional program are a significant predictor for academic achievement. Academic achievement has been impacted favorably through the usage of technology and its use within the context of content is advocated by various teacher educators (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Marks & Louis 1997; Flick & Bell, 2000; Garofalo, Drier, Harper, Timmerman, & Shockey, 2000; Mason, Berson, Diem, Hicks, Lee, & Dralle, 2000.) Although its definition can be broad, we define instructional technology (IT) as hardware and software used primarily for improving learning, including but not limited to computers, content-specific software, programs and applications such as the Internet, smartboards, and videoconferencing.
The need for increased student achievement underscores a vital responsibility for the educational leaders today. First, the powerful tools of technology are essential in meeting and succeeding the high-stakes testing and accountability measures (Duhaney, 2001). Second, educational leaders have the ultimate responsibility for student achievement (Heubert & Hausner, 1999). Adding these aspects of contemporary education together results in the inevitable – educational leaders need to provide the leadership and hold teachers accountable for using technology to support instruction and increase student achievement.
While virtually every public school in the country has an Internet connection (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003), studies indicate that almost two-thirds of all teachers do not use computers in their teaching (Web-Based Education Commission, 2000). Yet, teachers are the first to recognize that using technology can increase students’ self esteem and confidence, enhance their content area understanding, and make them more informed about and empathic to world events (Fisher, Dwyer, & Yokam, 1996). Furthermore, a recent study by the National Center for Education Statistics (2000) revealed that although a majority of teachers indicated that they have had training in educational technology, only 20 % integrated it into classroom activities (Duhaney, 2001). In essence, research reveals a discrepancy between teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ usage of instructional technology.
Diffusion of Innovations
In his 1995 work, Diffusion of Innovations, Rogers demonstrates that the spreading, or diffusing, of an innovation throughout a culture or community is a gradual process. Rogers accentuates that the adoption of an innovation by a particular group or people must take place on an individual level at first, and is then spread to others until the point where it is omnipresent. An example of this is technology use among teachers.
Rogers argues that any innovation must undergo an innovation-diffusion process, and central in this process are the people who decide whether or not to adopt it for their use. Rogers also contends that people can be classified on a scale of five factors of how quickly they adopt an innovation: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (please see Table 1), and that these characteristics help to determine the rate at which the innovation is adopted.
Most educational leaders know teachers who fall into each of these categories in terms of technology. The question then is how to get the laggards to “adopt” at the same level as innovators. Rogers (1995, p. 27) also describes certain people as “opinion leaders,” as they hold a “unique and influential position” in the eyes of their contemporaries. Educational leaders need to be instructional leaders, and the manner in which they adopt technology may lead teachers to do the same. For example, rather than preparing important school information on paper and putting it in teachers’ mailboxes, using technology sends a better message, is better for the environment, and may lead to increased savings for schools. Perhaps just as importantly, in so doing, the innovation-diffusion process would be expedited, as it would force the laggards to “get with the program.” Another example might be to use PowerPoint presentations in faculty meetings instead of a traditional overhead and handout. Clearly, leading by example is a sound way to display the importance and advantages of technology. Leaders can be less concerned about innovators and early adopters integrating technology into their instruction. Rather, it is the teachers on the other end of Rogers’ spectrum who are less likely to utilize new instructional tools.
Another method to make technology use and other innovative forms of instruction more attractive is through incentives. For example, teachers who participate in a certain number of hours of technology instruction (and submit a description of how it is used in their teaching) could receive an extra personal day, special recognition in a broadcast email, special privileges, or other “free” support. Less formal methods of recognizing teachers that are apprehensive about technology integration include making a concerted effort to observe (and be highly supportive of) their technology-enriched lessons, and recognizing their efforts at faculty meetings and in staff newsletters. The recognition of student use of technology is another manner of encouraging and fostering its use.
Student Use of Technology
Getting students motivated to use technology does not seem to be a problem. A 2002 Internet use study showed that “three in five children under the age of 18” and “more than 78% of children between the ages of 12 and 17” use the Internet (Levin & Arafeh, 2002, p. ii). Many of these students reported that the way in which the Internet was used in school did not necessarily facilitate the instructional process -- rather it was seen “as an excuse to employ technology” (Bull & Bull, 2003-2004, p. 28). For a variety of reasons, they believe that there is a “substantial disconnect” between the way that their teachers and schools were using the Internet and how they used the Internet when they were not in school (Levin & Arafeh, 2002, p. iii). For example, many students take advantage of the Internet as a learning tool, some use it as a resource to help their comprehension of a subject with which they had difficulty in school, and others view it as an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of materials (Levin & Arafeh, 2002). In the words of one high school girl:
I’m constantly amazed at the vast resources that are available on virtually any topic that comes to mind. I rarely approach any assignment or question without first consulting online resources (Levin & Arafeh, 2002, p. 6)
One high school boy took this a step further and described his dependence on the Internet as a learning tool by stating that:
It is my education. I get all my information off the Internet. I don’t even look at books anymore (Levin & Arafeh, 2002, p. 4).
It is clear that students are eager to use technology resources to support their learning, and successful educational leaders recognize and support this. While it is important for technology to be integrated into the curriculum, existing literature supports the notion of teachers utilizing innovative resources in order to undertake activities in which technology is introduced in context of content as well as extend learning by teaching in a manner that would otherwise not be possible (Flick & Bell, 2000; Garofalo, et al., 2000; Mason, et al., 2000).
Being cognizant of how the teachers integrate technology is just as important as knowing if teachers integrate technology. Talking to teachers to find out what technology resources that they are using, how they are using these resources, and any difficulties that they are encountering is essential.
Barriers to Instructional Technology Leadership
Although a quantitative statistic such as how frequently teachers use technology may be indicative of willingness to adopt technology into instruction, there may be more to individual teachers’ stories. Teachers who use technology at low rates may not do so out of choice; rather they may desire to integrate technology into their instruction, but perceive contextual barriers that inhibit its use. Possible hindrances to teachers’ technology use include a lack of access to equipment, a lack of support, and standardized testing.
Access to Equipment
Although on the surface it seems apparent, teachers’ real and perceived access to the requisite hardware and software is paramount in terms of whether instructional technology resources are integrated into their teaching. Just because a school has equipment (such as computer projectors, computer labs, or laptop carts), it may not be getting into the hands of the teachers who want to use it. This is because the “systems” may not be convenient for all teachers. In other words, even in “technology-rich” schools, there may be some innovators or early adopters who would like to integrate technology into their teaching, but do not, due to contextual barriers.
It is likely that innovation adoption will be slowed if teachers believe that “using” is more trouble than it is worth. For example, in a study of high school social studies teachers’ use of technology, one teacher (who could be classified as an innovator) desired to use a computer projector in her instruction, and although her school had numerous projectors available, she did not use them on a frequent basis, as she felt that the procedure of checking out the projector before each class period and returning it at the end was too cumbersome to be worth the added value (Friedman, 2004). To this end, principals should determine the procedure for how teachers go about using the computer hardware in their schools, but more importantly, through both formal and informal means, find out whether or not this policy is effective. If the policy is satisfactory to the majority of teachers, principals can then concentrate on helping to ensure that the late majority and the laggards begin to take advantage of integrating technology into instruction; if the policy is unsatisfactory however, principals need to develop an alternative plan for distributing equipment.
Access to Support
Another potential obstacle for teacher use of technology is support (Diem, 2000). This notion is agreed upon by Bowman, Newman, & Masterson (2001), who argue that in order for teachers to integrate technology into their curriculum, it is necessary for them to receive support and training. Bowman, et al. (2001) contend that teachers will not adopt technology into their curriculum overnight; rather they echo Rogers (1995) in that technology integration is a gradual process that should take place in stages and one in which teachers are consulted at each stage and their needs and concerns are recognized and then rectified. Further verification of the importance of sustenance in terms of technology use can be found in Hsu, Cheng, and Chiou’s (2003) study, which demonstrated that a critical component of teachers’ Internet use was an accommodating school administration.
In addition to helping teachers attitudinally, principals can also help teachers use instructional technology resources by setting specific policies regarding hardware and ensuring that it gets in the hands of all teachers. While each school would need to create its own policy that would meet its needs, there are possibilities that would be relatively easy to implement. For example, rather than having a policy where teachers are forced to pick up a computer projector, set it up, and then return it at the end of class, perhaps there could be a designated employee in the school to deliver and set up computer projectors, and then disassemble and return them when the teacher is finished. This would only require one or two staff members, and this type of facilitation use is already in place in some colleges. Along these same lines, selected students could be in charge of the same role. Another option would be to set up a rotation in which different teachers would get to use equipment on certain days. This would be beneficial in that not only would everybody have a chance to use the equipment, but if teachers knew ahead of time that they will have access to the computer lab on a certain day, they would be able to plan a lesson without having to worry about whether or not they will be able to access equipment.
Testing Concerns
There is little doubt that principals and teachers are under a great deal of pressure for students to pass standardized examinations. In many states, these exams are given in multiple-choice format and evaluate knowledge and skills at a low level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. This runs contrary to the higher-order thinking skills inherent in technology integration, and this incongruence has been noted by researchers, who have suggested that the emphasis on standardized tests (and the resulting instruction geared toward students passing the test) may actually decrease technology use, as teachers may feel that the use of technology will not sufficiently prepare students for these tests (Maddux, 1998; Pahl, 2003).
Principals can help teachers navigate this apparent paradox. Although “teaching to the test” is unacceptable, it is a fact of life that these examinations are part of the school landscape, and with the recent passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, it is unlikely that they will go away in the near future. If teachers are given training in means and methods of integrating technology into instruction in a manner that supports learning and is rooted in content as Mason, et al. (2000) suggest, it may lead students to understand course material rather than memorize it, and as a result obtain a passing score on a standardized test. Unfortunately, there is not a simple formula that will allow this to occur. However, if training is given in a manner that demonstrates best practices and simultaneously mirrors the classroom environment, it will be a step in the right direction.
Training Is a Key to Innovation Adoption and Policy Changes
Professional development needs to be on-going as software and hardware continue to evolve. Professional development opportunities must be focused, coherent, sustained, and need to create an ethic of collaboration. Ongoing professional development is necessary to help teachers learn not only how use the technology but also how to infuse technological skills into the learning process.
Although schools have made an effort to procure the requisite tools (i.e. technology hardware and software) for their integration into the classroom (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2001, 2002), this has not necessarily been matched by an endeavor to prepare teachers in its effective use (Cuban, 2001). Cuban (2001, p. 98) posits that technology training for teachers is rarely offered at convenient times, and is “often irrelevant” to teachers’ “specific and immediate needs.” It is therefore necessary for teachers to learn effective means and methods of integrating technology into their instruction (McKenzie, 1999). One way that this could be accomplished is through content-specific technology training offered by the school or an outside agency that focuses on everyday instruction for classroom teachers.
A method of not only encouraging teachers to participate in this type of training but ensuring that teachers are able to implement what was learned into their classroom, would be to create incentives, similar to those described earlier. A system could be created for teachers that have completed a technology integration course to be placed on a “priority list” for using technology equipment such as computer projectors, labs, and laptops that may have a higher demand than supply. This might encourage teachers to participate in professional development, as they would be able to implement their training. More importantly, it would also allow those that were most enthusiastic to be the “innovators” as described by Rogers (1995).
References
Boethel, M. & Dimock, V. (1999). Constructing knowledge with technology: A review of the literature, Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Bowman, J., Newman, D. & Masterson, J. (2001). Adopting educational technology: Implications for designing interventions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(1), 81-94.
Bull, G. & Bull, G. (2003-04). The digital disconnect: A recent pew Study. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31(4), 28-31.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Diem, R. (2000). Can it make a difference? Technology and the social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 493-501.
Duhaney, D. (2001). Teacher education: Preparing teachers to integrate technology. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(1), 23-31.
Fisher, C., Dwyer, D., & Yocam, K. (1996). Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publications.
Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education[Online serial], 1(1). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/science/article1.htm.
Friedman, A. M. (2004). Digital primary source use in world history and world geography. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Garofalo, J., Drier, H., Harper, S., Timmerman, M.A., & Shockey, T. (2000). Promoting appropriate uses of technology in mathematics teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education[Online serial], 1(1). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/mathematics/article1.htm
Heubert, J.P., & Hausner, R.M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for teaching, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hsu, Y., Cheng, Y. & Chiou, G. (2003). Internet use in a senior high school: a case study. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 40, (4), 356-368.
Levin, D. & Arafeh, S. (2002). The Digital Disconnect: The widening gap between Internet-savvy students and their schools. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved on February 13, 2005 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Schools_Internet_Report.pdf.
Louis, K.S., Marks, H. M. & Kruse, S. D. (1996). Teachers professional community in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education. 33(4), 757-798.
Maddux, C. (1998). Barriers to the successful use of information technology in education. Computers in the Schools, 14(3/4), 5-11.
Marks, H. M. & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 245-275.
Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T.(2000). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education[Online serial], 1(1). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/socialstudies/article1.htm.
McKenzie, J. (1999). How teachers learn technology best. Bellingham, WA: FNO Press.
Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. In J. Murphy (Ed.) The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 65-82). Chicago, IL: National Society of Education.
Murphy, J., & Louis, K.S. (1999). Handbook of research on educational administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Public school teachers’ use of computers and the Internet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001). Statistics in Brief; May 2001. Retrieved on September 13, 2003 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001071.pdf.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Cost of education index dataset for 1993-94, [On-Line]. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/prodsurv/data.asp#cost_of_ed.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2002 [On-line]. Retrieved on January 15, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004011.pdf
Pahl, R. H. (2003). Assessment traps in K-12 social studies. The Social Studies, 94(5), 212-215.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th edition). New York: The Free Press.
Web-Based Education Commission. (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice. Report of the Web-Based Education Commission to the President and the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC.
More about this module: Metadata | Downloads | Version History
This work is licensed by Michael Jazzar and Adam Friedman under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.
Last edited by National Council of Professors of Educational Administration on Jul 5, 2007 10:26 am -0500.
