Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning pp 1–25Cite as

Role for Instructional Technology Leadership in K-12 Public Education

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 85 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the role of instructional technology leadership in K-12 public schools. Instructional technology leaders, as opposed to instructional leaders or technology leaders, educate teachers how to integrate technology into instructional practice and evaluate the ways teachers teach with technology. Although broadly defined (International Society for Technology in Education. ISTE Standards for Education Leaders. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-education-leaders, 2018), instructional technology leaders can include school superintendents, principals, technology directors, technology coordinators, digital literacy coaches, instructional coaches, and of course teachers. To explore the function of instructional technology leadership, Indiana public school superintendents and teachers completed a survey where they were asked to rank the skills and experiences (completely essential, important, desirable-but-not-essential, not-at-all-important) that they believed were essential for an instructional technology leader. A comparison of mean scores indicated that both the superintendent and teacher groups tended to rank items similarly. However, an examination of group conception about instructional technology diverged markedly. In other words, how is it possible that both groups can find agreement about what instructional technology leaders should do despite being unable to agree about what instructional technology is? What other factors might explain the shared preferences between Indiana superintendents and teachers who otherwise differ in response to questions about instructional technology? Further research on these questions might help to explain why over 20 years of research on digital technologies in public school classrooms has not been able to show significant increases on student learning outcomes (OECD. Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/students-computers-and-learning_9789264239555-en, 2015; Player-Koro and Tallvid, Int J Med Technol Lifelong Learn 11:180–193, 2015).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • Banathy, B.H. 1995. Developing a systems view of education. Educational Technology 35 (3): 53–57. Retrieved from https://www.indiana.edu/~istr711/R711/readings.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A.L., and D. Ritchie. 2002. What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education 29: 395–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T., and S. Bannon. 1998. Characteristics of technology leaders: A survey of school administrators in the United States. International Studies in Educational Administration 26 (2): 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camburn, E.M., B. Rowan, and J.T. Taylor. 2003. Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schoolsadopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25 (4): 347–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F.-H., C.-K. Looi, and W. Chen. 2009. Integrating technology in the classroom: A visual conceptualization of teachers’ knowledge, goals and beliefs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 25: 470–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00323.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copland, M.A. 2003. Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25 (4): 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. 2001. Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. 2013. Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, R.S., D.L. Dean, and N. Ball. 2013. Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational technology research and development, 61 (4): 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, R.S., and R.E. West. 2014. Technology integration in schools. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, ed. J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen, and M.J. Bishop, 841–850. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D.A., J.D. Smyth, and L.M. Christian. 2014. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. 4th ed. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P.A. 2005. Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational technology research and development, 53 (4): 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earthman, G.I. 2013. Planning educational facilities: What educators need to know. 4th ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faris, M.J., and S.A. Selber. 2013. iPads in the technical communication classroom: An empirical study of technology integration and use. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 27 (4): 359–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651913490942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, L., and M. Jacobsen. 2003. Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration 41 (2): 124–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230310464648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F.J. 1995. Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, J.R., N.E. Wallen, and H.H. Hyun. 2012. How to design and evaluate research in education. 8th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, M. 2012. The technology coordinator’s handbook. 2nd ed. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick, T.W. 1996. Keynote address to the international symposium on new Technologies of Instruction National Taipei Teachers’ College. In Criteria for evaluating use of information technology in K-12 education. Taipei: Frick. Retrieved from https://www.indiana.edu/~tedfrick/keyfrick.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosmire, D., and M.L. Grady. 2007. A bumpy road: Principal as technology leader. Principal Leadership 7 (6): 16–21. Retrieved from https://www.nassp.org/portals/0/content/55193.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R.M., F.J. Fowler Jr., M.P. Couper, J.M. Lepkowski, E. Singer, and R. Tourangeau. 2011. Survey methodology. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M. 2010. What is an affordance and can it help us understand the use of ICT in education? Education and Information Technologies 15 (3): 205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M. 2014. Introducing ICT in schools in English: Rationale and consequences. British Journal of Educational Technology 45 (2): 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. 2008. Distributed leadership in schools: Developing the leaders of tomorrow. London: Routledge & Falme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, D. 2007. The emergence of distributed leadership in education: Why now? British Journal of Educational Studies 55 (2): 202–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, D. 2010. Paradigms: How far does research in distributed leadership ‘Stretch’? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38 (3): 271–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M.F., and W.A. Firestone. 1995. Who’s in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools. Elementary School Journal 96 (1): 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K.F., and T. Brush. 2007. Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology Research and Development 55: 223–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulpia, H., G. Devos, and H. Van Keer. 2011. The relation between school leadership from a distributed perspectiveand teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the source of the leadership function. Educational Administration Quarterly 47 (5): 728–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, A., B. Beschorner, and D. Schmidt-Crawford. 2012. Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher 66 (1): 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education (2018). ISTE Standards for Education Leaders Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-education-leaders

  • Kowalski, T.J. 2005. The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. Northridge: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., and D. Jantzi. 2006. Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School effectiveness and school improvement, 17 (2): 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenthal, K.M. 2001. An introduction to psychological tests and scales. 2nd ed. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luschei, T.F. 2014. Assessing the costs and benefits of educational technology. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, ed. J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen, and M.J. Bishop, 239–248. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, S. 2015. The challenges of digital leadership. Independent School 74 (2): 50–56. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1062593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., and M.J. Koehler. 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108 (6): 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noeth, R.J., and B.B. Volkov. 2004. Evaluating the effectiveness of technology in our schools, ACT policy report, 2004. Iowa City. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/school_tech.pdf.

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2015. Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/students-computers-and-learning_9789264239555-en.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. 2013. SPSS survival manual. 5th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Player-Koro, C., and M. Tallvid. 2015. Title one laptop on each desk: Teaching methods in technology rich classrooms. International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning 11 (3): 180–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shattuck, G. 2010. Understanding school leaders’ role in teachers’ adoption of technology integration classroom practices. In Educational media and technology yearbook, ed. M. Orey, S.A. Jones, and R.M. Branch, vol. 35, 7–28. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1516-0_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shuldman, M. 2004. Superintendent conceptions of institutional conditions that impact teacher technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 4 (36): 319–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L.S. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15 (2): 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J.P. 2015. Leadership and learning: Conceptualizing relations between school administrative practice and instructional practice. Societies 5: 277–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J.P., and J.B. Diamond. 2007. Distributed leadership in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staples, A., M.C. Pugach, and D. Himes. 2005. Rethinking the technology integration challenge. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 37 (3): 285–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2005.10782438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W. 2005. Instructional technologist as a coach: Impact of a situated professional development program on teachers’ technology use. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 13 (4): 547–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W., and H. Hollomon. 2009. Technology leaders wanted: Acknowledging the leadership role of a technology coordinator. TechTrends 53 (6): 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0346-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, S.C. 2010. School technology leadership: Lessons from empirical research. In Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010, ed. C.H. Steel, M.J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, and S. Housego, 896–906. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Seng_chee_tan-full.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Technology Standards for School Administrators. 2001. Technology standards for school administrators collaborative. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from: http://www.kyepsb.net/documents/EduPrep/tssa.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R. 2000. The psychology of survey responses. New York: Cambridge University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2010. Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509514.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. 2016. Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education (National Educational Technology Plan). Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/netp/.

  • Vavasseur, C.B., and S.K. MacGregor. 2008. Extending content-focused professional development through online communities of practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40 (4): 517–536. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ826089.pdf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virginia Department of Education. 2008. Instructional technology resource teacher: Guidelines for teachers and administrators. Richmond. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/technology/administrators_teachers_staff/teacher_guidelines.pdf.

  • Wolff, E.N., W.J. Baumol, and A.N. Saini. 2014. A comparative analysis of education costs and outcomes: The United States vs. other OECD countries. Economics of Education Review 39: 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yepes-Baraya, M. 2002. Technology integration. In Assessing the impact of technology in teaching and learning, ed. J. Johnston and L.T. Barker, 139–160. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemelman, S., H. Daniels, and A. Hyde. 2012. Best practices: Bringing standards to life in America’s classrooms. 4th ed. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Thomas Edelberg

Authors
  1. Thomas Edelberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Edelberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CEO, WEMOSOFT, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

    Yu (Aimee) Zhang

  2. Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State University, Upper Arlington, OH, USA

    Dean Cristol

Section Editor information

  1. Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

    Belinda Gimbert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Edelberg, T. (2019). Role for Instructional Technology Leadership in K-12 Public Education. In: Zhang, Y., Cristol, D. (eds) Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_127-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_127-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41981-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41981-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation