Technology Planning for Technology Integration: A Leadership Perspective

• In Event: Technology Leadership for Successful Technology Integration in Education: In-Depth Studies Throughout the World

Abstract

Objectives and purposes. Researchers and policy makers around the world are recently acknowledging the importance of school-based technology planning as an important condition facilitating the integration of technology in education. Despite this interest, there is not much known about how schools develop their technology planning capacity, and the underlying role of leadership within this process. Research purpose of the current study is to explore technology planning in primary schools through a leadership lens.

Theoretical frameworks. Technology planning is operationalized in five different policy domains: vision development, financial policy, infrastructural policy, continuing professional development policy, and technology curriculum policy. To gain insight into the specific details of these five domains, we consider the leadership within these domains as distributed across the leaders, the followers and the situation (Spillane, 2006).

Methods. A multiple case study research (Yin, 1989) was carried out in three Flemish (Belgium) primary schools. The three schools were selected based on their scores on a previously organized survey research.

Data sources and evidence. Data collection was structured using a mixed method design. Data from a quantitative perspective was gathered through the administration of a teacher survey: variables from the e-capacity framework (Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010) were assessed. Data from a qualitative perspective was collected from multiple sources (e.g. interviews with school leaders and technology coordinators, teacher focus group interviews, school document analysis), and interpretatively analyzed using a structured coding schema.

Results. The results indicate that technology planning in schools needs to be understood as a distributed leadership artifact. School technology planning is not associated with particular leadership positions, but is distributed across the leaders, the followers and the situation. Each of the five policy domains can be described in terms of policy artifacts, and differences exists between schools concerning the involvement of teachers in the planning process, and in the distribution of leadership tasks between the school leader, the technology coordinator, teachers, and the school community. For instance, technology planning in School 1 is a concern of the whole school team, it is embedded in a collegial atmosphere, and jointly coordinated by the school leader and the technology coordinator. In School 2, technology planning is more characterized by its informal nature. It is about tacit knowledge, and technology planning routines are imbedded in a collegial atmosphere between the teachers and the schools’ technology coordinators. Contrary, technology planning in School 3 is an exclusive responsibility of the technology coordinator: the school leader has delegated all his technology planning power to the technology coordinator, and teachers are seen as implementers of the technology plan elaborated by their technology coordinator.

Scientific or scholarly significance. This study shows that school-based technology planning is an important school condition that facilitates the use of computers for teaching and learning. The study adds to the literature as it describes technology planning as a distributed leadership artifact. This means that technology planning is a product of joint leadership practices. Technology planning must be understood as a school-level property, rather than associating it with particular leadership positions.

Authors

• Ruben Vanderlinde, Ghent University

• Johan Van Braak, Ghent University