educational leadership in ict

8/10/2019 Educational Leadership in ICT

1/5

Key Challenges in Educational Leadership

in ICT

The implementation of technology for learning is affected by factors in a range of contextsspanning International, national, regional and local educational institutions. Whilst local

schools in Australia have a degree of autonomy in decision making, the National Curriculum

dictates specific sets of skills required for 21stcentury technological competencies. In

implementing technology into schools, principals and administrators face a number of key

issues that need to be met by an approach that is informed by best practice and research as

well as contextually based to suit the needs of their own school.

With a curriculum that encourages high levels of digital reform, Australian principals are

faced with numerous challenges when developing frameworks for implementing educational

technologies. There is a growing body of research in relation to frameworks for effective

leadership in this area. In their discussion of change dynamics, Chan, Ching and Hsu (2008)

conceptualise the four dimensions of; vision, planning and management; staff development

and training; infrastructure support and evaluation, research and assessment. Further to this,

Smiley (2009) identifies planning, data use, infrastructure, access and professional

development as key concerns in a number of case studies. Similar issues emerge throughout

further analysis of the literature, and for my own context can be collated into three foremost

challenges for the principal. These challenges include; creating a shared vision for technology

integration, allocation of infrastructure and funding and the integration of appropriate

supports systems for staff.

The shared vision of leaders nationally can have an impact on both the local school and the

skills and outcomes for individual students and their own place in a global economy.

Towndrow and Valance (2012) explore the dichotomy in approaches to the implementation

of 1:1 computing integration in both Singapore and Japan. The Singaporean policy makers

embraced a shared vision that engaged leaders in initiatives that promoted teacher up skilling,

investments in researching digital technologies, and a commitment to infrastructure (pp264-

5). Japan on the other hand demonstrated a limited priority in ICT in education, lacked clear

guidance on policies and demonstrated strong reservations in reshaping educational practices

(p267). As a result of this lack of vision the researchers reported low levels of digital andtechnological literacy skills for students.

On a more localised level, one of the key barriers to creating a shared vision for technology in

schools lies with the attitudes and values of various stakeholders in the school. Grey-Bowen

(2010) states that Teachers attitudes toward technology and beliefs in the instructional

benefits present a significant barrier to technology integration (p3). Conversely, teachers

have the capacity to be agents of change in the facilitation of technology. Geer, Barnes and

White (2008) suggest the need for teachers to develop a vision for the use of technology to

enhance learning outcomes (p152). Perhaps the key challenge here for school leaders lies in


2/5

their capacity to firstly develop their own vision and inspire and motivate other teachers in a

shared vision for their school context.

It is difficult for teachers to develop a sense of vision when there is a perception that

computing staff and executives are the only key partners in driving change. Certainly there

are responsibilities such as the maintenance of hardware and software that are most likely

performed by computing teachers. However, Cakir (2012) referenced a study by seferoglu

(2009) claiming that administrators expected computing teachers to organize training, create

projects and work with teachers to integrate technology into the classroom (p279). In

contrast, computing teachers expected administrators to facilitate the use of technology,

purchase new technology and encourage students and other teachers to use the technology.

Such a dichotomy of mutual expectations is counter to effective management of technology

integration. Whilst there needs to be clearly appointed roles within the school, research by

Early et.al. (2002) concluded that good school leaders also share their leadership

responsibility with other members of staff and seek to foster a mutually supportive and

collaborative culture (in Lewis and murphy, 2008, p131). Thus an effective collaborationwould entail willing staff from various subject areas along with an executive team whose

leadership is visionary (Richardsom and McLeod, 2011) and transformative (Afshari et.al,

2012).

Whilst a collaborative approach to the key challenges is necessary, the burden of

infrastructure lies with the executive administrators responsible for the daily running of the

school. Perhaps the foremost challenge to infrastructure is funding the costs of the

technology in order to produce equity in access for students. For Australian Schools, the

National Secondary School Computer Fund (NSSCF) has provided funding for schools

across the three main sectors to allow a rollout of years 7-9 laptops under the Digital

Education Revolution (DER). Despite the opportunities this has presented there were also

reports of the lack of infrastructure affecting the integration of the program in some schools.

According to Reid (2009) There are a number of practical difficulties including an initial

lack of provision for the associated infrastructure needed for such a large injection of new

equipment into schools, not to mention ongoing costs. With the costs of ongoing

maintenance of technology often falling to computing department budgets, there can be a

sense of strain between executives and the computing staff regarding the allocation of

budgets. This tension between two of the foremost stakeholders in the school can affect the

overall vision for technology.

Owen and Demb (2004) highlight a number of themes in relation to funding including;

unpredictability of technology cost, forecast and subject area allocation (p648). The issues of

forecast and unpredictability can be a reflection of changing governmental policies, initiatives

and response to international and economic crises. With the recent completion of the NSSCF,

and a possible change in government affecting the future of educational funding, at this point

in time it is difficult for administrators to make forward decisions regarding government

funding. According to the DEEWR, the Digital Education Revolution was projected to be

replaced by the National Plan for School Improvement in 2014 (DEEWR website). The plan

allows more autonomy in decision making in effect giving state authorities and local schoolsmore responsibility in the way that technology is used throughout the school. If this is


3/5

maintained by the next government it has the benefit of allowing schools to respond to their

own socio-economic context. There is, however a lack of literature in regards to

accountability and policies surrounding the plan at this point. Schools will inevitably be faced

with decisions about allocation of funds and responsibilities, continuation of 1:1 initiatives,

hardware and software choices, m-learning versus laptop learning, etc. In my own context

this is usually the role of the head of IT, however in order for these choices to becomegrounded in the schools overall vision they may need to be discussed and endorsed by the

cross-curricular technology team.

According to Moyle (2010) the quality of students experiences with schools online

environments is influenced by the consistency of the interfaces used within various locations

in a school (45). In making decisions regarding the technical requirements, school

administrators need to consider characteristics such as; sustainability, reliability, security,

accessibility and flexibility. In order to determine these requirements schools should also

have a clear central model for digital learning such as 1:1 laptops, macbooks, ipads, BYOD

or BYOT initiatives. Lee (2013) for example believes that in response to societal andtechnological changes a move to BYOT (and a more ubiquitous model) is inevitable. Not

only would such a model raise issues of equity, but problems with accessing content,

applications and other software would make it difficult and possibly costly to plan for

efficient infrastructure in the school.

Further to a need for infrastructure is the challenge of providing ongoing support for teachers

and students. Voogt et.al. (2011) Identifies that such support extends beyond just technical

support to incorporate organisational support(p7). The provision of technical support

usually relies on the appointing of specific organisational roles within the school, with clearly

defined duties and roles for IT personnel. These may include Technical Support Officers

(TSO), Network Administrators and Learning Technology Facilitators who advise on

pedagogical issues and professional development. Again allocation of funds is a clear

concern for executives when creating such support roles. Under the DER, the government

appointed a number of TSO positions to support the roll out of the 1:1 laptop initiative. Their

role however was mostly limited to the specific coordination of the DER program, and many

schools still needed personnel to maintain the other technical requirements within the school.

Some schools elect to use contractors or appoint non-teaching IT staff, however with a strain

on budgets for smaller schools such as my own, this burden generally falls to the IT faculty

(dandolopartners, 2012). In this instance, executives may need to make decisions regardingtraining IT staff in specific areas of maintenance, or redefining selection criteria and roles for

future job applicants.

Further support is also needed in regards to specific direction for professional development.

Prestridge (2013) claims that ICT professional development is perceived as an avenue for

pedagogical change (p2). Although the number of in-service and development days are

rapidly growing, they tend to lack the content to initiate permanent pedagogical change (p5)

and in my specific context can require infrastructure that the school simply does not have.

Executives then need to meet the challenges of providing a framework for professional

development that includes provision for ongoing learning and collaboration for all staff. AnAustralian study by Pegrum et.al. (2013), amongst other suggestions, highlighted the benefits


4/5

of building a professional community of practise/ professional development network as a

platform for learning from other teachers both internally and externally. This is a viable

option but principals would need to find a balance in encouragingteachers to participate on

a consistent basis perhaps by providing targeted time to participate in such an initiative.

There are a broad range of challenges facing educational leaders in implementing ICT into

the curriculum. Principals must establish an achievable vision and provide support and

infrastructure to all stakeholders in a realistic and manageable fashion. Both executives and

teachers must also be prepared and plan for a range of circumstances that may affect their

everyday engagement with technological learning tools and work together to create positive

solutions. Such collaboration should assist the school to successfully realise its full vision for

providing a 21stcentury learning environment.

References

Afshari, M., Bakar, K.A, Luan, W.S., Samah, B.A & Siraj, S. (2012). Factors affecting the

transformational leadership role of principals in implementing ICT in schools. The Turkish Online

Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (4), 164-176.

Cakir, R. (2012). Technology integration and technology leadership in schools as learning

organisations. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (4), 273-282.

Chang, I.-H., Chin, J. M., & Hsu, C.-M. (2008). Teachers Perceptions of the Dimensions and

Implementation of Technology Leadership of Principals in Taiwanese Elementary Schools.

Educational Technology & Society, 11 (4), 229245.

Dandolo partners. (2013).DER Mid-Program Review: Assessing Progress of the DER and Potential

Future DirectionsFinal Report. Retrieved from

http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/digital_education_revolution_program_review.pdf

DEEWR. Computers in schools. Retrieved from http://deewr.gov.au/computers-schools

Geer, R., Barnes, A. & White, B. (2008) Four ICT enablers in a contemporary learning environment:

a case study. Act on ICT in ACEC08 Refereed Conference Proceedings, Canberra. www.acec.2008

Grey-Bowen, J.E. (2010).A study of technology leadership among elementary public School

principals in Miami-Dade County(doctoral dissertation). St Thomas University, Miami Gardens,Florida.

Lee, M. (2013) Where to After the Digital Education Revolution?ETSMagazine, May 2013.

Retrieved online at http://educationtechnologysolutions.com.au/2013/05/13/where-to-after-the-digital-

education-revolution/

Lewis, P., and Murphy, R. (2008). New directions in school leadership. School Leadership and

Management, 28 (2), 127-146.

Moyle, K (2010). Building Innovation: Learning with technologies.Australian Education review

no,56. ACER Press.


5/5

Owen, P.S and Demb, A. (2004). Change Dynamics and Leadership in Technology Implementation.

The Journal of Higher Education, 75 (6), 636-666. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3838771

Pegrum,M., Oakley,G., and Faulkner, R. (2013). Schools going mobile: A study of the adoption of

mobile handheld technologies in Western Australian independent schools.Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 29(1), 66-81. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/article/view/64/25

Prestridge, S. (2013). Three key elements in ICT professional Development.International Society for

Technology in Education: Expanding horizons. Retrieved online from

http://www.isteconference.org/2012/uploads/KEY_70082891/threePD.pdf

Reid, A. (2009). Is this a revolution? A critical analysis of the Rudd national education agenda. 2009

ACSA National Biennial Conference Curriculum: a national conversation. Canberra, ACT. Retrieved

from http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/page484.asp

Richardson, J.W., & McLeod, S. (2011). Technology Leadership in Native American Schools.Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(7).Retrieved from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/26-7.pdf.

Smiley, R.W. (2009). Characteristics of systems and leadership in K-12 public school educational

technology programs: understanding data use, decision making and contextual factors(doctoral

dissertation). Available from Proquest (UMI No.3400032).

Towndrow, P.A., and Valance, M. (2013). Making the right decisions: leadership in 1-to-1 computing

in education.International Journal of Educational Management, 27 (3), 260-272. DOI

10.1108/09513541311306477

Voogt, J., Knezek,G., Cox, M., Knezek, D. & Brummelhuis, A.T. (2011). Under which conditions

does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A Call to Action.Journal of computer

assisted learning, 29 (1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00453.x

educational leadership in ict

Documents