Technology Vision and Leadership

Based on years of experience providing technical assistance and professional development, Byrom and Bingham (2001) concluded, “leadership is probably the single most important factor affecting the successful integration of technology into schools” (p. 4). A survey of the literature on school technology integration reveals a number of frequently cited components of effective technology leadership including: developing and communicating a shared vision for technology use, modeling the effective use of technology use by administration, administrative support of changes in policies and practices, providing teacher incentives, and hiring practices that consider technological literacy and leadership as criteria for selection (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; CEO Forum, 1999; Kelly & Thomas, 2002; Milken Exchange, 1998; Byrom, 2007; ISTE, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2002: Frazier & Bailey, 2004).



The U.S. Department of Education (2002) states that “vision pertains to what is expected from technology overall” (p. 10). A shared vision according to the ISTE, is defined as the “presence of proactive leadership” with a “common understanding of the institution’s goals” (p. 20). Additionally, this shared vision must be developed by educational stakeholders, those with a vested interest in student achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2002; ISTE, 2002; Milken Exchange, 1998; Public Schools of North Carolina, 2005; North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 2000). In other words, it is believed that expectations for how and to what end technology is to be used by staff and students, expectations that are developed by stakeholders and shared among the entire learning community, are necessary for the successful implementation of technology in schools.

In a quantitative study of 94 classrooms from four different states in different geographic regions of the country, Baylor and Ritchie (2002) investigated factors that facilitated perceived student learning in technology using classrooms. Through structured interviews with teachers and administrators, they found that student content acquisition (the acquisition of factual information) through technology was predicted by the strength of technology leadership at schools. In this study, strong technology leadership was operationalized both as the presence of incentives as well a technology using role-model, such as a principal, and the ability of the principal to “work with the school community to formulate, articulate, and communicate a school’s vision” (p. 397). Although strong leadership was not found to influence the use of technology to promote higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), the positive influence on content acquisition “serves as an effective way to provide remediation when…basic skills and knowledge are missing” (p. 400). Additionally, the researchers concluded that strong technology leaders tended to promote technology through the use recognition and incentives.

A qualitative case study of a North Carolina elementary school revealed findings similar to those by Baylor and Ritchie and supports the claims made about the importance of effective leadership on technology implementation. Through in-depth interviews, direct observations of staff members, document and website reviews, Camp (2007) concluded that the principal’s strong leadership was a key factor in the successful implementation of an IMPACT grant by an “exemplary school for technology use”. Echoing Byrom and Bingham’s (2001) lessons learned regarding factors that influence technology use from their work with SEIR-TEC intensive sites, Camp’s case study of demonstrates that the principals ability to facilitate the development of a shared vision, to model effective uses of technology and to support change were essential factors that contributed to the success of the IMPACT grant and their status an exemplary school. In addition, support and incentives were offered in the form of graduate coursework tuition, policy changes related to planning time, as well as additional technology resources and staff. Hiring practices were also aligned to the vision created for the grant as the principal selected new staff that shared a similar views and beliefs in the promises of technology.

Baylor and Richie (2002) suggest that the presence of a strong technology leader may lead to a wider incorporation of technology into the classroom if teachers and students perceive that it is valued and used by administrators. This suggestion was confirmed by Camp (2007) who maintained that the principal’s commitment to the vision, his modeling of effective practices, and his support of teachers was a key ingredient to fostering teacher buy-in, consequently leading to greater collaboration among staff and openness to change, the two single variables that Baylor and Ritchie (2002) found to be predictors of technology integration. Without this shared vision, Brockheimer found that principals had difficulty in “achieving the promises that technology integration holds” (as cited in Camp, 2007, p. 79).

These studies support what the literature has stated about the importance of vision and leadership when attempting to integrate technology into schools. Without a clear vision of how technology is to be incorporated into teaching and learning and the support of a strong technology leader, school wide technology initiatives such IMPACT will have difficulty in succeeding.

Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors faciliatate teacher skill, teacher morale, and percieved student learning in technology-using classrooms. Computers in Education , 39 (4), 395-414.

Byrom, E., & Bingham, M. (2001). Factors Influencing the Effective Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning: Lesson Learned. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from South East Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium: http://www.seirtec.org/publications/lessons.pdf

Camp, J. S. (2007). Touching tomorrow with technology: A case study of the impact of effective school leadership on an exemplary technology integration initiative. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2007) . ProQuest Disseration and Theses database.

Kelly, M., & Thomas, L. (2002). NETS for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from ISTE: http://www.iste.org/inhouse/nets/cnets/teachers/pdf/Sec_1-2_Setting_Stage.pdf

Milken Exchange. (1998). Technology in American Schools: Seven Dimensions for gauging progress. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from Milken Family Foundation: http://www.milkenexchange.org/policy/sevendimensions.pdf

Public Schools of North Carolina. (2005). IMPACT: Guidelines for North Carolina media and technology programs. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from NCWiseOwl: http://www.ncwiseowl.org/Impact/docs/IMPACTrev1.31.08.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2002, November). Technology is schools: Suggestions, tools and guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and secondary education. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from National Center for Education Statistics.