Technology Leadership Skills for Administrators:
An Update
Stephen R. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
Texas A& M University-Corpus Christi
stephenr.@tamucc.edu
School administrators at all levels are critical players in providing leadership in
order for effective, integrative, student-centered use of technology to occur in
the K-12 arena. This discussion summarizes selected literature concerning
leadership in the instructional technology arena. The author also describes
current related leadership standards for administrators and describes how new
issues such as the 21st school movement have increased the complexity of
technology leadership. The presenter also and offers some guidelines for
effective leadership.
School administrators at all levels play critical leadership roles in insuring the successful
integration of technology in the schools (Shuldman, 2004; Ritchie & Rodriguez, 1996). Recent
literature reveals high interest in leadership strategies pertaining to the meaningful, appropriate
uses of educational technologies by administrators, teachers, and students (Brooks-Young, 2009;
Picciano, 2011; Dede, 2011). “All of the literature on leadership and technology acknowledges
either explicitly or implicitly that school leader should provide administrative oversight for
educational technology” (Anderson & Dexter, 2005, p. 51).
This discussion summarizes selected literature regarding leadership as related to use of
technology in the schools. The author summarizes current leadership standards for school
administrators, describes factors which have increased the complexity of technology leadership,
and summarizes research on a technology leadership model. The author also suggests related
strategies for effective technology leadership.
Leadership Defined
Leadership pertains to the guidance that a person provides to others and to the ability to lead.
Rusling (1993) comments that a leader's role entails empowering others to make decisions which
are properly aligned with a shared vision. As with many terms, however, definitions of leadership
vary widely in the literature. Yukl (1998), for instance, suggests that current definitions are
subjective: according to him, no single definitive definition of leadership exists. He further
suggests that leadership is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon: myriad definitions simply
serve to reveal varying perspectives on the concept of leadership.
Some have called for a new vision of leadership as it relates to learning and technology use.
Dede ((2011) argues that “ . . . a new definition and process of technology integration are central
for 21st century education” (p. 13). Maurer & Davidson (1998) comment: "The fundamental
values and beliefs of contemporary power-based, formal leadership and traditional or transmission
models of teaching and learning are no longer relevant" ( p. 13). Creighton (2003) similarly notes
that " . . . school leadership as practiced by today's school principal is outdated unless it helps
faculty address the great challenges presented by the introduction of technology in our schools" (p.
1).
Clearly, certain factors have complicated the challenges associated effective use of technology
in the schools. First, the advent of the 21st century school movement has reemphasized both the
importance of utilizing student-centered instructional strategies and empowering students to be
proficient in technology use. This movement has also pointed out the importance of engaging
students in authentic tasks with an eye toward skill and knowledge development to support future
employment. Second, the proliferation of powerful, portable tools such as smart cell phones and
various sorts of “pads” has expanded the challenge of technology integration beyond traditional
laptop and desktop computer use. Problem solving, critical and higher-order thinking, teamwork,
and new conceptions of what a school should be are central elements of the 21 st century school
movement. Third, the nation’s current economic struggles have impacted educational institutions,
just as they have affected most every part of American society. Clearly, these factors have added
new dimensions to providing quality leadership regarding the integration of educational
technologies in the K-12 arena.
Leadership Standards for School Administrators
Leadership standards for school administrators are well documented. For instance, the
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2009) recently released new National
Educational Technology Standards for Administrators (NETS*A) for school administrators
pertaining to educational technologies. The first standard focuses upon visionary leadership. It
requires administrators to “ . . .inspire and lead development and implementation of a shared
vision for comprehensive integration of technology to promote excellence and support
transformation throughout the organization” (p.1). Educational administrators are further
expected to work with and inspire all stakeholders “. . . to develop a shared vision of purposeful
change that maximizes use of digital-age resources to meet and exceed learning goals” (p. 1).
Senior administrators are also expected to share technology-infused strategic plans consistent with
the vision statement and to advocate for funding to support plans.
Another competency includes sustaining a digital-age culture of learning that is relevant and
engaging to students and that promotes participation in local, national, and global learning
communities. Yet another competency concerns promoting professional development and
innovation to empower teachers to strengthen student learning through integration of current
technologies and digital resources. Finally, administrators should provide leadership and
management to regularly improve the organization by making good use of information and
technology resources. They should also model knowledge of social, ethical and legal issues and
responsibilities related to our ever changing digital-age culture.
In addition, the State of Texas has identified competencies related to school leadership and
technology for principals pertaining to School Community Leadership; Instructional Leadership:
and Administrative Leadership. Creighton (2003) suggests that such standards be used with
caution. Standards may result in an overemphasis on hardware, software, and basic skills. Use of
standards may entice planning teams to focus upon goals and objectives which are irrelevant to
local planning contexts. Creighton proposes that leaders strive to " . . .stay focused on aligning
standards and benchmarks with local and district curriculum." (p. 7). This advice seems
reasonable; however, the need to provide administrators with effective technology leadership
skills and strategies remains.
Research on a Technology Leadership Model
Two scholars, Mcleod and Richardson, conducted an interesting analysis of 43 journal articles
published between 1997 and 2009 on the topic of technology leadership (2011). They identified
thirteen topics which were addressed in these articles. The most frequently addressed topic was
technology integration, while the least addressed topic was technology management and
operations. These authors note that some topics inherent in the National Educational Technology
Standards for Administrators published by the International Society for Technology in Education
in 2009 were not considered in the reviewed articles: “Research topics that did not appear include
digital-age learning cultures, learning communities focused on innovation and creativity,
recruiting and retention of technologically savvy teachers, and digital citizenship” (p. 235). They
go on to specify additional topics which are missing from the analyzed literature, including elearning, leadership for preservice teacher preparation, social networking, Web 2.0 applications,
and handheld technologies. Mcleod and Richardson urge future authors to conduct studies which
are more rigorous, methodologically speaking.
Anderson and Dexter (2005) conducted empirically-based research on a model of technology
leadership. Their leadership model is comprised of three major components. These
components—drawn from Anderson’s and Dexter’s work (see p. 56)--are as follows:
1: Infrastructure: Net use, technology integration, and student tool use
2: Technology Leadership: technology committee, school technology budget, district support,
principal e-mail, principal days (on technology), staff development policy, grants, intellectual
property policy, and other policies
3: Technology Outcomes: net use for e-mail and web, technology integration, and student tool use
Anderson and Dexter collected data primarily included survey responses from principals while
additional data from technology coordinator survey responses, when available, were also merged
with principals’ responses. The researchers concluded: “The study confirmed that technology
leadership played a very central, pivotal role in technology-related outcomes . . .” (p.73). The
authors also found that tech leaders need to be actively engaged in technology use: this includes
developing policies, using e-mail, and devoting time to technology use. They further concluded
that effective leaders should be involved in a number of activities related to leadership and vision,
learning and teaching and other matters including productivity and professional practice,
management, technology operations and social and ethical matters. Rodriguez (2011) provides an
excellent discussion on technology infrastructure planning and growth.
Anderson and Dexter (2005) also found that technology leadership was stronger in middle and
high schools in comparison to elementary schools and is also stronger in public schools over
private ones. This research and the utilized model are interesting and may serve as the basis for
additional research regarding effective technology leadership skills.
Factors Affecting Technology Utilization
Administrators must understand technology’s potential and limitations if they are to
successfully guide the implementation of technology utilization (Wisniewski, 1999). Some
administrators are simply unprepared to address emerging roles concerning technology. Lack of
understanding and attention to resources often create barriers to improvement (Thomas, 1999).
Some principals are uninformed about the potential and role of technology with many lacking
related firsthand experience; thus, they are essentially unprepared for the changes and
advancements imposed upon them as a given campus or district tries to integrate instructional
technology (Thomas, 1999).
Administrative support and leadership are crucial to successful implementation of instructional
technologies (Gibson, 2001). Ricard and Rodriguez (2006) describe three overarching reasons
why technology may not be well utilized in the schools. All three factors can be directly
influenced by a given administrator. A first identified barrier is the lack of student access to
technology. A second barrier is lack of appropriate and timely training and inservice opportunities
for teachers. Teachers require professional development which supports development of positive
attitudes toward technology use. A third barrier to technology integration consists of inadequate
administrative support for experimentation. Clearly, school administrators at all levels hold the
key to leading successful use of technology in the schools.
Strategies for Effective Leadership
Maurer and Davidson (1998) offer the concept of a community of leadership, basing their ideas
on constructivist learning theory. The formal school leader facilitates the community, which
includes faculty and staff, parents and students, and business and community leaders. This
paradigm holds that any community member who possesses the required expertise can manage
new uses of instructional technologies. For example, a teacher who is adept at guiding students in
the development of multimedia projects could assume the role of leader in furthering the use of
multimedia by other teachers and students.
Maurer and Davidson argue that a key and critical first task for the leader is “ . . . to assist the
school community to create and align the shared goals of the school” (p. 20). According to these
authors, the leader’s job is to provide guidance so the community can articulate its beliefs and
values. The resulting vision statement (cf. Brooks-Young, 2009) describes what a given school
will be like upon attainment of community goals.
Maurer and Davidson describe ten attributes of the concept of vision drawn from some
materials for principals in Indiana (IPLA). These attributes include the following:
1) Set the vision as a new reality that has already been accomplished, not as the status quo.
2) Use a descriptive mental image of the school operating at its best.
3) Ground the vision in sensory perceptions, using metaphors as necessary.
4) Be cognizant of the theories and ideas that must be acquired to attain the vision.
5) Focus on the future, writing the vision statement in the present tense.
6) Integrate continuous improvement into the vision statement.
7) Focus on quality and excellence, not on current barriers.
8) Strive for an expansive vision.
9) Weigh the possibility of failure against the benefits of having tried and of learning through the
experience.
10) Ground the vision in values and beliefs, emotionality, and a moral perspective.
These attributes of vision are helpful because they facilitate articulation of a meaningful, worthy,
and comprehensive statement of desired optimal outcomes.
The idea of shared decision making is prevalent in the technology leadership literature and is
consistent with the community of leadership concept. Eib and Steele (2004), for instance, note
that principals should not always make the sole decisions on technology matters; rather, they
should be a joint effort. Collaborative decision making takes more time and effort, but pays off in
the long run. Collaborations can be built between principal and teacher, principal and a group of
teachers, between teacher and technology coordinator, or a similar combination. Once procedures
are in place, sound decisions are solidified before reaching the front office.
Administrators must also be careful to maintain an active role in technology integration
planning. They should neither assume a passive role nor simply hand-off the task of planning to
technology “experts.” It has been observed that " . . . in many districts, superintendents have
remained withdrawn from the technology discussions, leaving to staff the leadership roles of
planning and implementing technology" (Radlick, 1998, p. 239). Educational leaders should be
wary of the practice of dealing with technology remotely, leaving technology decisions to those
with more of an interest and expertise in the technology, than curricular issues. "The results of
such disregard," writes (Wasser, 1996), are costly and result in the loss of " . . . control of
technology decisions to those parts of the system that do not hold a curricular outlook" (p. 96).
Administrators who embrace the technology and the decision-making processes associated with it
will actually streamline managerial tasks and will decrease isolationism (Kosakowski, 1998).
A final consideration for effective leadership concerns the modeling of desired behavior
(Brooks-Young, 2009). To be an effective leader in the schools, administrators should model
appropriate and regular use of technology. This view is consistent with Anderson’s and Dexter’s
(2005) research findings. Failure to model technology use behaviors is likely to diminish a given
administrator’s credibility and may demonstrate a lack of commitment and unity with the larger
school community.
Guidelines for Effective Technology Leadership
Based upon a review of the literature, the author profers seven guidelines which administrators
may apply in order to improve their leadership effectiveness as regards technology utilization in
the schools:
1) Use a team-based approach in planning for technology; incorporate the concept of a
community of leadership and allow all stakeholders to have a voice;
2) Articulate a clear and expansive vision statement to support ongoing planning; address
21st Century School concepts including globally-based collaborations, Web2.0 tools, and
handheld technologies; if problems occur, use them as learning opportunities;
3) Stay actively involved in the planning process and avoid delegating too much of the
responsibility for planning to others;
4) Provide teachers with appropriate training opportunities and technological resources
and actively encourage experimental uses of technology with students; eliminate or
minimize bureaucratic obstacles concerning access to equipment and labs;
5) Model the use of technology whenever possible (i.e., faculty meetings, student
assemblies, parent-teacher association meetings);
6) Ground technology plans in a student-centered approach and attainment of curricular
goals, emphasizing knowledge construction and higher-order learning instead of rote
learning;
7) Demonstrate sincere support of teachers’ efforts to make good use of technology with
students and in daily job-related tasks at every opportunity.
The guidelines offered here represent only a portion of the myriad related ideas provided in the
literature. However, they reflect some common themes and should prove useful to administrators
who seek to effectively lead technology planning and utilization in the schools.
Closing Comment
Factors such as the 21st century school movement, the increased availability of powerful
portable technologies, the strong emergence of Web 2.0 “cloud” applications, and the weak U.S.
economy have complicated the challenge of providing strong technology leadership. The need to
provide school administrators with effective strategies for technology leadership in the schools
stands as an ongoing, major challenge for federal and state educational institutions as well as
colleges and universities that set policies or prepare educational administrators. It is hoped that
this discussion has contributed to the ongoing dialog about this critical and evolving matter.
References
Anderson, R.E. & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of
prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41: 49, 49-82.
Brooks-Young, S. (2009). Making technology standards work for you: A guide for school
administrators. (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Creighton, T. (2003). The principal as technology leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Dede, C. (2011). Reconceptualizing technology integration to meet the necessity of
transformation. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 5, 1 (May), 4-16
Eib, B. J. & Steele, G. (2004). Districtwide technology integration: A case study. Principal
Leadership (High School Ed.), 4, 7, (March), 55-8.
Gibson, I. (2001). The role of the school administrator in the process of effectively integrating
educational technology into school learning environments: New research from the mid-west.
Paper presented at the 11th Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference, March 5-10, Orlando, FL.
International Society for Technology in Education (2009). Found at
http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-administrators/nets-for-administrators-sandards.aspx
Kosakowski, J. (1998). The benefits of information technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. EDO-IR-98-04).
Maurer, M, & Davidson, G. (1998). Leadership in instructional technology. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill.
Mcleod, S. & Richarsdon, J.W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage. Journal of
School Leadership, 21(March), 216-240.
Picciano, A.G. (2011). Educational leadership and planning for technology. (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Radlick, M. 1998. Hardware, software, vaporware, and wetware: A cautionary tale for
superintendents (pp. 237-266). In R. R. Spillane & P. Regnier (Eds.), The superintendent of the
future: Strategy and actions for achieving academic excellence. Gaithersburg, Maryland. Aspen.
Ricard, R. & Rodriguez, S. (2006). Technology for all: A novel, field-based evaluation of
technology integration processes. Journal of Border Educational Research.
Ritchie, D. C. & Rodriguez, S. (1996). The role of technology in school leadership. Journal of
Information Technology for Teacher Education, 5 (1) 107-114.
Rodriguez, S.R. (2011). Growing a university’s technological infrastructure: Strategies for
success. In Technology Integration in Higher Education: Social and Organizational Aspects.
Surry, D.W., Stefurak, T., & Gray, R. (Eds.). pp. 86-99. IGI Global.
Rusling, P. (1993, February). Ten ways to cultivate a quality culture. Executive Excellence.
Shuldman, M. (2004). Superintendent conceptions of institutional conditions that impact teacher
technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 4 (Summer), 319-43.
Indiana Principals Leadership Academy (IPLA) (n.d.). Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of
Education.
Thomas, W. 1999. Educational technology: Are school administrators ready for it? Atlanta, GA:
Southern Regional Education Board. Available:
www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/pubsindex.asp.
Wasser, J. 1996. Reform, restructuring, and technology infusion. In Technology Infusion and
School Change: Perspectives and Practices (p. 24-106). Cambridge, Massachusetts. TERC.
Wisniewski, M. (1999). Counting on computers. Electronic School. Available: www.electronicschool.com/199909/0999f3.html.
Yuki, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.