i-manager Publications

This paper summarizes the 2007-2008 evaluation results of the leadership survey distributed the to Michigan Freedom to Learn (FTL) program teachers, in their effort to improve student learning and achievement in Michigan schools through the integration of laptop computers with teaching and learning in K-12 classrooms. The results obtained from the survey provided insight into the relationships between the identified leadership attributes and successful program implementation.

The Role of Leadership in a Statewide Student Laptop Implementation

Lee Allen*, **, Deborah L. Lowther***

* Assistant Professor of lnstructional Design and Technology, College of Education, University of Memphis, Memphis.

** Facully member of lnstruction and Curriculum Leadership, College of Education, University of Memphis, Memphis.

*** Professor of lnstructional Design and Technology College of Education, University of Memphis, Memphis.

Periodicity:April - June'2009
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.6.1.208

Abstract

Researchers have frequently found that leadership plays a key role in the successful and effective implementation of technology in K-12 school districts (Meltzer & Sherman, 1997; Schiller, 2002; Bliss & Bliss, 2003; Anderson & Dexter, 2005). A key component of the Michigan Freedom To Learn (FTL): One-to-One Learning initiative evaluation was to obtain valid data from a rigorous and comprehensive research study to gauge the impacts of the program relative to its primary goals. An evaluative research component examining the effectiveness of leadership in FTL initiative as perceived by FTL teachers and lead teachers was added as an extension to the initial multi-year evaluation plan to examine the roles of school leadership (principals, assistant principals, or others) in relationship to the effective implementation of the FTL laptop program.

Keywords

K-12 Instructional Technology Implementation, Student Laptops, Educational Leadership, Administrative Roles, Levels Of Support.

How to Cite this Article?

Lee E. Allen, Louis Franceschini and Deborah L. Lowther (2009). The Role of Leadership in a Statewide Student Laptop Implementation. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 6(1), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.6.1.208

References

[1].Anderson, R. E., &Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49- 82.

[2]. Barath, T. (1999). Effectiveness in public education: Models and aspects of leadership. Paper presented at the ENIRDEM Conference, Budapest, Hungary.

[3]. Bliss, T.J. & Bliss, L.L. (2003). Attitudinal Response to Teacher Professional Development for the Effective Integration of Educational Technology. Journal of In- Service Education, 29(i ), 81 -99.

[4]. Bottoms, G., & O'Neill, K. (2001). Preparing a new breed of school principals: It's time for action. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

[5]. Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., &Thakor, A. V. (2006). Competing values leadership: Creating value in organizations. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

[6]. Cotton, K., (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

[7]. Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO). (1 996). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author.

[8]. Day, C., Harris, A., & Hadfield, M. (1999, September). Leading schools in times of change. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland.

[9]. Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools in times of change. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

[10]. Davies, FE, & Coates G. (2005). Competing conceptions and values in school strategy: Rational planning and beyond. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(1 ) 1 09-1 24.

[11]. Griffin, J. (2003). Schools as organizational models: Implications for examining school effectiveness. ElementarySchoolJournal, l04(1), 29-47.

[12]. Hallinger, R, & Heck, R.H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980- 1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2),157-191.

[13]. Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7) 14-26.

[14]. Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., &Wa|hstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

[15]. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, E, Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. (Research Report 800]. National University of Nottingham.

[16]. Lowther, D. L., & Ross, 3. M. (2001). Survey of Computer Use [SCU]. Memphis, TN: Centerfor Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.

[17]. Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

[18]. Meltzer, J. & Sherman, T.M. (1997). Ten commandments for successful technology implementation and staff development. NASSP Bulletin, 81(585), 23-32

[19]. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2004). Breaking ranks ll: Strategies for leading high schoolreform. Reston,VA: Author.

[20]. Quinn, R.E. (1984). Applying the competing values approach to leadership: Toward an integrative framework. In J.G. Hunt, D.M. Hosking, C.A. Schriesheim, & R. Steward (Eds.), Leaders and Managers: International Perspectives on Managerial Behavior and Leadership (pp. 10-27]. NewYork: Pergamon.

[21]. Quinn, R.E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[22]. Quinn, R.E., Faerman, S.R., Thompson, M.R, McGrath, M.R., &St. Clair, L.S. (2007). Becomingamaster manager: A competing values approach (4"” Ed.). New York: Wiley.

[23]. Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). Aspatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach in organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377.

[24]. Ross, 3. M., Smith, L. J., & Alberg, M. (1999). The School Observation Measure [SOM©]. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.

[25]. Schiller, J. (2002). Interventions by School Leaders in Effective Implementation of Information and Communications Technology: perceptions of Australian principals. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, '11(3), 289- 301 .

[26]. Sterbinsky, A., Ross, 5. M. & Burke, D., (2004). Tennessee EdTech Accountability Model [TEAM] Reliability Study. The CNA Corporation, Alexandria, VA.

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Single Article

	North Americas,UK, Middle East,Europe		India	Rest of world
	USD	EUR	INR	USD-ROW
Online	15	15

ADD TO CART

Options for accessing this content:

If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.