Technology Standards for School Administrators

NASSP Bulletin http://bul.sagepub.com/

Technology Standards for School Administrators: An Analysis of Practicing and Aspiring Administrators' Perceived Ability to Perform the Standards Chien Yu and Vance A. Durrington NASSP Bulletin 2006 90: 301 DOI: 10.1177/0192636506295392 The online version of this article can be found at: http://bul.sagepub.com/content/90/4/301

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

National Association of Secondary School Principals

Additional services and information for NASSP Bulletin can be found at: Email Alerts: http://bul.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://bul.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://bul.sagepub.com/content/90/4/301.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 7, 2006 What is This?

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

Technology Standards for School Administrators: An Analysis of Practicing and Aspiring Administrators’ Perceived Ability to Perform the Standards Chien Yu, Vance A. Durrington

This study investigated practicing and aspiring school administrators’ perceived level of proficiency related to the Technology Standards for School Administrators adopted by the International Society for Technology in Education. Based on the mentor-mentee relationship, the study found there were no significant differences between mentors and mentees in their perceived ability to meet any of the Technology Standards for School Administrators. However, there was a significant difference between mentors and mentees on the social, legal, and ethical issues standard, with mentees showing a greater desire to pursue professional development in this standard area. Keywords:

technology standards; technology integration; mentoring; professional development; school administrators

Rapid innovations in technology help drive educational reforms that affect how schools are managed. As society increases as a technology-rich environment, school leaders are faced with how to support the integration of technology into meaningful learning activities and how to evaluate the use of technology within their schools. School leaders need to recognize their teachers’ needs and support them in effectively using technology in their classrooms (Holland, 2000). To effectively support their teachers, school leaders often need to feel knowledgeable about technology, which includes a thorough understanding of when and how technology can be effectively used to enhance student learning in their schools. Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to: [email protected]. NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 90, No. 4, December 2006 301-317 DOI: 10.1177/0192636506295392 © 2006 by the National Association of Secondary School Principals http://bul.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

301

Today’s innovations in technology have provided valuable instructional tools for education. School leaders/administrators play an essential role in whether these innovations are being used effectively in their schools. Many state departments of education have developed technology plans intended to promote the effective use of technology and to aid administrators in implementing technology strategies that will improve their school’s efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity. To emphasize the administrators’ role in implementing technology into the schools, one state’s technology plan underscores the need for administrators to initiate, promote, and support the effective use of technology into their educational environments. It is a positive sign to see the administrators’ role being addressed in plans such as the one previously mentioned, but there is a lack of emphasis in identifying the technical competencies administrators need to fulfill this role. The Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA; Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative, 2001) have been developed to assist administrators in identifying the technical competencies they need to fulfill their role as it relates to technology. This study investigated the TSSA from the perspective of practicing school administrators and the aspiring school administrators they mentor. It examined both groups’ (practicing and aspiring administrators) perceived ability to meet these standards and examined which standards they wished to pursue further in terms of professional development. The findings from this study can inform other educational leadership programs as they prepare administrators in their role as technology leaders. The findings of this study can also provide a framework for further studies that expand to the regional and national levels. This study is important because the findings from this study have the potential to • identify the perceived ability of practicing and aspiring administrators to meet technology standards, such as those advocated by TSSA; • identify if there is a gap between the perceived and actual technological abilities and skills of practicing and aspiring administrators; • identify the self-assessed technological professional development needs of practicing and aspiring school administrators; and • identify the components of technological instruction that need to be addressed in educational leadership programs.

Research Questions The Technology Standards for School Administrators used in this study were collaboratively developed by the Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative (2001) and were adopted by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) as the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Administrators (Appendix). The following questions guided the study: • What were the self-perceived proficiency levels of practicing and aspiring administrators with relation to the TSSA?

302

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

• Was there a significant difference between practicing administrators’ and aspiring administrators’ perceived TSSA proficiency levels? • Which standard indicators did practicing and aspiring administrators indicate as areas they wished to pursue for personal improvement? • Was there a significant difference between practicing administrators and aspiring administrators in the standard indicators identified as areas they wished to pursue for personal improvement?

School Administrators as Technology Facilitators School administrators play an important role in facilitating technology use in schools (Ertmer et al., 2002), and they are one of the keys to successful technology planning and integration (Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). MacNeil and Delafield (1998) found that when administrators act as technology leaders, the teachers and students integrate and use technology more successfully. Yet many school administrators are novice technology users and have little experience or training in the knowledge and skills required to be effective technology leaders (Ertmer et al., 2002). To help teachers integrate technology, the school leaders need to keep up with the latest technology. Without this knowledge, administrators find it difficult to help teachers understand the use of technology in the classroom. Paben (2002) indicated that school leaders’ vision for their schools must include technology. So, what exactly do administrators need to know to be effective technology leaders? Schmeltzer (2001) indicated that administrators need a broad set of experiences; they need to develop an understanding of how technology can improve instructional practices and a repertoire of strategies for supporting teachers’ efforts to use technology in the classroom. The International Society for Technology in Education has adopted the TSSA for administrators, which cover the following six critical areas: • Leadership and vision: Educational leaders inspire a shared vision for comprehensive integration of technology and foster an environment and culture conducive to the realization of that vision. • Learning and teaching: Educational leaders ensure that curricular design, instructional strategies, and learning environments integrate appropriate technologies to maximize learning and teaching. • Productivity and professional practice: Educational leaders apply technology to enhance their professional practice and to increase their own productivity and that of others. • Support, management, and operations: Educational leaders ensure the integration of technology to support productive systems for learning and administration. • Assessment and evaluation: Educational leaders use technology to plan and implement comprehensive systems of effective assessment and evaluation. • Social, legal, and ethical issues: Educational leaders understand the social, legal, and ethical issues related to technology and model responsible decision making related to these issues (Appendix).

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

303

At the state level, many state departments of education have also drafted technology standards for administrators to initiate, promote, and support the effective integration of technology into the educational environment. For example, one state department of education in the southeast has standards very similar to the TSSA, which include • Standard 1 (vision): Communicates to all stakeholders a vision of the role of technology in teaching and learning. • Standard 2 (funding and long-range planning): Develops, implements, and monitors a long-range technology plan. • Standard 3 (professional development): Initiates and supports professional development processes that produce effective uses of technology in teaching and learning. • Standard 4 (model user): Models the effective use of technology in support of teaching, learning, and administrative functions. • Standard 5 (learning environment): Creates a learning environment that empowers staff to infuse technology into teaching and learning. • Standard 6 (student learning): Ensures the implementation of district, school, and classroom strategies that prepare students to be successful in a technological world. • Standard 7 (legal, ethical, and security issues): Communicates the legal, ethical, and security issues related to technology (Mississippi Department of Education, n.d.).

These national, or state, technology standards for administrators tend to guide the redesign or development of new courses and training experiences. However, most professional development efforts have focused on the needs of the classroom teachers, with little attention paid to administrators’ needs (Ertmer et al., 2002). Most school administrators have acquired their technology knowledge and skills on the job, with occasional training provided by assorted vendors, professional organizations, colleges, and universities (Mehlinger & Powers, 2002). Educational leadership is increasingly recognized as a key ingredient to effective schools and is increasingly becoming a more complex and difficult job to carry out (Daresh, 1992). Mentoring has become an accepted and desirable part of the preservice preparation of educational administrators (Daresh & Playko, 1995). Mentoring is mutually beneficial, and protégés develop higher levels of credibility, gain greater confidence, and develop human resource skills and competence in their work as practitioners (Restine, 1997). Crow and Mathews (1998) noted that mentoring not only provides aspiring administrators with specific ideas and strategies, it encourages them to be more reflective and analytical about their practice The mentoring relationship also benefits the mentors, providing them insights into their craft and enthusiasm about their profession. In addition, mentoring provides means for testing fundamental assumptions and beliefs concerning the nature of power, authority, and leadership (Restine, 1997). Practicing administrators need to have a sound vision of emerging technology and to mentor their mentees to effectively and efficiently use technology. Aspiring administrators need to be aware of the possible administrative applications of computer technology for their future practice. In their role as leaders, practicing 304

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

school administrators also need to recognize when teachers need coaching on the effective use of technology and provide for the necessary coaching.

Method The target participants for this study consisted of in-service teachers who were enrolled in the educational leadership graduate program at a southeastern university and their mentors who served as school administrators in public and private schools within the state of Mississippi. To investigate the perceived ability of practicing and aspiring administrators to meet the Technology Standards for School Administrators (Appendix), a survey was mailed to the participants. The participants were asked to indicate • their perceived ability to perform the technology standards (from 0 to 5, none to very competent) and • the standards they wished to pursue for personal professional development (from 0 to 5, none to greatest need).

In addition, the participants were asked to provide their demographic (background and situational) information in the survey.

Demographic Information There were 57 aspiring administrators (mentees) and 16 practicing administrators (mentors) who responded to the survey. In many cases, the researchers found that an individual school administrator had more than one mentee. Therefore, the relationship between the mentors and mentees in the study did not necessarily indicate a one-on-one relationship but could also be a one-to-many relationship. The one-to-many relationship is the reason for larger number of aspiring administrators compared to practicing administrators.

Description of Mentee Participants There were 57 aspiring administrators who participated in the study. When asked to indicate their current position in the schools, 50 (88%) of the 57 participants were practicing teachers, 6 (10%) were currently nonadministrative professional staff (e.g., coach, librarian, etc.), and 1 participant (2%) did not respond. The mentee respondents ranged in age from 24 to 56 with a mean age of 36. Most of the respondents were Caucasian (77%) and African American (21%). Of the aspiring administrators, 25 were currently working in elementary schools (44%), whereas 9 indicated they were working in junior high schools (16%), and 6 were working in high schools (11%); the remaining respondents identified working in K-12 (23%) schools, and 2 participants did not indicate the level of the school where they were working. When indicating their years of service in education, the majority of the mentee respondents

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

305

had less than 10 years of service (79%). The majority of the respondents were currently working in rural schools (90%).

Description of Mentor Participants There were 16 practicing administrators serving as mentors who participated in the study. Among the practicing administrators responding to the survey, 10 (64%) were school principals, 2 (12%) were assistant principals, 2 (12%) were counselors, and 2 (12%) did not indicate their current administrative positions. The mentor participants ranged in age from 30 to 60 with a mean age of 47. Most of the respondents were Caucasian (81%) and African American (13%), with 1 nonresponse listed relative to ethnicity. The majority of the practicing administrators were working in elementary (63%) or K-12 (25%) schools. The highest percentage (81%) of mentors had less than 10 years of service in the schools and were working in rural schools (88%).

Data Analysis The data analysis mainly focused on two elements: (a) participants’ perceived ability to perform the TSSA and (b) which standard participants wished to pursue for further professional development. A t test was used to determine if there was any significant difference between the two groups’ ability and interest related to the TSSA.

Perceived Ability to Perform Standards When the two groups were asked to rate their perceived ability to perform the TSSA, the aspiring school administrators (mentees) rated their perceived ability (1 to 5 Likert scale) to perform the learning and teaching standard the highest (M = 3.78) and the support, management, and operations standard as the lowest (M = 3.21). Practicing administrators (mentors) rated their perceived ability to perform the social, legal, and ethical issues standard the highest (M = 3.75) and rated the support, management, and operations standard the lowest (M = 3.32). The results indicate that both groups perceived their ability level as average based on their indicated ability to perform the TSSA. In addition, both groups indicated their performance in the support, management, and operations area as their lowest area. In Table 1, t tests revealed that there were no significant differences between mentors and mentees in their perceived ability to meet any of the standards.

Interest to Pursue Opportunities to Improve Their Ability to Meet the Standards In Table 2, results from the survey revealed that aspiring school administrators (mentees) indicated they were most interested in the learning and teaching standard (M = 4.14) and least interested in the leadership and vision standard (M = 3.99). For

306

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

Table 1.

Perceived Ability to Meet Standards t Test

Standard Leadership and vision Mentora Menteeb Learning and teaching Mentor Mentee Productivity and professional practice Mentor Mentee Support, management, and operations Mentor Mentee Assessment and evaluation Mentor Mentee Social, legal, and ethical Mentor Mentee

M

SD

Significance

3.60 3.58

.781 .586

.900

3.66 3.78

.721 .671

.546

3.55 3.75

.849 .622

.385

3.32 3.21

.876 .781

.631

3.53 3.69

.896 .654

.541

3.75 3.65

.853 .755

.694

a. n = 16. b. n = 57.

the practicing administrators (mentors), they rated they were most interested in the learning and teaching standard (M = 3.88) and least interested in the social, legal, and ethical issues standard (M = 3.37). Both groups rated their highest interest to pursue opportunities to improve their ability to meet the learning and teaching standard. A t test revealed (t = 2.75, p = .012) a significant difference between mentors and mentees on the social, legal, and ethical issues standard, with mentees showing a greater desire to pursue professional development in this standard area compared to their mentors.

Detailed Items of the Standards When the researchers analyzed the detailed items for each standard, there were no significant differences between mentors’ and mentees’ perceived ability to the criteria for each standard. When analyzing the criteria for each standard in reference to which areas they wished to pursue for personal professional development, significant differences were found between mentors and mentees for criteria in the leadership and vision, productivity and professional practice, and social, legal, and ethical issues standards. Leadership and vision. With response to the item “Educational leaders foster and nurture a culture of responsible risk taking and advocate policies promoting

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

307

Table 2.

Interest in Pursuing for Professional Development t Test

Standard Leadership and vision Mentora Menteeb Learning and teaching Mentor Mentee Productivity and professional practice Mentor Mentee Support management and operations Mentor Mentee Assessment and evaluation Mentor Mentee Social, legal, and ethical Mentor Mentee

M

SD

Significance

3.63 3.99

1.01 0.711

.192

3.88 4.14

0.757 0.738

.229

3.70 4.11

0.921 0.752

.116

3.81 4.09

0.872 0.638

.245

3.63 4.00

1.06 0.772

.221

3.37 4.06

0.868 0.843

.012*

a. n = 16. b. n = 57. *p < .05.

continuous innovation with technology,” in Table 3 t-test scores revealed a significant difference (t = 2.28, p = .034) between the practicing and aspiring administrators’ desire to purse further professional development in this area. Aspiring administrators (M = 4.14) expressed a significantly greater desire to gain further knowledge in meeting this criteria than practicing administrators (M = 3.47). Productivity and professional practice. With response to the item “Educational leaders create and participate in learning communities that stimulate, nurture, and support faculty and staff in using technology for improved productivity,” in Table 4 t-test scores revealed a significant difference (t = 2.18, p = .040) between the practicing and aspiring administrators’ desire to pursue further professional development in this area. Aspiring administrators (M = 4.00) expressed a significantly greater desire to gain further knowledge in meeting this criteria than practicing administrators (M = 3.38). Social, legal, and ethical issues. In Table 5, t-test scores revealed significant differences between aspiring and practicing administrators’ desire to pursue personal professional development on three of the criteria. With response to the item “Educational leaders identify, communicate, model, and enforce social, legal, and ethical practices to promote responsible use of technology,” a t test revealed a significant difference (t = 2.84, p = .011) between the practicing and 308

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

Table 3.

Leadership and Vision: Desired Criteria to Pursue for Professional Development

Educational Leaders: Facilitate the shared development by all stakeholders of a vision for technology use and widely communicate that vision. Mentora Menteeb Maintain an inclusive and cohesive process to develop, implement, and monitor a dynamic, long-range, and systemic technology plan to achieve the vision. Mentor Mentee Foster and nurture a culture of responsible risk taking and advocate policies promoting continuous innovation with technology. Mentor Mentee Use data in making leadership decisions. Mentor Mentee Advocate for research-based effective practices in use of technology. Mentor Mentee Advocate, on the state and national levels, for policies, programs, and funding opportunities that support implementation of the district technology plan. Mentor Mentee

M

SD

Significance

3.44 3.96

1.32 0.906

.148

3.73 4.00

1.03 0.824

.366

3.47 4.14

1.06 0.841

.034*

3.40 3.96

1.24 1.06

.123

3.40 3.93

1.12 0.863

.105

3.87 3.96

0.915 0.823

.710

a. n = 16. b. n = 57. *p < .05.

aspiring administrators’ desire to pursue further professional development in this area. Aspiring administrators (M = 4.11) expressed a significantly greater desire to gain further knowledge in meeting this criteria than practicing administrators (M = 3.13). With response to the item “Educational leaders promote and enforce environmentally safe and healthy practices in the use of technology,” a t test revealed a significant difference (t = 2.34, p = .026) between the practicing and aspiring administrators’ desire to pursue further professional development in this area. Aspiring administrators (M = 4.02) expressed a significantly greater desire to gain further knowledge in meeting this criteria than practicing administrators (M = 3.47). Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

309

Table 4.

Productivity and Professional Practice: Desired Criteria to Pursue for Professional Development

Educational Leaders: Model the routine, intentional, and effective use of technology. Mentora Menteeb Employ technology for communication and collaboration among colleagues, staff, parents, students, and the larger community. Mentor Mentee Create and participate in learning communities that stimulate, nurture, and support faculty and staff in using technology for improved productivity. Mentor Mentee Engage in sustained, job-related professional learning using technology resources. Mentor Mentee Maintain awareness of emerging technologies and their potential uses in education. Mentor Mentee Use technology to advance organizational improvement. Mentor Mentee

M

SD

Significance

3.75 4.09

0.856 0.880

.177

3.88 4.13

1.15 0.833

.426

3.38 4.00

1.03 0.972

.040*

3.56 4.05

0.964 0.961

.085

3.81 4.27

1.22 0.820

.177

3.81 4.13

1.05 0.935

.293

a. n = 16. b. n = 57. *p < .05.

With response to the item “Educational leaders participate in the development of policies that clearly enforce copyright law and assign ownership of intellectual property developed with district resources,” a t test revealed a significant difference (t = 3.06, p = .005) between the practicing and aspiring administrators’ desire to pursue further professional development in this area. Aspiring administrators (M = 4.00) expressed a significantly greater desire to gain further knowledge in meeting this criteria than practicing administrators (M = 3.27).

Discussion Geer (2002) indicated, “Administrators have many responsibilities when it comes to technology” (p. 56). Maurer and Davidson (as cited in Geer, 2002) stated that these responsibilities may include initiating communication about technology

310

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

Table 5.

Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues: Desired Criteria to Pursue for Professional Development

Educational Leaders: Ensure equity of access to technology resources that enable and empower all learners and educators. Mentora Menteeb Identify, communicate, model, and enforce social, legal, and ethical practices to promote responsible use of technology. Mentor Mentee Promote and enforce privacy, security, and online safety related to the use of technology. Mentor Mentee Promote and enforce environmentally safe and healthy practices in the use of technology. Mentor Mentee Participate in the development of policies that clearly enforce copyright law and assign ownership of intellectual property developed with district resources. Mentor Mentee

M

SD

3.47 4.11

1.19 0.916

.067

3.13 4.11

1.25 0.896

.011*

3.47 4.02

0.743 1.01

.026*

3.57 4.05

0.938 0.931

.100

3.27 4.00

0.799 0.903

.005*

Significance

a. n = 16. b. n = 57. *p < .05.

and instruction and leading the school community through the financial, bureaucratic, and political obstacles that arise with technology. To achieve their schools’ technologyoriented goals, school leaders need comprehensive higher education, or professional development courses, to learn the required technology skills and knowledge. Using the TSSA, the purpose of this study was to investigate the technology standards/competencies school administrators needed to be effective leaders and the level of importance school administrators placed on these competencies. On the basis of the mentor-mentee relationship, this study also investigated whether there were differences in the perceived ability of aspiring administrators and their mentors to meet these standards. Finally, this study investigated if there was a difference between aspiring administrators’ and their mentors’ level of desire to pursue further educational opportunities related to the standards and the criteria that make up the standards. In Tables 6 and 7, a summary of the perceived ability and interest levels are shown ranked according to the means. Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

311

Table 6.

Ranking of Perceived Ability to Perform Technology Standards for School Administrators: Mentor/Mentee

Mentor (n = 16)

Mentee (n = 57)

Social, legal, and ethical issues (3.75) Learning and teaching (3.66) Leadership and vision (3.60) Productivity and professional practice (3.55) Assessment and evaluation (3.53) Support, management, and operations (3.32)

Learning and teaching (3.78) Productivity and professional practice (3.75) Assessment and evaluation (3.69) Social, legal, and ethical issues (3.65) Leadership and vision (3.58) Support, management, and operations (3.21)

Table 7.

Ranking of Technology Standards for School Administrators to Pursue for Professional Development: Mentor/Mentee

Mentor (n = 16)

Mentee (n = 57)

Learning and teaching (3.88) Support, management, and operations (3.81) Productivity and professional practice (3.70) Assessment and evaluation (3.63) Leadership and vision (3.62) Social, legal, and ethical issues (3.37)

Learning and teaching (4.14) Productivity and professional practice (4.11) Support, management, and operations (4.09) Social, legal, and ethical issues (4.06) Assessment and evaluation (4.00) Leadership and vision (3.99)

In our findings, we discovered that there was not a significant difference between aspiring administrators’ and their mentors’ perceived ability to meet the standards. Despite this lack of difference, it is interesting to note that both groups perceived their ability to be slightly above average on a 5-point Likert-type scale (mentees = 3.61; mentors = 3.58). This would indicate that even though there was little difference between the two groups’ perceived ability to meet the standards, there is still room for improvement for both groups related to their ability to meet the standards. Interestingly, when asked to indicate their level of interest in learning more to meet the standards, there again was not a significant difference overall between the two groups (mentees = 4.05; mentors = 3.66). When going deeper and examining each standard individually, the only significant difference between the two groups was found on the social, legal, and ethical standard where the aspiring administrators indicated a significantly greater interest in learning more about how to meet this standard than did their mentors. Finally, an analysis at the individual criteria level indicated that aspiring administrators were more interested than their mentors in pursing the following criteria: • Educational leaders foster and nurture a culture of responsible risk taking and advocate policies promoting continuous innovation with technology (leadership and vision). • Educational leaders create and participate in learning communities that stimulate, nurture, and support faculty and staff in using technology for improved productivity (productivity and professional practice).

312

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

• Educational leaders identify, communicate, model, and enforce social, legal, and ethical practices to promote responsible use of technology (social, legal, and ethical issues). • Educational leaders promote and enforce environmentally safe and healthy practices in the use of technology (social, legal, and ethical issues). • Educational leaders participate in the development of policies that clearly enforce copyright law and assign ownership of intellectual property developed with district resources (social, legal, and ethical issues).

These five criteria have two themes in common, communication (nurturing, modeling, etc.) and policies/practices. The significant differences identified between aspiring administrators and their mentors seem to indicate that aspiring administrators desired to personally improve in their ability to communicate, nurture, and model an environment that promotes and uses technology effectively. In addition, aspiring administrators are concerned about developing practices and policies that create an environment that allows for the ethical use of technology. Unfortunately, this desire to pursue professional development in ethics is not matched with educational opportunities for administrators (Beck & Murphy, 1994). Edmonson and Fisher (2002) stated that “Perhaps one of the greatest gaps present in the training of educational leaders is that of ethics. . . . With increasing levels of accountability and complexity for school administrators, these gaps in ethics training must be addressed” (p. 3). Having educational administrators who are ethical is critical to our education. Ethical standards have thus been implemented by many professional educator organizations for each level of school administrators, such as the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), National Association for Secondary School Principals (NASSP), National Association for Elementary School Principals (NAESP), National Middle School Association (NMSA), and Interstate Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) (Edmonson & Fisher, 2002).

Conclusions Effective leadership is critical to providing a successful and sustainable technologyenriched learning environment (Knezek, 2002). Integrating the use of computer technology into the classroom and curriculum are critical necessities for educators and administrators (Testerman & Hall, 2001). When administrators act as technology leaders, teachers and students use and integrate technology more successfully (MacNeil & Delefield, 1998). Therefore, academic institutions with educational leadership programs and the associated professional organizations have a responsibility to develop effective leaders who are able to meet the TSSA. Leadership plays a key role in successful school reform (Grabe & Grabe, 2004). Because of this changing role of school leaders, many organizations have crafted standards and indicators for school leadership. For implementing technology into

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

313

schools, the TSSA are indicators of effective leadership and can be used to guide the redesign and/or development of new graduate courses for school administration programs (Ertmer et al., 2002). The findings of this study can serve as a guide in assessing aspiring administrators’ ability to help prioritize and develop curriculum and training programs to support technology requirements and competencies for school leaders and administrators. The effective 21st-century administrator is a hands-on user of technology (Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative, 2001). Although the standards challenge almost every school administrator in some area or areas, school leaders should know about and be able to optimize the benefits of using technology in schools. Mehlinger and Powers (2001) stated, “It is no longer possible for administrators to be both naïve about technology and be good school leaders” (p. 218). The Technology Standards for School Administrators provide a framework that school administrators may use for self-assessment of their ability to meet the standards and a framework for higher educational leadership programs as they prepare aspiring administrators.

Appendix I. Leadership and Vision: Educational leaders inspire a shared vision for comprehensive integration of technology and foster an environment and culture conducive to the realization of that vision. Educational leaders: A. facilitate the shared development by all stakeholders of a vision for technology use and wisely communicate that vision. B. maintain an inclusive and cohesive process to develop, implement, and monitor a dynamic, long-range, and systemic technology plan to achieve the vision. C. foster and nurture a culture of responsible risk-taking and advocate policies promoting continuous innovation with technology. D. use data in making leadership decisions. E. advocate for research-based effective practices in use of technology. F. advocate, on the state and national levels, for policies, programs, and funding opportunities that support implementation of the district technology plan. II. Learning and Teaching: Educational leaders ensure that curricular design, instructional strategies, and learning environments integrate appropriate technologies to maximize learning and teaching. Educational leaders: A. identify, use, evaluate, and promote appropriate technologies to enhance and support instruction and standards-based curriculum leading to high levels of student achievement. B. facilitate and support collaborative technology-enriched learning environments conducive to innovation for improved learning. C. provide for learner-centered environments that use technology to meet the individual and diverse needs of learners.

314

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

D. facilitate the use of technologies to support and enhance instructional methods that develop higher-level thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving skills. E. provide for and ensure that faculty and staff take advantage of quality professional learning opportunities for improved learning and teaching with technology. III. Productivity and Professional Practice Educational leaders apply technology to enhance their professional practice and to increase their own productivity and that of others. Educational leaders: A. model the routine, intentional, and effective use of technology. B. employ technology for communication and collaboration among colleagues, staff, parents, students, and the larger community. C. create and participate in learning communities that stimulate, nurture, and support faculty and staff in using technology for improved productivity. D. engage in sustained, job-related professional learning using technology resources. E. maintain awareness of emerging technologies and their potential uses in education. F. use technology to advance organizational improvement. IV. Support, Management, and Operations: Educational leaders ensure the integration of technology to support productive systems for learning and administration. Educational leaders: A. develop, implement, and monitor policies and guidelines to ensure compatibility of technologies. B. implement and use integrated technology-based management and operations systems. C. allocate financial and human resources to ensure complete and sustained implementation of the technology plan. D. integrate strategic plans, technology plans, and other improvement plans and policies to align efforts and leverage resources. E. implement procedures to drive continuous improvements of technology systems and to support technology replacement cycles. V. Assessment and Evaluation: Educational leaders use technology to plan and implement comprehensive systems of effective assessment and evaluation Educational leaders: A. use multiple methods to assess and evaluate appropriate uses of technology resources for learning, communication, and productivity. B. use technology to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and student learning. C. assess staff knowledge, skills, and performance in using technology and use results to facilitate quality professional development and to inform personnel decisions. D. use technology to assess, evaluate, and manage administrative and operational systems. VI. Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues: Educational leaders understand the social, legal, and ethical issues related to technology and model responsible decision-making related to these issues. Educational leaders: A. ensure equity of access to technology resources that enable and empower all learners and educators. (continued)

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

315

Appendix (continued) B. identify, communicate, model, and enforce social, legal, and ethical practices to promote responsible use of technology. C. promote and enforce privacy, security, and online safety related to the use of technology. D. promote and enforce environmentally safe and healthy practices in the use of technology. E. participate in the development of policies that clearly enforce copyright law and assign ownership of intellectual property developed with district resources. Source: This material was originally produced as a project of the Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative (2001).

References Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1994). Ethics in educational leadership programs: An expanding role. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Crow, G. M., & Mathews, J. L. (1998). Finding one’s way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414263) Daresh, J. C. (1992). Mentoring programs to support beginning school leaders. Colorado Springs: Colorado Association of School Boards. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED354582) Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1995). Mentoring in educational leadership development: What are the responsibilities of the proteges? Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED381874) Edmonson, S., & Fisher, A. (2002). Creating ethical administrators: A challenge for both professor and practitioner. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470756) Ertmer, P. A., Bai, H., Dong, C., Khalil, M., Park, S. H., & Wang, L. (2002). Online professional development: Building administrators’ capacity for technology leadership. Eugene, OR: National Education Computing Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED475930) Geer, C. (2002). Technology training for school administrators: A real world approach. TechTrends, 46(6), 56-59. Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2004). Integrating technology for meaningful learning (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Holland, L. (2000). A different divide: Preparing tech-savvy leaders. Leadership, 30(1), 8. Knezek, D. (2002). Preparing school administrators to be technology leaders. In Proceedings of the SITE 2002: Society for Information Technology and

316

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 497-498). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472231) MacNeil, A. J., & Delafield, D. P. (1998). Principal leadership for successful school technology implementation. In S. McNeil, J. D. Price, S. B. Mehall, B. Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual, 1998 (pp. 296-300). Norfolk, VA: AACE. Mehlinger, H. D., & Powers, S. M. (2002). Technology and teacher education: A guide for educators and policymakers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mississippi Department of Education. (n.d.). Mississippi technology standards for administrators. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from http://teacherexchange .mde.k12.ms.us/new/Announcements/mississippi_technology_standards_ administrators.htm Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-HER-616). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Paben, S. (2002). What’s in it for the busy leader?: Show administrators how technology works toward their vision. Journal of Staff Development, 23(1), 24-27. Restine, N. (1997). Learning and development in the context(s) of leadership preparation. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 117-130. Schmeltzer, T. (2001). Training administrators to be technology leaders. Technology and Learning, 21(11), 16-24. Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative. (2001). Technology standards for school administrators (TSSA). Retrieved October 6, 2004, from http://cnets.iste.org/tssa/pdf/tssa.pdf Testerman, J. K., & Hall, H. D. (2001). The electronic portfolio: A means of preparing leaders for application of technology in education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 29, 199-206. Chien Yu is an assistant professor in the Department of Instructional Systems, Leadership, and Workforce Development at Mississippi State University. Her research agenda includes distance education, technology integration, educational leadership, instructional design, and media development. Vance A. Durrington is an assistant professor in the Department of Instructional Systems, Leadership, and Workforce Development at Mississippi State University. His research agenda includes distance learning, computer-mediated communications in online instructional environments, and technology integration in the K-12 learning environment.

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Randall Library, UNC Wilmington on November 26, 2013

NASSP Bulletin

Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

317