The Use of Technology in K-12 Schools: Demystifying the Relationship between Technology Leadership and Technology Use DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Shiang-Yu Lin Graduate Program in Educational Studies The Ohio State University 2016 Dissertation Committee: Anika B. Anthony, PhD (Advisor) Ann O’Connell, Ed. Scott Sweetland, PhD Copyrighted by Shiang-Yu Lin 2016 Abstract There is a common belief that technology can help improve learning opportunities for all students (DeBell & Chapman, 2006; U. Department of Education, 2010).
government encourages the use of educational technology in K-12 schools through funding technological infrastructure and the development of educational technology applications, the state of technology use in K-12 schools remains vague. Technology leadership, an emerging concept in educational scholarship, has been described as a school characteristic associated with planning, purchasing, and a host of distributed management and leadership practices that lead to meaningful and effective utilization of technology in schools (S. Dexter, 2008; Hew & Brush, 2007). Although there is research establishing a positive relationship between school leadership and student outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Waters, Marzano, & Mcnulty, 2003), few studies have examine links between technology leadership and technology use by teachers and students.
This study was conducted to examine the current state of technology use and technology leadership in K-12 schools. It also examined the relationship between technology leadership and teachers’ technology use for mathematics instruction. Following Anderson and Dexter's (2005) claim that technology leadership functions as a necessary role in the effective use of K-12 school technology use, I hypothesized a ii positive relationship between technology leadership and technology use for teaching and learning. This dissertation begins with a review of relevant research and policy literature on ways in which school-level technology leadership and technology policies influence technology integration.
Next, it describes how data from the 2009 fast-response survey titled "Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in U. Public Schools" (FRSS95, 2009) has been analyzed. Descriptive statistics and factor analyses were conducted to characterize K-12 technology use and technology leadership. Next, MANCOVA and a follow-up regression analysis were utilized to examine whether a relationship between technology leadership and technology use existed, and to determine which attributes of technology leadership were significantly associated with technology use.
The target population for this study was U. public elementary and secondary teachers who were identified to participate in the 2009 fast-response survey titled "Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in U. The FRSS nationwide teacher survey sampled 3,159 public school teachers from 1563 public schools (NCES, 2010). The sample consisted of 1784 public elementary teachers, 1286 public secondary teachers, and 89 teachers in public combined schools.
Due to a large difference existing in the distribution of main teaching assignment between the participants in elementary schools and those in secondary schools, the elementary sample and the secondary sample were extracted from the total sample to explore the research questions regarding teachers’ and students’ educational technology use, teachers' perceptions of technology leadership, and the relationship between technology leadership and educational technology use in K-12 schools. iii In the FRSS95 dataset, technology use was characterized by teachers' general technology use for classroom preparation, instruction, and administrative tasks (general use), teachers’ administrative technology use for communicating with parents or students (Admin_comm), teachers’ administrative technology use for viewing or managing student data (Admin_data), and students' technology use during instructional time (student use). Teachers' perceptions of technology leadership were characterized by full- time technology personnel within districts (tech personnel), the quality of professional development for educational technology (PD quality) and equitable access to digital tools and resources (range of access). With these four indicators of technology use and three indicators of technology leadership, analyses examined the relationship between technology use and technology leadership in elementary schools and secondary schools.
As expected, PD quality and range of access had statistically significant positive relationships with all four technology use indicators in both samples. Furthermore, technology personnel was a statistically significant predictor across all types of technology use in the elementary sample, but not a significant one across Admin_comm, Admin_data, or student use in the secondary sample. The study findings also showed that the inclusion of technology leadership in the models resulted in a significant increase in the amount of variance explained above and beyond that accounted for by school enrollment size, community type, poverty, minority student population, main teaching assignment and years of teaching experience. In short, regardless of the type of technology use or teachers’ instructional grade level, technology leadership matters.
The amount of variance explained for general technology use was the greatest among the four technology use variables in elementary schools, as well as in iv secondary schools. The amount of variance explained for Admin_comm use was the least among the four technology use variables in elementary schools, as well as in secondary schools. With the exception of student use, the technology leadership indicators in elementary schools explained a greater amount of variance of technology use than that in secondary schools. Even with the limited number of indicators used in this analysis to measure technology leadership and technology use, the study findings confirmed and demonstrated the influence of teacher's perceptions of technology leadership on several meaningful technology-related uses by teachers and students.
Although the indicators of technology leadership in this study differed from those conceptual dimensions of technology leadership in Anderson and Dexter's study, both of these studies showed a strong positive relationship between technology leadership and technology use. This implies that technology leadership still serves a necessary role in the effective utilization of educational technology even if technology leadership is not depicted as principals’ behaviors. Moreover, the findings imply the importance of the quality of technology- related professional activities and the equitable access to educational technology. The study suggest future researchers and policy makers should regard technology leadership as a powerful organizational function that positively impacts teachers’ and students’ technology use.
v Dedicated to my husband, Ting-Hsiang Hung, my parents, Jing-Huei Lin and Hui-Chun Yang. vi Acknowledgments It is unbelievable to have such a PhD journey full of joy, challenges and happiness. It is the most valuable and unforgettable part in my life. I am really grateful to have so many people around to give me support.
All of you made my life so meaningful. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Anthony, for having me as her advisee. I have her valuable guidance on a variety of research aspects, including theory, methodology and presentation.
She gave me not only substantial guidance, but spiritual support as well, especially during times when I felt frustrated. Her attitude not only towards research, life and people has deeply inspired me. I really appreciate having been given the opportunity to work with her. Allen and Dr.
Sweetland for serving on my dissertation and candidacy committee. I appreciate the insights regarding methodology and quantitative research from Dr. O’Connell and those influential discussions during my dissertation committee meetings. Allen for her guidance in politics and educational leadership as well as her helpful suggestion in K-12 technology policies.
Sweetland for his valuable suggestion regarding student achievement and financial factors in my research. Warnick for his encouragement on polishing my final project in his class for potential publication. His encouragement led to my heightened confidence and decision to pursue this PhD. I would also like to thank Dr.
Lomax for sharing the knowledge on multivariate experimental design and structural vii equation modeling. Hoy for his inspiration in organizational and administrative theory in education. I am grateful that he introduced Dr. Anthony to be my advisor.
I also feel blessed because of all the assistance I received from my friends. Hui Jiang, who was my TA in the multivariate experimental design, helped me gain comprehensive understanding in quantitative research design, which became the major research method in my dissertation. Ian Wei, Dr. Jason Wu and Dr.(to-be) Wei-Ting Yen, who were my mentors at OSU, provided me with sage guidance and excellent suggestions in both coursework and research.
VanHorn, my favorite classmates, gave me substantial support in my candidacy exam. I also thank Deb, the director of office of student service, for her reliable assistance on dealing with and meeting the various requirements at school. In addition, I had a wonderful time working with folks in the Dennis Learning Center. We shared both professional knowledge and life experiences with one another.
Hansley, my supervisor and friend, shared knowledge of work and life in school and beyond. I appreciate the opportunity she gave me to work in the DLC. Leona, a doctor-to- be and also my friend, was my motivational partner for completing the journey of this PhD. Sung Jun Won, my officemate, discussed statistics questions and shared many funny stories with me.
I appreciate all the sweet wishes and gifts I received for my and my husband’s new-born baby from the DLC team, Leah, Marissa, Jessica, Cathleen, Jane, Lauren and Dr. I greatly appreciate the fact that I have a lot of good Taiwanese friends here in Columbus, our second home. We have shared many precious moments together, no viii matter if the times were good or bad, happy or sorrowful. From hot pot parties in the winter to Chinese New Year celebrations, from barbecues in the summer to a new, exciting football season, so many of my best memories were created here with these friends.
They will never, never be forgotten. They are my second family. Last but not the least; I would like to thank my family. I thank my parents for raising and supporting me all my life.
I could never pursue my dream without their endless love. I would also like to thank Howell Yang and Wisely Yang, my cousins and friends, for proofreading several of my papers, including this dissertation. I am grateful to have these two patient and diligent proofreaders. Ting-Hsiang, my beloved husband, he is my soul mate and life’s inspiration.
How lucky I have been to meet him, fall in love with him, marry him and have our adorable daughter, Olivia, with him here in Columbus. Without him, I would have never had such an amazing and unbelievable journey. Of course, this splendid path I walk continues onward. We are writing our story, with all the blessings and love I could ask for from this world.
ix Vita June 1996 .Taipei First Girls High School, Taipei City, Taiwan 2000. Foreign Languages and Literature, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan 2000 to 2001 .Intern Instructor and International & Aboriginal Students Afterschool Counseling Instructor, National Tainan Junior College of Nursing, Tainan City, Taiwan 2001 to 2005 .Homeroom Teacher and Administrator, Nan-Shan Private High School, New Taipei City, Taiwan 2005 to 2010 .Homeroom Teacher of Talented Mathematics and Science Class and A- Division English Instructor, New Taipei Municipal Ji-Sui Junior High School, New Taipei City, Taiwan x 2011 to 2012 .Staff Assistant, OSU Buckeye Village, The Ohio State University 2012. Educational Policy and Leadership, The Ohio State University 2013 to 2014 .Graduate Teaching Fellow, Walter E. Dennis Learning Center, The Ohio State University 2012 to 2015 .Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University 2015 to present.
Candidate, Educational Administration, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Educational Studies xi Table of Contents Abstract. x Fields of Study. xi Table of Contents. xii List of Tables.
xvii List of Figures. xx Chapter 1: Introduction. 3 K-12 Technology Policy at the Federal Level. 4 K-12 Technology Policy at the State Level.
11 Purpose of the Study. 12 Significance of the Study. 13 xii Research Questions. 15 Chapter 2: Review of Literature.
16 Why is Technology Leadership Important?. 17 The Roles of Technology Leaders in K-12 Education. 20 Principals / District-Level Administrators. 22 Technology Coaches / Technology Specialist / School Administrators.
33 Critique of the Literature .
