Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Whither thee, Educational Technology? Suggesting a Critical Expansion of Our Epistemology for Emerging Leaders

  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is possible that some outdated ideas about ‘management’ in our field are constraining our preparation of new educational technologists to lead education organizations in the Knowledge Age? This paper takes an interdisciplinary stance to examine educational administration, education technology and complexivist thinking about leadership in our field. It begins with a critical analysis using one of six educational leadership/administration knowledge “contexts” - leadership vs. management - to unpack our field’s existing position on the topic (English, 2011). For parsimony, the other five contexts are mentioned briefly throughout this paper: (2) organizing and institutions and (3) Policy and governance. (4) Finance and Human Resources; (5) Change and Innovation and (6) Learning and technology. Other articles in this Special Edition of Tech Trends testify that outstanding, effective leadership exists in small, medium and large organizations every day around the world because of educational technologists doing amazing work in various contexts. This article suggests a frame for expanding our field’s epistemology for in-program and emerging educational technologists to build their capability to lead organizations that learn in a Knowledge Age.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2010). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80–97. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890/1663

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Plucker, J. (2002). Smart people or smart context? Cognition, ability and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 117, 288–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, T., Bell, L., & Middlewood, D. (Eds.). (2010). The principles of educational leadership and management. London: Sage Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capra, F. (1997). The web of life. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2011). Teacher, superintendent, scholar: The gift of multiple careers. Leaders in Educational Studies, (3). 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B., Sumara, D., & D ‘Amour, L. (2012). Understanding school districts as learning systems: Some lessons from three cases of complex transformation. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 373–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiSessa, A.A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 77–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, J.A., Smaldino, S., & Pearson, R. (2007). Managing. In Alan Januszewski and Michel Molenda (Eds), Educational Technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 175–191). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum .

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (1996). The leader of the future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, F. W. (Ed.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of educational leadership: Advances in Theory, Research, and Practice. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed Leadership. In K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership Administration, Part 2. (pp. 653–697). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hallinger, P. (2002) (Ed.). Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. London, UK: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. (2008). Distributed school leadership. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazy, J. K. (2011). Parsing the ‘influential increment’ in the language of complexity: uncovering systemic mechanisms of leadership influence. Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management, 1, (2), 116–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management: Where does the field stand today? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33, 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humby, R. (2009). Leading decision making and planning for online HRD in a national health and wellness NGO. Unpublished Masters Thesis Dissertation. University of Calgary.

  • Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2007). Educational Technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum .

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasparov, G. (2007). How life imitates chess. New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C, Lee, J., Merrill, D., Spector J., & van Merrienboer, J. (2007). Foundations for the future. In J. Spector, D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer and Driscoll, P (Eds.), Handbook of research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 807–815). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowch, E. (2007). Alberta shared services/ thin client innovation. System leadership study #2. Alberta Education Publication. Edmonton, Alberta: Author. 212 pages.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowch, E. (2009). New capabilities for cyber charter school leadership: An emerging imperative for integrating Educational Technology and Educational Leadership knowledge. Tech Trends Special Edition, 53 (1), 40–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowch, E. (2013 in press). Conceptualizing the essential qualities of complex adaptive leadership: Networks that organize. International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management, 3, 4, 114–132. Cambridge, MA: Inderscience Publishers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowch, E. G. (2003). Policy networks and policy communities in three western Canadian universities and two provinces: A Neo-Institutional approach to a paninstitutional issue. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

  • Kowch, E. G. (2008, November). Characteristics of high capacity, semi-autonomous teams – are you ready for this? Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of Education Communications and Technology Annual Conference, Orlando, FL.

  • Kowch, E., & Gereluk, D. (2013a). Conceptualizing education organizations as innovation ecologies: A case study of a state-wide charter school leader network. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Education Research, San Francisco, CA.

  • Kowch, E.G. (2013). Towards leading diverse, adaptable and “smarter” organizations that learn. In J. Lewis, A. Green & D. Surry (Eds.), Technology as a tool for diversity leadership: Implementation and future implications (pp. 1–34). New York: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, F. (2009). Designer decision-making for newcomer orientation training and onboarding programs. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Calgary.

  • Levin, B. (2010). How to change 5000 schools: A practical approach for leading change at every level. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning about system renewal. Educational Management and Leadership, 36, 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19, 2 (Spring), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayson, N. P. (2011). Front-end instructional design practices for training within three large telecommunications organizations. (Order No. MR75444, University of Calgary (Canada)). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 188. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/login? url= http://search.proquest.com/docview/878555 466?accountid = 9838. (prod.academic_MSTAR_878555466).

  • McKelvey, B., & Lichtenstein, B. (2007). Leadership in the four stages of emergence. In J. Hazy, J. Goldstein and B. Lichtenstein (Eds.) Complex Systems Leadership Theory. Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, D. M. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 3. 43–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ni, Xaiopeng & Branch, R. M. (2007). In J. Spector, D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer and Driscoll, P (Eds.), Handbook of research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 29–32). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2010). The policy debate about technology in education: Are the New Millennium Learners Making the Grade? Technology Use and Educational Performance in PISA 2006, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264076044-4-en

  • Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. & Duffy, F. M. (2007). Trends and issues in P–12 educational change. in R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds) In Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 2nd ed., pp. 209–220. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M., & Anderson, T. M. (Eds.). (2000). Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction and technology: Understanding complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. (2009). Complexity and organizational reality: Uncertainty and the need to rethink management after the collapse of investment capitalism. London, UK: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Surry, D., Stefurak, J., & Kowch, E. (2011). Technology in Higher Education: Asking the right questions. In D. Surry, R. Gray Jr., & J. Stefurak (Eds.), Technology Integration in Higher Education: Social and Organizational Aspects (pp. 1–12). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-147-8.ch001

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson-Klein, J. (2009). Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bein article 2007 complexity leadership theory.

  • van Merriënboer, J. & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, W. (2013). Networked Decision Making across a Newfoundland School District. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Calgary.

  • Willower, D. J. & Forsythe, B. (1999). A brief history of scholarship on educational administration. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 1–25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences, University of Calgary Faculty of Education, Education Tower, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1NZ, Canada

    Eugene G. Kowch (Ph.D.)

Authors
  1. Eugene G. Kowch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eugene G. Kowch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kowch, E.G. Whither thee, Educational Technology? Suggesting a Critical Expansion of Our Epistemology for Emerging Leaders. TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS 57, 25–34 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0688-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0688-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation