Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education pp 535–542Cite as

Technology Integration, Leadership, and Organizational Support Frameworks for Instructional Improvement with Information Technology

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

Abstract

Leaders for IT can use integration, leadership, and organizational support frameworks to guide their planning or assess current conditions. This chapter introduces a number of useful frameworks for leading IT, provides a rationale for their use, and suggests how to put them into practice.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   799.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alliance for Excellent Education. (2015a). Future ready framework. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Available at http://dashboard.futurereadyschools.org/framework.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alliance for Excellent Education. (2015b). Future ready district assessment. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Available at https://dashboard.futurereadyschools.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anandan, T., Cederquist, H., & McLeod, S. (2005). Principals technology leadership assessment. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Available at http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/resources/ptla.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apple. (2008). Apple classrooms of tomorrow. Cupertino: Apple.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arizona K12 Center. (2010). Technology integration matrix. Flagstaff: Arizona K12 Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York/Toronto: Longmans, Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • BrightBytes. (2010). Clarity technology and learning surveys. San Francisco: BrightBytes.

    Google Scholar 

  • CANLEAD. (2017). School technology leadership assessment. Available at http://learn.canlead.net.

  • Churches, A. (2010). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. Albany: A. Churches. Available at http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom's+Digital+Taxonomy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter, S. (2002). eTIPS-educational technology integration and implementation principles. In P. Rodgers (Ed.), Designing instruction for technology-enhanced learning (pp. 56–70). New York: Idea Group Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dexter, S. (2005). Principles to guide the integration and implementation of educational technology. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (pp. 1250–1255). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter, S. L., Riedel, E., & Scharber, C. (2008). ETIPS: Using cases with virtual schools to prepare for, extend, and deepen preservice teachers’ field experiences. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(3), 77–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter, S., Richardson, J. W., & Nash, J. B. (2016). Leadership for technology use, integration, and innovation: A review of the empirical research and implications for leadership preparation. In M. Young & G. Crow (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (2007). Technology integration matrix. Tampa: Florida Center for Instructional Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanover Research. (2013). Technology integration frameworks for the K-12 curriculum. Washington, DC: Hanover Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99–108). Waynesville, NC: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2015). Developing TPACK with learning activity types. In M. Hofer, L. Bell, & G. Bull (Eds.), Practitioner’s guide to technology pedagogy and content knowledge (TPACK): Rich media cases of teacher knowledge (pp. 7-1–7-14). Williamsburg, VA: W&M Publish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT – Replacement, amplification, and transformation – Framework. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education international conference 2006 (pp. 1616–1620). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014). A planning cycle for integrating digital technology into literacy instruction. Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). Essential conditions. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education. (2009). Standards for administrators. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). Standards for coaches. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education. (2014). Lead and transform diagnostic tool. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Standards for students. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). Standards for teachers. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmons, R. (2016). Technology integration. Provo: R. Kimmons. Available at https://k12techintegration.pressbooks.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, C. (2002). enGauge 21st century skills: Digital literacies for a digital age. Naperville: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • LoTi Connection. (2016). LoTi framework. Carlsbad: LoTi Connection. Available at https://www.loticonnection.com/loti-framework.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, S. (2015). Facilitating administrators’ instructional leadership through the use of a technology integration discussion protocol. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10(3), 227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, S., & Graber, J. (2018). 4 shifts protocol. Denver, CO: University of Colorado Denver. Available at http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/resources/4-shifts-protocol.

  • McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 216–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use, online supplement. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(4), 40–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium. (1997). Learning with technology profile tool. Naperville: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Framework for 21st century learning. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, B. (2001). Evaluating student digital projects: Training and resource tools for using student scoring guides. Denver: B. Porter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education in the state of Maine. Available at http://hippasus.com/blog/archives/18.

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Software and Information Industry Association. (2008). Vision K-20 survey. Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, P. D., & Dexter, S. L. (2011). ETIPS leadership cases: An innovative tool for developing administrative decision making. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 6(5), 250–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2014). Future ready. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. Available at https://tech.ed.gov/futureready.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers, version 2.0. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA

    Scott McLeod

Authors
  1. Scott McLeod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott McLeod .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Joke Voogt

  2. University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    Gerald Knezek

  3. University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    Rhonda Christensen

  4. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Kwok-Wing Lai

Section Editor information

  1. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

    Sara Dexter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

McLeod, S. (2018). Technology Integration, Leadership, and Organizational Support Frameworks for Instructional Improvement with Information Technology. In: Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Lai, KW. (eds) Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education . Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9_36

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation