Advertisement

A Distributed Leadership Perspective on Information Technologies for Teaching and Learning

  • Richard Halverson
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

This chapter considers how distributed leadership can describe and explain the role of K-12 school leaders in supporting technologies for teaching and learning. Distributed leadership is uniquely suited to describe how schools lead for technological innovation. Spillane et al’s. (2004) model of distributed leadership emphasizes a task-focused approach to describe how multiple actors engage in leadership work. This chapter will consider the range of tasks that define school leadership for technology. This work recognizes the considerable range of tasks in which leaders currently engage to implement new technologies within schools. However, from another perspective, schools are situated in a much broader world of technologies such as social media, video gaming media distribution, and production which are redefining what counts as teaching and learning outside of schools. Because leaders are responsible for creating environments that best advance learning opportunities for all students, the chapter describes both what currently counts as a learning technology task for leadership as well as a consideration of which tasks are on the horizon for technology work in schools.

Keywords

Distributed leadership Instructional technology Digital media and learning Connected learning 

References

  1. Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: Its incidence and impact. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 49–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrego, J., & Pankake, A. (2010). PK-12 Virtual schools: the challenges and roles of school leaders. Educational Considerations, 37(2).  https://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.1150.
  3. Barron, B., Gomez, K., Pinkard, N., & Martin, C. (2015). The digital youth network: Cultivating new media citizenship in urban communities. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation (5th ed.). Alexandria: National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDE).Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. A., & Harvey, J. A. (2003). Distributed leadership: A review of literature. http://oro.open.ac.uk/8534/1/bennett-distributed-leadership-full.pdf
  7. Cassells, D., Gilleran, A., Morvan, C., & Scimeca, S. (2016). Growing digital citizens: Developing active citizenship through eTwinning. https://www.etwinning.net/eun-files/book2016/eTwinningBook_2016.pdf
  8. Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006, December). Disruptive innovation for social change. Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and the schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dagada, R., & Mungai, P. (2013, April). Learning management system implementation framework for higher education-case of university of the Witwatersrand. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 3(2), 151–154.Google Scholar
  11. Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). School leadership and management from a distributed perspective: A 2016 retrospective and prospective. Management in Education, 30(4), 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Education Week. (2014, October 20). Personalized learning: A working definition. Accessed at http://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/personalized-learning-special-report-2014/a-working-definition.html
  13. Espelage, D. L., Rao, M. A., & Craven, R. G. (2012). Theories of cyberbullying. In S. Bauman, D. Cross, & J. Walker (Eds.), Principles of cyberbullying research: definitions, measures, and methodology (pp. 49–67). New York: Routledge. European Commission.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203084601
  14. European Commission. (2017). Opening up education through new technologies. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/education-technology_en
  15. Fletcher, G. H. (2009). A matter of principals. T.H.E. Journal, 36(5), 22–28. 2009.Google Scholar
  16. Graves, K. E., & Bowers, A. J. (2017). Toward a typology of technology-using teachers in the “New Digital Divide”: A Latent Class Analysis (LCA) of the NCES teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. Public Schools, 2009 (FRSS 95). Teachers College Record.Google Scholar
  17. Halverson, E. R. (2012). Participatory media spaces: A design perspective on learning with media and technology in the 21st century. In C. Steinkuehler, K. Squire, & S. Barab (Eds.), Games, learning, & society: Learning and meaning in a digital age (pp. 244–270). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halverson, R., & Kelley, C. E. (2017). Mapping leadership: The tasks that matter in school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Halverson, R., & Shapiro, B. (2013). Technologies for education and technologies for learning. In D. Anagnostopolous, S. Rutledge, & R. Jacobsen (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability (pp. 163–180). Cambridge: Harvard Press.Google Scholar
  20. Halverson, R., Kallio, J., Hackett, S., & Halverson, E. (2016). Participatory culture as a model for how new media technologies can change public schools (WCER Working Paper No. 2016-7). Retrieved from University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research website: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/working-papers/
  21. Herold, B. (2014, June 9) Technology tools for managing schools face stagnant market. Education Week, 33(35).Google Scholar
  22. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J., & Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.Google Scholar
  24. Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robison, A. (2007). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning White Paper Series. Retrieved from http://newmedialiteracies.org/files/ working/NMLWhitePaper.pdf
  25. Johnson, S. (2011). Where good ideas come from. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  26. Means, B., Padilla, C., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#edtech
  27. Peck, C., Cuban, L., & Kirkpatrick, K. (2002). Techno-promoter dreams, student realities. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 472–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348. 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pugliese, L. (2016). Adaptive learning systems: Surviving the storm. EDUCause Review. http://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/10/adaptive-learning-systems-surviving-the-storm
  30. Sheridan, K., Halverson, E., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Singapore Ministry of Education. (2014). ICT masterplans in the Singapore education system. http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/images/singapore.pdf
  32. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed Leadership. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  34. Tan, S.-C. (2010). School technology leadership: Lessons from empirical research. Proceedings from the 2010 Annual ACSILITE Conference. Sydney. http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/sydney10/procs/Seng_chee_tan-full.pdf
  35. Turner, H. J. (2014). Framing innovation: The role of distributed leadership in gaining acceptance of large-scale technology initiatives. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/2345/3833
  36. U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update, Washington, DC. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
  37. UNESCO IICBA. (2016) Teaching policies and learning outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa issues and options. Addis Ababa. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002465/246501e.pdf
  38. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge – A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 109–121.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zorfass, J., & Rivero, K. (2005). Collaboration is key: How a community of practice promotes technology integration. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(3), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Sara Dexter
    • 1
  1. 1.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations