Advertisement

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

  • Scott McLeod
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (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.

Keywords

Leadership Technology integration IT Administrators 

References

  1. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2015a). Future ready framework. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Available at http://dashboard.futurereadyschools.org/framework.Google Scholar
  2. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2015b). Future ready district assessment. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Available at https://dashboard.futurereadyschools.org.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Apple. (2008). Apple classrooms of tomorrow. Cupertino: Apple.Google Scholar
  6. Arizona K12 Center. (2010). Technology integration matrix. Flagstaff: Arizona K12 Center.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. BrightBytes. (2010). Clarity technology and learning surveys. San Francisco: BrightBytes.Google Scholar
  9. CANLEAD. (2017). School technology leadership assessment. Available at http://learn.canlead.net.
  10. Churches, A. (2010). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. Albany: A. Churches. Available at http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom's+Digital+Taxonomy.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (2007). Technology integration matrix. Tampa: Florida Center for Instructional Technology.Google Scholar
  16. Hanover Research. (2013). Technology integration frameworks for the K-12 curriculum. Washington, DC: Hanover Research.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014). A planning cycle for integrating digital technology into literacy instruction. Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). Essential conditions. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  23. International Society for Technology in Education. (2009). Standards for administrators. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  24. International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). Standards for coaches. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  25. International Society for Technology in Education. (2014). Lead and transform diagnostic tool. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  26. International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Standards for students. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  27. International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). Standards for teachers. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  28. Kimmons, R. (2016). Technology integration. Provo: R. Kimmons. Available at https://k12techintegration.pressbooks.com.Google Scholar
  29. Lemke, C. (2002). enGauge 21st century skills: Digital literacies for a digital age. Naperville: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  30. LoTi Connection. (2016). LoTi framework. Carlsbad: LoTi Connection. Available at https://www.loticonnection.com/loti-framework.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McLeod, S., & Graber, J. (2018). 4 shifts protocol. Denver, CO: University of Colorado Denver. Available at http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/resources/4-shifts-protocol.
  33. McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 216–240.Google Scholar
  34. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium. (1997). Learning with technology profile tool. Naperville: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  37. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Framework for 21st century learning. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Learning.Google Scholar
  38. Porter, B. (2001). Evaluating student digital projects: Training and resource tools for using student scoring guides. Denver: B. Porter.Google Scholar
  39. Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education in the state of Maine. Available at http://hippasus.com/blog/archives/18.
  40. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Software and Information Industry Association. (2008). Vision K-20 survey. Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers, version 2.0. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Section editors and affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations