Building District Capacity for Effective Technology Integration in K-12

Framework

The methodology for this research report was a qualitative study conducted through action research. The researcher acts as a change agent and participants and stakeholders become a part of the process working collaboratively through inquiry with a voice in identifying challenges and implement change.

Methods

Through action research, the data was collected at various points of the study.
The following steps defined the data collection plan:
1. Principal Interviews.
2. ITDL Coach Focus Group.
3. Field Notes.
4. Final Showcase.
5. Principal Interviews.
6. ITDL Coach Interviews.
7. District Stakeholder Interviews.
8. District Leadership Focus Group.
9. Educator Survey

Position Description
7 Principals ● 6-21 years of experience as a principal
● 5 elementary principals
● 2 secondary principals
● 3 schools in Turnaround

7 ITDL Coaches
● 0-8 years of experience as ITDL coach
● All former teachers

5 District Leaders
● 1-16 years of experience in district leadership
● Superintendent, IT Officer, 3 ISL managers

113 Educators
● Participants from all 7 schools
● 36.3% secondary educators
● 63.7% elementary educators

There was inclusion criteria for each group as detailed in the dissertation.

Results

Finding 1: Power of the PLC
The first major finding is that a technology integration leadership PLC can be a powerful lever for principal ownership, self-efficacy, and applying skills for leading digital age learning.

Finding 2: ITDL Involvement in PLC Mobilized New Action and Support
The involvement of the staff of the District Office of Instructional Technology and
Digital Learning mobilized new actions and support, and solidified the commitment of the district to meaningful technology integration. The relationships and trust were strengthened between the principals and ITDL coaches, and the relationships between ITDL coaches and school-based teacher leaders, which led to ITDL offering new and innovative support, and
principals accessing district support in new and deeper ways.

Finding 3: Engagement in PLC led to Teacher Support
Principals’ active engagement in the PLC resulted in greater support to teachers. Through the logic model, principals identified supports and then activated them. Early on, one principal suggested that she wanted to do a book study on distance learning with her staff, so the ITDL manager purchased the book for all of the principals and the ITDL staff so that PLC could have some common language. The ITDL staff conducted their own internal book study and several
principals also conducted book studies with their schools. Additional input or support for teachers that principals included in their plans were staff surveys, collaboration and delivery of professional development, creation of tools and resources for teachers, co-planning, 1:1 coaching, teacher collaboration, PLCs with peers and model teachers, and peer modeling. The support to teachers that has been triangulated from the data fell into the following categories:
vision, expectations, emotional support by principal, formal and informal professional development and coaching by teacher leaders, and structures for teacher-to-teacher collaboration.

Finding 4: Application of ISTE Leadership Standards
Principal involvement in the PLC resulted in new learning, behaviors, and application and improvement of all of the ISTE leadership standards but most significantly in the following:
● Visionary Planner: Leaders engage others in establishing a vision, strategic plan, and
ongoing evaluation cycle for transforming learning with technology.
130
● Empowered Leader: Leaders create a culture where teachers and learners are
empowered to use technology in innovative ways to enrich teaching and learning.
● Connected Learner: Leaders model and promote continuous professional learning for
themselves and others.

Importance

This study highlighted the impact of and possibility of district technology offices supporting school leaders to be technology integration leaders in their schools. Building upon prior research, other institutions can use this model in their organizations to improve leadership practice around technology to transform teaching and learning.

References

References
Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational action
research, 1(1), 7-24.
Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., & Siraj, S. (2012). Factors Affecting the
Transformational Leadership Role of Principals in Implementing ICT in Schools. Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 11(4), 164–176.
Alghamdi, A., & Prestridge, S. (2015). Alignment between principal and teacher beliefs about
technology use. Australian Educational Computing, 30(1).
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. L. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical
investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-
82.
Bailey, G. D., & Lumley, D. (1994). Technology staff development programs: A leadership
sourcebook for school administrators. Scholastic.
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member Checking: A Tool to
Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation? Qualitative Health Research,
26(13), 1802-1811.
Bobbera, R. L. (2013). Developing the principal's capacity to lead technology integration within
the school: An action research study (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).
Brown, B. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning environment. In Richey, R. C. (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of terminology for educational communications and technology (pp. 304–
305), Springer.
Brown, B., Jacobsen, M. (2016). Principals’ technology leadership. Journal of School
Leadership, 26, 811–836.
143
Brown, S. (2020). Pushing against hegemonic practices: emergent bilinguals respond to
children’s literature. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(2),
242–255. https://doi-org.ezproxy.neu.edu/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735742
Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research?.
Bushweller, K. (1996). How mighty is your wizard? The American School Board Journal,
183(5), a14-a16.
Byrom, E., Bingham, M. (2001). Factors influencing the effective use of technology for teaching
and learning: Lessons learned from the SIER-TEC intensive site schools. Durham, NC:
Southeast Initiative Regional Technology Regional Consortium.
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate Website: https://www.cpedinitiative.org
Castillo, F. A., & Hallinger, P. (2018). Systematic review of research on educational leadership
and management in Latin America, 1991–2017. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership, 46(2), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217745882
CETL Certification. CoSN. (n.d.). https://www.cosn.org/certification
Chang, I. H. (2012). The effect of principals’ technological leadership on teachers’ technological
literacy and teaching effectiveness in Taiwanese elementary schools. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 328–340.
Christensen, J. (2013). Breaking the Mold: An Educational Perspective on Diffusion of
Innovation/Change Agents and Education.
Christensen, R., Eichhorn, K., Prestridge, S., Petko, D., Sligte, H., Baker, R., … Knezek, G.
(2018). Supporting learning leaders for the effective integration of technology into
schools. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 457–472.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9385-9
144
Christensen, R., Eichhorn, K., Prestridge, S., Petko, D., Sligte, H., Baker, R., … Knezek, G.
(2018). Supporting learning leaders for the effective integration of technology into
schools. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 457–472.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9385-9
Chua, Y. P., & Chua, Y. P. (2017). Developing a grounded model for educational technology
leadership practices. Egitim ve Bilim, 42(189).
Costello, G. J., Conboy, K., & Donnellan, B. (2015). Reflections on "reflection" in Action
Research. In 15th European Academy of Management Conference (EURAM).
Cox, E. M. (2016). Profile of a digital superintendent (Order No. 10105976). Available from
ProQuest One Academic; Social Science Premium Collection. (1790817879).
Daresh, J. (2006). Technology and School Leaders: Overdue or Overload? Journal of Thought,
41(1), 27-39.
Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support
at-risk students' learning. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). Review of research.
School leadership study. Developing successful principals. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
Educational Leadership Institute.
Dawson, C. & Rakes, G. (2003) The Influence of Principals’ Technology Training on the
Integration of Technology into Schools, Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 36:1, 29-49, https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2003.10782401
145
Devolder, A., Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Identifying multiple roles of
ICT coordinators. Computers & Education, 55, 1651–1655.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.007
Dexter, S. & Richardson, J. (2020) What does technology integration research tell us about the
leadership of technology?, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52:1, 17-36,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1668316
Dexter, S., Seashore Louis, K., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). The roles and practices of specialists
in teamed instructional leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 19(4), 445–465.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460901900403
Efeoğlu, C. & Çoruk, A. (2019). The relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards
educational technologies and school administrators’ technology leadership roles. The
International Journal of Human and Behavioral Science, 5(2), 73-83.
https://doi.org/10.19148/ijhbs.651095
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational leadership, 50, 12-
12.
Fullan, M. (2016). Amplify Change with Professional Capital. Journal of Staff Development,
37(1), 44–56.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence Making. School Administrator, 73(6), 30–34.
Fullan, M., Hord, S.M., & von Frank, V. (2015). Reach the highest standard in professional
learning: Implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Excerpted with permission.
Future Ready Schools. (2015). Future Ready Framework.
https://futureready.org/ourwork/future-ready-frameworks
146
Frazier, M. (2012). The technology coordinator’s handbook (2nd ed.). International Society for
Technology in Education.
Frey, B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation
(Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139
García Torres, D. (2019). Distributed leadership, professional collaboration, and teachers' job
satisfaction in U.S. schools. Teaching & Teacher Education, 79, 111-123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.001
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures.
Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness
of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and
Science, 1(2), 175-191.
Google (2020). Teach From Home. https://teachfromhome.google
Gosmire, D., Grady, M. L. (2007). A bumpy road: Principal as technology leader. Principal
Leadership, 7, 16–21.
Gregory M. Francom (2020) Barriers to technology integration: A time-series survey study,
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52:1, 1-16,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1679055
Harper, B. (2018). Technology and Teacher-Student Interactions: A Review of Empirical
Research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(3), 214–225.
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2017). “TPACK stories:” Schools and school districts repurposing
a theoretical construct for technology-related professional development. Journal of
147
Research on Technology in Education, 49(1–2), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1295408
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford (n.d.). d. school Starter Kit.
https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/dschool-starter-kit
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Routledge.
Hatlevik, O. E., & Arnseth, H. C. (2012). ICT, teaching and leadership: How do teachers
experience the importance of ICT-supportive school leaders?. Nordic Journal of Digital
Literacy, 7(01), 55-69.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation: a guide for students and
faculty. Sage publications.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–
569. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911
Huang, R.H., Liu, D.J., Tlili, A., Yang, J.F., Wang, H.H., et al., (2020). Handbook on
Facilitating Flexible Learning During Educational Disruption: The Chinese Experience in
Maintaining Undisrupted Learning in COVID-19 Outbreak. Beijing: Smart Learning
Institute of Beijing Normal University.
148
Hutchison, A. C., & Woodward, L. (2018). Examining the technology integration planning cycle
model of professional development to support teachers’ instructional practices. Teachers
College Record, 120(10), 1-44.
International Society for Technology in Education. Essential Conditions.
https://www.iste.org/standards/essential-conditions
International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE Standards for Educators.
https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators
International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE Standards for Students.
https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students
International Society for Technology in Education. (2018). ISTE Standards for Education
Leaders. https://www.iste.org/standards/for-education-leaders
Irby, B., Brown, G. H., LaraAiecio, R., & Jackson, S. A. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of
educational theories. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Jacobs, J., Gordon, S.P., & Solis, R. (2016). Critical issues in teacher leadership. Journal of
School Leadership, 26(3), 374-406. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461602600301
Jenlink, P. M. (2005). Editorial: On bricolage and the intellectual work of the scholarpractitioner. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 3 (1), 3-12.
Jewell, M. (1999). The art and craft of technology leadership. Learning and Leading with
Technology, 26(4), 46-47.
Jones, W. M., & Dexter, S. (2014). How teachers learn: The roles of formal, informal, and
independent learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 367–
384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9337-6
149
Kellogg, W. K. (2004). Logic model development guide. Michigan: WK Kellogg Foundation.
https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resources/2004/01/logic-model-developmentguide
Knoster, T. (1991). Factors in managing complex change. Material presentation at TASH
conference, Washington D.C. The Association for People with Severe Disabilities.
Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and
communities of practice. Education Tech Research Development, 58(1), 175-190.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s/11423-008-9095-4
Lane, B., Unger, C., & Stein, L. (2016). 2016 Massachusetts turnaround practices field guide: A
research-based guide designed to support district and school leaders engaged in school
turnaround efforts. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education. http://www.doe.mass.edu/turnaround/howitworks/turnaroundpractices-field-guide.pdf
Leitch, R. & Day, C. (2000). Action Research and Reflective Practice: Towards a holistic view.
Educational Action Research, 8(1), 179-193.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790000200108
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What do we already know about successful school
leadership?. AERA division a task force on developing research in educational
leadership, 1-60.
Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2013). Using Systems Thinking to Leverage Technology for School
Improvement: Lessons Learned from Award-Winning Secondary Schools/Districts.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(1), 29–51.
Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.
150
Lippitt, M., (1987), The Managing Complex Change Model. Copyright, 1987, by Dr. Mary
Lippitt, Founder and President of Enterprise Management, Ltd
Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration
in K-12 classrooms: A multilevel path analysis model. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 65(4), 795–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9487-9
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to
improved student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
Machado, L. J., Chung, C. J. (2015). Integrating technology: The principals’ role and effect.
International Education Studies, 8(5), 43-53.
Macneill, N., Cavanagh, R. F., & Silcox, S. (2005). Pedagogic leadership: Refocusing on
learning and teaching. IEJLL: International Electronic Journal for Leadership in
Learning, 9(2). n2.
Marcovitz, D. M. (1998). Supporting Technology in Schools: The Roles of Computer
Coordinators.
Margolis, J., & Doring, A. (2012). The fundamental dilemma of teacher leader-facilitated
professional development: Do as I (kind of) say, not as I (sort of) do. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(5), 859-882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12452563
Mark David Webster. (2017). Philosophy of Technology Assumptions in Educational
Technology Leadership. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 25-36.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works. Solution Tree.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2020) COVID-19: Learn
from Home. http://www.doe.mass.edu/covid19/learn-at-home.html
151
McGrath, P. M., Jr. (2017). Investigating IT leadership models in schools. Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. ProQuest Information &
Learning.
McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. (2011). The Dearth of Technology Leadership Coverage. Journal
of School Leadership., 21(2), 216.
McLeod, S., Bathon, J. M., & Richardson, J. W. (2011). Studies of Technology Tool Usage Are
Not Enough: A Response to the Articles in This Special Issue. Journal of Research on
Leadership Education, 6(5), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/194277511100600512
McLeod, S., Richardson, J. W., Sauers, N. J. (2015). Leading technology-rich school districts:
Advice from tech-savvy administrators. Journal of Research on Leadership Education,
10, 104-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115584013
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Sage publications.
Moursund, D. G. (1992). The technology coordinator. International Society for Technology in
Education.
Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers &
Education, 42(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00067-8
National Association of Secondary, School Principals. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher
leadership: Examining differences by experience, degree, and position. Reston, Va.]:
Nelson, M. J., Voithofer, R., & Cheng, S. L. (2019). Mediating factors that influence the
technology integration practices of teacher educators. Computers & Education, 128, 330-
344.
152
Nicholson, J., Capitelli, S., Richert, A. E., Bauer, A., & Bonetti, S. (2016). The Affordances of
Using a Teacher Leadership Network to Support Leadership Development: Creating
Collaborative Thinking Spaces to Strengthen Teachers' Skills in Facilitating Productive
Evidence-Informed Conversations. Teacher Education Quarterly, 43(1), 29-50.
Polney, C. L. (2018). Digital leadership: An examination between leadership styles and
technology skills and practices of central office administrators (Doctoral dissertation, St.
John's University (New York), School of Education and Human Services).
Prasojo, L. D., Habibi, A., Yaakob, M. F. M., Mukminin, A., Haswindy, S., & Sofwan, M.
(2019). An Explanatory Sequential Study on Indonesian Principals' Perceptions on ICT
Integration Barriers. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17(1), 1-10.
Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education [Blogpost].
http://hippasus.com/resources/tte
Reich, J., Buttimer, C. J., Fang, A., Hillaire, G., Hirsch, K., Larke, L., … Slama, R. (2020, April
2). Remote Learning Guidance From State Education Agencies During the COVID-19
Pandemic: A First Look. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/437e2
Richardson, J. W., & Sterrett, W. L. (2018). District Technology Leadership Then and Now: A
Comparative Study of District Technology Leadership From 2001 to 2014. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 589–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18769046
Roulston, K., & Shelton, S. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing Bias in Teaching Qualitative Research
Methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(4), 332–342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563803
Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding School Improvement with Action Research: ASCD. Ascd.
Schein, E.H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational Culture and Leadership 5th ed.
153
Schrum, L., & Levin, B. B. (2016). Educational technologies and twenty-first century leadership
for learning. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(1), 17–39. https://doiorg.ezproxy.neu.edu/10.1080/13603124.2015.1096078
Shattuck, G. (2010). Understanding school leaders’ role in teachers’ adoption of technology
integration classroom practices. In Orey, M., Jones, S. A., Branch, R. M. (Eds.),
Educational media and technology yearbook 35 (pp. 7–28). Springer.
Shenton, Andrew. (2004). Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research
Projects. Education for Information. 22. 63-75. https://www.doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-
22201
Short, D.C. & Shindell, T.J. (2009). Defining HRD scholar-practitioners. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 11 (7), 472-485.
Shuldman, M. (2004). Superintendent conceptions of institutional conditions that impact teacher
technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 319–343.
Smith, A. R. (2006). The nature of K–12 technology director's work in Wisconsin public schools:
Roles and influencing factors. The University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Smith, B. (2019). Leadership for “The All of It:” Formalizing Teacher-Leader Networks.
Teachers College Record, 121(3), 1-44.
Sorensen, B. J., Shepherd, C. E., Range, B. G. (2013). Implications for educational leaders as
they consider technology development. Planning & Changing, 44, 73–86.
South, Joseph, and Katrina Stevens. “Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017
National Education Technology Plan Update.” US Department of Education, Office of
Educational Technology, Jan. 2017.
154
Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration
challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 37(3), 285–311.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2005.10782438
Stein, K. C., Macaluso, M., & Stanulis, R. N. (2016). The Interplay between Principal
Leadership and Teacher Leader Efficacy., 26(6), 1002–1032.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461602600605
Stringer, E. (2014). Action research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Sugar, W., Hollomon, H. (2009). Technology leaders wanted: Acknowledging the leadership
role of a technology coordinator. TechTrends, 53, 66–75.
Taylor, T. F. (2019). Self-Directed Learning and Technology Adoption by Principals.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/6489
Thannimalai, R., & Raman, A. (2018). The Influence of Principals' Technology Leadership and
Professional Development on Teachers' Technology Integration in Secondary Schools.
Malaysian Journal of learning and Instruction, 15(1), 203-228.
Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock, 1970. Sydney. Pan.
Tondeur, J., Krug, D., Bill, M., Smulders, M., & Zhu, C. (2015). Integrating ICT in Kenyan
secondary schools: An exploratory case study of a professional development programme.
Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 24(5), 565–584.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1091786
Trust, T. (2016). New model of teacher learning in an online network. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 48(4), 290–305.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1215169
155
Unger, C. (n.d.). The Need for Revolutionary Networks.
https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/08/the-need-for-revolutionary-networks/
U.S. Department of Education (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education (2017
national education technology plan update). Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational
Technology. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
van Niekerk, M., & Blignaut, S. (2014). A framework for information and communication
technology integration in schools through teacher professional development. Africa
Education Review, 11(2), 236–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2014.927159
van Thiel, L. (2018). Professional learning design framework: Supporting technology integration
in Alberta. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.1989
Vanderlinde, R., Van Braak, J., Hermans, R. (2009). Educational technology on a turning point:
Curriculum implementation in Flanders and challenges for schools. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 57, 573–584.
Webster, M. D. (2017). Philosophy of technology assumptions in educational technology
leadership. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 25-36.
Whitehead, B., Jensen, D., Devon F.N., Boschee, F. (2013). Planning for Technology: A Guide
for School Administrators, Technology Coordinators, and Curriculum Leaders (2nd ed.).
Corwin Press.
World Economic Forum. (2020). Jobs of Tomorrow Mapping Opportunity in the New Economy.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Jobs_of_Tomorrow_2020.pdf
156
Yurttav, H. (2020). Modelling Technology Integration of Teachers: The Role of School Climate
and Leadership (Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University).
http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12625388/index.pdf