University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of leadership in the implementation of technology in mathematics at the community college

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of leadership in the implementation of technology in mathematics at the community college

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY
IN MATHEMATICS AT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

by

Michelle M. Ingram

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Michelle M. Ingram
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my chair, Dr Patricia Burch for her continued support. I
would like to thank my committee members, Drs Sylvia Rousseau and Guilbert
Hentschke for their guidance and excellent suggestions. I would like to thank my writing
advisor, Dr Linda Fischer for her ongoing assistance and positive words of
encouragement. I want to thank my family and friends for their belief in and support of
my educational goals.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Figures iv
List of Abbreviations v
Abstract vi
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review 13
Table 1: Demographics of the participants in the Ensminger and Surry study 48
Chapter 3: Methodology 62
Chapter 4: Results 72
Chapter 5: Discussion 129
Bibliography 143
Appendices
Appendix A: Leader Questions 150
Appendix B: Instructor Questions 154
Appendix C: Instructor Sample Spectrum 157
Appendix D: Instructor Sample Matrix 158
Appendix E: Definitions 159

iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Ethnic Demographic for School A Fall 2010 75
Figure 2: Ethnic Demographic for School B Fall 2010 76
Figure 3: Comparison of all Administrators 77
Figure 4: Comparison of all Instructors 79
Figure 5: Factor ranking of School A leader Paul 107
Figure 6: Factor ranking of School A leader Angela 108
Figure 7: Factor ranking of School A leader Bob 109
Figure 8: Factor ranking of School A leader Matthew 109
Figure 9: Factor ranking of School A leader Janice 110
Figure 10: Factor ranking of School A instructor John 111
Figure 11: Factor ranking of School A instructor James 112
Figure 12: Factor ranking of School A instructor Jane 113
Figure 13: Factor ranking of School A instructor George 113
Figure 14: Factor ranking of School B instructor Robert 114
Figure 15: Factor ranking of School B instructor Mary 115

v
Abbreviations
AA 5
ADA 84
ALL 3
AMATYC 55
BI 47
CAI 55
CAO 25
CIO 25
CMS 6
ESPTLQ 23
HE 47
ICT 1
IPI 47
ISTE 13
LMS 6
MLQ 20
NCES 1
OSS 7
SEM 24
TIMSS 3

vi
Abstract
This case study examined the role leaders played in the implementation of technology in
the math departments at two Los Angeles community colleges, and how math instructors
used the technology. The community college vice-presidents, mathematics chairs, and
tenured mathematics instructors were interviewed for this study. Ely’s (1990) eight
factors of technology implementation serve as the framework for this case study. I used
this framework to exam similarities and differences in how participants implemented
technology. Math was the academic area of interest for three important reasons: 1) the
United States consistently scores low in math relative to other developed countries, 2)
technology has been shown to increase student engagement, and 3) math is considered
the gatekeeper of college success (Epper & DeLott Baker, 2009). Although all of the
math instructors used the technology in much the same way, the leadership style as well
as the technology knowledge and skills of these leaders served to impact the attitude of
the instructors with respect to their use of technology and the relationship between
leaders and instructors. Knowledge and skills was the most important implementation
factor for an overwhelming majority of participants. However, the role of leadership was
viewed as moderately important. Instructors needed and wanted ongoing technical
support for them to use the technology, in addition to current forms of technology.
1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
In the 21
st
century, technology is simply a way of life. E-mail, text messaging, and
instant messaging are a few of the developments (Smith, 2010; Crompton, 2010). As a
result, students of today are more comfortable with and expect to use technology in their
educational experiences for a variety of purposes such as registration, communication
with instructors, receiving grade notifications, and in the classroom (Laird & Kuh, 2005).
In the United States, student home and school use of technology has continued to
increase at a very rapid pace (Hennessy, Ruthven, & Brindley, 2011). However, reports
in the literature suggests that the community college culture is adverse to change (Epper
& DeLott Baker, 2009), when compared to four-year institutions that are more
technologically advanced (Epper & DeLott Baker, 2009). In addition, a large number of
instructors are resistent to using technology (Chang, Chin, & Hsu, 2008; Hennessy,
Ruthven, & Brindley, 2011). Yet, Hennessy et al. (2011) point out that the use of
information and communication technology (ICT) has the potential to transform the
teaching and learning of such mathematical processes as problem-solving (Hennessy,
Ruthven, & Brindley, 2011).
The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) conducted a survey in
2009 entitled Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools. The
survey showed that over 50% of teachers and students use computers during instructional
time in the classroom. However, 48.97% of the teachers reported that interactive
whiteboards were not available to them, neither were video conference units (77.56%),
classroom response systems (71.60%), digital cameras (22.19%), MP3 players (76.89%),
2
document cameras (61.82%), other handheld devices (88.89%), LCD or DLP projectors
(16.11%), or any other forms of educational technology outside of those already
mentioned (95%) (Sciences, 2010). Based on these national results, it may be inferred
that schools are relatively behind in their technology use, in part because they do not have
the available, required, or necessary technology.
Despite these statistics, this same study from NCES (2010) showed that most
instructors primarily used computers to access school or district networks for entering or
viewing grades (80.41%) or attendance records (77.21%); for remote access to view
school email (60.62%); use the word processing software for school purposes (83.48%);
use the software for managing student records (61.95%); and for using the Internet for
school purposes (68.91%). And yet, there is a large percentage of instructors who are not
using or rarely use various forms of technology; i.e. simulation and visualization
programs (66.60%); remote district software (50.21%); database management software
(57.26%); graphics, or image–editing software (61.16%); software to administer tests
(56.47%); drill/practice programs or tutorials (50.65%); blogs or wikis (83.67%); social
networking websites (91.361%); open source software for discussion board with parents
(86.17%) or students (89.24%); email to communicate with students about concerns
(68.79%); communicate with parents using a course or teacher webpage (60.65%) or
students (71.45%); blogs to communicate with parents (91.61%) or students (94.49%);
communicate with parents (92.85%) or students (96.58%) using instant messaging
(Sciences, 2010). Once again, the national data shows how instructors are not utilizing
the current technology that is widely used in the 21
st
century.
3
Conversely, most students (over 50%) use educational (or school) technology to
prepare written text, learn or practice basic skills, and conduct research (Sciences, 2010).
As we can see in our daily lives, students use technology outside of school: 72% of
young adults are member of at least one social network, 15% use blogs, (Lenhart, Purcell,
Smith, & Zickurh, 2010), and 72% use texting (Smith, 2010). With such a large
percentage of young adults using technology on a daily basis, it would seem like a perfect
opportunity to use such technology to capture their engagement in the classroom.
Moreover, as noted above, studies find that instructors are not prepared to teach students
via technology. This creates a gap between how students can learn in the 21
st
century and
how instructors could teach. In this study, I will investigate the role of community
college leadership in supporting the use of technology in community college mathematics
classrooms.
Background of the Problem
In the United States, student success in the area of math has been reported as one
of the lowest in the world. In 2003, the NCES administered the International Adult
Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL). The international findings for adults, ages 16-65,
were significantly lower in numeracy for the United States than all participating countries
except Italy (Statistics, 2005). The NCES conducted the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 2007 for 4
th
and 8
th
graders and found that
only 10% of 4
th
graders and 6% of 8
th
graders scored at or above the advanced
international benchmark in math. Still, seven countries outperformed the U.S. 4
th
and 8
th

graders (Gonzales, Willimas, Jocelyn, Roey, Kastberg, & Brenwald, 2009).
4
Consequently, community colleges across the United States are encountering more
students in need of remedial math because the students are underprepared (Bailey, Smith
Jaggers, & Jenkins, 2011). Unfortunately, the economy is forcing community colleges to
decrease the number of classes (Community College League of California, 2011), making
it difficult for students to successfully complete their math requirements (California
Community College Chancelor’s Office, March 30, 2011). Therefore, a need exists for
community colleges, their leaders, and teachers to find ways to increase student success
in math (Bailey et al., 2011).
Although community colleges are labeled as institutions of higher education,
there are unique differences as compared to colleges and universities. One obvious
difference is that community colleges only offer two-year programs whereas colleges and
universities offer four-year programs. Students have to meet pre-determined
requirements, apply to, and be offered enrollment in order to attend a four-year
institution. Therefore, these schools have the opportunity to select who enrolls.
Community colleges enroll any students that fills out an application and pays for their
classes. The community colleges also differ from colleges and universities because the
role of the community colleges is to supply workforce training, basic skills education,
and to prepare students for transfer to four-year colleges and universities (California
Community College Chancelor’s Office, March 30, 2011); and their mission is to
respond to the educational needs of their communities (O'Banion, 2000). Furthermore,
community colleges “disproportionately serve low-income, first generation, and
academically underprepared students. These students struggle with a variety of
5
challenges, including job and childcare responsibilities, transportation difficulties,
financial limitations, poor high school academic preparation, and a lack of information
about how to successfully navigate college” (Bailey, Smith Jaggers, & Jenkins, 2011, p.
1). The students at the community college tend to be older than those at four-year
institutions, of Black or Hispanic ethnicity, come from low-income homes, and/or are
financially independent (Horn & Neville, 2006). In addition, one-third of these students
are married and one-fourth are single parents (Horn & Neville, 2006). Community
college students are also less likely to require financial aid due to lower tuition costs,
many of these students work, and they enroll in fewer classes (Horn & Neville, 2006).
Students enroll at the community college as opposed to four-year institutions for some of
the following reasons: to prepare for transfer to a four-year institution, to earn a
credential, personal interest, to learn a job skill, or to earn an Associate of Arts (AA)
degree (Horn & Neville, 2006). Grubb (1999) also points out that students attend
community colleges from high school in order to improve their grades, improve their
basic skills that are needed for college level work, and because they are unsure about
what to do after completing high school.
With such differences in student population and technology, it would seem that
community college leaders have different challenges than leaders at the four-year
institution. As a result, the research should reflect these differences. However, higher
education research tends to be limited with respect to the community college findings
(Owen & Demb, 2004; Rogers P. , 2000). Therefore, a gap exists in the research
regarding technology implementation at the community college. Furthermore, as I will
6
discuss in more detail in a later section, with so many community college students
enrolling that are underprepared in math, there is a need for research that looks at the
implementation of technology to improve the learning of math.
Statement of the Problem
Technology is a very broad concept that includes both computer hardware and
software. Hardware consists of the wires, circuits, monitors, and hard drives - the
physical components of a computer (Merriam-Webster, 2011). There are two forms of
software; system software and application software (Britannica, 2011). The system
software is known as the operating system, which runs the operations of the computer
and manages the files and other internal components (Britannica, 2011). The application
software performs specific tasks, i.e. spreadsheets, and word processing (Britannica,
2011).
There are many types of educational software programs. The tasks performed by
these programs are very diverse. There are programs that are designed for such things as
drill and practice, assessment, and demonstration (Crompton, 2010). These are referred
to as learning management systems (LMS). Some of these programs are part of the
resources that accompany the textbooks, such as My Math Lab by Pearson (Crompton,
2010). There are also programs that allow instructors to manage their classes with a
programmable grade book, email individual student reports, upload reports to a webpage,
make seating charts, and view student performance with charts and graphs such as EZ
Grade Pro (http://www.orbissoft.com). These would be considered course management
systems (CMS). There are also programs that are open to the public that can be tailored
7
to the needs of the user that are both CMS’s and LMS’s, like Moodle (http://moodle.org)
or Sakai (http://sakaiproject.org). This type of system is called Open Source Software
(OSS). Some of these programs are free, downloadable from the Internet, or available for
multiple uses with a site license. Laird and Kuh (2005) found that the use of technology
by instructors had a strong positive relationship with student engagement on effective
educational tasks, as well as improved teacher-student interaction success. Furthermore,
the use of technology was found to have a positive relationship with cognitive
development for community college students (Flowers, Pascarella, & Pierson, 2000).
Even now, in spite of all of these technology options, only a few instructors are taking
advantage of such programs to engage and better communicate with their students
(Sciences, 2010). The NCES (2010) also showed that less than 25% of instructors often
use technology that is specific to the subject they teach, and just over 30% use subject
specific software occasionally. This national data agrees with the findings of Owen and
Demb (2004) who state that many teachers have been resistant to incorporating
technology into their teaching, learning, and communication with students.
Leadership has been shown to be a very important element in the successful
implementation of technology (Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009). Tondeur, van
Keer, van Braak, and Valcke (2008) point out that it has been well established that
leadership is an important component in the integration of ICT. There has been a
significant amount of research conducted about technology as it relates to K-12 (Afshari,
Abu Bakar, Su Luan, Abu Samah, & Say Fooi, 2009; Chang, Chin, & Hsu, 2008;
Ensminger & Surry, 2008) and to colleges and universities (Ensminger & Surry, 2008;
8
Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009; Williams van Rooij, 2011), but the community
college research has been relatively small by comparison (Owen & Demb, 2004; Rogers
P. , 2000). Therefore, this study examines the implementation of technology at the
community college, in the area of mathematics. Math was chosen because it is an area
with an over representation of under prepared students; and the math department, as a
subculture of the community college, may respond to leaderships’ attempt to implement
technology in a different way than the other departments. Three areas of leadership will
be studied: their role as technology leaders, the challenges they face, and the strategies
they use.
Purpose of the Study
This study will ask community college vice-presidents, deans, and mathematics
chairs, about their role as a technology leader with respect to the implementation of
technology in the mathematics department at their respective schools. These leaders will
also be asked about the challenges they face in their attempts to implement technology in
their mathematics departments. In addition, the leaders will be asked about strategies
they use or plan to use to facilitate the use of technology in their mathematics
departments. Instructors will also be interviewed regarding the roles that leaders play in
the implementation of technology. By including different levels of leadership and
instructors, it will be possible to triangulate the findings about implementation of
technology in the mathematics departments at the community college. This study may
also be used as a guide to help community college leaders successfully plan for
technology implementation in their math departments.
9
Transformational leadership has been successful with technology implementation
(Afshari et al., 2009). As a result, leaders will be questioned about their leadership style.
The awareness of the order of importance of the eight technology implementation factors
is vital to successful technology implementation (Ensminger & Surry, 2008). Therefore,
as part of the interview process, participants will be asked to establish the order of
importance of the eight critical implementation factors.
The research questions for this study are as follows:
1) How do community college leaders differ across schools in facilitating the use of
technology in mathematics departments?
2) How do community college leaders’ challenges and strategies differ across
schools in facilitating the use of technology in mathematics departments?
3) How does technology implementation and its use in mathematics department
differ across community colleges?
Importance of the Study
Everett Rogers and Donald Ely provide the theories that anchor this investigation.
Rogers (2005) is well established as the leader in change theory (Ensminger & Surry,
2008). His theory is noted as an excellent theoretical framework for which technology
implementation at higher education should be viewed. Ely (1990, 1999) is repeatedly
cited for his eight components of technology implementation. Using these two models,
this case study will be able to better assess the community college mathematics’ leaders
contribution to technology implementation. The case study format will allow for a more
in-depth look into the reasons behind the choices leaders make regarding technology
10
implementation with respect to their mathematics departments compared to general
implementation. It is important to look at specific departments because each department
has its own culture within the community college culture. Some of these subcultures are
more or less accepting of technology (Epper & DeLott Baker, 2009). Therefore, the
purpose of this case study will be to compare the leadership at two Los Angeles area
community colleges with respect to the implementation and use of technology in their
respective math departments.
The results of this study should assist community college mathematics technology
leaders in their attempt to implement technology use in their mathematics department for
the purposes of helping teachers and ultimately students. This study might serve as a
guide for planning and structuring the technology implementation process for other
community colleges and highlight ways of integrating math technology at the community
college level. This study might be able to enlighten leaders about the math sub-culture so
they can better understand the needs of the math department. When leaders have more
knowledge about the unique concerns of the math department instructors, they can
develop appropriate plans that address the math departments’ needs and concerns. As a
result of providing the needed technological tools, the instructors can better serve their
students. With the improved instructional delivery, the hope is that there will be more
student success. In other words, more students will pass their classes, increase their math
procedure fluency, improve their conceptual understanding of the math content, and
increase their preparedness for transfer to the four-year college.

11
Limitations and Delimitations
A limitation of this research project is that it is a case study that will only include
leaders and instructors from two community colleges in the Los Angeles, California area.
Therefore, responses might not be generalizable to all community colleges. These
leaders will be contacted and interviewed once during the months of January and
February of 2012; during winter intercession. These are the months where many
instructors take their vacations before the spring semester begins and leaders are very
busy with meetings and planning for the spring semester. Instructors that are teaching
during the winter intercession will be contacted and interviewed after leader interviews in
January 2012. These are very busy months for these instructors, for it marks the end of
the winter intercession and the beginning of the spring semester. As a result of the data
collection period, participation might be reduced. To compensate for these limitations, a
qualitative approach will be used to gather data. This method of research allows for more
in-depth understanding of the issues being investigated (Patton, 2002).
Organization of the Proposal
The proposal will begin with a literature review that will include research about
technology leadership in education and the effects of technology in mathematics. The
research will focus on the roles, challenges, and strategies that technology leaders face as
they attempt to implement and integrate the technology into the pedagogy. In addition,
the importance of technology use as it relates to learning mathematics will also be
investigated. After reviewing the literature, the methodology for this study will be
discussed, followed by an in depth discussion on the findings. Finally, a section will be
12
included that summarizes the findings and how they relate to the original research
questions.
13
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Much has been written about leadership and technology with respect to
implementation of technology into the teaching and learning environment (Afshari, Abu
Bakar, Su Luan, Abu Samah, & Say Fooi, 2009; Carter & Alfred, 1998/1999; Chang,
Chin, & Hsu, 2008; Gulbahar, 2007). Leadership is noted as the key to successful
technology integration and implementation (ISTE National Educational Technology
Standards and Performance Indicators for Administrators in the United States of
America, 2002; Chang et al., 2008) of changes in the field of education for several
reasons. Yuen, Law, and Wong (2003) state that success is measured by the impact it has
on the teachers with respect to teaching and learning, and Rogers (2000) stresses that
leadership controls the funding which impacts all aspect of technology adoption. Money
allows leaders to purchase the technology, but technology alone does not equal success;
how the technology is being integrated into the teaching and learning environment
determines the success (Rogers, 2000). Therefore, strong leadership that is focused on
educational technology is essential for technology integration into the classroom
(Williams van Rooij, 2011). According to the International Society for Technology and
Education (ISTE), principals who are effective in integrating technology at their school
site have some of the following characteristics: management skills, vision, goal setting,
professional development, training, assessment, evaluation (ISTE, 2009). Leaders also
need to be able to inspire their staff to not only use and integrate the technology, but to
expand their knowledge base (Afshari et al., 2009). Afshari et al. (2009) cite Otto and
Albion (2002) who stated that school leaders are the ones who not only mold and
14
communicate the vision, but they are the gatekeepers of school activities based on their
decision to act or not to act.
Technology is a very broad concept. It can range from a basic calculator to the
Internet, from electricity to three dimensional projections, etc. For the purposes of this
case study, the term technology will be used with respect to educational and mathematics
related software. Educational technology will include grade book management systems
that allow communication with students, online learning tools that allow students to do
math assignments and take math assessments, and Smart technology that allows for
multimedia demonstrations and interaction. The mathematics software that will be
referenced consists of computational software or technical computing programs that
allow for programming math concepts for visual and interactive display; such as
Wolfram’s Mathematica. For the purposes of this review, technology will take the form
of ICT, OSS, and educational software. ICT is a term used to describe the integration of
all the technologies that bring communication, audio-visual, intelligent building, and
information systems together. “ICT encompasses the range of hardware (desktop and
portable computers, projection technology, calculators, data-logging, and digital-
recording equipment), software applications (generic software, multimedia resources),
and information systems (Intranet, Internet)” (Hennessy, Ruthven, & Brindley, 2011).
OSS is computer software that is written in source code that can be changed or developed
by multiple people in a public domain. Educational software is any computer software
that is used to teach or learn.
15
This review will explore three areas of leadership with respect to technology
implementation: the role of leadership in implementing technology, the challenges facing
leadership, and strategies that leadership can use to implement the use of technology.
Leadership can be defined in many ways, but in this review the title of leadership
is restricted to school principals; deans or chairs of academic divisions; vice-presidents or
vice-chancellors of academic instruction; college presidents; and district governing
boards. The role that these leaders play in the implementation of technology at their
school sites will be explored. As facilitators of instructor use of technology and as policy
makers, these leaders face many challenges for ensuring that subordinates are performing
their duties and adhering to policies. In addition to addressing the concerns and needs of
the people they lead, these leaders also serve as the liaison to upper management, i.e. the
school board. These leaders are also in the position of implementing change. In order to
implement change, they need to have strategies in place to promote the successful
transition for this change amongst their teaching staff.
The final part of this review will investigate implementation strategies. This
review will look at research that identifies both good and poor strategies that leaders have
used to encourage instructor compliance or participation with new policies, programs, or
recommendations.
Outline of Chapter 2
This literature review will cover empirical articles from 1999-2011 and a book
from 2005. This is the period in which major technological developments emerged and
16
therefore is an appropriate time frame for examining research on these technology
changes as they relate to their implementation into the classroom.
This literature review will first discuss the role of leadership and provide insight
into the many responsibilities that leaders must address when faced with technological
implementation. Second, the challenges that leaders face, in their attempt to implement
technology changes will be addressed. This will be followed by strategies that leaders
can use to overcome these challenges. The fourth area that will be addressed will be that
of the use of mathematics technology. Following the discussion of these four areas will
be the implementation theories from which this research will be directed. Finally, a
summary of the literature will be provided which will address how this information
relates to the role of leadership; challenges faced by leadership; strategies that can be
used by leadership in the face of technology implementation; and the use of technology in
mathematics.
The Role of Leadership
Leadership in education wears many hats, from the classroom teacher to
government official. The roles of these leaders also range from classroom instruction to
formation of educational policies. This review will look at the role of leadership with
respect to implementation of technology in the classroom. The role of leadership will be
restricted to those that rank above the classroom instructor. Since leadership is critical to
the implementation of technology (Rogers, 2000), research that explores the role of
leadership in the planning, integration, and implementation of technology in an education
setting, must be examined. A study involving primary grade teachers will also be
17
included because it was a qualitative case study that gave an in-depth look at the role of
leadership from a non-administrative perspective. This is very insightful since the
administrator is supposed to help the teachers implement the technology and the
strategies that the leaders are employing are being evaluated by those teachers.
Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak, and Valcke (2008) conducted a mixed methods
study where they surveyed and interviewed school principals at 53 out of the 60 urban
and rural primary schools in Flanders, Belgium with respect to the role of ICT school
policy, as is it related to five areas of school improvement; how ICT use in the classroom
was impacted by these five factors; and how teacher perceptions of the policies impacted
their use of ICT in the classroom. The five areas of school improvement policy are as
follows: 1) Clear goals and systematic strategies for educational change, 2) strong
leadership to guide change efforts, 3) professional development and support for the
implementation of reforms, 4) self-evaluation systems for monitoring change processes,
and 5) networking and exchange of good practice with other schools working on the same
reform.
Approximately 66% of the principals were male, and the average age of the
principals was 49. At least one teacher from each grade level from each of the 60 schools
was interviewed for a total of 574 teachers; 430 were female. The teachers had an
average age of 38. The authors looked at the affect of school policy and the affect of
instructor perceptions on the integration of ICT in the classroom. There were two
significant findings in the study and five related findings.
18
First, Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak, and Valcke (2008) found that teachers were
more likely to use ICT in their classroom when a school policy was in place that was
formed based on a shared vision. Therefore, it was critical for teachers to be a part of the
planning process. They also noted that the teachers’ perceptions of the content of the
policy made a difference as to whether or not the instructors used ICT in their classroom,
and not the actual content of the policy. In other words, if the teachers felt that the policy
was good, they would comply with the policy; they were not concerned with the details
of the policy.
Training, support, and pupil-to-computer ratio were also significant factors in
teacher use of ICT in the classroom. It was also noted that only the teachers’ perceptions
about technology support were significant; not the principals’. They suggested that the
more support teachers felt they had, the more likely they would use the technology.
Their needed support should be technical in nature, not curriculum (teaching and
learning) or educationally based.
The second major finding of the study pointed out that leaders saw their role as
one of implementing policies that were made by the school governing body; determining
the school policy for the use of technology at their school site; and facilitating the use of
technology (Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008). However, since use of
technology was not required, they did not feel compelled to encourage the instructors to
use it. The leaders also felt that they did not have much time to formulate policies about
technology; therefore they chose to make top-down decisions that did not include input
from the instructors. The leaders also pointed out that a lack of resources hindered their
19
role in implementing the use of technology because they were unable to provide ongoing
in-service and computer assistance to the instructors in addition to issues related to
computer equipment. Time limitations due to the demands of the school governing bodies
played a large part in hindering leaders in their role as facilitators of technology use in the
classroom. The principals felt there needed to be some form of ICT use evaluation in
order to analyze the effectiveness of their program. Finally, schools were required to
work with other schools on ICT and this gave the leaders the opportunity to discuss
implementation concerns. Principals stressed the need for technical and educational ICT
support but there wasn’t enough time to obtain the support.
This study points out three central factors in leadership for technology use: the
development of policies with the inclusion of instructors in this process; the importance
of leaders providing ongoing technical support for the end user; and finding a method of
evaluating the technology program. It was also noted that the role of the school leaders
was hindered by the demands placed upon them by their leaders.
The findings of this study are biased toward a predominately male leader – female
instructor relationship since over 60% of the principals were male and over 70% of the
instructors were female. There could have been different results based on the gender of
the leaders and instructors. There is also a possible limitation based on age since the
average age difference between principals and instructors was 11 years in favor of the
leaders. Results may have been different if the leaders were 20 or more years older
because of their experience with technology. Maybe the leaders in this study were too
20
close in age to the teachers and therefore these two groups might have more generational
points of view that are similar, which could influence their views on technology.
Another study that examined leadership and technology was conducted by
Afshari, Abu Bakar, Su Luan, Abu Samah, and Say Fooi (2009). Afshari et al. (2009)
conducted a quantitative study that explored the affect of leadership on ICT use in
secondary Iranian schools. In addition, they explored the perceived ICT competencies
and leadership styles of these school leaders. Finally, they explored the relationship
between the principals’ computer use and their perception of their competencies and
leadership style. Their study was defined as a descriptive explorative study which
included 30 randomly chosen secondary principals out of 1321 in Tehran from 2007-
2008. Participants were given a two part questionaire that explored three areas of
interest: the prinicpals’ perceptions of their computer use, computer competence, and
leadership style (transformational or transactional). Computer use was determined using a
previously developed self-reported 39-item quesitonnaire with Likert-scaled response
options. Computer competence was also measured using a Likert-scaled survey that had
been previously developed. The Multifactor Leadership Questionaire (MLQ), developed
by Bass and Avolio (1997), was used to evaluate leadership style. This survey was
reported to be a well validated instrument with construct validity. A panel of experts
confirmed the face and content validity of all survey instruments.
According to Afshari et al. (2009) the majority of the principals surveyed were
female (53%), had bachelors’ degrees (70%), were between 42-47 years of age (43%),
and worked at a private school (60%). Forty percent of the participants had less than 19
21
years of experience, another 40% had between 20 and 25 years of experience, and 17%
had 26-31 years of experience.
Afshari et al. (2009) had six major findings. First, they found that leaders rarely
used computers. However, when they did, it was primarily for the Internet, of which
89% of the time, was used sending and receiving e-mails. The leaders also used
computers for administrative business, instructional purposes, and to access the word
processing software. Only a few of the principals knew how to use speadsheet or
database programs. Schiller (2003) points out that leaders should know how to use and
create spreadsheets and databases as part of their administrative tasks and as a technology
leader. Therefore, leaders should receive ongoing technology training in these areas
(Schiller, 2003). It was noted that administrative use of computers was noticeably lower
than instructional use. Second, Afshari et al. (2009) found that leaders’ perceptions of
their ICT competencies were moderate across six of the eight ICT subscales, and high
with respect to basic computer operation skills and word processing. These findings were
consistent with previous research that was referenced by Afshari et al. (2009). Third,
leaders tended to perceive their leadership style as approxiately half transformational and
half transactional, yet leaning more toward transformational. Fourth, the
transformational leadership style had a strong and statistically significant positive
correlation with both leader computer use and computer competence. They also found
that leaders that displayed a more transformational rather than transactional leadership
style were more likely to promote the use of technology. In addition, leaders that had a
more transactional style of leadership showed almost no correlation with computer use or
22
computer competency. Fifth, it was the leaders level of competence that played a big
role in whether or not they would accept and adopt ICT for their school. This is
consistent with the works of Otto and Albion (2002) regarding leaders decisions to act or
not to act as determining whether technology is adopted. Finally, the assumption made
by the authors that leadership use of computers would influence the use of computers by
teachers was counter to their findings. Instead, it was leader competence that was the
determinant of technology implementation.
Noteworthy from Afshari et al. (2009) is that when leaders displayed a
transformational style of management, their role as implementors of technology
positively correlated with their technology competence, which influenced their decisions
to adopt and accept new technology. Leaders that exhibited a transformantional style
also correlated positively to that leader’s perception of their technololgy use. However,
it is also important to note that it is not computer use but rather competence that makes
the difference in the direction the leader will take in their role as facilitator of technology
with respect to acceptance and adoption. It is when leaders were knowledgeable about
the technology that they could better understand their role as a technology facilitator
(Schiller, 2003). It is transformantional leaders that were found to “encourage new ways
of thinking and enable teachers to analyse problems from many different viewpoints,
…while principals who act as transactional leaders might not be very effective in
stimiulationg the use of technology,” (Afshar et al., p. 244). Therefore, leaders should
have more training or professional development on transformational leadership style,
23
where they can learn about “charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation
and individualized consideration” (p. 244).
Some of the limitations of the study by Afshari (2009) are limited to its
predominance of private school participants (60%), and the small sample size of 30
participants. The perceptions; availability, accessibility, use, and competency of
computer; and leadership demands of these participants might have been different if they
were in an urban public school setting where resources are limited and the demographics
are more than likely diametrically opposed. Also, the findings were based on self-reports
which could be over- or under-estimates of the true values.
Technology leadership was also researched by Chang, Chin, and Hsu (2008).
They randomly selected 1880 elementary school teachers and administrative staff from
seven cities in Taiwain, which represented all regions of the island. Of these 1880
potential participants, 1028 responded to the 31-item 5-point Likert scaled, Elementary
School Principals’ Technology Leadership Questionnaire (ESPTLQ). The ESPTLQ is a
revison of The Dimensions and Implementation of the Elementary School Principals’
Technology Leadership Questionnaire; all of which were based on the Technology
Leadership Questionnaire that the author used in 2003. The respondants of the current
study were teachers with the following demographics: 60.1% female; 73.9% with B.A. or
B.S. degreed; 38.5% 25- 34years old; 38.9% 35-44 years old; and 34% had 11-20 years
of experience. Chang et al. (2008) explored teacher perceptions of the technology
leadership of their principals on four dimensions: 1) vision, planning, and management;
2) staff development and training; 3) technology and infrastructure support; and 4)
24
evaluation, research, and assessment. All four dimensions showed consistent results
across all respondents; with alpha coefficients of 0.945 and higher.
Chang et al. (2008) considered interpersonal and communication skills to be an
intervening construct with respect to the previously mentioned four dimensions. Once
again, they found consistency across all respondents with respect to this construct with an
alpha of 0.966. The structural equation model (SEM) confirmed the importance of
interpersonal and communication skills with the four dimensions with significance
factors ranging from 0.81 to 0.86.
Chang et al. (2008) concluded that all four dimensions were essential to
technology implementation. In other words, it was important for leaders to have a vision,
a long-range plan for that vision, and a management style that would enable them to use
the technology effectively. Leaders need to be able to advocate for resources, manage the
new changes effectively, and use technology efficiently to manage tasks. It was essential
for leaders to encourage, support, and provide training and support for the instructors on
the use of the technology. Leaders should be able to ensure appropriate facilities; equal
access to the technology; technology support; and maintanence for the technology.
Finally, leadership needs to evaluate and assess the technology program(s) that have been
implemented. This includes the policies, effective use by the staff, the cost/benefit ratio,
the operating systems, and the district data related to instructional technology use. In
addition, it was concluded that principals with good interpersonal and communication
skills were perceived as the most effective with respect to technology implementation.
25
Chang et al. (2008) also included a qualitative component to their study where
they asked the participants to give their opinions on their principal’s role with regard to
facilitating the use of technology at their school. Four themes emerged from the
transcripts: 1) budget shortage problems, 2) technology facility problems, 3) staff
development problems, and 4) leadership problems.
Some of the limitations of the Chang et al. (2008) study are that it does not give
any information on the leaders of these schools, the type of schools, or the type of city
from which the schools were chosen. As a result, the findings could be altered, if the
schools were in different settings; such as urban or rural. Whether the schools were
private or public could make a difference in the responses. Finally, the experience of the
leaders with respect to their role as leaders, knowledge of technology, and technology
experience could also have an impact on the results of this study. The instrument that
was used to measure the four leadership dimensions was not confirmed as having validity
or reliability in this article; although it may have been validated in a previous study.
Williams van Rooij (2011) conducted a qualitative study of 122 Chief
Information Officers (CIOs) and 124 Chief Academic Officers (CAOs) from different
types of higher institutions of learning as defined by the Carnegie Commission on Higher
Education. This qualitative study also defined the different institutions of higher learning
based on their public, private, and profit status, in order to describe their adoption, use,
and support for use of OSS. A stratified random sampling was used to select the
participants. Participants were given a SKIP/BRANCH logic web-based survey which
tailored the questions based on the participants’ title and on the institutions’ use of OSS.
26
The Chronbach’s Alpha of 0.934 indicated considerable item reliability for the questions
on the survey.
Williams van Rooij (2011) explored four questions: 1) How has the adoption
process for technology changed over three years?; 2) For institutions that have adopted
or are planning to adopt OSS, what applications were being used?; 3) What were the key
factors for adoption of OSS with respect to CIOs and CAOs?; and 4) What policies,
procedures, and processes are being put in place to support the adoption?. Although
many findings surfaced, there were four that were significant. First, it was determined
that more awareness of the technology by the CAOs and CIOs increased its use at the
institution as a whole. Second, CAOs were more concerned with the adoption of
technology that centered around student engagement and active learning. Third,CIOs
were more concerned about cost and comparisons with other institutions. Finally,
institutions have greatly improved their policies and procedures for technology adoption
with respect to security, federal and state compliance, and ownership. In addition, the
results of the study also stressed that a strong push from faculty was a factor in the
adoption of new technology.
From this study, it was determined that leaders must be aware of the technology
that they want to implement and have a strong desire to adopt it. The leadership must
also be concerned with the cost and purpose of the technology. And, leadership should
work on improving their policies, procedures and compliance issues; network with other
institutions; and focus on security concerns related to technology. It was also noted that
technical support personnel are needed as well as a policy for recognition and rewards for
27
faculty use of technology. In addition to return cost of the investment, the costs of
ownership and of the infrastructure were big barriers with respect to adoption.
Some of the limitations of this study are that its focus was on open source
software. The perspectives of the participants may have been different if the focus was
not open source but some other forms of software. This study limited its participants to
the people that are most removed from the actual implementation of OSS; mainly
administrators instead of instructors. Also, the leadership that was chosen was two or
more levels above the instructors. This could be more informative by including the
leaders that instructors directly report to, mainly their deans or department chairs.
Based on the literature described above, the role of leaders with respect to
technology can be summarized as complex. The evidence suggests that one major role of
leadership is that of implementing the use of technology (Afshari et al, 2009; Chang et al,
2008; Keengwe 2009; Tondeur 2008; Williams van Rooij 2011). Leadership should also
formulate the technology policy and procedures (Chang et al, 2008; Keengwe 2009;
Tondeur 2008) and improve the policies and procedures that they may already have in
place (Williams van Rooij, 2011). Technological support with respect to how it works
and how it can be used (not curriculum based) was stressed as a critical component that
leaders should attend to, with respect to the adoption or implementation of technology
(Chang et al, 2008; Keengwe 2009; Tondeur 2008). It was extremely important for
leadership to have a vision, goal, and mission pertaining to what they wanted to achieve
with respect to technology implementation (Afshari et al, 2009; Chang 2008; Keengwe
2009; Tondeur 2008). Leaders needed to have good interpersonal and communication
28
skills (Chang 2008; Keengwe 2009) that are components of a transformational leader
(Afshari et al, 2009). The transformational leader was a more effective leader with
respect to implementing technology use (Afshari, Abu Bakar, Su Luan, Abu Samah, &
Say Fooi, 2009). It was important for leaders to be aware of the technology (Williams
van Rooij, 2011) and be competent with respect to how to use it (Afshari, Abu Bakar, Su
Luan, Abu Samah, & Say Fooi, 2009). Finally, leaders need to know how to manage
change with respect to implementing the technology (Chang, Chin, & Hsu, 2008) and be
able to evaluate and assess the technology and the technology programs (Chang, Chin, &
Hsu 2008; Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak, & Valcke,2008).
Challenges for Leadership
Every task has its challenges and implementing changes can be especially
demanding for leaders because people and institutions are resistant to change. This may
be particularly the case for technology, because it takes instructors out of their comfort
zone. In addition to human resource challenges, leadership also faces fiscal resource and
time constraint challenges (Chang, Chin, & Hsu, 2008; Ensminger & Surry, 2008). With
every new technology project there will be new demands placed on one’s time to
implement and sustain the changes, as well as budgetary needs (Owen & Demb, 2004).
In 2009, Keengwe, Kidd, and Kyei-Blankson conducted a qualitative study at a
Mid-southern public univerisity with 25 participants from various higher education
institutions. Twenty-three of the participants were from research universities, 1 from a
liberal arts college, and 1 from a community college. Seven of the twenty-five were
strictly instructors with various academic ranks; one was a vice-president and instructor;
29
one was a librarian; and the remainder held technology related positions at their
institution. All participants had been a part of a technology adoption process.
Participants were asked to provide the researchers with their perspectives of their
experience as members of the technology adoption process. Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-
Blankson, (2009) were interested in the factors surrounding the adoption of technology at
higher education institutions, as well as how this impacts faculty training and the
technology leadership.
Four recurring themes resulted from their study: organizational support;
leadership; training and development; and resources (Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson,
2009). Within these four themes, the need for technological support was stressed. The
study pointed out that leadership must provide ongoing support, if technology is going to
be implemented. It is necessary that leadership creates policies and procedures that align
with the institution’s vision, goals, and mission with respect to technology
implementation. It is also vital that leadership ensures that funding is available to keep
the technology current and functioning. In addition, it is pertinent that leadership
evaluates the technology, its use, and the gap that exists between the vision and the
current status for the technology that is being adopted. Finally, leadership needs to
involve all stakeholders in the process from the beginning when the planning and vision
are being established.
Vision, goals, mission, policy and procedures are all elements that leadership
needs to embrace in their role as facilitators of technology (Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-
Blankson, 2009). In addition to this, leaders must provide support to all users and include
30
all stakeholders in the implementation of technology. These finding are similar to those
of the K-12 study by Chang et al.(2008). Both studies stress the importance of having a
vision, plan, support, and technological infrastructure.
Some of the limitations of this study were that there were only 25 participants
from different higher education institutions who served in different capacities. This study
appears to lack enough participants from each category of involvement in the technology
adoption process. Also, by not having enough people from individual institutions, the
data may not paint as accurate a picture as it could. Each institution is different and the
perceptions from the different roles that people serve at an institution may be different,
therefore this study could be lacking consistency.
Owen and Demb (2004) conducted a qualitative case study involving students,
teachers, and 9 college administrators that were purposefully sampled from a public Mid-
Western community college that was “known nationally as an exemplar for its learner-
centered approach to education and integration of technology into pedagogy.” (p. 640) .
The administrators consisted of the provost, the vice-president of business operations, the
vice-president of adminstation, the vice-president of student services, the vice-president
of informaton and technology, the vice-president of instruction, the director of
informaton technology services, the dean of distance learning, and the director of student
counseling services. All of these administrators were interviewed individually. Thirty-
six participants were members of a focus group that were interviewed using open-ended
questions. The focus group was comprised of students who had taken classes that used
technology, faculty who were teaching with the technology and/or through distance
31
education, department chairs who had faculty that were teaching with technology in their
departments, and an interdisciplinary leadership group that awards grants to faculty with
innovative teaching proposals. Participants were interviewed about their perceptions of
the change process and what they perceived to be the important factors of this process.
All of the interviews were structured for their target audience; i.e. students received
student interview questions.
One of their research questions looked at challenges to leadership in the face of
technology implementation. They referred to this element of their research as change
dynamics. Six areas of change dynamics occurred: turbulence, tension, planning,
implantation, barriers, and cultural change. These six themes were related to four areas
of the technology integration process: faculty, students, funding, and support. Although
many of the six areas of change intersected with the four institutional elements, out of the
twenty-four areas of possible concern, the culture and support area did not present any
challenges to leadership with respect to technology integration. Tension was by far the
most difficult element and the most intractable challenges that leadership encountered
involved faculty.
Since faculty play a major role at the post-secondary level (Owen & Demb,
2004), it is not surprising that they present the most challenges to leadership. The faculty
wants the technical support, but that requires the hiring of more technology staff. Not
only does this impact the hiring fund, but it also takes away from the hiring of other
needed faculty such as instructors and tutors, as well as the ability to add more classes or
create smaller classes.
32
Technology requires more time to integrate into the already established teaching
format. Therefore, faculty commonly complains that they do not have enough time to
accomplish all of the tasks that are a part of their regular teaching assignments. Time for
technology takes away from time for other school related activities. The size of the
learning curve for the instructors must also be considered.
In addition to the time, the concern for intellectual property rights needs to be
considered. Instructors are concerned about who owns the rights to programs that they
developed using the school purchased equipment. Compensation needs to be considered
for faculty for course development, training, and updating programs.
There appears to be more problems revolving around infrastructure, than desirable
outcomes. The size of the computer labs need to match the class sizes. However, the
smaller the class, the more maintenance costs; and the larger the class, the larger the
infrastructure cost. Smaller classes means more sections which results in more faculty
costs. There are also the many unexpected problems that come along with technology,
and the inability of the planners, in this case study, to foresee issues that caused
confusion.
Another major challenge is changing the attitude and mindset of the faculty.
However, not all faculty need to adopt technology; it’s a continuum from low or no, to
high or all encompassing technology integration. The culture of the college and the
faculty weigh heavily on the degree to which these challenges are actually challenges at
all; large cultural changes occur at a large pace. Helping people to find their niche in the
change process is an area of concern; for people can feel displaced. Therefore, it is
33
important that leaders encourage faculty to build on their strengths in order to ensure their
success in the change process.
In addition to some of the other challenges already mentioned, there are internal
and external funding pressures. Although upper management wants the technology, one
of the limiting factors is financial resources. The community wants more courses that
require technology that will prepare students for the future job market, but they also want
to keep tuition affordable. There is no financial return for increasing technology at higher
education institutions, as it is in the business sector; as technology does not pay for itself
but, instead it adds more costs. This creates turbulence for financial planning more than
ever with reductions in funding from the state and federal governments, and with
unknown future costs. Additional funding challenges are determining the cost limits for
technology; whether technology is increasing student success; how the budget should be
structured; and how to pay for incentives. The challenge is determining whose budget
pays for what technology, particularly when items are across divisions/departments or not
initiated by the department but imposed on them. There is also the issue of instructor
load for newly developed classes; and who will teach their previously assigned classes,
especially when those classes are needed. Leaders cannot compare their instructions with
other institutions because each school defines things differently; their needs are not the
same; and their culture is different.
With respect to students, Owen & Demb (2004) determined that leaders were
concerned as to whether or not the online learning produced different or better outcomes.
34
Another concern is whether or not the technology is worth the cost in terms of student
outcomes.
Support was the final area of concern because the faculty may lose interest in the
innovation if they do not have readily available support. Although there are faculty that
can provide their coworkers with assistance, they are not always available at the time of
need. Therefore, provisions need to be made to be able to continuously support staff. It
was noted that faculty adoption of technology tends to take a bell curve pattern with
innovators and early adopters at one tail,laggers at the opposite tail, and with the middle
divided between the early and late adopters (Owen & Demb, 2004). This adoption cycle
model of Moore (1991) was cited by Owen & Demb (2004). Incententives, rewards, and
recognition were given to the early adopters to keep faculty motivated and interested in
the technology innovation.
Owen & Demb (2004) conclude that organizational changes are difficult for
faculty. However, these difficulties are compounded when the changes involve
technology, because the impact of the change is both professional and personal. These
levels of discomfort translate to tension and/or turbulence in the workplace around the
issue of technology for financial, time, support, and culture reasons. Change can be
especially difficult with respect to culture because culture changes at a slow rate while
technology changes at an exponential rate. In addition to that, technology is
unpredictability which adds to the difficulty of the change process. It is difficult to plan
when you don’t know what to plan for. It is challenging to use another school as a model
when their needs, culture, and vision may not be the same. The negative attitude of the
35
faculty presents the largest challenge because so few are innovators or early adoptors of
the technology. Also, faculty need more time to adopt the new technology into their way
of teaching; they need to be recognized and rewarded for what they have accomplished
while undertaking this challenge; and they need support (personal, professional, and
technical).
Although Owen & Demb (2004) were very thorough in their study, one of the
primary limitations in this study is that it was based on one institution. This institution
was also an innovative school, which did not represent the typical higher education
institution at the time of the study. This could possibly be the reason why they did not
have any other schools to consult regarding their challenges.
Rogers (2000) wrote an article that combined two of her previous studies about
technology in education. At the conclusion of each study it was observed that barriers to
technology unexpectedly surfaced. The two studies were based in the K-12 grade level
and higher education. She based her research on the 5-step adoption of technology
theory by Reiber & Welliver, and Hooper & Rieber; as it related specifically to
computer-based instructional technology. The five steps are familiarization (the initial
contact) , utilization (tried the product but did not integrate it into the curriculum),
integration (use technology to deliver and develop instruction, but teachers shut down if
something fails to work correctly), reorientation (focus of the technology is the learner),
and evolution (the ability to grow and change as needed). It was noted that most teachers
stop at the utilization step.
36
Each level on the hierarch discussed above requires a different set of
support services, funding, time, and administrative and student
expectations. Mismatches in a teacher’s level of technology adoption with
certain internal or external sources of potential barriers provide an almost
certain failure to adopt a technology in the classroom. (pg. 458)
Rogers (2000) stated that although some of the challenges to technology implementation
were funding, time, and technical support, there were actually others that when taken in
combination slow down or even stop the integration process. These factors are both
internal and external to the instructor. The internal factors are attitude, perception, and
competency. The external factors are the availability and accessability of the technology;
support that can be provided on a one-on-one basis as well as overal support from the
school itself; and programs that build on skills and methods of implementation. Factors
that are both internal and external are time, money, and culture. Attitude was consistent
across all studies. The availability and quality of the technology, and institutional support
were mentioned in 7 out of the 8 studies. There were also sociocultural factors that
prevent technology use in schools such as economics and location; the demographics,
attitide, and beliefs of the population of individuals involved in using the technology; the
exposure, acceptance and adoption of the technology.
Rogers (2000) found that encouragement to use the technology, purchasing the
technology, and hiring quality technical support is what the school needed to provide.
With respect to support, it was noted that the technical support personel needed to have
the skills to address the needs of the faculty.
37
Time was noted as both an internal and external challenge. Internal time factors
were related to the personal time that instructors needed to use in order to learn, develop,
and enhance their technology knowledge and skills. It also included time to create ways
of integrating the technology into their curriculum. The external time factor involved
schools providing release time while still meeting the mandated contact hours.
Funding established the limitations to the amount of infrastructure that could be
purchased; support that could be hired; overtime that could be paid; and staff
development or workshops that could be provided. These funding considerations could
also be impacted by the attitude or beliefs of the individuals making those decisions.
At the K-12 grade level, it was found that most teachers were in fact in the
utilization category of technology integration (Rogers P. , 2000). The distribution of
teachers in the five categories of integration followed the bell curve from innovators to
laggers. With respect to barriers, the instructors with the least experience reported the
most barriers and those that were at the integration level reported very few barriers.
Although the highest level of technology adopters appeared to report more barriers than
the integrators and utilitarians, it was suggested that this was possibly due to the small
number of respondants in that category. It was also observed that as the adoption levels
of technology users increased, the report of barriers decreased. And, when the
qualitative and quantitative data were compared, the qualitative data clarified that the
support, staff development, and equipement needed to be of quality in nature, and not just
present. It was also pointed out that at the advanced level of integration, technical
support as well as access and availability become critical to their technology adoption,
38
because these technology innotators were at a point where they had the “willingness to
integrate technologies into their teaching to the point of actually changing the context of
teaching and learning.” (Rogers, p. 465).
For Roger’s (2000) higher education study, she conducted a qualitative study
involving 28 out of 36 technical coordinators from 2-year and 4-year Midwestern state
institutions which represented 78% of the states higher education school, in which some
schools had multiple campuses. There were three areas of interest for this study: 1) To
examine the impact of the new state technolgy initiative called the Electronic Academy;
2) To provide information to the state on fiscal use; and 3) To determine future needs.
After coding the results, four major areas of concern surfaced: the need for
technical support for staff; the need for release time and time for training for faculty and
staff; funds were not specified for technology related needs; and lack of sharing of best
practices across the system. Although 2-year and 4-year institutions shared the same
concerns, they differed in how they perceived those issues. Technical support was a
concern for 86% of 4-year college participants but only 52% for two-year colleges. The
concern over funding not being specified for technology-related needs was also a concern
for 86% of 4-year college respondents but only 62% for 2-year. The lack of sharing best
practices across the system was the largest concern for 2-year colleges (67%) but the
lowest concern for 4-year colleges (43%). The last and least major concern for both
school levels was release time and time for training. This area of concern was shared by
43% of 4-year and 52% of 2-year institutions. When combined, the post-secondary
schools felt that funding (68%) was the largest concern and release time was the least
39
concern (50%). The other two areas of concern were mentioned 61% of the time as a
barrier to technology implementation. Funding and time were considered to be external
barriers to some coordinators and internal to others.
In conclusion, Rogers (2000) found that although there are many factors that
contribute to the barriers of technology adoption, attitude toward technology and the level
of school provided support were the biggest factors that presented themselves as barriers
for all educational levels. Attitude could come from any of the stakeholders that were
involved in the technology implementation. However, the attitude and perceptions of the
gatekeepers presented the most significant barrier. Once the negative attitude and
perceptions were eliminated, three key barriers emerged. First, the availability and
accessibility of hardware and software, where it was not enough to have the equipment,
but to have enough equipment. If there is not enough equipment, then it makes it difficult
for it to be used. This translates into lack of use. The second major barrier is appropriate
staff development for teachers at all levels. There needs to be commitment from the
institution for providing instructors with the technology information that they need. If the
teachers do not know how to use the equipment, then it won’t be used. Instructors should
be given release time to learn how to use and incorporate the technology. Technical
support is the third major barrier. The support staff need to be able to effectively meet
the needs of the instructors, and the support needs to be ongoing. Instructors that can
provide support should be given release time.
These three issues are all tied to funding which is controlled by the leaders of the
institutions. Therefore, a negative attitude or perception of a leader could prevent or limit
40
the funding. Rogers (2000) restates that all of these barriers are interrelated; as it is not a
single barrier that impacts technology adoption. Finally, Rogers (2000) states that
technology plans should be based on teaching and learning, and not on the technology.
When technology is the focus, it creates more barriers.
The study by Rogers (2000) illustrated a good comparison of the K-12 and higher
education technology challenges. The study also emphasized how there were similarities
in the challenges but to different degrees. Differences in technology challenges was also
illustrated between 2- and 4-year institutions. Two-year institutions were more
concerned about sharing best practices, while 4-year schools were more concerned about
funding and technical support. However, all levels of education faced attitude of their
leadership as a barrier.
Rogers (2000) fails to inform the reader about the demographics of the
participants. As a result, the generalizability of the findings is not clear. All that is
revealed is that the higher education participants were from the midwest, which could
present a region bias to the findings. There is also no indication of whether or not any of
the participants come from rural or urban areas; from private or public schools; or from
rich or poor schools.
In summary, the literature shows that leaders face many challenges with respect to
technology integration. Some leaders felt that there was not enough time to obtain shared
input on formulating policy and procedures (Tondeur, 2008). School principals felt that
they needed more financial help from the governing school body in order to provide more
technical support to help the teachers with using the technology (Tondeur, van Keer, van
41
Braak, & Valcke, 2008). Leaders needed resources to pay for current technology, repair
the technology, and maintain the technology (Chang 2008; Keengwe 2009). The cost of
license fees and ownership was another factor that needed to be considered (Williams van
Rooij, 2011). Leaders wanted to have return-value on this large financial investment, and
the buy-in of the users of the technology (Williams van Rooij, 2011), as well as the buy-
in of the providers of the technology (Rogers, 2000). In addition to the previously
mentioned challenges, the leaders also needed to have an appropriate facility for the
technology (Chang 2008).
Strategies for Implementation
Successful implementation of any program or project requires planning
(Gulbahar, 2007). Without some type of strategy for implantation; human, financial, and
time resources could be wasted (Gulbahar, 2007). Poor planning or poorly executed
plans could also result in the failure of or negative reactions toward a program. These
types of outcomes and reactions could make it impossible to establish a similar type
program in the future.
Gulbahar (2007) conducted a case study with a private K-12 school in Turkey.
The researcher used qualitative and quantitative methods to perform a descriptive study
about technology integration using a prescriptive technology plan. The study
administered questionnaires to 105 of the 111 instructors; all 25 administrative staff
members; and 376 of the 395 fifth through ninth graders. Four different questionnaires
were administered as follows: a 48-item questionnaire regarding computer literacy to
administrative staff and teachers; a 28-item computer attitude questionnaire to
42
administrative staff and teachers; a 31-item instructional usage questionnaire to teachers;
and a 51-item questionnaire for students regarding their usage of technology materials,
hardware and software, favored and preferred technologies. Nineteen of the students’
questionnaire items asked about their attitudes toward computer usage. Some of the
participants were also selected for interviews.
Six major areas were highlighted as part of the results: Hardware and software
resources, equity of access to resources, support services, reward systems, integration of
instructional technologies into curriculum, and in-service training. Gulbahar (2007)
found that although teachers used the blackboards, overheard projectors, printed
materials, and audio players as their main forms of media usage in the classroom;
students had different preferences. The students preferred television/videos, Internet and
web environments, multimedia computers, computer-aided instruction, computer-
projection systems, video players, and audio players. Students and instructors differed in
all areas of perceived instructor use of various forms of technology in the classroom.
However, they were similar in their perceptions of blackboard, printed material, audio
player, and television/video use. Just over fifty percent of students stated that the
software met their needs and that it was upgraded or updated periodically. The students
also stated that they preferred to use animation graphical design, electronic presentation,
and web page development software; send emails; and use graphical design packages.
The second component of equity focused on the students since the equipment that
instructors stated that they used was provided for student use. The school had twenty-
five computers in all computer labs and no class was over twenty-five. Therefore, there
43
were enough computers for each student in each lab. The majority of students perceived
that they had access to the computers to do homework and projects whenever they
wanted to use them; that the computer labs were useful; and that the technology used in
the classroom was inefficient. However, less than half of the students felt that they had
access to printers and scanners whenever they wanted to use them.
Support services were the third component. The researcher found that the
majority of the instructors felt as if they were not having any trouble using the technology
tools and materials; and the majority of students stated that they had technical support
while working in the computer labs.
The fourth area of concern was called reward systems. This area looked at how
rewarding technology use was to teachers and students. Teachers liked to study with
computers; were open to learning new and different methods of technology use that could
help them to meet the needs of their students; were confident in their computer skills;
were motivated to work with computers; and thought technology allowed them to make
better connections with their students. Students, on the other hand stated that they would
like to have class with instructors that were technologically competent; wanted to have
the ability to communicate with instructors and friends online; wanted to use
technological materials outside of class; and wanted to use the technology to build/create
web pages, make presentations, and do homework.
With respect to integration of instructional technologies into curriculum, Gulbahar
(2007) found that most teachers felt that computer usage was important for them and for
students, yet few of them actually used it. Most students believed that instructors used
44
instructional technology efficiently. Students also pointed out the necessity for a
centralized online location where they could find homework, research studies, and other
documents.
The final area of interest was in-service training. Although only half of the
instructors had participated in a previous in-service training, 80% stated that they still
want to participate in in-service training. The instructors also stated that the in-service
training should provide active and applied learning; and one-on-one tutorials.
The use of technology is dependent on up-to-date hardware and software
(Gulbahar, 2007). It is also important to supply, update, and purchase the necessary
software. It is also vital to increase the technology infrastructure with respect to quantity
and quality. For technology use to be efficient and effective, technology needs to be
available to all stakeholders as needed. In addition, individual and group study
environments should be available for students. The quality and quantity of teacher use of
technology depends on the support provided; in-service, materials, and electronically
provided teaching-learning activities. Reward systems should be in place for both
teachers and students. Teachers should be publically acknowledged for technological
usage and given privileges and support to attend conferences and take courses. To
integrate the technology into the curriculum, a group needs to be assembled consisting of
teachers, consultants, educational technologists, and field experts. This group will show
where the technology can be used to address the course objectives; indicate where the
technology needs are for each discipline; and revise courses content, programs and plans
according to their findings. Gulbahar (2007) also points out that it is important to post
45
instructional materials to the web for all to access. This will encourage technology use
by students and teachers. Finally, teachers need to be technology-competent. This can
be accomplished through a computer course that teachers and administrators would take.
Additional in-service would be provided as needed following the course.
Gulbahar (2007) concluded that even though it is important to have up-to-date
technology; it is of no use if the students and instructors are not competent proficient in
their use of the technology and if there is sufficient material to support the intended
course. Also, the technology must support the purpose of the program with an adequate
number of computers in the classroom. Technology use by instructors is greatly
impacted by support and rewards. Immediate integration should take place after
planning, purchasing, training, and in-service. The depth of integration into the
curriculum is very important. The final step of importance is continuous evaluation,
improvements, and revision especially due to the rate of change in technology.
It is necessary for leaders to make a plan first (Gulbahar, 2007). Leaders will also
need to be sure that they purchase software and hardware that is in-line with the purpose
of its use by the stakeholders. There is also a need to plan for in-service in order to train
the instructors on how to use the technology tools and how to integrate the technology
into their classroom. Follow-up support and access to learning aids should be made
available. Leaders need to design a reward system for that will encourage teachers to use
the technology. A group needs to be assembled that will show how the technology can
be used to meet curriculum objectives and departmental needs. This group will also help
with the revision of courses and programs for effective and efficient use of the
46
technology. Leaders also need to be aware of the importance of having technology
accessible to all stakeholders, as it is needed. When purchasing the equipment, leaders
need to make sure that the technology and equipment is available in all classrooms for
teachers and students. And finally, leaders need to make plans to have continuous
evaluations of the technology with respect to maintenance, use, and effectiveness; as well
as keeping everything current.
The limitations of Gulbahar’s (2007) study were two-fold. First, it was a case-
study based on a private school. Although the study was very thorough, the strategies do
not take into account limited resources; such as financial or spatial. This school was able
to provide a computer to each student in a computer lab because no class was over 25
students and each lab contained 25 computers. Many schools are not able to have a one-
to-one student to computer ratio. Also, student access to computer labs is limited
Ensminger and Surry (2008) conducted a follow-up study to their 2003 and 2004
studies to determine how the eight environmental and human conditions that facilitate
implementation (Ely, 1990, 1999) are ranked depending on the type of occupation and
the type of innovation; and how the rankings were different between groups for each type
of innovation. The previous studies confirmed that the eight conditions were perceived
differently by the different occupation groups as well as by age, gender, ethnicity, and
technical ability. In the current study, Ensminger & Surry (2008) extended the previous
work by determining the relative rankings of the eight conditions by the three occupation
groups with respect to technology or process implementation. These eight constructs
have been shown to be influential in the implementation of innovations. The eight
47
categories were: 1) dissatisfaction with the status quo, 2) time, 3) leadership, 4)
resources, 5) commitment, 6) participation, 7) knowledge and skills, and 8) rewards and
incentives. The participants were asked to rank, in order of importance, the eight factors
of implementation for their respective innovation; technology or process using the
Implementation Profile Inventory (IPI).
The 635 participants for this study that represented K-12, higher education (HE),
and business and industry (BI) occupations were randomly selected from online list
groups. The participants were then randomly selected to one of two conditions:
technology innovation (n = 315) or process innovation (n = 320). Each participant was
given an online address to take the online version of the IPI for their corresponding
condition. The demographics of the participants (Table 1) show that k-12 was overly
represented by females; Caucasions dominated the technology pool by at least 84%; the
Caucasions were over 69% of the process pool; the majority of K-12 participants held
master’s degrees; the majority of HE participants held both master’s and doctorate
degrees; the BI participants primarily earned bachelor’s and master’s degree as their
highest level of education; and the BI pool had the fewest number of participants.
Ensminger and Surry (2008) found differences in rankings between occupations
with respect to the type of innovation. Within the technology group, there were 5
significant findings out of the eight conditions. First, it was pointed out that the K-12
occupation group felt that resources was the most important factor in technology
implementation and their rating was significantly higher than the HE and the BI
occupation groups, even though the HE occupation group also ranked it first. Second,
48
there was a significant difference in rating between the K-12 and HE occupation groups
with respect to skills and knowledge; the K-12 occupation group valued it more. Third,
the K-12 and BI occupation groups showed a significant difference in their rating of
participation. The BI occupation group ranked participation as their first component of
importance for technology implementation whereas the K-12 occupation group ranked
Table 1
Technology Process Technology Process Technology Process
Male 18 24 41 41 26 40
Female 104 108 84 67 37 34
Unknown 2 3 1 1 2 2
Caucasian 91.60% 68.90% 85.70% 89.90% 84.60% 69.70%
African-American 20%
Asian/Pacific Islander 18.40%
Unknown 1.60% 4.40% 1.60% 1.50% 5.30%
H.S. or equiv 3 3 7 3
Bachelor's 40 27 13 19 26
Master's 62 70 53 52 20 22
Specialist 12 18 7 1 3
Doctoral 8 6 53 34 11 10
K-12 Higher Education Business/Industry
PARTICIPANTS

Demographics of the participants in the Ensminger and Surry (2008)
it fifth; the HE occupation group ranked it second. Fourth, the data analysis showed a
significant difference between the K-12 and the HE occupation groups; and the K-12 and
the BI occupation groups with respect to time. Time was ranked third for the K-12
occupation group, but sixth for both the HE and BI occupation groups. And the fifth
significant finding was with respect to commitment. The business and industry
49
occupation group showed a significant difference in their ranking of commitment than
either the K-12 or HE occupation groups even though it was ranked last for all three
occupations.
For the process innovation group, Ensminger and Surry (2008) found 7 significant
differences between the occupation groups out of eight; skill and knowledge was the only
component that showed no significant difference and was ranked near the bottom for all
occupations. Dissatisfaction with the status quo was ranked as number one for all three
occupations. However, the HE occupation group showed a statistically significant
difference with the K-12 occupation group. Resources showed similar significant results
for the process innovation as with the technology innovations; the K-12 occupation group
ranked it higher than either the HE and business-technology occupation groups.
Participation was rated significantly lower for K-12 than the other two occupations;
similarly to the technology ratings. The BI and HE occupation groups rated commitment
significantly higher than the K-12 occupation group. Once again “time” showed a
significant difference. The K-12 occupation group was significantly different from the
other two occupations and as a result rated it as their third most important element;
ranked fifth and sixth for the HE and BI occupation groups, respectively. Leadership
showed a significant difference between the BI and K-12 occupation groups. It was
ranked fourth for the BI occupation group, sixth for the HE occupation group, and eighth
for the K-12 occupation group. Finally, rewards were the seventh component that
showed a significant difference. Rewards were ranked last by all but showed
significantly higher value to the K-12 occupation group than for the BI occupation group.
50
The finding from the Ensminger and Surry (2008) study indicate that the type of
innovation and occupation will determine the relative importance of the eight elements of
innovation implementation. “These results suggest that the “one size fits all” approach to
implementation planning is limited, and that tailoring implementation plans based on the
occupation group and type of innovation will be more successful.” (Ensminger & Surry,
p. 623) Therefore, leaders in higher education should review or conduct an
implementation profile to determine the order of importance of the eight necessary
constructs for their institution.
Owen and Demb (2004) looked at strategies that leadership could use in their
efforts to integrate technology. They cited the community college change model of
Carter and Alfred (1998/1999) as their framework for analyzing leadership strategies.
The five components of this model are understanding fundamentals, forging strategy,
identifying champions, supporting innovation, and commnicating and celebrating
success. Their data was coded for these elements of leadership with respect to
technology use in teaching and learning. Their data that was related to change analysis
was organized by the themes that developed which were change themes and institutional
themes. Triangulation was used to give credibility and consistency to the findings.
The findings from Owen and Demb (2004) show that the leadership strategies for
technology innovations expanded on the Carter and Aldred (1988/1999) community
college leadership change model. Their findings added commitment, the importance of
developing ways to cope with the risks of error inherent in true inovaiton; and the role of
dealing with unexpected events which they called serendipitous events. It was
51
determined that the leadership style and commitment were extremely important. The
leader that showed a participatory style and a consistency that was inclusive from
beginning to end was extremely effective. Under the category of forging specific
strategies, it was determined that the school made technology part of their formal and
informal mission. A technology team was formed to plan activities and budgets. Not
only was a student lab established, but a faculty lab was also established, where faculty
could learn how to use and experiment with new technology before integrating it into
their class. Faculty that incorporated technology were given release time or pay for
overloads when they used technology. Evaluation methods were put in place to learn
from their experiences and acquire feedback. Many different types of technology based
rooms were designed for both students and instructors.
The third area of the leadership model of distributing leadership through
champions was observed from small faculty groups to college sponsored technology
committees (Owen & Demb, 2004). These organizations of people developed the
activities and the acquired the knowledge about the technology. They became the
foundation for the school and its members with respect to implementation and role
models. They were also given resources in the form of money, equipement, and facilities
to engage in their technology programs.
Allocating substantial resources in support of innovation is the fourth component
of the Carter and Aldred model (1998/1999) which took the form of millions of dollars
for a new building, redesigned classrooms, equipement, and technical support. Money
52
was also set aside to pay teachers who participated in summer workshops to learn how to
use the technology, as well as for the people that facilitated these workshops.
The final component of the model of communicating and celebrating success used
internal and external recognition forms to acknowledge people that made contributions
toward using technology in creative ways. This served to inspire others or provide a
resource for people to contact for assistance with quesitons related to the work that was
acknowledged. The technology focus was continuously posted in school literature and
shared with the public as a method for teaching and learning that the school embrassed.
Serendipitous events was a new component to the leadership model that Owen &
Demb, (2004) observed. They noted that the school decided to embrace technology after
a major computer failure occurred with a poorly designed system. It was the crisis that
became the impetus for the attitude change. Not only was there an attitude change but a
new perception and awareness about technology.
Finally, Owen and Demb, (2004) found that commitment was the other
component that was needed for leaders to have. Commitment was demonstrated by many
leaders at the school, from the president to committee members. These leaders designed
programs, organized technology workshops, made technology related activities, worked
as technical support for their colleagues, etc. Commitment to technology implementation
was also demonstrated via the distribution of resources, rewards, incentives,
acknowledgements, and public awareness.
In conclusion, it can be said that the leaders need to really stress participation to
settle the tension and turbulence amonst their faculty. Participation can help to make the
53
transition more seamless, include more engagement, develop expertise, and increase buy-
in (Owen & Demb, 2004). Leadership must be consiststent and committed to the
implementation of the innovation and faculty support, while sustaining resources. The
culture can be developed through constant communication, evaluation, and planning.
However, it must be noted that technology planning is limited due to the unknown nature
of future techology.
Tondeur et al. (2008) found that leadership needs to include teachers and all other
stakeholders in developing technology policies. Leadership also needs to know how to
use the technology and have more access to resources. (Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak, &
Valcke, 2008) Evaluation is very important in the implementation process. It is
necessary to evaluate the technology, how it’s being used, and how it is decreasing the
gap between the vision and its current status (Afshari 2009; Chang 2008; Keengwe 2009;
Tondeur 2008). Working with others to find solutions or share ideas was found to help
with the implementation of technology (Afshari 2009; Keengwe 2009). Keengwe (2009)
suggests that a pre-analysis be conducted before adopting any technology or formulating
policy to determine the culture and needs of the institution. It was also stated that this
data be used to evaluate the gap between the current status and the needs that were
previously determined.
Williams (2011) found that the academic leadership stated that the institution had
a plan in place for recognition/reward for the use of technology as part of the faculty
professional development process and for recognition/reward for the use of technology as
part of the faculty recruitment, retention, & tenure processes.
54
Rogers (2000) points out the the most successful technology adoption plans are
those that include all of the stakeholders in addition to those that are hired to develop the
plan. She gives five broad strategies. First, the plans need to center around the mission
of the school, and teaching and learning. Second, an inventory should be made of the
stakeholders’ level of computer competency. Once this is determined, then the
appropriate type of support can be put in place, which provides more support for
beginners and innovators. Knowledgeable students can be hired to address basic
technology needs, while specialist can be hired for more advanced topics. Provisions
need to be made for support that ranges from large group to one-on-one settings. The
third strategy is to assess the attitudes and perceptions of the stakeholders. If needed,
planning needs to include ways to address any fears or misconceptions that are
contributing to the negative perspectives. To address strategies two and three, Rogers
(2000) suggested using focus groups, anonomous surveys, and interviews.
Considering all three major barriers simulteously is the fourth strategy, because
they are interrelated. Finally, time and funding must be considered. Users with limited
skills need more time to learn how to use the technology; develop lessons or activities;
and integrate these new skills both mentally and literally into their teaching regimen. And
funding must be appropriately distributed so as not to cause negative attitudes toward the
technology adoption. Negative attitudes repeat the cycle.
Technology use in Mathematics
In 2007, Schwarz reported that less than half of high school students were
prepared for college level math, and 57% of students enrolled at community college
55
enroll in developmental math. With that said, there is obviously a need for ways to
improve student math performance. The American Mathematical Association of Two-
Year Colleges (AMATYC) states that the math faculty should integrate technology as a
tool to help students discover and understand key mathematical concepts and enhance
conceptual understanding (AMATYC, 2006). However, Epper & DeLott Baker (2009)
state that less than 40% of community colleges use CMS or LMS and only about 40% use
some form of computer-aided instruction (CAI) which have been documented as tools
that have improved the math skills of community college students in developmental math
courses.
Hennessy, Ruthven, & Brindley (2011) conducted a study using focus groups
from math, English, and science departments that looked at how ICT was being used by
teachers; and how the use of ICT was shaping teaching and learning. Teachers’
perspectives of the motivation and constraints surrounding their use of ICT in subject
specific classrooms was also analyzed. Participants were also questioned about their
perceptions of the impact of government on the use of ICT; and their perspective on
where this area was going in the future. Six secondary schools within 50 miles of
Cambridge, England were the sites for this study, one-third of these schools served a
population that would be categorized as disadvantage due to the large number of students
that received free meals.
Hennessy et al. (2011) found that all departments used computers to access the
Internet; yet limited access to the computer restricted their use. The math department
used the technology more than the English department, that used it more than the science
56
department. The math and science departments both used spreadsheets, courseware,
and/or Internet revision sites; and math was the only subject that used graphing tools and
LOGO, an Internet programming language (http://el.media.mit.edu/logo-
foundation/logo/index.html). “Graphing in particular was a key area in which the
immediate response, visual representation, and dynamic effect afforded by using ICT was
described as helping students to access and understand difficult mathematical concepts
and relationships in ways which would otherwise be extremely difficult.” (Hennessy et
al., p. 182). The math and science technology allowed for investigation and
experimentation of the concepts as well as drill and practice; this can be student or
teacher driven (Hennessy et al., 2011). Therefore, it was determined that subject matter
dictated how ICT was being used.
Hennessy et al. (2011) also determined that when the technology was integrated
into the curriculum it was more effective. The amount of resources had an impact on
technology use, as more resources provided more opportunities for use. Yet, more
money did not coincide with more innovative or exceptional technology use. It was
noted that teachers did not use or integrate the technolgy wel. Rather, teachers tended to
teach the way they have always taught. This was also true for the innovative teachers,
who continued to integrate the technology more into their pedagogy. And, with
innovative use, the technology could stimulate the students to think at a more critical
level, increase motivation, and provide more in depth learning (Hennessy et al., 2011).
Furthermore, Hennessy et al. (2011) point out that the technology helps to make
57
complicated math tacks easier to understand through the visual representations, and it can
be used to illustrate things that otherwise may not be noticed.
Epper and DeLott Baker (2009) wrote a report that looked at technology use at the
community college level with developmental math students. They point out that it is
common knowledge that math students need to have prodecural fluency and conceptual
understanding to be successful in higher levels of math. However, there is a debate that
exist about how and what to teach. The technology will be driven by the answers to these
two questions.
In 1999, course redesign was created. It included technology as part of the math
pedagogy (Epper & DeLott Baker, 2009). The results of the redesign have increased
student success at the community college math student level. This translated into
improved student learning and retention. The redesign concept showed that technology
must be integrated into the curriculum for success, and not used as an add-on feature to
the course (Epper & DeLott Baker, 2009). Technology is needed in order to increase the
success of developmental math students Epper and DeLott Baker (2009).
Epper and DeLott Baker (2009) also found that specifically in community college
math departments there was an emphasis on procedural learning with developmental
math students and most of the software that was used came with the textbooks. These
software packages also focused on procedural fluency.
Crompton (2010) wrote about different math technologies for the classroom. In
this report Wolfram Alpha was noted as a popular web-based search and computational
knowledge engine that is appropriate for high school and college. Wolfram Alpha
58
gathers real statistics to answer questions of interest and presents them in a statistical
format (Crompton, 2010). Crompton (2010) points out that spreadsheets are a good way
of organizing and displaying data from middle school on up.
Other types of math technology that Crompton (2010) highlighted were such
things as Geometer’s Sketchpad (http://www.dynamicgeometry.com/), graphing
calculators, and virtual manipulatives. These math technology tools allow for
constructing of knowledge, discovery, and the ability to make conjectures. However,
Crompton (2010) points out that having the technology does not make it effective, but it
must be used to facilitate the learning by allowing for active involvement.
In conclusion, it can be seen that technology is a component that is needed in the
mathematics classroom, especially at the community college level. However, it cannot
be used as an add-on, but it must be integrated into the curriculum. Although a large
portion of the commerical products are geared toward procedural fluency which is
primarily what community college developemental classes focus on; it is conceptual
knowledge that needs to be incorporated in the classroom lessons as well. These two
components, procedural fluency and conceptual knowledge, are what all math classes
should have. Technology can be used to increase the procedural fluency and help in the
development of conceptual knowledge through active learning with graphs, spreadsheets,
and other technology tools that are constantly developing.
Theory/Conceptual Framework
Implementation of technology requires change; change in facilities, change in
staff, changes in funding, etc. Ensminger & Surry (2008) point out that Everett Rogers is
59
the expert in the field of change innovation, as he paved the way (Ely, 1999). In his
book, Diffusion of Innovations, Rogers (1995) lays out his theory of change. He outlines
five sequential steps for innovation-decision process: knowledge, persuasion, decision,
implementation, and confirmation. He also outlines four factors for diffusion:
innovation, time, communication channels and social system.
Ensminger and Surry (2008) also inform us about change models related to
education; the Concerns Based Adoption Model; the CREATER mode; the User Oriented
Instructional Development process; the Stockdill and Morehouse five factors of
successful implementation of technology; Ely’s eight factors of implementation; and the
RIPPLES model. The Ripples model was Ensminger and Surry’s version of Ely’s seven
factors of implementation that were reduced to five factors. For the purposes of this
paper, the model outlined by Ely (1990, 1999) will be used because the results of this
study, which will focus on community college, will be compared to the Ensminger and
Surry (2008) study that used Ely’s model with K-12 and higher education.
Ely (1990) comprised a model for facilitating the implementation of educational
technology in a variety of educaitonal settings. This model has eight components: 1)
dissatisfaction with the status quo; 2) knowledge and skills; 3) adequate time; 4)
participation; 5) commitment; 6) resources are available; 7) rewards and incentives; and
8)leadership. Dissatisfaction with the status quo is when the members of the educational
setting are no longer content with the way things are. Knowledge and skills refers to the
abilities of the users of the technology; if they do not have the knowledge and skills, then
change will not occur. Adequate time refers to the time needed to learn, adapt, integrate,
60
and reflect on what is being done. The fourth component is participation. Participation
refers to the ability of those impacted by the innovation to be a part of decision making
either individually or by a representative, in addition to communication, which is
expected and encouraged. Commitment refers to the initial commitment from the head
authority figure, then endorsement by the authority after those affected have had a chance
to provide their input and consideration, in short, commitment is about support. The
commitment must be obvious. Resources refers to the ease of having the necessary
equipment for the innovation. Rewards and incentives must exist for participants. The
final component is the leadership which refers to the continued support of both the
executive leader of the organization and the project leader who works on a day-to-day
basis with the user of the innovation. These leaders must ensure training, the availability
of the necessary materials, consultation when needed, and communicate enthusiasm.
These are the constructs that motivate people to try the new innovation, but remember
they vary per individual. Ely determined that some of these components were different
in other countries while some were consistent across countries. These eight conditions
are therefore dependent on the environment. However, the absence or partial presence of
any condition(s) will probably reduce the effectiveness of the implementation process.
Ely (1999) points out that dissatisfaction with the status quo was not a major
factor, but it is still needed. The knowledge and skill factor was one of the most
important factors. The factors did not indicate any form of hierarchy. The degree of
importance is determined by the innovation and the context in which the implementation
takes place (Ely, 1999).
61
The frameworks of Rogers (1995) and Ely (1995) provide a very clear lens
through which to organize the components of technology implementation. Rogers’
(1995) change theory is specifically focused on technology innovations and Ely’s (1990,
1999) factors of implementation focus on one aspect of change theory.
Rogers (1995) makes it clear that any change in an organization will cause
disruption. However technology based changes add more tension to the change process
because it is more personal. In education the tension would be between the leaders and
the instructors; as the leaders attempt to change the ways that teachers are teaching
(personal). As a result, this is where many of the leaders’ challenges will occur; with the
teachers.
Ely’s (1990, 1999) implementation factors will comprise the components that
leaders can use to devise their strategies for the implementation of technology. Although
it was determined that all eight factors are critical for successful implementation (Ely,
1999), the degree to which each factor ranks in importance will help to determine the
structure of their implementation plan (Ensminger & Surry, 2008).
62
Chapter 3: Methodology
Technology is all around us, from wired to wireless systems. Technology is also
in the classroom in the form of computers, curriculum specific software, and the Internet.
However, only a small percentage of instructors actually use technology for teaching
(Rogers, 2000). This formative evaluation study is going to examine how technology is
used in community college mathematics departments. This study will further examine
the role of leadership with respect to technology implementation; the challenges leaders
face with respect to technology implementation; and the strategies leadership can use to
implement technology.
Research Design
There are two fundamental approaches to research; quantitative and qualitative.
Quantitative research is appropriate for studies that require the use of standardized
measurements for predetermined categories (Patton, 2002). It also allows for large
sampling which gives more generalizability of the results to the population (Patton,
2002). The tool used for measurement, the instrument, must be valid and reliable (Patton,
2002). Qualitative research does not require predetermined categories and it allows for
more in depth and detailed data collection (Patton, 2002). Due to the magnitude of data
collection and interpretation that is associated with the qualitative design, the sample size
is generally much smaller than that of a quantitative design and therefore the results do
not lend themselves to a generalization of the population (Patton, 2002). In qualitative
design, the researcher is the instrument, and therefore the validity depends on the, “skill,
competence, and rigor of the person doing fieldwork-as well as things going on in a
63
person’s life that might prove a distraction.” (Patton, p. 14). This will be a qualitative
study that will use purposeful sampling. This sampling method is best for case studies
and it allows for more insight into the research topic (Patton, 2002; Creswell, 2007).
According to Afshari et al. (2009), leadership style played a significant role in
technology adoption. The identification or the ability to determine leadership style is also
very important. Afshari et al. (2009) conducted a quantitative study using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. The aim of the study was to determine the type of leadership
style that was associated with ICT use and competency. Further, they explored the
relationships between competencies, computer use, and leadership style. As a result, I
plan to interview my leadership participants with respect to their leadership style; and
percieved computer competence and use. My literature review also included a case study
(Owen & Demb, 2004) and other qualitative design studies (Afshari, Abu Bakar, Su
Luan, Abu Samah, & Say Fooi, 2009; Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008;
Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009) that directly asked the participants about
various aspects of technology implementation. This study will ask the participants
similar questions. None of the studies combined the MLQ or its focus, with community
college respondents, or used participants that were affiliated with the mathematics’
discipline. Furthermore, Rogers (2000) points out that many studies have been conducted
at the K-12 level and at universities, but very little research in this area has been
conducted at the community college. Ensminger and Surry (2008) further state that K-
12 and higher education have different perspectives on what is important for technology
implementation. But, they did not look specifically at community college, however their
64
higher education sample only contained one community college participant. Therefore,
this study will attempt to look at community college leaders that have influence on the
mathematics’ department with respect to technology implementation using Ely’s
(1990,1999) eight factors of implementation. Ensminger and Surry’s (2008) study
allowed participants to rank, in order of importance, these eight elements using Likert
scales. Ensminger and Surry (2008) suggest that future research include a qualitative
design to better understand the reason for the rankings of the implementation
components. Therefore this study is relevant and serves to add to the understanding of
how and why community college leaders and math instructors rank Ely’s (1990,1999)
eight implementation factors in the order that they did. As was previously stated in the
literature review, the ranking will not only show the order of importance of these
components to the organization but the ranking will serve as the unique guide for its
implemenation plan.
A qualitative approach allows for an in depth view of leadership and its
implementation. This study will obtain qualitative information from key personnel in
leadership positions and from mathematics instructors. Demographic information will be
gathered from all participants and the schools they serve. This information will support
my research questions regarding any differences between leaders and/or their schools that
might influence their leadership role , challenges, or strategies as they attempt to
implement technology in the mathematics’ classrooms at their community college.
65
The selection process for the participants will be described first. This will be
followed by a description of how the study will be conducted. Next, the instrumentation
will be discussed. And finally, a description of data analysis will be presented.
Site and Sample Selection
The California Community Colleges will be the source of participants.
The California Community Colleges system is the largest in the nation (Office,
2011). From a list of all of the California Community Colleges, three local
schools will be chosen. These three schools will be selected based on the
following criteria: 1) in the Los Angeles area, 2) predominance or equality of
different types of ethnic students (Asian, African-American, Caucasian, and
Hispanic) and 3) similar math course offerings. Since the study will include
community colleges from southern California, ethnic and cultural demographic
information will be collected because this is an exceptionally ethnically diverse
region which could have an impact on technology implementation or utilization.
The presidents, vice presidents of instruction, math department deans, vice
presidents of technology, and mathematics instructors from these three schools
will make up the leadership population, for a total of twelve leaders; four per
school. The school leaders will be asked about funding since funding plays a
major role in the successful implementation of technology according to Williams
van Rooij (2011, p. 1173).
The Chief Academic Officer (CAO), department chairs, and faculty work
collaboratively with the CIO with respect to the selection of enterprise-
66
wide software applications for teaching and learning, although the final
decision and funding for hardware and software that is to be supported
campus-wide usually resides with the CIOs office. … (T)he CAO
functional title may be the Provost, Vice President, Dean, or some other
similar title.
The CIO is the Chief Information Officer that may also be referred to as the CTO (Chief
Technology Officer) (Williams van Rooij, 2011). Other titles of CIOs are Director,
Dean, or Vice President; depending on the institution (Williams van Rooij, 2011). The
presidents and vice-presidents are being selected because they are part of the shared
governance team that makes decisions about funding (American Association of
University Professors, 2009). Funding pays for staff development, training, and
workshops. These support services are important components to technology
implementation (Ensminger & Surry, 2008; Gulbahar, 2007). And, the deans and chairs
make decisions on funding requests. They also work with their faculty by communicating
information to and from upper management; soliciting faculty for programs; evaluating
faculty performance; communicating desires for special types of workshops; and
scheduling faculty to teach in specific classroom, that may or may not have technology
equipment.
Mathematics instructors will be included to give their perspectives on their use or
lack of use of technology with respect to mathematics as a subject area as well as the
impact of leadership. They will also describe the technology they are currently using,
have used, plan to use, and would like to use. Five tenured or tenure-tracked instructors
67
from each school will be asked to participate because they tend to teach several different
math courses. This is important because instructors might vary the way they use
technology based on the level of the course they are teaching. Therefore, the selection of
these instructors will be based on a continuum of their technology use, from none to a
high degree in addition to the continuum of math course level, from pre-algebra to
calculus. The actual selection will be determined from a list of names from the math
department deans. The deans will be asked to give the names of 10 full-time tenured
math faculty that range in their use of technology (Appendix C), from 2 that implement
none or very little use, to 2 that implement a high degree of use; for a total of 10. With
this structure I can choose five instructors that span the implementation continuum and
have an alternate instructor.
Instrumentation
The community college leaders with influence on the mathematics departments
will be solicited: the dean/department chair, vice-president of instruction, vice-president
of technology, college president; and mathematics instructors. All participants will be
interviewed. The research has shown that leaders that demonstrate more of a
transformational style were more successful at technology implementation (Afshari, Abu
Bakar, Su Luan, Abu Samah, & Say Fooi, 2009). Afshari et al.( 2009) also found a
positive correlation between leadership style and computer competency. Therefore,
leaders will be asked about their computer competence and computer use, and their
leadership style (See Appendix A). Instructors will be asked to give their perceptions of
the leaders’ leadership style, for consistency of responses (See Appendix B). The
68
Computer Competence Scale that was developed by Flowers and Algozzine (2000) and
the the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire will serve as a basis for questions regarding
leadership style, computer competency, and computer use; respectively.
The test developed by Flowers and Algozzine (2000) consisted of 9 computer
categories -1) basic computer operations; 2) setup, maintenance, and troubleshooting; 3)
word processing; 4) spreadsheets; 5) database; 6) networking; 7) telecommunication; 8)
media communication; and 9) social, legal, and ethical issues. There will be four
components of use ranging from low to high and a fifth element where the participant
rates themselves overall in that category. Each item was rated on a four point Likert
scale. Each value of the Likert scale was explained as follows: 4 (very competent)
meaning the participant could teach others how to perform the task; 3 (competent)
meaning the participant can did not need assistance to complete the task; 2 (somewhat
competent) meaning the participant can perform the task with assistance; and 1 (not
competent) meaning the participant cannot complete the task. The test showed validity,
reliability, internal consistency, and stability reliability. The test was also positively
related to a performance-based assesssment.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was originally developed by
Bass in 1985. After serveral versions, the fifth (5X) was developed, which consisted of
36 items that a participant would respond to regarding the leadership style of their leader
on a four point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently) (Avolio & Bass,
1999). The areas of interest were charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, individual consideration, contingent reward, active management-by-
69
exception, passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire. The tests of the MLQ
showed high reliability, intercorrelations and factor loading.
All participants will be asked questions about Ely’s (1990) eight factors of
technology implementation based on research by Ensminger and Surry (2008). Ely’s
(1990) eight factors of implementation are commitment; dissatisfaction with the status
quo; knowledge and skills; leadership; participation; resources; rewards and incentives;
and time. Participants will be asked to rank the eight constructs, to explain their ranking;
and the degree of importance of each item (See Appendix A and B). Participants will also
be asked demographic questions for cross comparison among the institutions for
comparison with respect to leadership and math technology use (See Appendix A and B).
Instructors will be asked about their use of technology in each of the math courses that
they teach (See Appendix B). These questions will be used as a source of comparison
across campuses and level of mathematics. Instructors will also be asked to elaborate on
some of the close-ended questions in the interview, i.e. How do you use time?.
Data Collection
Having completed the IRB, the time needed to conduct the study is a few months.
During the month of June, 2011, I will develop my list of possible participants and locate
their e-mail addresses from their school websites. Once the list is confirmed, I will send
e-mails to the potential subjects explaining the purpose of study; how the results could be
useful to their institution; and asking for their participation. The letter will also state that
their responses should be honest; all responses will remain confidential; and the
responses are only to be used for my research study. The targeted participants would
70
consist of the president, vice-president of instruction, the vice-president of technology,
and mathematics’ department dean or chair from each of the 3 chosen California
community colleges, and mathematics instructors from each of the 3 chosen California
community colleges.
The first data collection period, using the leaders only, would occur during the
months of July and August of 2011. During the interview with the deans, a list of 10
possible instructor participants will be collected (See Appendix C). Five instructors will
be chosen from each school from this list based on the deans’ perceptions of the
instructors’ use of technology; and the remaining five instructor names will be used as
alternates, if needed. I will locate their e-mail addresses from their school websites, and
send e-mails to the potential subjects explaining the purpose of study; how the results
could be useful to their institution; and asking for their participation. The letter will also
state that their responses should be honest; all responses will remain confidential; and the
responses are only to be used for my research study. The instructor interviews will
commence in the fall semester of 2011.
All participants will be interviewed. Interviews will be conducted in person, if
possible. Alternatively, interviews can be conducted by phone or Skype. All interviews
will be audio taped after receiving participant consent. All information will be properly
secured. The final analysis of all of the data would follow.
Data Analysis
The interview responses will be analyzed using Creswell’s (2007) six steps for
analyzing qualitative data. After the interviews have been transcribed, the first step is to
71
organize and file the data. Second, transcripts will be read and notes will be made on the
text in order to help determine the initial coding. Next, the codes will be described. Each
category; any subcategory or emerging categories; and any unexpected or unusual data
will be coded as well. The codes will then be classified. Each subcategory and any
emerging categories will be defined. Fifth, the findings will be interpreted. And finally,
the data will be presented visually in the form of tables, figures, or pictures. Coded data
will be compared with the documented research for consistency, similarities, and
differences. After coding is completed, the data will be categorized. Once the interviews
are coded and categorized, the data will be analyzed. The results of the interviews will
also be compared across schools for trends, differences or patterns. The data will also be
compared to the findings from the literature review.
Ethical Considerations
All prospective interview participants will be informed of their confidentiality and
their right to end the interview at any time. Confidentiality will be stressed to all
participants so they might not worry about their responses causing negative consequences
with respect to their job.

72
Chapter 4: Results
The aim of this study was to compare community colleges leaders as they attempt
to implement technology into their math departments. Community colleges were chosen
due to the lack or limited amount of inclusion in the research surrounding this topic. The
predominance of research focused on grades K-12 or four-year post-secondary
institutions. When community colleges were included, their input was very small in
comparison to the other post-secondary institutions. Math was chosen for several
reasons. First, math is an area where technology was found to increase student success.
Second, since students have been found to perform at such a low level in math, it is
worthwhile to see what technology is being used to help them. Finally, since community
colleges are serving an overwhelmingly large number of remedial math students, it is
important to see what they are doing in the area of technology to improve student
success.
The results of this study will begin with the site descriptions. This will be
followed by information on the participants from the schools. Finally, the results will be
presented by research question. Each research question will be organized as follows: the
finding from each school; a comparison of the schools; and a summary of those findings.
Site Description
For this study, two community colleges in Los Angeles, California and one
community college from a Los Angeles suburb were selected to participate in this
research study on the role of leadership in the implementation of technology in their
mathematics departments. Due to the state budget crisis, many community colleges did
73
not have a winter intercesssion or they offered a reduced number of classes. As a result,
only two schools were able to participate.
School A is located ten miles east of downtown Los Angeles with over 25,000
students that come from 14 local multicultural communities. The student enrollment for
fall 2010 was 18.5% Asian, 2.1% African-American, 76.5% Hispanic, and 2.2% white;
where 23.4% of the students were below the poverty level (District, 2012). The faculty,
as of fall 2007, at School A consists of Caucasian (24.7%), African-American (5.2%),
Hispanic (36.2%), Asian (14.7%), and other/unknown (22.2%) instructors (College,
2008). The math department instructors consists of 16 males and 7 females; 1 African
male, 1 African-American male, 4 Asian females, 5 Asian males, 1 Latino female, 3
Latino males, 2 Caucasian females, and 6 Caucasian males.
School B is the oldest two-year college in its district serving an ethnically diverse
community where 37% of students are below the poverty level (District, 2012).
According to one of the school’s administrators, School B was located in a community
that was found to be the poorest in the nation. Located just south of downtown Los
Angeles, School B has an enrollment of over 15,000 students. The student enrollment for
fall 2010 was 7.5% Asian, 29.7% African-American, 54.6% Hispanic, and 7.0% White
(District, 2012). As of fall 2009, the faculty at School B consists of Caucasian (36%),
African-American (18%), Hispanic (16%), Asian (9%), and other/unknown (21%)
instructors (Tech, 2009). Attempts to obtain the demographic breakdown of the current
faculty and the math department faculty from the school were unsuccessful. I was
directed to a website that only provided faculty demographics from 2009.
74
The total population at School A was more than 40% larger than School B. The
population at both school were primarily hispanic; approximately 78.1% at School A and
51.3% at School B during the 2010-2011 academic year (CCCCO, 2012). School A, the
school with the largest hispanic population, had 17.3% Asian, 2.1% Caucasian, and 1.9%
African-American (CCCCO, 2012). Although School B had a similar percentage for
Caucasian 5%, it had the opposite percentage for African-American 27% and Asian 4.3%
(CCCCO, 2012). However, when the African-American and Hispanic enrollments are
combined, School B consisted of about 85% of what is considered the primary minority
groups (African-American and Hispanic), whereas School A enrolled about 78% of the
same two minority groups during the fall of 2010.
Participants
Participants from the three schools previously described were invited to be
interviewed. However only a limited number of administrators and instructors were
available due to the state budget crisis, which resulted in few or no winter classes.
Leaders and instructors were contacted during the winter intercession at the two schools
that were in session, for participation in the study. Interviews were conducted in person
for all but one person, who gave a phone interview; and all interviews were recorded for
accuracy.
Eleven people served as participants . The 11 participants fell into one of two
categories: admistrator or instructor. The participants were then identified by school, and
were labeled as described for comparison of participant by school within the indicated
75
category. After describing each subgroup, comparisons were made about those
subgroups.
Figure 1

Administrators
The three administrative participants at School A were all Caucasian, 2 males,
Paul, age 69, and Bob, age 64; and 1 female, Angela, age 52. The educational experience
of these administrators was 40, 22, and 35 years, respectively. Paul spent the last 13 of
these years at the same school, in the same administrative position. In addition, Paul was
the only administrator in the study that had previous administrative experience. Bob
spent the last 14 years at the same school and the last 10 of those years in his current
administrative administrator to and an instructor within the math department. Angela
4.3%
0.2%
14.2%
1.2%
62.3%
0.2%
0.2%
11.3%
6.1%
Ethnic Demographic for School A Fall 2010
African-American .
American Indian/Alaskan
Native.
Asian .
Filipino .
Hispanic .
Multi-Ethnicity .
Pacific Islander .
76
has spent the last 13 of her years at the same school and the last 5 of those were in her
current adminstrative position.
Figure 2

The two administrative participants at School B consisted of one Caucasian male,
35 year old Matthew, and a 42 Caucasian female, Janice. The educational experience of
these administrators was 7 and 20 years, where they spent 4.5 and 25 years at their
current institution respectively. Matthew had only been in his current administrative
position for 1 month at the time of the interview. However, Matthew is still the, “…grant
coordinator for a Department of Education Title V Grant…The purpose of or a goal with
the grant was to really expand upon technology on (the) campus.” Therefore, his
participation was very appropriate to this study. Janice had been at her current postion
for 10 years, and about 50% of her time has been spent at her current position while at
27.21%
0.31%
4.31%
1.54%
51.37%
0.70%
0.24%
7.87%
6.45%
Ethnic Demographic for School B Fall 2010
African-American .
American Indian/Alaskan
Native.
Asian .
Filipino .
Hispanic .
Multi-Ethnicity .
Pacific Islander .
77
this institution. The two administrators at School B also worked as adjunct instructors at
the school. As a result, they were aware of the needs of the instructors and the students
from a hands-on perspective. Janice stated that, “I teach because I need to know what are
the students like. I don’t want to be foreign to them.”
Figure 3

All of the administrators at School A had more experience than all of the
administrators at School B. In addition, most of the administrators at School A had also
served in thier current positions longer than those at School B. All of the administrators
in this study were Caucasian and worked at schools that were less than 8% Caucasian and
over 75% minority (African-American and Hispanic).
Instructors
The were 4 instructors from School A. First, there was 53 year old John, a
Middle Eastern (Caucasian) man. John had 25 years of experience in the field of
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Paul Bob Angela Janice Matthew
educational experience
years at school
years in current position
78
education where the last 22 of those years were spent at School A as an instructor. Next,
there was 33 year old George, a man of Mexican origin. George had 8 years of
experience in the field of education and spent the last 6 years as an instructor at School A.
Then there was 35 year old Jane, a Chinese female. Jane had 9 years of experience in the
field of education where she spent the last 7 of those years as an instructor at School A.
Finally, there was 39 year old James, a Korean man. James had 16 years of experience in
the field of education where the last 7 of those years were spent at School A as an
instructor. All of the instructors taught some level of algebra. John also taught word
problems, statistics and calculus; Jane also taught calculus and statistics; and James also
taught algebra online, calculus, statistics, and trigonometry.
The 2 instructors from School B were Mary, a Caucasian female over 60 years of
age; and Robert, a Hispanic male that was 54 years old. Robert reported that he had 10-
15 years of educational experience and spent the last 3 of those years as an instructor at
School B. Mary had 41years of experience in the field of education and the last 12 of
those years had been spent as an instructor at School B. Both instructors taught several
levels of algebra, basic math, and statistics. However, Mary, the older instructor, also
taught trigonometry as well as online classes.
There were a total of 6 instructors from the two schools that revealed a very a diverse
teaching staff. In comparison, the instructors from School A were on average much
younger than those at School B, and had less experience. The most experienced person at
School A had 22 years of experience as compared to 41 years experience for an instructor
at School B. The least experienced instructor at School A worked for 6 years as an
79
instructor whereas at School B, their least experienced instructor had over 10 years of
experinece. However, all of the instructors taught some level of algebra since and
including the Fall semester of 2011 and winter intercession of 2012.
Figure 4

Results: Research Question One
Research question one asked: How do community college leaders differ across
schools in facilitating the use of technology in mathematics departments? The aim of this
question was to compare the technology knowledge and skills of the community college
leaders; their technology awareness with respect to their math departments; and to look at
their perceptions of their role as leaders as it related to the implementation of technology
within their math departments. Since leadership was found to be an important
component with respect to technology implementation (Keengwe et al, 2009; Tondeur et
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
John George Jane James Robert Mary
Age
Experience
Years at School
instructor at School
80
al, 2008). It was important to look at the role that leadership played in technology
implementation.
To begin the comparison of community college school leaders, administrators
were asked several questions related to technology; about their familiarity, competency,
and use of technology. They were also asked about various related technology skills:
basic computer operations; word processing; computer maintenance and troubleshooting;
spreadsheets; databases; networking; ethical and legal issues; and telecommunication. In
addition, administrators were asked about their feeling about technology use in the math
department, implementation of technology in the math department, their awareness of
programs being used by the math department, and the role they played in the
implementation process.
Although all of the administrators at School A stated that they were familiar with
the basic computer programs and operations on their computers, and the use of email;
their knowledge and skill levels still varied. Administrator Bob described his computer
competency as low. He stated that, “I only use it for basic things like Microsoft Excel
and Microsoft Word. I don’t use the advanced features like programming or anything
like that.” Since Bob serves as both an administrator and an instructor, he pointed out
that he used his computer, “…to compose tests and sometimes to do some kind of
research. … or some other projects that the school may have me do.” In addition, he
pointed out that within the math department, they use the computers for,
“…communicating with the students …posting grades…assignments…,” and they use
the TI-83, TI-84, and TI-89 graphing calculators. Administrator Paul stated that he was,
81
“…not very techy,”; “I follow the prompts.” Paul also used his computer to access the
Internet to find information on, “…what’s being done elsewhere in the fields of research
…or things pertaining to education or community college, and directs it to the
appropriatate faculty and adminstration.” However, he stated that when it came to
technology, he relied on others. The third adminstrative leader at School A, Angela
identified herself as an early adopter and one who writes html.
Both administrators from School B reported that they used their computers for
administrative tasks, email, and for creating instructional materials; since they also work
as adjunct instructors at School B. Although both of the administrators were familiar with
computers, Matthew was familiar with many more types of software; including programs
and technology related to media production. As a result, he was the only administrator
that reported their computer competency as high, whereas Janice, the other leader
reported hers as basic. In addition, Matthew also used the computer to create videos.
Since Matthew was also the grant coordinator for technology implementation, he
provided the computer training for faculty and staff as well as training for online
programs.
It appeared that all administrators used their computers for administrative tasks,
email and word processing, yet there was still a degree of variation in other aspects of
technology . In comparison, the School A administrators were not as technology oriented
or experienced with many aspects of technology as the administrators from School B.
However, both schools had at least one member that was very comfortable with
technology; Angela from School A had described herself as an early adoptor of
82
technology, and Matthew from School B, who held a master’s degree from a well
established cinematography school, was a new administrator that was still in charge of
the Title V Grant initiative for technology. As a result, Matthew was very involved with
the purchasing, implementation, and training of the new technology. On the other hand,
at School A, admininstrator Paul had very little experience with technology other than
signing off on purchases.
When administrators from School A were asked about the nine different
components concerning technology skills, their responses overwhelming pointed to email
use as their main technology skill. As Bob pointed out, “I don’t do facebook or twitter or
chat or any of that stuff, no. Email is it.” They all pointed out that email was used to
communicate, and sometimes to network with others. All of the leaders reported their
basic computer operation and word processing skills positively. However, their
responses to the direct question tended to apply to using different programs like Google
or Microsoft Word instead of computer operations. But within Paul’s response he stated,
“I think for what I do, I’m capable of doing it,” seemed to be a more appropriate
description. With respect to the other technology related skills, the answers varied
between administrator, but they were appropriate based on the individual’s description of
their technology and computer abilities.
Paul was the administrator with the least amount of computer competency. As a
result, he reported that he had no spreadsheet; database; or set-up, maintenance, or
troubleshooting skills. Bob rated his computer competency as low, as well as his set-up,
maintenance, and troubleshooting skills. Bob, who felt that he had no database or media
83
communications skills, stated, “I don’t use the advanced features like programming or
anything like that.” Yet, he stated that he was good at using spreadsheets. Angela, the
self-described early adopter, rated seven of the nine skills questions as high, good, or
very good. The only area that she did not describe this way was database skills.
The two skills areas of social, legal, and ethical; and networking tended to yield
answers that indicated different interpretations by the respondants. Paul and Bob
interpreted networking as communicating with others and therefore stated that they
network by using email. Angela clearly stated that she used her computer to email yet
when asked about networking she replied, “I don’t do that. I don’t know anything about
that.” With respect to social, legal, and ethical issues, the responses indicated that the
participants were not thinking about technology. Paul’s response to the question was
about himself; “I am very ethical.” Bob’s response was based on current events; “I just
took the …harassment course…so I know what you are supposed to do in case somebody
is being harassed or something like that.” Finally, Angela just responded that her skills
were high in this area.
As expected, School B had more positive responses to the nine technology
related skills, because their self-reported evaluations of their computer competency and
technology ability were rated higher. Also, Janice pointed out that they have gone
paperless and therefore everything that used to be communicated using paper was now
being shared electronically; “…where we were so paper oriented; … now things are done
via electronics. ... We have now voted to do electronic signatures. We are strictly email
based. All communication going out to classified, chairs, faculty is done via the email.
84
We have now implemented online rosters, …assign grades,…(and) exclude students all
through a computer system from our district office.”
Matthew gave every skill component a positive response. His lowest skills were
database and networking. He reported that his database skills as limited and stating, “ I
don’t do a lot of that.” He rated networking the same way, but he interpreted the question
as connecting computers to interface as opposed to using the computer for people to
network with each other. Consequently, he stated that he needed technical support from
the school. On the other hand, Matthew was the only participant that really understood
the question about social, legal, and ethical skills as it relates to technology; “I would say
they are good. As a college, thoughout our training, we try to be very responsible in
terms of letting our instructors know that there are very specific guidelines in terms of
…ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance; something we emphasize a lot in
terms of their online content making sure that it’s ADA compliant. Also, there are a lot
of copywrite issues that come up when you’re posting materials online; when you are
sharing documents online. We try to make them aware of that as well.” Matthew went
on to describe himself as above average with respect to set-up, maintenance, and
troubleshooting. As the technology coordinator, he set-up many of the technology
components, and he was often used by others to solve their computer problems. He uses
several different spreadsheet programs on a regular basis and so he rated his spreadsheet
skills as strong. He earned an advanced degree in media communications and according
to him, he, “started working in the media department and …(he) create(d) a number of
skill videos working with instructors to create videos, short videos that they could use in
85
the classroom or online for their students to emphasize skills that come up over and over
again.”
Janice said that she had no media or database skills; and her set-up, maintenance,
and troubleshooting skills were low. Although, she was willing to try to improve these
skills. At the same time, Janice who uses email on a regular basis, described her
networking skills in a negative way because she is, “not a facebook user; …(she) doesn’t
use Skype.” She pointed out that she is, “…not into that type of thing, cause (she has)
got so much to do,” that she doesn’t have time. She said she struggled with the
spreadsheet application Microsoft Excel, but now she is quite good at it and uses it to
chart her students’ grades, progress, and work. In the area of social, legal, and ethical
skills as it relates to technology, Janice pointed out that she does not stand for improper
use of email. She shared that they had had problems in the past with people writing
things in email that were not accurate. Janice said, “I believe it’s a responsibility that
whatever we’re sending out in terms of communication, that you are very careful about
what you are saying, while any kind of things you might be saying about someone, or
accusations,…you don’t know it to be true.”
At School B, both Matthew and Janice felt strong and very good, respectively,
about their basic computer operations skills and their word processings skills. Overall,
they seemed to be very comfortable about using and learning to use current and new
technology.
All of the administrators from the two schools were comfortable with basic
computer operations and word processing. Email appeared to also be a feature that all
86
administrators used on a regular basis. However, with School B having a paperless
system in place, they used email for communication as well as for administrative tasks.
Overall, the administrators at School B had more advanced technology skills than those at
School A. For example, School A had two people that stated they had good spreadsheet
skills, while at School B there was someone that used multiple spreadsheet platforms on a
regular basis. School B was the only school that had an administrator that had database
skills and really understood legal issues related to technology use; as well as someone
that understood ethical issues involving technology use. Networking was equated with
email for the two administrators at School A with low technology ability. Whereas at
School B, networking was interpreted as using social media and telecommunication, not
email. For the two strongest technology skilled administrators, Angela at School A was
not familiar with networking, whereas Matthew from School B immediately thought
about his limited skills for linking computer systems. With respect to telecommunication,
almost everyone limited their thoughts to email. Janice was the only one who pointed out
that, “…the phone is kind of not used as much…the email is our official form of
communication.” But what they all failed to consider were things like their mobile
devices, text messaging, instant messaging, Skype, facebook, Linkedin, etc. Janice
mentioned Skype and facebook with respect to networking but not for tele-
communication. Once again only Angela, from School A and Matthew from School B
acknowledged their media communications skills. Angela simply stated that her skills
were high but Matthew not only earned a degree in this area but actaully made videos.
The administrators did not seem to consider their use of overhead or LCD projectors, dvd
87
players, or power point. As Bob pointed out, “I don’t do any media like videos or like
that. I have never, never done that.” Janice stated that she didn’t have a need for it, but if
she did, she would seek assistance so she could use it.
Finally, administrators were asked about their perceptions and awareness of
technology and technology implementation as it related to the math department. Once
again, there were differences within and between schools. Their responses were
sometimes confirmed by their instructors.
At School A, all of the administrators were positive about the use of technology in
the mathematics department, but for different reasons. Paul felt that technology was, “…
fine to supplement good teaching.” While Angela pointed out that, “students expect it;
it’s the way they operate. It gives an opportunity to do the kind of drill-and-kill things
that they need to do to master mathematics,…it’s convenient. It gives them instant
feedback. All of those things are good for learning math.” And Bob, who is also an
instructor, stated that, “it’s important. We use it for research. We use it for writng tests.
We use it to do our grades now. We use it to communicate with the students via email.
We use it to post assignments and to put practice exams and all that.” However, when
they were asked about implementation of technology in the mathematics department the
responses were sometimes contradictory. Paul pointed out that there are math instructors
that embrace technology and use it to enhance their teaching; and there are some
instructors that avoid technology all together. He also added that there are, “ a significant
number who avoid teaching.” In other words, these teachers project things on the
overhead and ask students to treat it like a text book; no teacher-student communication.
88
Paul went on to say that the college tries to get the math students to use the math lab to
help them to master and enhance their math skills. On the hand, Angela pointed out that
establishing the lab was a big shift for the math department as was the incorporation of
distance learning. She went on to say that, “…almost all of the department is on board,”
with the distance learning. She make the point that it took early adoptors to put these
programs in place; and these early adopters were math instructors not administrators.
Bob viewed implementation in another way. He simply pointed out that at one time no
one had a computer and now everyone has a computer and, “…there’s not a person in the
department that won’t use a computer for some reason or another.”
At School B, both administrators were positive about the idea of technology use
in the math department. Matthew pointed out that the instructors that are using the
technology are using it in creative ways, and he would like to see more instructors using
the technology. Janice felt that technology use was very important. She added that it’s,
“a way to communicate and teach math rather than the chalkboard type of classroom.”
However, she emphasized that face-to-face instruction is still important. With respect to
the actual implementation of technology in the math department, Matthew clearly
focused on the needs of the department, stating that, “the needs of the math department
are not the same as the needs of the English department; they don’t need the same
software. They don’t need the same tools. It’s a matter of really trying to work closely
with the leadership in those departments to understand exactly what it is they need, what
their students need, and designing the technology around the specific area.” Janice added
that what, “we are looking for (is) the goal of the math department.” She expressed the
89
desire of the math department was to have a staffed math lab to be used by students for
learning math via technology. She went on to point out that the lab was established and
opened, but not in the manner in which it was designed.
With respect to implementation, the admininistrators at School A viewed it on a
continuum, from not having computers to incorportating them into their instruction. Yet,
none of them had the same perspective of the issue of technology implementation in the
math department. However, at School B the focus was specifically on the needs and
goals of the math department , the students, and getting them what they needed. In
addition, the administators at School A were not on one accord like the admininistrators
at School B.
When the administrators at School A were asked about the programs currently
being used in the math department there was once again a variety of responses. Paul
pointed out that he signs off on purchases but he only recalls a program called Maple. He
was aware that there are other programs that they use in the math lab, but he does not
know what they are. Angela knows that they are using Mathxl but not sure about what
other programs they are using. Bob had more knowledge of programs being used since
he also teaches in the math department. He mentioned Mathxl, as well as several
programs for statistics: Minitabs, Statdisk, and Microsoft Excel. He acknowledged that
there are other programs that instructors are using besides the ones mentioned but he does
not know which ones. He also shared that some programs that they use, like Maple, were
outdated; and that they had a much older version compared to the current version.
90
At School B, they were not aware of the programs by name but they could
describe their use. They described the Mathxl/MyMathlab by Pearson, Moodle, and
Khan Academy. Matthew was also aware of the training that was provided to some
members of the math department on use of the IPad for classroom instruction. Although,
they did not know the names of the programs, they were familiar with some of the
instructors that were using these programs.
It appeared that the administrators at both schools were aware that programs were
being used by their math departments, but not always the specific programs or what they
were used for. Sometimes they were aware of the particular instructors that were using
some of these programs.
When asked about their role in the implemetation of technology in their math
departments, both schools responded in a similar way. The following list of quotes
captures what they said: “I enourage and supported them.”, “I’m just a cheerleader.
They don’t need me. If they need something and they need me to help them get it, I do
that.”, “Not to interfere with people who want to use technology. I never say no to
people that want to use technololgy.”, “…to make technology an integral part of
…math,” and finally, “I’m the support person.” Although the words sound similar, it
was School B that really emphasized working with the department and helping the
students. Matthew at School B pointed out that, “I certainly do want to work with (the)
math department and make that, because in particular our student so many of them
struggle with math and English when they first get here. And it’s something that holds a
lot of our students back.” Janice added, “I work for the faculty and I work for the
91
students. …again, the needs of the students are very important and I think technology
now is playing a role in hopefully building their skills. Students tend to test very poorly
in the math levels here at our campus and so there is a lot of that need to build up those
skills so that they can move on.”
Although the leadership of School A felt their role was to support and encourage
technology implementation and use, the instructors had mixed perspectives. John pointed
out that, “the new IT group… (they) are very supportive, and I feel like I am not going to
be left on an island by myself. They have contributed a lot to my success of computer
usage.” John also pointed out that the school leadership provided workshops, and flex-
day activities to introduce them to different Internet and computer applications.
However, he emphasized that it was the students that were the reason for his use of
technology, because the students stated that they wanted computers to be a part of their
learning experience, to better prepare them for life after community college. Jane, on the
other hand only felt encouraged to use the computers because the school made the
technology available to the students so she stated, “we have a math lab. We do have a lot
of computers there, and our software programs for math are installed there, and that
encourages us to use it because it is available to students.” Therefore, Jane felt like, “I do
it (use technology) because I have to do it, and I learn.” She went on to say, “I guess they
have tried to provide support in case anything that happen, there is an IT person that can
help. Not that I know anything that really encourage us.” James did not feel any
encouragement. He wasn’t sure about what leadership had done except that the,
“…chairperson request a new computer, he provide me….Not much, I don’t think.” He
92
felt that the school’s online program did provide support and encouragement by requiring
instructors to attend courses to be a part of the distance-learning program. George simply
stated that nobody encouraged the use of technology.
Surprisingly, at School B the instructors did not feel that leadership was
instrumental in their use of technology. Robert pointed out that at other community
colleges he did have that experience, but not at School B. Mary stated that the best thing
leadership could do was to not interfere; “I should be grateful for them not to be an
obstacle in my way.” With respect to encouragement, Robert pointed out that the
department chair, “…initiated the contact with them (the book publisher), they come over
here, and they provide us with the training.” Mary felt discouraged by leadership because
of news that, “…for online classes they are going to pay less than for live classes.” This
was very upsetting because, as she pointed out, online classes, “…take more time. You
are actually answering to each student individually instead of talking to 48 students at
once,…some students send questions every day. I am on the phone, I am answering
emails, and they come to me in office hours because they are around,…so it is like triple
time for them.” Whether or not this is true, it was not a reflection on the leadership of the
school, but rather of the State. With respect to the school, Mary went on to say she had
nothing to say about the leadership with respect to technology implementation for
instructors but, “…if the ending point is the students, here we have a problem.”
When the responses of the leadership of the two schools were compared to the
responses of the instructors at the same school about the role that leadership played in the
implementation of technology in the math department, there was, once again a variety of
93
responses. At School A, the instructors generally felt that leaders made some attempt to
encourage them. The instructors pointed out the purchase of software programs for the
student lab, with such; they needed to learn how to use the technology so they could help
their students. However, overwhelmingly they still felt that their real source of inspiration
to use technology was the students, not the leadership. School B, on the other hand was
in a different situation. They recently received their Title V Grant, several years after
School A, and they were still in the process of implementing their technology. They had
the hardware in place, and Matthew, the grant coordinator and dean had not yet had the
chance to work with the math department directly, but said, “we are looking for ways to
really make technology an integral part of (both) math, English, and basic skills.” And
so, the leaders at School B had not been as instrumental in the implementation of
technology in their math department due to their current technology status, but they had
not been an obstacle either. On the other hand, School B did reach out to the math
department to address their needs and the needs of their students.
Summary of Research Question 1
The results reveal that the technology knowledge and skills ranged from none to
very high for the leaders at Schools A and B. Overall, School B leaders had a stronger
technology understanding because their knowledge and skills were more advanced. Most
of the leaders at School A had low technology knowledge and skills, if any. It appeared
that the leaders at Schools A and B were not fully aware of the technology being used by
their math departments. They all seemed to know about the Pearson product,
MyMathLab/Mathxl. However, at School B, they were aware of which teachers were
94
using a lot of technology. The leaders at School A were not as pro-active as the leaders
at School B with respect to technology implementation in the math department. School A
left it to the teachers to do what they wanted to do, while School B leaders interacted with
the department to determine their needs. At School A, the early adopters of technology
for the math department were actually math instructors, not the administration. At
School B, their leadership was focused on determining the needs of the math department,
as opposed to generic technology implementation, and trying to meet the needs of the
math department and its students. The leaders at School B were aware that each
department was unique, and they want to meet the needs of the departments based on the
program reviews, as well as the personal input from the instructors in each department.
Finally, all of the leaders from the two schools saw their role with respect to technology
implementation as someone who encourages and supports. However, the instructors did
not always agree. Even though most instructors admitted to the school providing some
type of training, they did not see this as a real source of encouragement to use
technology, nor did they see the fact that the School actually purchased technology as a
source of encouragement. School A instructors saw their students, their department, or
others outside of their School as their source of encouragement to use technology.
Whereas the School B instructors noted that their leaders were not a source of
interference when it came to their technology use.
Results: Research Question Two
Research question two asked: How do community college leaders’ challenges and
strategies differ across schools in facilitating the use of technology in mathematics
95
departments? The aim of this question was to see what community college leaders see as
obstacles and solutions to technology implementation barriers with respect to their math
departments. According to Ensminger & Surry (2008), an organization’s approach to
successfully implementing technology should be based on their ranking of eight different
factors: commitment, dissatisfaction with the status quo, leadership, participation,
knowledge and skills, resources, rewards and incentives, and time. Therefore the leaders
and instructors were asked to rank these factors. The results of their rankings and the
success of their technology implementation were compared. First, the challenges for
each school were compared. This was followed by the strategies that were used. Finally,
the ranking of the eight components for implementation of technology were compared.
The instructor views were integrated into these comparisons for validation of the issues
of challenges and strategies as seen by the administration.
At School A, there was a lack of agreement among administrators on what the
challenges were with respect to technology implementation in the math department. Paul,
one of the vice-presidents, felt the challenge was simply working with the math
department. He pointed out that, “sadly, I think we have some (teachers) who avoid it
(technology) all together.” And he went on to say, “I think we have some, a significant
number who avoid teaching. In other words, there are some people who have discovered
that rather than communicating with students, you can put something on an overhead
projector, show it, ask the students to treat that as if they are treating a textbook.” Paul
felt that part of the problem with implementation came from the community college
evaluation system. He felt that the peer evaluators tended, “…to not hold some of the
96
colleagues accountable in terms of developing new strategies; supplementing
instruction.” According to Paul, the administration, “…could not rely on the faculty to
adhere to the spirit of what they were supposed to be doing,” with the technology;
because they were not using it in the way it was designed to be used. Paul went on to say
that, “There are some things they’re meant to do utilizing technology, like implement
student learning outcomes, and assessments, and so on; and not all the faculty (either) do
what they are supposed to.” Finally, Paul stated that, “we couldn’t and can’t rely on the
math department managing its own members, evaluating then, and so on.”
Angela, one of the deans from School A, had a contradictory view. When she was
asked about challenges she’s encountered with implementing technology in the math
department, she simply replied, “I haven’t encountered any. They don’t have the
resistance; the English department is full of resistance to technology. …Math is not that
way; they embrace it.” She even went on to talk about distance learning and said that,
“they’ve really embraced distance education for math. That’s a whole different set of
parameters; a different kind of skill; ... but now almost all of the department is on board”.
She believes that the math department knows what they are doing since, “…it’s been
about 10 years since they really got serious about technology.”
The third administrative leader from School A, Bob, said, “the only challenge is
cost.” He pointed out that the cost for the software licenses are very high. As a result,
his campus is, “…several editions behind because it is so expensive to get licenses.” He
went on to say, “if you want to use a program that’s not readily available free on the
Internet, then you have to pay for it and that’s the problem.” Bob mentioned that, “a lot
97
of instructors don’t want to use it (technology).” However, he did not indicate that this
was a challenge or problem. Bob felt that, “It’s up to the instructors. I don’t force (it)
upon people. It’s something they have to accept and want to do on their own.”
Instructor John from School A also believes that cost is a factor. John pointed out
that, “some of our classrooms are not technology ready. …SMART classrooms would be
a great help …that would be a great need.” John also felt that communication was
needed amongst the math instructors. According to John, “We all use technology in our
own ways but unfortunately, like most teachers, we don’t communicate of the things that
we do; we keep it to ourselves. … It’s like the feeling is, if I’m doing it and it’s working,
it’s my pride so I am not going to share. That’s not the way it’s supposed to be.”
However, Jane, another instructor felt like the math instructors did share. She stated that,
“A lot of time that our department or maybe the publish company come and present their
product, and we get information(s) and we hear from our colleagues who maybe did
something using this technology and share with us. … So mostly share among our
faculties and from publisher or whoever has the technologies.” Jane also voiced that she
felt that the leadership did not really encourage the instructors to use technology. George
shared Jane’s view regarding leadership except he felt that the leadership did nothing to
encourage the use of technology. George also shared the same view as the vice-president
regarding instructors that did not use technology. George stated that, “there are a lot of
instructors especially older instructors who are just resistant on learning new technology;
they just want to do the traditional way of doing things.” In addition, George felt like the
leaders had not made technology a requirement for instructors to learn, which he felt was
98
the problem. James, another instructor at School A saw the technology issue as a
problem with respect to leaders trying to force them to use and integrate technology into
their instruction without considering the negative consequences of its use; “…they (the
students) don’t know how to use technology properly. … they have been relying on their
calculator. They don’t even think, they just punch it (the answers) in.” He went on to
say, “If you use it wisely, I think it is really useful, but (not) if you are depending on it
too much…Those softwares are really smart enough, they can do all those calculations
for them. If they start using it to do all the calculation then they don’t learn anything.” In
addition to these observations, on the other hand, James agreed with Jane’s statement
about leadership not really being a source of encouragement to use technology. James
stated that if leadership told him to do something, “…I probably wouldn’t follow their
direction. …if the department decided to go with one way then I would have to follow
through.”
At School B, Matthew, one of the deans viewed their challenges of implementing
technology use as it related to staff. He stated that, “with many of the departments on
campus, I would like to see more widespread use among faculty.” He found that getting
buy-in from the instructors as a challenge, as well as getting people trained, and follow-
up support to actually use the technology. Matthew further pointed out that finding the
correct technology for individual departments was a challenge because each department
had different technological needs. He sees the challenges as more of an IT issue. He also
sees a challenge in finding the right technology to help the students succeed and not,
99
“…get stuck in a cycle of having to take math courses that perhaps they were not
interesting taking and struggle with them often times its’ very discouraging.”
Janice, the other dean at School B viewed the challenges as more related to cost.
She consistently pointed out the need for staff support for their new math lab, “…but
unfortunately due to budget constraints …there has been no funds available to dedicate
someone to that lab.” As a result, “…it’s used by the faculty but it’s not able to be
manned so that students can come in and get training and tutoring and that type of thing.”
Robert, an instructor from School B, indirectly pointed to cost as a challenge
when he said, “we are supposed to use Excel when we are teaching statistics so we have
to use that, there is no other technology to use.” He went on to say, “we need more
budget; more money because I would prefer so in the advance classes for example we
don’t have any technology that we can use here yet …and we don’t know what to use
because everything is expensive and the license thing that we need to have certain
number of users only; if we get more users than we have to pay more money.” Robert
also believes that a challenge is the getting the faculty on board with technology use. He
even went so far as to say that the faculty should be dissatisfied with how things are and
they should want more in the form of technology to help their students to be successful.
Mary, another instructor at School B who also teaches online course, approached
the idea of challenges as being the lack of appreciation from the administration for all of
the work that some of the staff give with respect to using technology; “they need to
appreciate the time that I am spending on (technology) it.” She pointed out that using
technology takes more time, especially with respect to preparation; uploading for each
100
class, making changes for individual students, and making revisions/updates. She also
felt that the administration needs training on what to look for with respect to technology
use to be able to assess teacher usage; “they need to distinguish between good and bad,”
teachers that are using technology. However, since the administrators don’t understand
the technology that is being used; if, “the leaders would be more trained in terms of
technology they would be able to distinguish good from bad and if they understand the
difference, they will appreciate the good ….” She felt that it would be best if they did not
interfere with those that are trying to use it; “I should be grateful for them not to be an
obstacle in my way.” Finally, Mary felt that the administration was not encouraging.
It appeared that the leaders and teachers at School B saw the same challenges;
teacher buy-in and cost. There was the additional challenge of faculty feeling like the
administration was encouraging them as opposed to being, “an obstacle,” in their
continued use of technology.
Both schools expressed cost as a challenge, especially the cost for the site licenses
for the software. At School A, one teacher felt that the school needed to provide more
SMART classrooms, which requires more cost. At School B, their cost challenge also
included the need for more staff. There was also the challenge of faculty buy-in for both
schools. At School A there was the additional problem of the relationship between the
administration and the math department. One of the instructors at School A also felt that
the instructors within the math department should be doing more sharing of their use of
technology with the others. Yet, he also felt that the instructors wanted to keep their
ideas to themselves. At School B, there was an instructor that felt that administration
101
needed training on the technology that is being used so they know how to determine the
teachers that are using technology in a productive way from those that are not. One final
challenge that was stated at School A by an administrator was the lack of accountability
of the math department members with peer evaluations. It was felt that this lack of
accountability enabled the math department to limit its development.
To address the challenges at School A, one of the administrators, Paul said that,
“we are going to be changing the way we offer …(some) of our classes…because we
could not rely on the faculty to adhere to the spirit of what they were supposed to be
doing.” He goes on to say, “we’re just about to implement a new collective bargaining
agreement…and the new contract allows us to limit what they teach unless they fulfill all
of the responsibilities,” referring to the instructors in the math department. Paul
continued to stress that, “we’ve already called in department chairs and said if you can’t
get your departments to do these things, we will limit what you can teach as well, too.”
In spite of this, Paul felt that he tries, “to encourage them to do things, but if necessary
I’ll be confrontational.”
Dean Angela from School A also felt that she encourages the department and
offers assistance when needed. However, she also pointed out that the math department
has, “really embraced distance education for math.” Angela also made mandatory
workshops available for those instructors that wanted to teach online classes. Overall,
Angela didn’t feel that the math department needed her, as she felt they were capable on
their own; “I don’t really lead them in technology and neither does Paul…(we) help them
when they need us to.” However, Angela’s strategy is really her leadership style, as she
102
involves herself with the people on the campus and she points out that, “(I) intervene
early when I can, rather than wait for something to become a crisis.”
Bob, the math department chair at School A, has a very simple strategy for
increasing the use of technology in the math department. His strategy is simply to,
“…not interfere with people who want to use technology. I never say no to people that
want to use technology.” Bob felt that you cannot force instructors to use technology;
they have to want to use it; “…it’s something they have to accept and want to do on their
own.” Bob does not want to be the roadblock to those instructors that want to use
technology; “if they want to try something new, God bless them.”
John, one of the instructors at School A, felt that the best way the leaders could
encourage him to use technology would be to, “…invest (in) creating SMART
classrooms, and SMART boards.” He also felt that his department should share
technology ideas with each other. He acknowledged that the school had provided
workshops and flex day activities in the past that were helpful, but he did not mention
anything that they were currently doing.
Jane felt that the leaders, “…need to provide (the training) so that we can get
familiar with the programs.” She felt that technology should be made available to the
students but it should not be too expensive. Jane pointed out that in the past, the school
purchased programs for the math lab and since the students were using them, she felt the
need to learn how to use them as well.
James felt that he needed to be convinced that using the technology will help his
students before he will use it. He did not feel that leadership could do anything; “these
103
are the things as a department we decide(d).” He also pointed out that if using the
technology was a requirement, then he would use it. However, he noted that technology,
“can be implemented for any teacher for any classes, but how much of the technology we
use like math software, calculator and so on and so forth you really have to think about it
carefully for each class; for what purpose we should use (it).”
Finally, George, a fourth instructor at School A, felt that the leaders should
require instructors to learn how to use the technology and give upgrade workshops each
year; “I would like for it to be a little bit more mandatory that every year we are always
learning something new…and at the end there is actually some type of certification that
says ‘hey, you’ve been either updated or you learned a new program’.” George said that
what this will do is push the faculty to learn instead of making it optional. He also felt
that some of the technology should be mandatory for the students as well. However, he
pointed out that if the school does that, it should be done after the school has negotiated
an affordable student usage fee with the software/program company; he stated that the,
“administration (should) find a way where it’s going to be feasible for the students …
where they can make a deal with the publishing company.”
At school B, Matthew, a new dean and current Title V coordinator, stated that he
provided, “…training to our faculty and staff …on how to use computers, all sorts of
different pieces of software and with training for online programs.” He went on to say,
“As with many departments, we do have people who are leaders. …our strategy is really
to take those leaders, the technology leaders we have in those departments and really try
to cultivate them and cultivate their skills, and use their expertise to sort of lead the
104
department.” Matthew also honed in on fulfilling needs as part of his strategy; “it’s a
matter of really trying to work closely with the leadership in those departments to
understand exactly what it is they need, what their students need and designing the
technology around the specific area,…particularly with math because there’s a lot of
resources out there.” Another strategy that has been used was to bring in someone from
the makers of the technology and have them give a workshop on how to use their
technology; “we had Apple…send a trainer down, we gave a two day workshop on using
the iPad in the classroom.” Matthew again emphasized the offering of technology-
oriented workshops throughout the year. He also pointed out that follow-up assistance is
also important to have. He noticed that the way that workshops were offered made a
difference. In other words, when notices for workshops were posted in advance,
“…attendance was actually quite low because …by week 3 of the semester, people kind
of forgot that they got an announcement;…it’s not always on people’ radar especially
when classes are going on, people have a lot of other things going on…very difficult to
make time for an optional workshop.” So they plan to implement a type of bootcamp
where instructors could attend intensive workshops during the off-time for 3 or 4 days;
between semesters to get, “…them immersed in the technology so that they can use
it….and they may find one or two things that they latch onto and take to their classroom.”
Matthew’s leadership style is also a form of a strategy because he wants to listen and
collaborate. He pointed out that when you are asking people to “…invest their time and
energy into something that’s new and potentially complicated, difficult to learn, requires
a real investment; you need participants to feel like their ideas are being heard, their
105
concerns are being heard, that they’re really being listened to, and that you’re weighing
their thoughts and opinions before making any decisions.”
Janice, the other dean at School B, had a similar strategy as Matthew; she
involves herself with the people she is serving to find out their needs and to find solutions
to those needs. She pointed out that her focus is, “looking for … the goal of the math
department.”
Robert, a math instructor at School B felt that the training provided by the
software representatives was helpful. Mary, the other instructor from the same school,
pointed out that workshops help to improve her skills; especially since, “…computer
advances now and technology advances are huge…so I go to technology workshops and I
am trying to make myself better in that.”
The two schools had very different strategies. School A leaders were not
consistent with their approach. There was one leader that stated he was encouraging but
he was going to use the collective bargaining process to try and force the teachers to do
what he felt they should do. Then at the other extreme there was another leader whose
strategy was to let the instructors do what they wanted with respect to technology. And
the third person positioned themselves to be of assistance as needed. The instructors
were also varied in their responses to possible strategies that could be used to encourage
instructor use of technology. One instructor looked within the department for
collaboration of ideas and outside of the department for better technology to be placed in
the classrooms. Another instructor felt that training for specific programs would be good.
A third instructor felt that technology use should be decided within the department while
106
a different instructor felt it should be made mandatory. However, all three of the
instructors stated that technology should be made feasible to the students.
At School A, both administrators were more hands on. They both emphasized
talking with the instructors and the department to determine their needs and goals, then
making decisions based on that feedback. Workshops of various types were listed by
both administrators and faculty. These workshops could be provided by the school or by
the maker of the technology. To improve instructor participation, a boot camp style
workshop would be offered when there were limited or no classes in session. One of the
administrators also looked at providing follow-up workshops to assist instructors that
were using the technology. Finally, another strategy would be to have workshops
specifically for department leaders, and they would then infuse the new technology
knowledge into their department.
Schools A and B did not seem to approach their strategies in the same way.
School A appeared to be lacking cohesiveness while School B seemed to be in alignment.
Although both schools mentioned workshops provided by the school and the maker of the
software, School B appeared to consider several other types of workshops: boot camp,
follow-up, and leader training. The School A instructors were very concerned about the
cost of the software that the students needed to purchase and felt that every effort should
be made to make the cost feasible for them. Surprisingly, this was not brought up at
School B that services the poorest students in the nation, according to the dean.
Ely’s eight factors of successful technology implementation were compared
across schools with respect to the leaders and the instructors. School leader rankings
107
were compared within and across schools to see if there were any similarities and
differences in the community college leadership with respect to technology
implementation and if these rankings were consistent with the content of their interviews.
At school A, there was more agreement between the vice-president and the dean
than there was when the math department chair was included. Without the chair,
commitment was ranked in the top two but with the chair it was in the top 3. When the
chair was not considered, leadership was ranked in the top 2. However, the chair ranked
leadership in the bottom 2. Time was ranked in the bottom 2 when the chair was not
considered, whereas the chair ranked time as number 3. When all three leaders were
compared, they ranked knowledge and skills in the top 3; commitment in the top 4;
Rewards and Incentives in the bottom 4; and Dissatisfaction with the Status Quo in the
bottom 4. There was no consistency with respect to resources, participation, time, or
leadership.
Figure 5

Paul’s ranking was consistent with his interview because he stressed the role of
leadership encouraging as well as enforcing instructors to participate and be committed to
using the technology. The only reference Paul made to resources was the fact that he
Paul:
School A Leader
Commitment
Dissatisfaction with the status quo
Knowledge and Skills
Leadership
Participation
Resources
Rewards and Incentives
Time
108
signed off on purchases which is somewhat consistent with his ranking of resources in the
bottom 4. The fact that Paul ranked time as the least important was consistent with his
technological knowledge and skills; he did not realize the amount of time needed to use
technology for creating and integrating into a course.
Figure 6

Angela, the dean who was very knowledgeable about technology as well as the
leader of the distance learning program for the campus, felt that Leadership was the most
important factor. However, she only felt that leaderships’ role was to encourage and try
to help when needed. As a technology person, it was not surprising that she listed
Knowledge and Skills, as well as commitment and resources within her top 4. However,
using technology requires a great deal of time therefore, it was surprising to see that she
listed Time in the bottom 2.
Bob, the mathematics department chair, also ranked the factors in-line with his
interview. In Bob’s interview he pointed out how resources were the reason they did not
have current technology; “the only challenge is cost.” He also pointed out that he was
not very knowledgeable and as a result he felt that knowledge and skills was very
important if one is going to use technology. As the department chair, Bob had seen first-
Angela:
School A Leader
Commitment
Dissatisfaction with the status quo
Knowledge and Skills
Leadership
Participation
Resources
Rewards and Incentives
Time
109
Figure 7

hand the amount of time other instructors have had to invest when using technology, and
therefore he realizes the importance of this component to implementation. Bob did not
see leadership as one of the top factors, which again was expressed in his interview where
he stated that, “not to interfere with people who want to use technology…. it’s something
they have to accept and want to do on their own.”
Figure 8

At School B, Matthew felt that commitment, leadership, and participation were
extremely important; they accounted for 75% of the magnitude of importance for
successful implementation. As a very knowledgeable technology leader, he knows what
Bob:
School A Leader
Commitment
Dissatisfaction with the status quo
Knowledge and Skills
Leadership
Participation
Resources
Rewards and Incentives
Time
Matthew: School B Leader Commitment
Dissatisfaction with the status
quo
Knowledge and Skills
Leadership
Participation
Resources
Rewards and Incentives
110
is needed to successfully learn and effortlessly use technology. He also knows what is
needed to get buy-in from those that are hesitant to use or even try the technology.
Therefore his ranking was aligned with his interview. However, he ranked time near the
bottom when both commitment and participation require time as well as the time to
acquire the knowledge and skills.
Figure 9

Janice, the other administrator from School B, ranked commitment as the top
factor, and dissatisfaction as the lowest factor; the same as Matthew. However, she saw
the role of leadership as low. This ranking reflected her interview where she saw her role
as a leader as one that encourages and steps in to prevent problems or to help when called
upon. She stressed in her interview the importance of money, and ranked resources as the
second most important factor. Besides commitment and resources, Janice ranked all of
the remaining factors equally in terms of importance.
Overall the School A leaders ranked knowledge and skills in their top 3. Outside
of the knowledge and skills, they had no other similar rankings as a group of school
Janice: School B Leader
Commitment
Dissatisfaction with the status quo
Knowledge and Skills
Leadership
Participation
Resources
Rewards and Incentives
Time
111
leaders. At School B, both leaders ranked their top and bottom exactly the same;
commitment and dissatisfaction with the status quo, respectively. They both ranked
rewards and incentives in the bottom three, and leadership they ranked at opposite ends
of their ordering of importance. As a group of community college leaders three out of
five ranked commitment as the most important and dissatisfaction with the status quo as
the least important. Three out of five ranked leadership in the top two; and time in the
bottom three. Four out of the five ranked knowledge and skills as well as commitment in
the top three; rewards and incentives as well as dissatisfaction with the status quo in the
bottom three. Participation seemed to hover around the middle of the rankings for
everyone.
The instructors from each school also ranked these items. Once again the purpose
was to see if there was consistency within and across schools as well as with respect to
their interviews.
Figure 10
John, an instructor at School A, had the same top four rankings as one of his
school leaders and the same bottom two as another leader. During his interview, John
John: School A Instructor
Commitment
Dissatisfaction with the status quo
Knowledge and Skills
Leadership
Participation
Resources
Rewards and Incentives
Time
112
stressed the importance of sharing amongst faculty about their individual technology use.
He felt that the technology workshops that leadership made available were very
encouraging with respect to using the technology. Finally he felt that more resources
should be used to make Smart classrooms. His rankings were consistent with his
interview.
Figure 11
James, another instructor from School A, also felt that commitment was the most
important factor. During James’ interview, he stressed that leadership should not try to
impose the use of technology on the instructors; it should be up to the instructor and the
department. This might explain his ranking of leadership as second from the bottom.
The fact that James ranked dissatisfaction with the status quo as the third most important
could reflect the same rationale as he had for leadership; it is up to the department, if they
want to change something they will decide to do that.
Jane, a third instructor from School A, felt that resources were the most important
factor needed for successful implementation of technology. Like James, she ranked
rewards and incentives at the very bottom; and like John she ranked dissatisfaction with
James: School A Instructor
Commitment
Dissatisfaction with the status quo
Knowledge and Skills
Leadership
Participation
Resources
Rewards and Incentives
Time
113
Figure 12
the status quo in the bottom two. Jane’s interview stressed the importance of students
and finding technology that the students could afford or making technology more
affordable for student use. This feeling, expressed by Jane, was evidenced by her ranking
of resources as the number one factor. Jane pointed out that if her students were using a
certain form of technology then she would be willing to learn how to use it as well.
Finally, Jane stressed the importance of training, which aligned with her ranking of
knowledge and skills in her top three; “training, that they need to provide, so we can get
familiarize with the programs.”
Figure 13
Jane: School A Instructor
Commitment
Dissatisfaction with the status quo
Knowledge and Skills
Leadership
Participation
Resources
Rewards and Incentives
Time
George: School A Instructor
Commitment
Dissatisfaction with the status quo
Knowledge and Skills
Leadership
Participation
Resources
Rewards and Incentives
Time
114
The final instructor, George, was very adamant about everyone using technology.
He felt that technology use should be a requirement in addition to ongoing training. This
feeling that George expressed was demonstrated in his ranking by having commitment,
and knowledge and skills in his top three. However, he ranked participation in the
bottom two which seems to negate his strong feelings about people being involved in the
use of technology. George did not see leadership as being very helpful and he
demonstrated that by ranking leadership last.
Figure 14
At School B, some of Robert’s rankings did not reflect his percentages of
importance. He ranked knowledge and skills, and dissatisfaction with the status quo as
the top three and four but weighted them as if they were in the bottom three (see figure
14). He ranked participation in the bottom four but weighted it the same as leadership.
He ranked resources last with zero for the weight of its importance yet in his interview he
mentioned that the school could not provide the updated technology that he felt was
important. In his interview he pointed out that leadership at the other schools where he
Robert: School B Instructor
Commitment
Dissatisfaction with the status quo
Knowledge and Skills
Leadership
Participation
Resources
Rewards and Incentives
Time
115
worked in the past were very encouraging with respect to him using technology but not at
School B. As a result, he ranked leadership as number two with respect to importance.
Figure 15
The second instructor from School B, Mary also ranked the nine factors consistent
with her interview. Mary was very clear that she did not want leadership to interfere with
what she wanted to do with respect to technology and as a result, she ranked leadership
second from the bottom in importance as it relates to the implementation of technology.
Mary is also a person that spends a great deal of time using technology for instruction and
felt as if leadership did not understand or appreciate the time she commited to preparing
and running classes with technology. Therefore, it is understandable why she would rank
knowledge and skills; rewards and incentives; and time as her top three most important
factors. Mary was not so concerned about the other instructors as she was about the
students; “I am ok if the ending point is the instructors … but if the ending point is the
students here, we have a problem.”

Mary: School B Instructor
Commitment
Dissatisfaction with the status quo
Knowledge and Skills
Leadership
Participation
Resources
Rewards and Incentives
Time
116
Summary of Research Question 2
When leaders and instructors were compared at School A, they all ranked
knowledge and skills in their top three; and rewards and incentives either at or near the
bottom. Two-thirds of the administrators ranked leadership in the top two whereas half
of the instructors ranked the same factor in the top three as the other half ranked it in the
bottom two. The one leader that ranked leadership in the bottom two is also an
instructor; his ranking corresponded to the rankings of half of his department. All of the
administrators and 75% of the instructors ranked participation in the middle.
Commitment was ranked in the top three for two-thirds of the leaders and in the top two
for three-quarters of the instructors. Time, resources, and dissatisfaction with the status
quo did not receive consistent rankings for any of the participants from School A.
When leaders and instructors were compared at School B, they all ranked time
and participation in the middle. The two leaders and one instructor ranked commitment
as the number one factor; and dissatisfaction with the status quo as the bottom factor in
successful technology implementation. Both instructors and one administrator ranked
knowledge and skills in the top three. Rewards and incentives were ranked in the bottom
three for the two leaders and one instructor. Leadership was ranked second from the
bottom for one administrator and one instructor; and number two for the other
administrator and instructor. Resources did not show a pattern across the participants for
School B.
Across both schools, 80% of the leaders ranked knowledge and skills; and
commitment in the top three ranking of the factors for successful technology
117
implementation. Sixty percent ranked leadership in the top three; and dissatisfaction with
the status quo, rewards and incentives, and time in the bottom three. Participation was
consistently ranked in the middle for all leaders.
The instructors across both schools rank knowledge and skills in the top three.
Five out of the six instructors ranked participation and time in the middle; and rewards
and incentives in the bottom three. Commitment was ranked as number one by three out
of six of the instructor participants but in the top two for four out of six. Fifty percent of
the instructors ranked leadership in their top three and the other 50% ranked it in their
bottom three. Finally, resources were ranked in the middle for 50% of the instructors as a
factor for successful technology implementation.
When the rankings for all of the participants were reviewed, knowledge and skills
ranked in the top 3 for 10 out of the 11 participants. Nine out of eleven people ranked
participation in the middle, and time in the bottom three. Commitment was ranked in the
top three by 8 out of 11 participants. Seven of the participants ranked resources in the
middle, and dissatisfaction with the status quo in the bottom 3. Finally, over half of the
participants ranked leadership in the top 3.
Overall, it appears that knowledge and skills is the most important factor for
successful implementation of technology across community college leaders and
instructors. This was closely followed by commitment. Leadership was in the top three
for just over 50% of the participants. On the opposite end; rewards and incentives was
the least important. It was ranked in the bottom three, along with dissatisfaction with the
118
status quo. Participation showed a strong ranking in the middle. Resources and time were
also ranked in the middle, by 63% of the participants.
Results: Research Question Three
Research question three asked: How does technology implementation and use in
mathematics department differ across community colleges? The aim of this question
was to see if there are any differences in technology implementation and how that
impacts the success of technology use across community colleges.
Technology Implementation
At School A, a few math instructors received a five year grant called Title V
which was used for the purposes of implementing technology, over ten years ago. With
the money they developed and implemented their math lab. According to Paul, one of
the administrators that had been at the school for 13 years, “One of the things that we’ve
tried to do here is get students to use our math lab for additional assignments so they can
develop mastery in an environment that’s different than the classroom.” However,
Angela stated that the purpose of the grant money was to, “develop a math lab and use it
to instruct students, …it was a huge paradigm shift for that department.” Bob, whose
been at the school for 14 years, simply pointed out that the math department has,
“…grown a long way since (he) started….a lot of us didn’t think that we needed them
(computers), that was ten years ago. Since then everyone has to have computers. There’s
not a person in the department that won’t use a computer for some reason or another.”
The school has purchased math software that some of the instructors use, but, “…we are
several editions behind because it is so expensive to get licenses.” As a whole, the
119
administrators felt that their role was to simply encourage and to help when asked. Yet,
one administrator added that consequences would be put in place for those instructors
that did not adhere to their responsibility to use the technology. However, the chair
believed that the instructors should do what they want to do with respect to technology
use.
The instructors for School A strongly believed that implementation should be
decided by the department itself and not forced upon them by administration. However,
they felt that workshops should be in place to encourage use; only one person mentioned
that the administration provided a workshop. One instructor felt that workshops and
technology use should be mandatory. Overall, the instructors seemed to focus on the
needs of the students. Therefore, they felt that they should have access to whatever
technology they feel will help their students. It was mentioned that instructors that taught
the Pre-algebra course were required to provide work for their students in the math lab.
As a result, the instructors had to know how to use the program in order to set-up the
assignments.
School B recently received the same Title V grant that School A acquired ten
years ago; they “…are in year four of a five year grant,” according to Matthew. As a
result, they too implemented a math lab and other forms of technology to, “expand upon
technology on our campus (by) specifically targeting areas where we can expand
technology for the purpose of improving student success, and retention, and graduation
rates.” To help to implement this technology, Matthew said that he would provide
training to the, “…faculty and staff on how to use computers, all sorts of different pieces
120
of software, and with training for online programs.” He went on to say that, “this building
was designed years before it actually opened. They weren’t necessarily certain about
who was going to be in this building so what end(ed) up happening is…you buy generic
technology that will be placed in every building on campus.” Now that the technology
has been installed, their next concern was getting instructor buy-in with respect to use,
continued training, and support. Matthew continued, “It is very difficult to actually
bridge that gap between the instructor and their feelings of discomfort about using
technology, and then also, some of it is just making sure that we implement technology in
a way that’s strategic and smart.” They are looking at training the leaders of each
department and, “…use their expertise to sort of lead the department,” in their use of
technology; “…use the departmental leadership to actually help us deploy and integrate
technology.” In addition to traditional technology workshops, they plan to implement
bootcamp-style workshops that faculty and staff can attend when there are no or few
classes in session with the hope that more participants get exposed to the training. The
other administrator pointed out that although the math lab is in place, there is no money
to run it the way in which it was designed; it needs staffing so students can have access at
all times. She stated, “it’s sad that the lab was to be seen as a resource and a help for the
students and… it’s not able to be manned so that students can come in and get training
and tutoring.”
An instructor at School B, Mary, stated that she attended technology workshops to
improve her skills. Robert, the other instructor pointed out that the department chair
121
arranged for the publishing company for their text book to do a technology workshop for
their product.
With respect to technology implementation, both schools used the government’s
Title V grant money to develop a math computer lab. At School A, this lab was started
over 10 years ago, and at School B, their lab was recently put in place. At School A,
math lab use is required for the pre-algebra class. However, Paul, an administrator at
School A, shared that some of the instructors were not utilizing the lab the way it was
intended to be used; he added that the instructors, “…say go to the lab and do homework,
rather than giving them assignments to do there.” In addition to that, the students at
School A were using the math lab to access, “…their own personal e-mails or Facebook
or whatever,… (because) sadly, a lot of our student’s don’t have computers.” At School
B, their lab was also being used, but not the way in which it was intended due to
budgeting limitations. At School A, the math lab also has a section of the room with
tables where students can work independently or in groups, and receiving tutoring. At
School B, their math lab is set-up with the latest computer technology; more advanced
than at School A. School B, also has another center devoted to tutoring and basic skills
assistance which includes math resources.
Technology Use
At School A, the instructors ranged in their use of technology; “there are some
faculty who embrace it and use it to enhance good teaching skills…some who avoid it all
together...some, a significant number who avoid teaching….rather than communicating
with the students…(they) put something on an overhead projector, show it, ask the
122
student to treat that as if they are treating a textbook.” According to Bob, the math
department chair, “there’s not a person in the department that won’t use a computer for
some reason or another.” Bob and the other math instructors shared how they use the
computer to write exams, do grades, post assignments, communicate with students and
others via e-mail, do research, access the Internet to read about current events, and to
develop and update their webpages. Depending on the level of the class, they may use it
to access a publisher’s platform such as Mathxl/My Math Lab, by Pearson. Instructors
who use this system often times use their learning management system, which is built-in.
The math instructors use math programs such as Microsoft Excel, Statdisk, Mathematica,
Maple, and Mini-tabs. Some instructors use scientific and/or the TI-89 graphing
calculators in their classes. John, an instructor with 25 years of experience, stated that,
“in beginning and intermediate algebra and in statistics, I use technology fully, close to
100%, as either an instructional support or if the class is online then I use it as an online
component. I have used technology in calculus 1 and calculus 2 and in linear algebra
about 30%. In the word problem class there are materials available to them online, but I
don’t use it to enhance teaching. I just use it so they can have access to it.” John uses
math software; Mini-tab, Maple, Mathematica, and LaTex. He also uses technology to
create exams, presentations, power points, and other things to enhance his classes. Jane
pointed out that, “for remedial classes,… I don’t really like to use technologies…because
most of the time say you just enter a number and that’s it, I don’t see the work, I only see
a final answer. But, for me that is essential to write mathematics right, so I don’t use
it….But, I do recommend them to use like lecture videos…in case they don’t understand
123
me…and… as a supplement for my lecture. For transfer classes, I don’t really use it, but
I am more open to it. Like for statistics class, I tend to use a calculator. I actually use
Microsoft Excel to put in data, do calculation, and graph.” Jane, an instructor with 9
years of teaching experience, also uses her computer to make exams, calculate her grades
and sends students progress reports using Micrograde, email, and read the news. Like
Jane, James, an instructor with 16 years of experience, also felt that the level of class
determines the type and amount of technology that should be used. He stated that in his
intermediate algebra class, “for the regular setting, technology, I use (technology) for
only 1 hour; which is, I just teach them how to use a calculator, or scientific
calculator…that’s it.” James pointed out, “in calculus class, technology can be kind of
useful especially when they go into 3-dimensional object thing, it’s hard to visualize.
With the aid of the computer animation, I think I can show them really nice
demonstrations on those things.” He also shared that he used Mathxl, he scans solutions
and posts them on the website, and he emails students. Both John and Jane pointed out
that they only use technology when it is needed, not just to use; “I try to keep it minimal.”
George, an instructor with 8 years of experience, said that he uses technology in all of his
beginning and elementary algebra classes but not in his intermediate algebra class. He
uses the technology to give practice exams, quizzes; and he also uses Mathxl. George
also uses the computer to create his webpages, write exams, calculate his grades using
Mathxl, email his students, go onto the Internet, and he is currently learning how to use
Camtasia.
124
At School B, technology is being used in much the same way as at School A.
Matthew shared that there is an instructor that uses the Khan Academy videos; which is
an online website with lecture videos in various subjects on a range of topics. He shared
how people were chosen to learn from an Apple representative how to integrate the use of
the iPad in their class and/or in their job with administrative tasks. “There are 3 or 4
instructors that are using the Moodle online learning management system. They use that
and post their class content in there, as well as quizzes and tests.”
Robert, an instructor at School B with over 10 years experience, uses technology
frequently for his classes that range from remedial level math to intermediate algebra.
However, for the transfer courses up to calculus he has at least moderate use of the
technology. He pointed out that he uses whatever technology is available as well as the
online platform called Mathxl/My Math Lab by their book publisher, Pearson. For
statistics classes, they are required to use Microsoft excel; which he also uses to compute
his grades. He also uses mathematica, mathtype, scientific word, and LaTex. Robert
uses his computer to find online resources for teaching math, do grades, prepare syllabi,
and other course materials. Mary, whose had over 40 years of teaching experience, stated
that she uses technology in all of her classes; “low is the class, the less they tolerate
technology in class, but they all do their homework using technology.” She further stated
that, “I use the web for (posting) syllabus…for review for the tests,… email, …I send the
answers, …I plan to use Moodle.” Mary believes that, “technology is good when I’m not
present, but in class it is better live, in direction; …I can explain the same problem in
three different ways. … When they go home or when they are not in class and they don’t
125
have a book for example, technology is important because it is an alternative way of
delivery.” She gives the example of how she uses technology in her statistics class; “I put
this ebook on projector, and they love it, and I’m lecturing and showing pieces in the
book, and they making notes or like putting book marks in their own books … or they are
making notes to themselves or some of them just taking pictures on their phone.” She
currently uses Mathxl/My Math Lab/Course Compass by Pearson and WebAssign by
Cengage, as well. In the past, she also used a platform called Alex.
Summary of Research Question 3
In conclusion, there are four major observations which emerged. First, the
instructors from both schools mentioned workshops as something that was provided to
help with their technology implementation process. However, when it was mentioned, it
was generally one statement with no elaboration. At School A, only one instructor
mentioned that workshops were provided and two others mentioned that they should be
provided. One of the two instructors felt the workshops should be mandatory and
ongoing. At school B, one instructor mentioned a publisher sponsored workshop that
demonstrated how to use the various options that their platform provided both inside and
outside of the classroom; and the other instructor mentioned that she attended school
provided workshops to improve her technology skills.
Second, the leaders from the two schools varied on their discussion of workshops
with respect to technology implementation. At School B, both leaders spoke passionately
about workshops whereas it was not mentioned by the School A leaders. At School B,
one of the leaders spoke about finding ways to inspire people to attend more workshops;
126
and he also provided the workshops himself. The other leader spoke of attending
workshops herself so she could learn more. Instructor involvement in technology
workshops was very important to the leaders at School B.
Third, it can be seen that instructors from both schools used computers in much
the same way regardless of their years of experience and their own level of knowledge.
They all were using the Pearson Mathxl/My Math Lab/Course Compass platform. They
all used the computer to create course material, calculate grades, and communicate with
students via email. Many of these instructors also taught an online course as well. Within
the classroom, they used the technology based on the level of the class; less technology
for lower levels and more advanced technology for higher levels. Both schools had
instructors that were denied updated versions or any access to better software programs
that they wanted to use due to budget constraints. All of the instructors felt as if they
spent quite a bit of time using the technology for their various academic tasks.
Fourth, it was observed that the attitudes of the instructors about technology use
varied at both schools. At School A the attitude of the instructors was a bit negative with
respect to technology use and the role of leadership. The instructors at School A felt that
use should be determined by their department and not by leadership. At School B, they
did not want to feel as if leadership was hindering them from moving forward with using
technology. These instructors looked forward to participating in technology workshops
that the leadership would provide.

127
Chapter 4 Summary
There were five findings that resulted from this case study. From research
question one leaders with more advanced technology knowledge and skills were more
pro-active with implementing technology in their math departments. These leaders were
also more aware of actual instructors that were currently using technology; and were
focused on meeting the math department needs with respect to technology. The leaders
that were not as advanced with respect to technology knowledge and skills simply
allowed the instructors to do what they chose to do with respect to technology use; they
were not very respected by the instructors.
A second finding was that all of the leaders felt that their role was simply to
encourage and support the math department with respect to technology implementation.
However, the instructors did not feel that they were encouraged to use technology. The
instructors in the math department at the school with the less advanced leaders felt that
technology decisions should be decided by the math department and not by the
administration.
For research question two, from the eight factors of successful technology
implementation, knowledge and skills was overwhelmingly the most important; and
rewards and incentives was the least important factor. Participation was consistently
ranked in the middle. Commitment was ranked in the top, just behind knowledge and
skills. Instructors were equally split on their ranking of leadership factor; it was either in
the top 3 or the bottom 3. However, 60% of the leaders ranked leadership in their top 3.
Instructors ranked time higher than leaders.
128
From research question 3, it was determined that with respect to implementation,
workshops are both wanted and needed by the instructors. The school where all
instructors mentioned attending workshops is also the school where all of the leaders
spoke about workshops. In addition, these same leaders were trying to find more
creative ways to obtain more instructor participation in workshops. As opposed to the
other school, where none of the leaders spoke about workshops nor did many of the
instructors mention attending any workshops.
A second finding from research question 3 is with respect to technology use, all of
the instructor participants happened to be using the same publisher provided online
learning management system. All instructors tailored their technology use based on the
level of the class; the higher the level, the more technology use in class. The instructors
wanted to use more technology but the school budget did not allow for the acquisition of
new or updated technology.
Finally, a third finding from research question 3 was that the math department and
leaders seemed to work together in one school but not the other. The school with the
better relationship also had more instructor involvement in workshops; more workshops
were provided, training was provided, and new strategies for workshops were being
designed. The school with the less cohesive relationship presented an us-against-them
attitude, no mention of workshops by leaders, and only mentioned by half of the
instructors.

129
Chapter 5: Discussion
In this study, technology served as the foundation from which much educational
research was conducted. Hennessy et al (2011) pointed out that there is a high use of
technology in homes and schools, and Laird and Kuh (2005) went on to say that students
expect to use technology. However, many instructors are resistant to using technology
(Hennessy, 2011), or they are not using current forms of technology (Sciences, 2010).
Gulbahar (2007) found that students preferred more current forms of technology to be
used in the classroom, than the technology their instructors were using.
When technology is being used in the classroom, it has been shown to have
positive outcomes. Laird and Kuh (2005) points out that there is a strong positive
relationship between the use of technology and student engagement on tasks; and
Flowerset al (2000) found a positive relationship with cognitive development for
community college students when technology was used. This is important because United
States students rank second from the bottom in math compared to other countries
(Statistics, 2005). In addition, 16-65 year olds also rank low nationally with respect to
numeracy (Statistics, 2005); and this is the age group for community college students.
As a result, community colleges are enrolling a disproportional number of underprepared
math students (Bailey et al, 2011). Therefore, community colleges need to implement
technology use in their mathematics classrooms to help the students improve. However,
Epper et al (2009) noted that four-year institutions were more technologically advanced
than community colleges. From this, it can be implied that community colleges not only
130
need to upgrade their technology, but they need to increase their use of technology in
order to improve student success.
Leaders have been shown to be very important in the successful implementation
of technology (Keengwe et al, 2009; Tondeur et al, 2008). In addition, Afshari et al
(2009) noted that it was tranformational leaders that were the most successful with
technology implementation. However, much of this research is based on studies that do
not include or marginally include community college participants (Owen & Demb, 2004;
Rogers P. , 2000). Since community colleges serve a different population and have
different problems than elementary, secondary, and four-year institutions, it is necessary
to research the role that leadership plays in the implementation of technology in the math
departments at the community college level as well as the challenges and strategies that
these leaders encounter.
The purpose of this case study was to investigate the role that leadership plays in
the implementation of technology in community college math departments. The case
study approach was used to compare two local community colleges for their technology
leadership implementation and use. As previously stated, leadership plays a key role in
technology implementation and how leadership is carried out also impacts the success of
that implementation. This study focused on math departments because the success of
students in the United States is very low relative to other countries. With this study, it is
the hope that community college leaders can learn how to successfully work with their
math departments to implement the use of technology for increased student success.
131
The awareness of the ordering of Ely’s eight factors of technology
implementation was found to be important for successful implementation (Ensminger &
Surry, 2008). The eight factors are: 1) Commitment, 2) Dissatisfaction with the status
quo, 3) Knowledge and Skills, 4) Participation, 5) Resources, 6) Rewards and Incentives,
7) Leadership, and 8) Time. Therefore, with an awareness of the ordering, an
organization can then begin to structure their unique technology plan based on their
ranking of these factors.
A case study approach using two Los Angeles, California community colleges
was used to answer three research questions: 1) How do community college leaders
differ across schools with respect to facilitating the use of technology?; 2) How do
community college leaders differ across schools with respect to their challenges and
strategies?; and 3) How do community colleges differ across schools with respect to
technology implementation and use in their math departments? Leaders and instructors
were interviewed in person or by telephone during the winter intercession. This is a
shortened semester, after the Fall semester and before the Spring semester, with both a
reduced number of classes and teaching staff. Therefore, the access to staff is reduced.
Discussion of Findings
There were five findings that resulted from the conduction of this case study.
First, leaders with more advanced technological knowledge and skills were more pro-
active with their attempts to implement technology. Second, leaders felt that their role in
facilitating the use of technology was to encourage use, but the instructors did not feel as
if they were being encouraged. However, instructors, from the school with the least
132
technologically knowledgeable leaders, were not accepting of their leaders’ attempts to
implement technology within their department. Third, of the leaders, 60% ranked
leadership as one of the most important factors for successful technology implementation.
However, instructors were split with half listing leadership as one of the most important
and the other half ranking it as one of the least important. With mixed rankings about the
role of leadership, there lies the challenge between the leader and those they are to lead.
In addition, knowledge and skills was ranked as the most important factor by an
overwhelming majority of the participants, followed by commitment and participation.
Conversely, there were areas of strong agreement with the rankings and this presents an
opportunity for implementing a successful strategy. Fourth, instructors needed and
wanted technology workshops. Fifth, all instructors were using a publisher provided
online learning management system, but they wanted updated and new forms of
technology to be provided by the schools.
Relevant to the first finding, data from the interviews suggest that the
technological knowledge and skills of the leaders had an impact on the math
instructors/math department. The leaders with more knowledge and skills were more
pro-active with trying to implement instructor use of technology. These leaders seemed
to reach out to the math department and inquire as to their needs. The school where the
leaders were not as knowledgeable seemed to have a strained relationship between the
math department and the leaders. The instructors felt that these leaders should not be
telling them what to do with regard to technology use. Rather, they felt that technology
use should be decided by their department. These same instructors felt as if the leaders
133
were trying to force them to use technology for the sake of using it. Schiller (2003)
found that it is when leaders are knowledgeable about the technology, they can better
understand their role as a technology leader. It was further determined that there was a
correlation between leader competency and a transformational leadership style which
promoted technology use; and leaders that showed computer competence were more
likely to accept, adopt, or implement technology (Afshariet al, 2009). Therefore, the
leaders from School B tended to demonstrate more of a transformational leadership style,
which was reflected in their approach to technology implementation. Whereas for
School A, the leaders did not have the computer competency as a whole and were not
able to inspire, motivate, or intellectually stimulate the members of the math department
to use technology beyond what they had chosen to do.
Relevant to the second finding, the leaders felt that their role was simply to
encourage the instructors to use technology. However, the instructors did not feel as if
they were being encouraged. At School A, the instructors felt the leaders were trying to
force them. Yet, there was actually inconsistency amongst leaders; one was forceful, one
said everything was just fine, and another said the instructors had permission to do
whatever they wanted to do. At School B, the instructors did not feel encouraged, but
they did both mention that they attended workshops and looked forward to learning from
those workshops. School B was also the school that had pro-active leaders that were
looking for different ways to get more instructors to buy-in to the use of technology. In
the study by Tondeur et al (2008) with primary grade leaders, the leaders felt that their
role was to implement policy regarding technology and to enforce it. However, since the
134
policy was not required, the principals did not worry about encouraging its use. This lack
of push to use the technology from the leaders at Schools A and B might be due to there
being no policy or requirement in place regarding technology use. However, Rogers
(1995) points out that it is not enough to have the technology but to integrated it. Afshari
et al (2009) goes on to state that to have successful implementation, leaders need to
inspire others to use, integrate, and expand their use of technology. It is this lack of
inspiration from the leaders at the schools that caused the instructors to say that they did
not feel encouraged or inspired by their leaders. Chang et al (2008) adds that the leaders
will have more success with implementing technology if they have effective interpersonal
and communication skills; which was observed by the School B leaders. Afshari et al
(2009) recommends that leaders receive training on transformational leadership so they
can better motivate their staff. In a study by Rooij (2011), he found that leaders should
focus their attention to student engagement and learning; as well as making policies,
procedures, and compliance issues; and networking with other schools. Keengwe et al,
(2009) added that the leaders’ role is to not only develop the vision, goal, and mission
with respect to technology implementation, but to implement the policies and procedures
that are to be aligned with the the vision, goal, and mission. Owen et al (2004) point out
that with technology implementation comes a large negative attitude from faculty,
because they are unsure of their place in the technological change process and they know
it will impact them both professionally and personally. Therefore, it is the responsibility
of the leaders to help the faculty find their niche by helping them to build on their
strengths (Owen et al., 2004).
135
The ranking of the eight factors is relevant to the third finding. The ranking
showed where leaders and instructors differed on what was important for successful
technology implementation. With these differences comes the challenge when there is no
agreement. Conversely, where there is shared belief, there is an opportunity for working
together. When the rankings were completed by all participants it was observed that 60%
of the leaders felt that leadership was one of the most important factors. The other 20%
ranked it as one of the lowest. The instructors were equally split on their ranking of
leadership importance; half ranked leadership in the top and the other half ranked it in the
bottom. So the role that leadership plays in the implementation of technology is at either
extreme. However, as a whole, it was ranked in the top 3 by 6 out of the 11 participants.
Other rankings of the eight factors were as follows: knowledge and skills in the top 3 by
10 out of 11; participation, in the middle, time and rewards and incentives in the bottom 3
by 9 out of 11; commitment in the top 3 by 8 out of 11; and resources in the middle and
dissatisfaction with the status quo in the bottom 3 by 7 out of 11. The ranking of
knowledge and skills in the top is consistent with Rogers (2000) whose study with 2-year
and 4-year institutions, ranked this factor as the second largest barrier to successful
implementation of technology after attitude; but inconsistent with resources, which her
study ranked as the third most important factor. Like Rogers’ (2000) study, this shows
how the community colleges ranked items differently than higher education in general.
Not only were the same constructs ranked differently but they were weighted differently
as well. The knowledge and skills ranking was also conflicting with Ensminger and
Surry’s (2008) study that specifically looked at the ranking of these eight factors by
136
higher education participants; however it is unknown what type of institutions were
represented or the positions held by the participants. In the Ensminger & Surry (2008)
study, knowledge and skills was ranked low, commitment was ranked last, resources first,
and participation near the top. However, in Gulbahar’s (2007) study, at a K-12 private
school in Turkey, it was pointed out that it was very important for their instructors to be
technologically competent, which highlights knowledge and skills as a critical factor for
technology implementation. The ranking of rewards and incentives as one of the least
important factors was contradictory to the study by Rooij (2011) that listed it as what is
needed for implementation at institutions of higher education. Gulbahar’s (2007) study
also emphasized the importance of rewards, but his study involved a K-12 private school.
However, Owen et al (2004) pointed out that rewards, incentives, and time need to be
given to early adopters to keep them interested and motivated. Owen et al (2004) also
pointed out that integrating technology into an instructor’s teaching format requires more
time. Ensminger & Surry (2008) pointed out that to have successful implementation,
there needed to be awareness of the ordering of the eight factors and the implementation
plan should be based on this unique ranking. Although there were factor rankings that
were shared by all, there was no awareness of a specific order and no implementation
plan based on such a ranking.
It was expressed by the instructors that in order for the technology to be
implemented and used, they needed and wanted technology workshops. At School A,
none of the leaders mentioned anything about offering technology workshops, yet the
instructors did. However, at School B, not only did the leaders and instructors mention
137
workshops but one of the leaders spoke of attending them as well. In the study by
Tondeur et al (2008), it was determined that if instructors felt they had technical support,
they were more likely to use technology. Rooij (2011) stated that technical support
personel are needed for implementation to be successful. The need for technical support
was also stressed by Keengwe et al(2009) and Owen et al (2004). Galbahar (2007) found
that continued support improves the quality and quantity of technology use.
There is quite a bit of educational technology available, as well as mathematics
related software. From the interviews, it was discovered that all of the instructors from
both schools used the same online learning management system; Mathxl/MyMathLab by
the book publisher Pearson. At School A, this program is required to be used in all of the
pre-algebra classes and is installed in their math lab. Although it is not required at
School B, it is used by both in-class and online instructors. All instructors use it for
assignments, and some also use it for managing their classes; posting announcements,
uploading documents, communicating with students, computing grades, etc. This type of
technology use is what students expect according to Laird (2005). However, not all of
the instructors at the schools used these forms of technology or used very little
technology. This coincides with multiple studies that concluded that many instructors are
not using the currently available technology to engage or communicate with their
students (Science, 2010); they are not using technology that is related to their specific
subject (NCES, 2010); they are not using the advanced technology to visualize or
simulate concepts (Science, 2010); or they are just resistant to using technology (Owen &
Demb, 2004). The lack of technology use could be aligned with Tondeur et al (2008)
138
who determined that instructors were more likely to integrate technology use if there was
a policy, they were part of the shared vision in making that policy, and they felt it was a
good policy. Keengwe et al (2009) adds that all stakeholders need to be part of designing
the vision.
The instructors that taught higher levels of math wanted to use more visual math
programs like Mathematica and Maple, but the cost of the site licenses were very high.
As a result, the schools may not have these programs or had outdated versions.
Consequently, these community colleges are not as technologically advanced as they
could be, and this situation will continue to make them technologically inferior compared
to the four-year institutions (Epper & DeLott Baker, 2009). Keengwe et al(2009) stated
that leaders must keep technology current and functioning.
Implications for Practice
The role of leadership in the implementation of technology in community college
mathematics departments require more than encouragement. There were four
implications that emerged from this case study. First, leaders need more technology
knowledge and skills; and to use a more transformational leadership style. Second,
leaders need to expand on their perception of their role as a technology leader. Third, the
organization needs to conduct a study regarding the ranking of the eight factors of
implementation. Fourth, more technology workshops need to be provided.
Related to the first finding, leaders need to gain knowledge and skills about the
technology, and move toward a transformational leadership style. With their
competence, comes more understanding. This understanding allows them to project a
139
more personalized approach to working with faculty on the subject of technology
implementation. As a result they are more likely to inspire their instructors to not only
use the technology but to integrate it, and expand upon it within their teaching format.
The second implication for practice expands on their role as a technology leader.
As the technology leader they need to develop a vision, goal, plans, mission, policy,
procedures, and tools for evaluation. This process needs to include all stakeholders,
especially the faculty. The faculty represent the largest group of stakeholders and in this
plan it is important to include ways of making those faculty members feel like they are
able to build on their strenghths by using the technology and they will have continued
technical support.
The third implication is related to the third finding regarding the ranking of the
eight factors. Before designing a plan, the math department should be surveyed about
their ranking of the eight factors of technology implementation. Once completed, the
plan should be designed around this ranking. This ranking will be unique to that
department at that school; it cannot be copied from another school because each
subculture of a school as well as the school itself are unique.
Finally, with respect to findings four and five, ongoing technology workshops
need to be provided. It was determined by both the research and the case study that
technology workshops were very important for the users of the technology. However,
what is being referred to as a workshop is really the need for ongoing technical support to
show instructors how to use the equipment and software. This support can come from
co-workers, hired staff, and/or from the makers of the technology. The technical support
140
needs to be more one-on-one as users increase their knowledge and skills. With the
ongoing and appropriate type of support, these instructors will be more likely to continue
their use; and not get frustrated and quit. The hope is they will be inspired to learn more,
implement what they have learned, and develop new or improved ways to deliver
instruction.
Recommendations for Research
I offer three recommendations for future research based on my findings and
research. First, I suggest that a case study comparing the subcultures within the school
with respect to their ranking of the eight factors of technology implementation be
conducted. Second, research should also be conducted to include more leaders; such as
the President, and the Vice-President of Technology. Finally, a study that interviews
instructors that do not use or use very little technology to understand their perspective
and needs, as well as their ranking of implementation factors.
According to the research and findings, technology plans should be designed
around the factors that the users find important; and each subculture within a school is
unique with respect to their members, needs, and concerns. In other words, the needs of
the math department are different from the needs of the English or science department.
The concerns within each department may be different. With staffing comes differences
as well, as some staff may be more technologically advanced in their knowledge and
skills as well as in the degree of implementation of the technology in their teaching. In
addition, each school is unique, from its students to its leaders and so each school will
have a unique set of priorities. Therefore, a study should be conducted to see what these
141
differences are as well as any similarities within a school which could help leadership in
their planning process.
Leadership at a community college has many levels and these different levels may
have different perspectives on how implementation should occur. The department chair
may not take the same view as a vice-president who never taught that particular subject
area, or who may never have served as a department chair. The needs and concerns of
the school president may not reflect those of the individual departments either, for the
same reasons. In addition, the roles in which individuals serve the school has an impact
on how they approach technology and its implementation. The head of school
technology may be looking at technology from a purely budgetary perspective as opposed
to considering departmental differences when ordering and installing technology.
Therefore, all of the levels of leadership should be interviewed and compared with
respect to their ranking of the eight implementation factors, vision, goals, plans, policies,
procedures, and forms of evaluation. This would be extremely interesting especially for
department chairs that serve as both an administrator and instructor. These leaders are in
a unique position to facilitate understanding to members in both positions.
The third recommendation is to interview the instructors that are not using or use
very little technology. The purpose would be to find out why they are not using it; what
could be done to inspire or facilitate their use of technology; and what their perceptions
are about technology use. With this knowledge, leaders can then determine a plan of
action that could assist these instructors so they might increase their use of technology.

142
Conclusion
This study begins the discussion on technology leadership at the community
college. As leadership is the gatekeeper to technology, math is the gatekeeper to
academic success. With so little success in mathematics at so many levels of education,
there is quite a bit of research that still needs to be conducted in order to find ways to
help our students. However, there are many factors that contribute to the success and
failure of students, and these factors work together. In other words, success and failure
cannot be solved by the removal or addition of one factor. On the other hand, ongoing
research is the tool by which solutions can be found, and obstacles can be revealed.

143
References
Afshari, M., Abu Bakar, K., Su Luan, W., Abu Samah, B., & Say Fooi, F. (2009).
Technology and school leadership. Technology, Pedagogy and Education , Vol.
18, no. 2, 235-248.
AMATYC, A. M.-y. (2006). Chapter 7 Instruction. Memphis, TN, USA: AMATYC.
Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 72(4), 441-462.
Bailey, T., Smith Jaggers, S., & Jenkins, D. (2011). Introduction to the CCRC Assessment
of Evidence Series. New York: Community College Research Center.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1997). Full-range leadership development: Manal for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto: Sage.
Britannica, E. (2011). Encyclopedia Britannica.com. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from
britannica.com: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/287895/information-
system/2180449/computer-software
Carter, P., & Alfred, R. (1998/1999). Making change happen. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Consortium for Community College Development.
CCCCO. (2012). California Community College Chancellor's Office. Retrieved April 23,
2012, from CCCCO Data Mart:
http://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Enrollment_Status.aspx
144
Chang, I.-H., Chin, J., & Hsu, C.-M. (2008). Teachers' Perceptions of the Dimensions
and Implemtation of Technology Leadership of Principals in Taiwanese
Elementary Schools. Educational Technology & Society , 11(4), 229-245.
Chang, I.-H., Chin, J., & Hsu, C.-M. (2008). Teachers' Percetions of the Dimensions and
Implementationof Technology Leadership of Principals in Taiwanese Elementary
Schools. Educational Technology & Society , 11(4), 229-245.
College, E. L. (2008). ELAC. Retrieved April 23, 2012, from ELAC:
http://www.elac.edu/faculty/oie/collegeprofile/Chapter%209.pdf
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Crompton, H. (2010). Mathematics in the Age of Technology: There is a Place for
Technology in the Mathematics Classroom. Journal of the Research Center for
Ecucational Technology (RCET) , 6(2), 54-66.
District, L. A. (2012). LACCD District Resources. Retrieved April April 23, 2012, 2012,
from LACCD District Resources: http://research.laccd.edu/population-
demographics/index.htm
Ely, D. (1999). Conditions tht facilitate the implentationf educational technology
innovations. Educational Technology , 39, 23-27.
Ely, D. (1990). Conditions tht facilitate theimplentationf educational technology
innovations. Educational Technology , 23(2),298-305.
145
Ensminger, D., & Surry, D. (2008). Relative ranking of conditions that faciliate
innovation implementation in the USA. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology , 24(5).611-626.
Epper, R. M., & DeLott Baker, E. (2009). Technology Solutions for Developmental Math
An Overview of Current and Emerging Practices. Creative Commons.
Flowers, L., Pascarella, E., & Pierson, C. (2000). Information Technology Use and
cognitive outcomes in the first year of college. Journal of Higher Education ,
71(6), 637-667.
Gonzales, P., Willimas, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2009).
Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics adn Science Achievement of U.W.
Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students inan INternational Context. Washington DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
Gulbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology
intergration in schools. Computers & Education , 943-956.
Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2011). Teacher perspectives on integrating
ICT into suject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal
of Curriculum Studies , 37(2), 155-192.
Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. (1995). Teaching with Technology. In Teaching: Theory into
Practice. Boston, Mass: Allyn and Bacon.
146
Horn, L., & Neville, S. (2006). Profile of Undergraduates in US Postsecondary
Institutions:2003-2004 with a special analysis of community college students.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
ISTE. (2009). Standards: The ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators of Administrators
(NETS A). Retrieved March 12, 2011, from ISTE:
http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Administrators_2009_EN.sflb.ash
x
J.W., C. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Keengwe, J., Kidd, T., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009). Faculty and Technology:
Implications for Faculty Training and Technology Leadership. Journal of Science
Education Technology , 18:23-28.
Laird, T., & Kuh, G. (2005). Student Experiences With Information Technology and
Relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Reaearch in Higher
Education , 46 (2), 211-233.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickurh, K. (2010, February 3). Pew Internet .
Retrieved June 4, 2011, from Pew Internet and American Life Provider:
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx
Merriam-Webster. (2011). Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from
Merriam-Webster.com: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hardware
Mooney, K., & Bergheim, L. (2002). The ten demandments. New York: McGraw-Hill.
147
O'Banion, T. (2000). An inventory for learning-centered colleges. Community College
Journal , 71(1), 14-43.
Office, C. C. (2011, June 6). California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office.
Retrieved June 6, 2011, from Chancellor's Office Data Mart:
https://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat./studdemo_annual_college.cfm
Owen, P., & Demb, A. (2004). Change Dynamics and Leadership in technology
implementation. The Journal of Higher Education , vol 75(6), 636-666.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Reiber, L., & Welliver, P. (1989). Infusing Educational Technology into Mainstream
Educational Computing. International Journal of Instructinal Media , 16(1), 21-
32.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, P. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of
educational computing research , vol. 22(4), 455-472.
Schiller, J. (2003). Working with ICT Perceptions of Australian principals. Journal of
Educational Administration , 41(2), 171-185.
Schwartz, A. (2007). New Standards for Improving Two-Year Mathematics Instruction.
The Education Digest , 73(2), 39-42.
Sciences, U. D. (2010, May 6). National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved
June 4, 2011, from ies National Center for Education Statistics:
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/downloads.asp#FRSS19
148
Smith, A. (2010, July 7). Pew Internet. Retrieved june 4, 2011, from Pew Internet and
American Life Project:
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Mobile_Access_20
10.pdf
Statistics, N. C. (2005). HIghlights from the 2003 International Adult Literacy and
LIfeskills Survey (ALL). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences.
Stockdill, S., & Morehouse, D. (1992). Critical factors in the successful adoption of
technology: A checklist based on TDC findings. Educational Technology , 57-58.
Surry, D., & Ensminger, D. (2004). Development of implementation profile instrument.
British Journal of Educational Technology , 35 (4), 503-504.
Surry, D., Ensminder, D., & Haab, M. (2005). Strategies for itegrating instructional
technology into higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology ,
34(4), 503-504.
Tech, L. A. (2009). LATTC. Retrieved April 23, 2012, from LATTC:
http://www.lattc.edu/dept/torp/files/08-09_FB_Fac_Staff.pdf
Tondeur, J., van Keer, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the
classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education ,
(51), 212-223.

149
Williams van Rooij, S. (2011). Higher education sub-cultures and open source adoption.
Computers & Education , (57)1171-1183.
Yuen, A., Law, N., & Wong, K. (2003). ICT implementation adn school leadership Case
studies of ICT integration in teaching and learning. Journal of Educational
Administration , 41 (2), p. 158-170.

150
Appendix A
(Leader Questions)
1) Name:
2) Age:
3) Gender:
4) Ethnicity:
5) SES of school:
6) Years in the field of education:
7) Years at this institution:
8) Leadership Position:
9) Years in this position:
10) Have you served in any of these other positions? If so, for how many years?
a. CC President
b. CC Vice-President of Instruction
c. CC Vice-President of Technology
d. CC Mathematics’ Dean
I would like to thank you for agreeing to participate in my study on leadership with
respect to technology implementation within the mathematics department at the
community college level. The purpose of this study is to explore community college
leaders in their attempt to implement the use of technology in their mathematics
departments because math is an area where so many students are struggling. In addition,
I will be exploring how math instructors use technology. I want to be very clear that the
151
information obtained from you during this interview is completely confidential and will
only be used for the purposes of this study. I also want you to know that you can
terminate this interview at any time. I ask that you answer the questions honestly and to
the best of your ability. For the purposes of consistency, questions can be repeated but
not rephrased, restated, or expound upon.
11) How would you describe and rate your basic computer operation skills?
12) How would you describe and rate your computer setup, maintenance, and
troubleshooting skills?
13) How would you describe and rate your word processing skills?
14) How would you describe and rate your spreadsheet skills?
15) How would you describe and rate your database skills?
16) How would you describe and rate your networking skills?
17) How would you describe and rate your telecommunication skills?
18) How would you describe and rate your media communication skills?
19) How would you describe and rate your social, legal, and ethical issues
skills?
20) How do you feel about the use of technology in the math department? Can
you elaborate? (If needed)
21) Do you have any comments or thoughts about technology implementation
with respect to the mathematics department?
22) Are you aware of any software programs that instructors in the math
department are using?
152
23) Are you aware of any software programs that instructors in the math
department are using that are math related?
24) What do you see as your role in the implementation of technology in the math
department? Why, why not?
25) What challenges do you see or have you encountered in your attempt to
implement technology use in the mathematics department?
26) What strategies have you tried, currently use, or plan to use to increase the use
of technology in the mathematics department?
27) How would you rank the following eight factors in order of importance with
respect to the implementation of technology in the math department? Then,
explain why you ranked them in that order; include a percent to indicate the
degree of importance for a total of 100%. (give participant the list of eight
factors with their definitions- Appendix E)
____Commitment____% ____Dissatisfaction with the status quo____%
____Leadership____% ____Participation____%
____Knowledge & Skills ____% ____Resources____%
____Rewards and incentives____% ____Time ____%
28) What computer technology are you familiar with?
29) How would you describe your level of computer competency and why?
30) In what capacity do you use your computer?
31) How would you describe your technical ability and why?
32) How would you describe your leadership style? (Be as detailed as possible)
153
33) What is that you do that makes you describe yourself that way?
This concludes the interview. {For deans only: I need your assistance in selecting
instructors to interview for this study. I need the names of ten tenured or tenure-track
instructors that range in their use of technology from no use to a high degree of use; two
in each of five categories. (Hand them the form to fill in [Appendix C])}
I want to state again that the content of this interview will remain confidential and will
only be used for the purpose of this study.
Thank you for your time. I appreciate your participation. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me. (Hand them my business card).

154
Appendix B
(Instructor Questions)
1) Age:
2) Gender:
3) Ethnicity:
4) Years in education:
5) Years at this institution:
6) Years in this position as an instructor:
7) Have you served in any of these other positions? If so, for how many years?
a. CC President
b. CC Vice-President of Instruction
c. CC Vice-President of Technology
d. CC Mathematics’ Dean
________________________________________________________________________
___
I would like to thank you for agreeing to participate in my study on leadership with
respect to technology implementation within the mathematics department at the
community college level. The purpose of this study is to explore community college
leaders in their attempt to implement the use of technology in their mathematics
departments because math is an area where so many students struggling. In addition, I
will be exploring how math instructors use technology. I want to be very clear that the
information obtained from you during this interview is completely confidential and will
155
only be used for the purposes of this study. I also want you to know that you can
terminate this interview at any time. I ask that you answer the questions honestly and to
the best of your ability. For the purposes of consistency, questions can be repeated but
not rephrased, restated, or expound upon.
8) What math classes have you taught since fall 2010?
9) Please indicate the degree to which you use or plan to use technology in these
courses. (hand instructor form – Appendix D) How did you determine what
technology to use for your classes?
10) How did you determine the degree to which you used or planned to use the
technology?
11) How would you describe your level of computer competency and why?
12) How would you describe your technical ability and why?
13) Describe the extent to which you use your computer?
14) What computer technology are you familiar with?
15) What leaders have been instrumental in your use of technology and how?
16) What have leaders done to facilitate or encourage your use of technology?
17) What should/could the leaders do to facilitate or encourage your use of
technology?
18) What should/could the leaders do to facilitate or encourage your use of
technology?
19) How do you use technology in your classes?
20) How do you use technology in different courses that you teach?
156
21) Do you use classroom or learning management systems? (programs for
managing class data and assessing students/administering assignments)
34) How would you rank the following eight factors in order of importance with
respect to the implementation of technology in the math department? Then
explain why you ranked them in that order; include a percent to indicate the
degree of importance for a total of 100%. (give participant the list of eight
factors with their definitions – Appendix E)
____Commitment____% ____Dissatisfaction with the status quo____%
____Leadership____% ____Participation____%
____Knowledge & Skills ____% ____Resources____%
____Rewards and incentives____% ____Time ____%
22) Do you have any comments or thoughts about technology implementation
with respect to the mathematics department?
This concludes the interview. I want to state again that the content of this
interview will remain confidential and will only be used for the purpose of this
study.
Thank you for your time. I appreciate your participation. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me. (Hand them my business card).

157
Appendix C
(Instructor Sample Spectrum)

No use Low use Moderate Frequent High

158
Appendix D
(Instructor Sample Matrix)

Courses/Use No use Low use Moderate Frequent High
Remedial Pre- to
Intermediate
Algebra

Transfer College
Algebra to
Calculus

Indicate each course that you teach in the table under the column indicating the degree to
which you use technology for that class.

159
Appendix E
(Definitions)

Commitment: Vocal and endorsed support by all key players; initially by the executive
administrative officers. Leader communicates support.
Dissatisfaction with the status quo: Not happy with the way things are; there is a need
for change
Knowledge & Skills: The knowledge and skills required by the user of the technology.
Leadership: The executive leader of the organization to the leader that has day-to-day
contact with the technology user.
Participation: Involvement in the decision making or having a representative as part of
the decision making process. Receiving communication of what is happening with the
technology planning.
Resources: What is needed is easily assessable.
Rewards and incentives: Something that would reinforce one’s use of technology and
something that would motivate one to use technology.
Time: Quality time to learn, adapt, integrate, and reflect on the technology; school time;
paid time.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This case study examined the role leaders played in the implementation of technology in the math departments at two Los Angeles community colleges, and how math instructors used the technology. The community college vice-presidents, mathematics chairs, and tenured mathematics instructors were interviewed for this study. Ely’s (1990) eight factors of technology implementation serve as the framework for this case study. I used this framework to exam similarities and differences in how participants implemented technology. Math was the academic area of interest for three important reasons: 1) the United States consistently scores low in math relative to other developed countries, 2) technology has been shown to increase student engagement, and 3) math is considered the gatekeeper of college success (Epper & DeLott Baker, 2009). Although all of the math instructors used the technology in much the same way, the leadership style as well as the technology knowledge and skills of these leaders served to impact the attitude of the instructors with respect to their use of technology and the relationship between leaders and instructors. Knowledge and skills was the most important implementation factor for an overwhelming majority of participants. However, the role of leadership was viewed as moderately important. Instructors needed and wanted ongoing technical support for them to use the technology, in addition to current forms of technology.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

Organizational leadership and institutional factors related to the implementation of online educational programming in California community colleges

PDF

Technology, policy, and school change: the role of intermediary organizations

PDF

High school reform to improve mathematics achievement

PDF

A story of achievement in areas where others fail: a case study of secondary school reform in mathematics at Pacific North High School

PDF

Perceptions of TESOL teacher education: strengths, weaknesses, characteristics, and effective components

PDF

Leading the way: the effective implementation of reform strategies and best practices to improve student achievement in math

PDF

The role of secondary mathematics teachers in fostering the Algebra 1 success of African American males

PDF

The social media dilemma in education: policy design, implementation and effects

PDF

Promising practices for building leadership capacity: a community college case study

PDF

Outsourcing technology and support in higher education

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

PDF

Blended learning: developing flexibility in education through internal innovation

PDF

The role of educational leadership in participation in the National Program of Science and Technology Fairs at Escuela Central in the Oeste Region

PDF

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

PDF

Secondary school reform: student achievement in mathematics -- a case study: Hot Springs High School

PDF

Engineering my community cultural wealth: testimonios of male Latino community college engineering students

PDF

The influence of globalization on the Irish educational system in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and development of 21st-century skills in secondary schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Ingram, Michelle M. (author)

Core Title The role of leadership in the implementation of technology in mathematics at the community college

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/27/2012

Defense Date 05/01/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag community college,leadership,math,mathematics,OAI-PMH Harvest,Technology

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Burch, Patricia E. (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert (committee member), Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee member)

Creator Email mmingram@pasadena.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-72647

Unique identifier UC11290227

Identifier usctheses-c3-72647 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-IngramMich-1041.pdf

Dmrecord 72647

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ingram, Michelle M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA