Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Hawaiʻi public school principals' level of technology use and the meaningful integration of technology in their school
(USC Thesis Other)
Hawaiʻi public school principals' level of technology use and the meaningful integration of technology in their school
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 1
HAWAI`I PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY USE AND THE
MEANINGFUL INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN THEIR SCHOOL
by
Scott Kaleiolani Parker
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
May 2014
Copyright 2014 Scott Kaleiolani Parker
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 2
Dedication
Throughout life we are given the privilege of meeting, befriending, and collaborating
with countless numbers of individuals, both in professional and personal settings. Friends and
co-workers come and go and families sometimes wander apart, yet one element has remained
true, and by my side through good and bad, the love of my father.
You see, the love of a father cannot be put into words or even easily comprehended. That
is why I dedicate this study to my dad, Leland A. Parker, who, in spite of the trials and
tribulations I put him through, the life choices that caused us to drift apart only to become closer
together than ever before, and the never ending list of things that he has supported, built, funded,
developed, and managed with me, his love has never ceased.
My father’s support throughout my life and my career, and his endless love and guidance
instilled in me a good work ethic, a loving and caring demeanor, and a positive, “never quit”
attitude. Without that strong upbringing and unyielding support, this study, my dissertation, and
my entire education adventure would not have been possible.
I will be forever grateful to my dad who stands by my side to this day, and who will
always be my hero, my foundation, and my steadfast supporter.
With the utmost humility I say thank you and I love you.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 3
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to give special thanks to Dr. Brandon Martinez, my dissertation chair,
who guided me throughout this entire process. His willingness and dedication were remarkable
and I am truly appreciative of the encouragement, motivation, support, and kindness. Thank you
for inspiring me!
I would also like to acknowledge my dissertation committee members, Dr. John
Pascarella and Dr. Babette Moreno, who readily provided me with invaluable comments and
suggestions as well as tough questions to assist me in the writing and defense of this dissertation.
Your advice and input helped me to develop my dissertation into a stronger document.
Acknowledgment also goes to Dr. Babette Moreno for the permission to administer my
survey during a fall leadership conference of an outside provider to the Hawai`i Department of
Education and to Britt Britton, for serving as the proctor during the survey process as well as
editor of this dissertation. Without your assistance this study and dissertation would certainly
not have been possible.
I would also like to give thanks to Dr. Dana Tomonari and Dr. Robert Keim who gave up
invaluable hours of their time to guide me through the understanding and interpretation of all my
statistical data. Your knowledge and support will never be forgotten and I am truly honored to
have worked with you and am certainly a better person, and more knowledgeable statistician for
it.
Special thanks go to the 34 principals of the Hawai`i Department of Education who
willingly participated in completing the survey instrument. Also, to my writing partner, Mr.
Devin Oshiro, I would like to offer my most humble thanks. Being accessible at all hours via
email, phone, or text and always providing valuable feedback, comments, suggestions and more
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 4
to this dissertation are truly appreciated. I am grateful to have been able to work along-side you,
but more so now that I can call you not only colleague – but also friend.
Finally, I want to acknowledge those individuals who supported me in this journey in
many ways. Whether through love, laughter, tears, guidance, or even stern debate, my life has
been enriched beyond words through your presence. The words “thank you” cannot begin to
express my most humble appreciation:
• My Mom, Mrs. Charleen Parker
• My Sister, Mrs. Joy Salvador
• My Brother-in-Law, Mr. Eric Salvador
• My Grandparents, Mr. Edward and Mrs. Amber Grasa
• My Grandparents, Mr. David “Dukie” and Mrs. Blanche Kealakahinanoopuna Meyer
• Mr. Peter Kali
• Mr. Carlos Sinay
• Mr. Ernest Vidinha
• Mr. Tony Nemoto
• Mrs. Dana Hayashi
• Mrs. Kim Costales
• Mrs. Robyn Tom
• Mr. Brian Mizuguchi
• Mr. Stephen Schatz
• Ms. Ann Mahi
• Mrs. Ruth Silberstein
• Mrs. Shanye Kauwela Valeho-Novikoff
• Mr. Nel Venzon, Jr.
• Col. Woody Woodrow
• Lt. Col. Mike Guerrera
• CMSgt (retired) Alan Ogata
• SMSgt Darren Morris
• The USC Hawai`i Cohort of 2011
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter 1: Introduction of the Problem 12
Background of the Problem 13
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 16
Importance of the Study 17
Methodology 17
Assumptions 18
Limitations 18
Delimitations 18
Theoretical Framework 19
Key Concepts and Definition of Terms 21
Chapter 2: Literature Review 25
Theoretical Perspectives 26
Andragogy 26
Transformational Leadership 30
Social Cognitive Theory 35
Technology In Schools 37
Technology Leadership 42
Technology Leadership Needs 48
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 53
Research Questions 53
Research Design 54
Population and Sample 55
Instrumentation 56
Data Collection 62
Data Analysis 63
Chapter 4: Results 64
Findings for the First Research Question 74
Findings for the Second Research Question 76
Findings for the Third Research Question 83
Conclusion 85
Chapter 5: Conclusions And Recommendations 87
Conclusions for the First Research Question 89
Conclusions for the Second Research Question 91
Conclusions for the Third Research Question 93
Recommendations for Further Study 95
Conclusion 97
References 99
Appendix A 114
Appendix B 122
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 6
Appendix C 124
Appendix D 126
Appendix E 131
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Pedagogical and Andragogical Learning Assumption 28
Table 2: Transformational and Transactional Leadership 34
Table 3: Barriers to Technology Integration and Leadership 52
Table 4: Original Questions from CSE Survey and Changes Applicable to this Study 58
Table 5: Original Questions from TAM Survey and Changes Applicable to this Study 59
Table 6: Original Questions from WUSE Survey and Changes Applicable to this Study 61
Table 7: Computer Self-Efficacy 68
Table 8: Computer Self-Efficacy Cronbach’s alpha 69
Table 9: Technology Acceptance Model 70
Table 10: Technology Acceptance Model Cronbach’s alpha 70
Table 11: Web-Users Self-Efficacy 72
Table 12: Web-Users Self-Efficacy Cronbach’s alpha 72
Table 13: Cronbach’s Alpha for CSE, TAM, and WUSE 73
Table 14: Correlation Analysis Between CSE, TAM, and WUSE 74
Table 15: Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and the Island
on Which a School is Located 75
Table 16: Spearman’s rho Correlation Between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE)
and Length of Time a Principal has Served at a School and the Age of a Principal 76
Table 17: Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and the Level
to Which a Principal Creates and Secures Adequate Support to Technology and Services 77
Table 18: Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal
Ensures his School is Equipped with a Sufficient Quantity of Digital Tools and Resources 78
Table 19: Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal
Ensures Quality, Universal Broadband Access is Made Available to All 78
Table 20: Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal
Ensures Effective Technical Support for all Stakeholders 79
Table 21: Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal
Ensures he is Involved in a Collaborative Education Network 79
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 8
Table 22: ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and the Level to which a
Principal Creates and Secures Adequate Support to Technology and Services 80
Table 23: ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and the Level to which a
Principal Ensures his School is Equipped with a Sufficient Quantity of Digital Tools and
Resources 80
Table 24: ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal
Ensures Quality, Universal Broadband Access is Made Available to All 80
Table 25: ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal
Ensures Effective Technical Support for all Stakeholders 81
Table 26: ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal
Ensures he is Involved in a Collaborative Education Network 81
Table 27: ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and Demographic Data (to
Include Respondent Gender, Age, How Long in School Administration, How Long as Principal
at Current School, Island School is Located on, Area in which School is Located, and Type of
School) 82
Table 28: ANOVA the Length of Time a Principal Served as an Administrator and how a
Principal Ensures that Budget and Funding are Provided at a Level that will Ensure the
Effective Implementation of Technology 83
Table 29: ANOVA for the Age of a Principal and how a Principal Provides Stewardship
for Universal Education 84
Table 30: ANOVA for Length of Time a Principal Served as an Administrator and how a
Principal Provides Stewardship for Universal Education 84
Table 31: ANOVA for Years as Principal at Current School and how a Principal Ensures
that Teachers and Students Access, Evaluate, Manage, and Use Information in a
Variety of Media Formats from a Wide Array of Sources 85
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory Model 36
Figure 2: Age of Principals 65
Figure 3: Years in School Administration 65
Figure 4: Years as Principal at Current School 66
Figure 5: Location of School 67
Figure 6: Type of Community 67
Figure 7: Level of School 67
Figure 8: Frequency Distribution of Responses for Computer Self-Efficacy 69
Figure 9: Frequency Distribution of Responses for Technology Acceptance Model 71
Figure 10: Frequency Distribution of Responses for Web-Users Self-Efficacy Scale 73
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 10
Abstract
This study sought to understand the level of Hawai`i public school principals’ technology
use and the way principals meaningfully integrate technology into their school. With technology
a part of students’ lives in the 21
st
century, educators should understand, and not give a second
thought to, the notion that technology plays an integral role in students’ learning (Rivard, 2010).
Many principals in Hawai`i lack extensive experience in the area of educational
technology. As a result, principals have the overwhelming task of leading and managing their
schools through a transformation process for which they lack the necessary skills and knowledge
as the school attempts to integrate instructional technology (Thomas, 1999). Principals cannot
be expected to wholeheartedly support technology if they themselves lack the requisite
understanding necessary for successful use, management, and implementation of such systems
(Dawson & Rakes, 2003).
Principals attending a fall conference, which was sponsored by an outside provider to the
Hawai`i Department of Education, completed a survey focusing on Computer Self-Efficacy
(CSE), Technology Acceptance (TAM), Web Users Self-Efficacy (WUSE), and the School
Technology and Readiness (STaR) Campus Chart assessment. In general, results indicated
statistically significant findings for two of the three research questions. Overall, principal levels
of computer self-efficacy, technology acceptance, and web use were found to be statistically
significant. Significant correlation was also found between the island a school is located on and
CSE and TAM as well as correlation between CSE, TAM, and WUSE and principal’s age and
the number of years he has been principal at his current school. It was also found that the longer
a principal has been at his school and the older the principal is, the lower his score in relation to
CSE, TAM, and WUSE. Finally, four of the 21 ANOVAs ran showed strong statistical
significance while the others ran the gamut of non-significance to approaching significance.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 11
Results of the study provide a basis for school principals, complex administrators, and the
Department of Education to value the impact of technology understanding and integration.
There is, however, a need to further study the issues to add to the current body of knowledge
regarding technology leadership, and the ability of school principals to understand computer self-
efficacy, technology acceptance, and web use in order to effectively manage technology on
campus.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 12
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM
Technology has been used to enhance teaching and learning with connections leading
back to the early years of the industrial revolution (Lee & Winzenried, 2009). Since that time,
there have been frequent attempts to use different types of technology to enhance teaching and
ultimately improve student learning and achievement (Lee & Winzenried, 2009). Fiske and
Hammond (1997) report that technology in education is vital to the overall quality of students’
experiences as schools move into a new era. Given that technology, which is such a relevant part
of a student’s life today, it only makes sense that technology is not only available, but that it is
supported, and more notably, it is understood. The Oregon Institute of Design (2007) makes a
compelling point when they state, “kids lead high-tech lives outside school and decidedly low-
tech lives inside school. This new ‘digital divide’ is making the activities inside school appear to
have less real world relevance to kids.” (p. 24). With technology a part of students’ lives in the
21
st
century, educators should understand, and not give a second thought to, the notion that
technology plays an integral role in students’ learning (Rivard, 2010).
In 2008, $680 billion dollars, which is roughly 4.5% of the Gross Domestic Product of
this country, and roughly 5.1% of all personal income, was spent on public education in the
United States (Odden & Picus, 2008). Given the vast amount of funding to public schools, one
could assume that we have the best public educational system in the world, and that it is a system
that would account for the ubiquitous computing that is taking place in the first third of this
century.
Developing the idea of “invisible” computing, Mark Weiser wrote of a world where
people would be computing without computers (Greenfield, 2006). Weiser felt that computing
would be something not confined to one thing or one device, but would rather permeate itself in
every aspect of our lives. One can infer that ubiquitous means not only in “every place,” but also
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 13
in “every thing” (Greenfield, 2006). People would be able to interact and manage systems
fluently and naturally without a second thought as to the power and complexity of the systems on
which they were working or within which they were communicating. Examples of which
include, TiVo, GPS systems on cellular telephones/smartphones, engine control computers in
automobiles, and podcasts, to name a few. Transcending from the minds in research
laboratories across the country, computing and technology have forever changed the way we
work, play, live, and in this case – study, learn, and assess.
Although the number of educators and national education leaders who promote the use of
technology in schools as a means to improving educational outcomes has increased, the reality
exists that technology has not lived up to its full potential in schools (Dawson & Rakes, 2003).
As far back as 1979, researchers have noted that change is an evolving process that takes
enormous amounts of time (Dawson & Rakes, 2003). An emphasis was placed on the premise
that change is unique and highly personable to each individual and their own experience and that
developmental growth in both feelings and skill sets is required (Loucks & Hall, 1979 as cited in
Dawson & Rakes, 2003).
Background of the Problem
According to Flanagan and Jacobson (2003), given the current state of technology in
education, there is an enormous amount of work that needs to be done by principals and teachers
to reinvent schools and classrooms to fit the transformed digitally savvy society in which we
live. An argument can be made that technology leadership is much more than acquiring
resources and ensuring they are managed effectively (Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003). Dawson and
Rakes (2003) mention that with the school principal holding the key in leading technology
integration into schools, it is imperative that training and professional development for principals
be a priority. The administrator of a school largely determines the outcome of technology
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 14
integration; however, if technology is not understood, then school principals have a difficult time
finding support for its effective implementation and integration (Dawson & Rakes, 2003).
Similarly, Afshari, et al. (2009) note that principals, in their daily practice, must be able to
integrate information and computer technology while also providing stable and progressive
leadership for technology systems used by both teacher and student.
Although the research related to technology leadership is steadily expanding, its
evolution over the last decade has shifted from one theory to the next resulting in a new
leadership model (Chang, Chin & Hsu, 2008). To accommodate this shift in models, it was
proposed by Chang, Chin & Hsu (2008) that leadership and leadership strategies undergo a
redesign. They go on to say that with the emphasis on technology leadership, scholars were able
to identify associations between technology, mission, vision, and policy. It is vital then, in this
era of information systems and technology integration, that educational leaders effectively model
the behaviors that facilitate teaching and learning and which also cultivate positive growth that
leads to increased student achievement within various organizational and school constructs
(Chang et al., 2008).
Statement of the Problem
Principals today face a plethora of responsibilities including the smooth and effective
management and operation of the school. However, the responsibilities do not end there.
Principals today are also charged with ensuring the positive development of the work and life in
the school. In addition, the principals are expected to ensure that any other responsibilities they
are given in the interest of the students, the school, and education in general, are met with
consistent and effective resolve (Hadjithoma-Garstka, 2011). Too many principals however,
may not have enough information about or are not involved enough with the role that technology
plays in their schools (Dawson & Rakes, 2003). Many principals in Hawai`i lack extensive
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 15
experience in the area of educational technology. As a result, principals have the overwhelming
task of leading and managing their schools through a transformation process for which they lack
the necessary skills and knowledge as the school attempts to integrate instructional technology
(Thomas, 1999).
The responsibility for determining the eventual success or failure of technology
integration rests on the shoulders of the school principal. However, without fully understanding
the capabilities and intricacies of technology, it is difficult for principals to support large-scale
change if they do not understand the ramifications of such change (Dawson & Rakes, 2003).
Cathy Chamberlain (Star, 2009) explains that technology integration is at its highest in schools
when the principal is involved and excited about technology and its possibilities, but technology
integration is at its lowest in schools when the principal does not demonstrate technology use
while encouraging others to use it too. Modeling the use of technology is key if principals want
teachers to play an active role in the integration of technology within their classrooms and the
school as a whole (Starr, 2009). Research has shown that effective school administrators are
those who are knowledgeable and effective users of technology themselves. Given the increase
in technology systems and applications in the school setting, principals must understand the
capabilities and limitations of technology as an essential function of the profession. Only then
will principals be able to plan, budget, purchase, install, maintain, schedule, distribute, and
replace systematically the technology best suited for their needs and the needs of the school
(Mecklenburger, 1989).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine Hawai`i public school principals’ current
technology experiences. As well as determine if principals’ experiences can be correlated to
what influences their technology purchases at their school, and to make connections between the
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 16
technology training received by principals and what might influence the integration of
technology into the classroom.
In an informal survey not affiliated with this study, and administered to a select group of
school principals in a complex on O`ahu island, it was discovered that technology applications
used by principals were limited to usages linked to word processing documents or memos;
spreadsheets to facilitate school budgets; presentations using computer software and LCD
projection equipment; and select stand-alone department mandated reporting programs such as
attendance monitoring, special education reporting, longitudinal data system, behavior/incident
tracking and reporting, and human resources programs. Technology hardware included desktop
and laptop computers, printers, iPads, LCD projectors, document cameras, digital presentation
boards, and smartphones. In spite of the applications and hardware being used, all of the
principals reported not having any professional development to support their understanding or
further the application of those pieces of technology. Principals also reported not having
allocated any funding in their academic and financial plans for use in providing administrators
professional development in the areas of technology.
Research Questions
More specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:
1. What is the relationship between school principals' self-efficacy for technology
systems (this includes the self-evaluation of their perceived skill sets) and their
self-efficacy for managing these systems?
2. What components of technology do school principals identify as being most
instrumental in raising their self-efficacy and affecting school management and
instructional practice?
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 17
3. Are there differences among schools in their levels of technology integration into
the schools' curricula and principals’ self-efficacy as indicated by the schools'
scores on the School Technology and Readiness Assessment instrument with
respect to principals' demographic variables?
Importance of the Study
Findings from this study may show that the more prolonged a principal’s training and his
experiences are, and the ability to which those experiences are tied to the school’s curriculum
and to the principal’s needs, then the more progress the school is likely to make toward effective
technology integration. It is the hope that findings from this study will allow both the Hawai`i
Board of Education and the Hawai’i Department of Education to review any policies,
procedures, professional development, and implementation plans related to technology in schools
and to also enable principals to implement technology to the full benefit of students, teachers,
and themselves.
As the State of Hawai`i moves forward on innovative 21
st
century schools through
legislation and department action, it is critical that principals be able to adequately manage
technology systems, have the understanding and the ability to ensure that those systems are being
used by teachers and school staff to raise student achievement, and provide instructional
practices that are aligned to state content standards and the Common Core State Standards.
Methodology
This study consisted of a survey of randomly selected school principals. The principals
from schools serviced by an outside provider to the Hawai`i Department of Education were
presented a questionnaire/survey to gather information about their present experiences with
technology as well as those experiences related to the use of technology at their present school.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 18
The survey was provided in both paper and electronic formats. A representative of the outside
provider administered the survey.
Assumptions
For purposes of this study, it was assumed that principal responses on the
questionnaire/survey were honest. This study attempted to determine the typical understanding
and use of technology by school principals in Hawai`i where the study took place.
Limitations
Participation in this study was voluntary and relied on the willing participation and
honesty of the principals who completed questionnaires. Additionally, the researcher did not
interview, observe, or investigate how technology had evolved at each school. This study simply
considered the self reporting of school principals’ self-efficacy of computers, technology, and
web use; as well as their view of what technology use looked like and, the impact of technology
use on their school. The reasoning behind why principals’ technology use looked the way it did
is beyond the scope of this study.
Delimitations
This study was limited by the amount of time and manpower available to complete a
system-wide survey of all school principals within the Hawai`i Department of Education.
Because there was only one researcher collecting data for this study, the number of principals
surveyed was fewer than would have been ideal. The researcher was not able to observe the
principals as they used technology or made technology use decisions on their individual school
campuses, nor was there the opportunity to interview principals to obtain further explanation as
to their responses on the anonymous survey. Furthermore, this study is limited to a small group
of principals and thus may not be representative of all schools and complex areas and the use of
technology by their school principals.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 19
Theoretical Framework
The nature of technology in this century is such that change is the only constant.
In order to be adept at using technology to improve the management of people, systems, and
organizations, one must not only be knowledgeable about the system itself, but the implications
these systems have on instructional practice and student achievement. To that end, three theories
emerge: andragogy, transformational leadership, and the social cognitive theory. For this
reason, the study of Hawai`i public school principals’ level of technology use and the meaningful
integration of technology in their school can be supported by the collection of ideas related to
Andragogy and the work of Knowles (1984), Transformational Leadership and the work of
Burns (1978), as well as Social Cognitive Theory and the work of Bandura (1977).
Andragogy is grounded in the beliefs that learning is self-directed, and that the teacher
serves instead as a facilitator of learning rather than simply a lecturer of content (Pratt & Assoc.,
1998). Knowles (1984) needs no introduction for his work on the aspects that differentiate
pedagogy from andragogy. The need to develop leaders with large tool belts of practices and the
ability to choose practices from that belt as needed are critical to the success of schools today –
rather than having leaders who are only trained in the ability to deliver one, and only one, ideal
practice. Exploring the effects of andragogy will hopefully result in positive changes to the
preparation and development of principals in Hawai`i especially as they relate to technology and
technology integration in their schools (Jackson, 2001; Young, Peterson, & Short, 2001).
Because principals are ultimately adults who bring a plethora of practical knowledge and diverse
experiences with them, preparation programs can use the andragogical process of critical
reflection to help create solid foundations and opportunities for reflection on individual strengths
and areas of need (Brown, 2006; Brookfield, 1995).
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 20
Transformational Leadership, although a particularly powerful source in military settings,
has most recently been found to be important in every sector and in every setting (Bass &
Riggio, 2006). Leadership must address not only the self-worth of followers, but also work to
engage them in a process that not only involves, but also instills commitment in the task at hand
(Bass & Riggio, 2006). This is essential in the rapidly changing world of technology and how it
is applied to the educational setting. As principals are tasked with supporting teacher growth and
development as effective instructional leaders in their classrooms, so too must principals be
supported while serving as instructional and technological leaders for their schools. The Hawai`i
Department of Education recognizes that principals play a significant role in creating the
conditions for teacher to effectively deliver instruction. Through the Great Teachers and Leaders
initiative in the Race to the Top grant, Hawai`i’s key stakeholders – including the state
Legislature, teachers and principals unions, the Hawai`i State Board of Education, and the
Department of Education – have committed to designing a fair and reliable system to support and
evaluate teachers and administrators in improving their skills to ensure all students benefit from
the best teaching and leadership practices. This reiterates the belief that transformational leaders
empower their followers and pay attention to their individual needs and personal development
(Bass & Riggio, 2006).
The Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1977) defines human behavior as triadic,
dynamic, and reciprocal. It is based on the idea that environment, personal factors, and behavior
occur in reciprocity between each other. Thus, individuals not only choose the environments in
which they exist but also how they will be influenced by those environments. Recently, studies
about the Social Cognitive Theory have looked at the relationship, if any, that exists between
personal cognition, or self-efficacy, and computer use and Internet behaviors (Compeau &
Higgins, 1995; Hsu & Chiu, 2004; Hsu & Chiu, 2004b; Luarn & Lin, 2005). Bandura and other
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 21
researchers have identified more than 23 antecedent and consequent factors that are theoretically
related to computer self-efficacy (Marakas, Yi, and Johnson, 1998), including computer attitude,
computer use, and computer anxiety. External variables also exist and they have the ability to
influence the technology acceptance behavior of technology users. These factors include, user
characteristics, political influences, and organizational factors (Szajna, 1996). With technology
playing such a significant role in the daily life of students, teachers, and principals it seems
realistic to except that technology – in the school setting - is not only provided, but more
importantly that it is supported and understood.
Key Concepts and Definition of Terms
1. Andragogy was developed into a theory of adult education by the American educator,
Malcolm Knowles. Knowles (1984) asserted that andragogy, which in Greek
translates to “man-leading” should be distinguished from the more commonly used
pedagogy, which in Greek translates to “child-leading.” Knowles' (1984) theory
incorporates six assumptions related to motivation of adult learning.
2. Ubiquitous Computing can be defined as a modern model of the relationship between
humans and computers and the way in which information processing has become
embedded in the everyday lifestyle, activities, and objects of human beings. In the
course of daily life, someone "using" ubiquitous computing would be able to typically
engage computers and technology systems simultaneously, and yet may not be aware
that this is taking place. This model is clearly considered advancement from the days
of the desktop environment. More formally, ubiquitous computing is defined as
machines that fit the human environment instead of forcing humans to enter theirs
(York & Pendharkar, 2004).
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 22
3. Transformational Leadership. James MacGregor Burns (1978) first introduced the
idea of transforming leadership when researching political leaders. Since then, the
term can now be found used in organizational psychology as well (Bass & Riggio,
2006). Transformational leadership uses a variety of means to enrich the motivation,
morale, and performance of individuals (followers). These can include connecting an
individual’s sense of self to a project; being a role model for followers; providing
inspiration that creates interest; understanding the strengths and weaknesses of
followers; and challenging individuals to take greater ownership for their work in
order to improve performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
4. Technology (Information Computer Technology) is best described as an action that
develops or revolutionizes culture (Borgmann, 2006). Additionally, technology is
recognized as the application of specific subjects and content in order to provide a
benefit to life, as it is known. A modern example of this is the emergence of
communication technology, which is cutting edge and has reduced barriers for
humans to interact and, as a result, spawn new subcultures. The rise of this “cyber
culture,” as it is called, has at its foundation the developmental aspects of the Internet
and the personal computer.
5. Complex Areas consists of a high school and the elementary and intermediate/middle
schools that feed into it and are managed by a Complex Area Superintendent. There
are twenty-one complex areas within the State of Hawai`i.
6. Weighted Student Formula is the amount of money given to a school based on
individual student need, not enrollment. This means that students with more needs
receive more resources. For the first time, funding will follow students to whichever
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 23
schools they attend, equalizing opportunities at the student level. How weighted
student formula works:
a) A specific dollar amount will be allocated to educate each student enrolled.
b) Additional money will be given to educate students with identified
characteristics that impact their learning and achievement.
The Committee on Weights, representing educators and community members, will
annually recommend the formula for allocating money to public schools based on the
educational needs of each student.
7. Academic and Financial Plan is a single comprehensive school plan that aligns the
schools available resources to ongoing instructional and student support activities and
targeted interventions to improve operations, management, and support services
required for students to achieve proficiency in the Hawaii Content and Performance
Standards (HCPS), the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and General Learner
Outcomes (GLOs). The school principal and the school community develop the
plans. It is next reviewed by the School Community Council (SCC) with final
approval by the Complex Area Superintendent.
8. Race to the Top is a national competition that challenges states to come up with
ambitious but achievable plans that meet the education priorities identified in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. During Phase 2, Hawai`i won $75
million, the maximum it could receive based on its student population.
9. NETS-A is standards that embody a national framework of tasks that school principals
should know and do to support technology integration effectively in schools. NETS-
A is the initiative of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 24
10. TSSA are standards that provide a guide as to what educational leaders should know
and be able to complete in order to be effective users and managers of technology in
schools.
11. Professional Development is a process aimed at improving job-related knowledge,
skills, or attitudes, including in-service training, coaching, mentoring, and other
activities.
12. Computer Self-Efficacy is the self-reporting of an individual on their capability to
use a computer. It is not focused on simple skills, but rather on the ability to apply
skills in large and broad tasks and contexts (Compeau & Higgins, 1995).
13. Technology Acceptance is regarded as the most prominent and universally employed
theory for depicting a person’s acceptance of information systems (Lee, Kozar, &
Larsen, 2003). The model proposes that when people are presented with technology
that may be new or cutting edge, the decision of how and when it will be used is
affected by a number of factors.
14. Web Users Self-Efficacy is a scale designed to measure four domains of Internet self-
efficacy: Information Retrieval, Information Provision, Communication, and Internet
Technology.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 25
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The connection between school leadership and technology implementation is a
relationship that should be given appropriate attention. Avolio (2000) recognizes that the
interaction between technology and leadership should be a process that is “mediated by
technology to produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and/or performance
with individuals, groups, and/or organizations” (p. 4). Although it may seem simple in concept,
the reality that a challenge exists in making this connection is prevalent in schools across the
country.
It should be suggested that given the ubiquitous nature of technology in society and
schools, effective leadership must now include leadership in technology. With the principal
serving as the technology leader at his school site there will be a need to blend the goals of
effective technology implementation into his instructional leadership. Given that change is part
of any school leader’s daily life, the change accompanying technology is unlike any other change
that has been dealt with before. Kanter (2001) describes this spiral of increasing technological
force as “The more technology is used, the more uses are identified, and the more must be used
to do more things. Change produces the need for more and deeper change” (p. 231).
Theories abound in the social realm, but three theories – andragogy, transformational
leadership, and the social cognitive theory - have a distinct relationship to ensure school leaders
are provided the tools and methods for not only facilitating technology within a school, but that
they too may understand and utilize technology in the most effective and efficient ways possible.
The discussion that follows includes exploring the theories of andragogy, transformational
leadership, and the social cognitive theory as mechanisms that enable school leaders to manage
transformation and change; to incorporate the infusion of technology with effective leadership;
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 26
and to facilitate the creation of environments that encourage, reinforce, and support the full
educational potential of technology and its effect on teaching and learning.
Literature related to technology in schools, technology leadership, and technology
professional development will be reviewed and discussed. Through this reflective process an
evaluation of the literature will be presented and important unanswered questions that may
remain will be identified and highlighted. Any methodological problems and controversies with
past studies and literature will be identified and discussed so as to gain a better and more
thorough understanding of not only processes, but also phenomena that may replicate itself in
this present review as well. Through the discussion of the significance of past research,
connections will be made to provide Hawai`i principals tools to better recognize their individual
self-efficacy of computers, technology, and web use and the effects that meaningful integration
of technology can have for not only the school site, but principals’ as well.
Theoretical Perspectives
Andragogy
Despite the emergence of flattened hierarchies, learning organizations, and distributive
leadership practices in 21st Century public schools, the old ways of training principals persist.
The tools and methods often used to train school principals today are relics of a bygone era of
adult development in which the application of scientific principles of efficiency, authority,
management control, and organizational productivity guided the growth of an emerging
industrial economy (Davis & Leon, 2011). The typical educational administration program
adheres to the principles of pedagogy (rather than andragogy) characterized by professor-
centered vs. student-centered instruction, discrete and abstract academic subjects vs. thematically
integrated knowledge, theory-driven vs. problem-driven instruction, and groups of individual
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 27
learners vs. cohorts of professional learning communities (Hale & Moorman, 2003; McCarthy,
2002).
With a quick look, the word andragogy can be viewed as a simply altered form of
pedagogy. It is true they share the same root - gogy - a Greek word for leading. However, that is
where the similarities end and the more significant differences begin (Forrest & Peterson, 2006).
Literally, andragogy is not only the art, but also the science behind teaching adults. Darkenwald
and Merriam (1982) note that an adult is someone who has taken on hierarchical roles such as
parent, husband/wife, and employee while the traditional role of full-time students has been left
to children and adolescents.
The andragogical teaching model describes the relationship that exists between a teacher
and her student as being comparable to that of a traveler and her guide (Knowles, 1977). The
student, who has experienced traveling in the past, knows the destination well. The teacher, in
turn, only need provide directions while allowing the student to take their experiential learning as
a first step to finding new information (Forrest & Peterson, 2006). Pedagogy, on the other hand,
is used to describe the education of children – and has been stretched to include all education
(Forrest & Peterson, 2006). Knowles (1980) relays that pedagogy’s philosophy ignores what
students bring to the learning experience in favor of predetermined course content.
Knowles (as cited in Forrest & Peterson, 2006) originally defined four assumptions
regarding the teaching-learning transaction in adults:
1. Self-concept of a self -directing personality;
2. Wealth of experience to the learning process;
3. Come to the learning process ready to learn; and
4. Oriented toward immediate application of learned knowledge
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 28
Knowles later added two additional assumptions:
5. Know the reason for learning something
6. Driven by intrinsic motivation to learn (p. 116)
Table 1
Pedagogical and Andragogical Learning Assumption
Pedagogy Andragogy
Self-Concept Learners are dependent on
external sources such as an
instructor to assess and
provide their needs
Learners are aware of
themselves and their needs
and bring this knowledge to
the educational activity
Learner’s Experience Learners bring little
experience to the
educational activity and
thus experience is not used
in the learning process
Learners bring a wealth of
usable experience and
knowledge to the
educational activity, thus
experience is used in the
learning progress
Readiness to Learn The need to know develops
from external forces; often
an instructor mandating the
learning process that should
take place
The need to know develops
from an internal need to
better address roles and
responsibilities the learner
faces
Learning Orientation Subject or Teacher
Centered
Problem or Performance
Centered
Note. Adapted from “It’s Called Andragogy,” by S. Forrest and T. Peterson, 2006, Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 5 (1), p. 115. Copyright 2006 by the Academy of
Management.
As educators of adults, principals would be better served if they knew that significant
differences existed in the circumstances encompassing adult and adolescent learning and the
variations that surface in the process of learning during the phases of maturity (Ingalls, 1984).
Differences between adult and adolescent learning should be carefully observed and due
consideration should be paid to the process of professional development as they make a clear
distinction between adults as the learner and students as the learner; a significant concept to
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 29
grasp and understand for principals who are tasked with providing professional development for
staff. Such varied characteristics are illustrated in the areas of adults’ self-concept, experience,
readiness to learn, and orientation to learning (Ingalls, 1984). Adult learners, unlike children, are
defined by the identities they have created for themselves throughout life, rather than simply by
their role as a student. As adults move in and out of the education world, they take these
identities with them. They bring all of their personalities and the accompanying self- directing,
self-concept into the classroom. Thus, as responsible individuals, adults naturally seek to direct
their own educational experience.
Andragogy was founded on the premise that during a person’s lifetime, he gathers
experience. These experiences then, are what define a person’s identity and in turn his self-
image. It can be said that adults are that which they have done. When viewed through the
andragogical lens, a person’s experience is based on his education, which has been built up
through his individual experience. Students who bring knowledge and skills to the learning
process still seek out ways to fill knowledge gaps that are based on individual experiences.
Society has labeled adults with diverse identities and has thrust many diverse roles on
them, such as citizen, parent, friend, worker, and leader - including that of being a student. Each
role comes with certain expectations and responsibilities. Responding to the needs that these
identities present for adults requires a commitment to continual learning. Doing so enables
adults to fulfill their obligations while identifying those concepts that are applicable and
disregarding those that are not. Very often it is life itself that determines when an adult is ready
to learn.
Orientation to learning shares a very close relationship with readiness to learn. From the
andragogical perspective, adults learn in order to deal with issues that arise in their lives. Thus,
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 30
adults enter the learning process from a mindset that is performance or problem-based, only
seeking information that can be immediately applied to their daily lives.
Breaking Ranks in Action (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2002)
advocates that school leaders see themselves as “school designers” and create an atmosphere
conducive to standards implementation (p. 64). This statement applies not only to students’
learning, but also to creating structures that support high levels of learning for teachers. In the
andragogical model, significant differences exist between the learning structures created for
children and those created for adults. According to Knowles (1980), “When the principles of
andragogy are translated into a process for planning adult educational programs, that process
turns out to be quite different from the curriculum planning and teacher process traditionally
employed in youth education” (p. 59). To create an environment that is conducive to
understanding, progression, and advancement for teachers, principals should adopt the
andragogical process where adults, as learners, receive professional development in a respectful
and trustworthy way.
Transformational Leadership
Wright (2004) states that we, as a society, have evolved so rapidly that the skills and
customs we grew up with as children are archaic by the time we are in our early adulthood. The
roles of both leaders and followers have become more complex and elaborate, and multiple
perspectives exist on how leadership is conceptualized (Stewart, 2006, p. 2). With a major focus
on school accountability and school restructuring, the advancement of leadership must continue
(Heck & Hallinger, 1999). Moreover, the ability to lead and manage effective schools while
responding to the increasingly complex demands of society will require a knowledge and
technical skill set of only the utmost committed and competent leaders (Stewart, 2006, p. 3). The
impact that this will create is destined to last, as leadership is an area of focus that cannot be left
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 31
unattended. Fullan (2001) claims that effective leadership is in short supply. He also adds that
we should expect to see “Leadership development initiatives dominating the scene over the next
decade” (p. xii). To address this need there will be an increase in the emphasis placed on
instructional leadership and transformational leadership, two styles of school leadership that are
the most researched (Heck & Hallinger, 1999). What sets these styles apart from others is the
ability to concentrate on what it takes for principals and teachers to improve teaching and
learning. Instructional leaders on one hand, focus on goals, the curriculum, instruction, the
school environment, and all other functions that contribute to student learning, including
managerial behaviors (Donmoyer & Wagstaff, 1990; Murphy, 1988). Transformational leaders
meanwhile focus on restructuring the school by improving school conditions. Instructional
leadership, which was developed during a period of the 1980s, focused on the effective schools
putting the principal on a pedestal as the key source of educational knowledge and even expertise
(Marks & Printy, 2003). In an effort to systematize the routines of effective teaching, the
principal’s focus was to sustain high expectations for teachers and students, observe classroom
instruction, manage the school’s curriculum, and monitor student progress (Barth, 1986).
Whereas in transformational leadership the focus is on finding and solving problems in a
collaborative manner with all stakeholders with the target being an improvement to overall
organizational performance (Hallinger, 1992). Transformational leadership works to affirm the
centrality of the principal as a reformer, predominantly in they way he pioneers innovative ideas
and influences the internal and external culture of the organization (Conley & Goldman, 1994;
Leithwood, 1994). Principals however, can never relinquish their role as instructional leaders,
even when working in a collaborative environment where teachers are encouraged to take on
leadership roles and share their expertise with others through a positive transformational process
(Sebring & Bryk, 2000; Sheppard, 1996). Principals who accept their role as instructional
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 32
leaders and exercise it in collaboration with teachers truly embody the practice of an integrated
form of leadership that is transformational (Marks & Printy, 2003).
Models, such as servant leadership and strategic leadership, hold promise for school
leaders; however, the research behind these models has been conducted largely in non-school
contexts. These models are a welcome addition to school leadership practices but come with
varying, and limited, degrees of testing and adaptation to the unique environments in which
school leaders work. The most widely adopted and tested of these models is “transformational
leadership.” Theorized by Burns (1978) with refinement by Bass (e.g., 1985) for adoption in a
variety of organizations, it was later Leithwood (2012) who modified and adapted the theory to
compliment a version of transformational leadership that was first proposed by Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) that was better aligned with the unique leadership
demands found in schools.
Burns (as cited in Stewart, 2006) notes that although leadership is in rich abundance
throughout literature, no central concept of leadership has emerged because scholars are working
in separate disciplines to answer specific questions unique to their specialty (p. 8). According to
Burns (as cited in Stewart, 2006), leadership must be aligned with a collective purpose and
effective leaders must be judged by their ability to make social changes (p. 8). It is
recommended that both the roles of leader and follower be integrated and that the process of
leadership remains a unique interaction between conflict and power. Burns goes on to delineate
two basic types of leadership: transactional and transformational. Transactional leadership
focuses on the extrinsic motivational needs of followers. As an example, transactional leaders
may reward a hard-working staff member with extra time off. On the other hand,
transformational leaders look for potential motives in followers, seek to satisfy higher needs, and
engage the full person of the follower (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Transformational leadership is based
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 33
on the view that leaders are not just “power brokers,” but work with followers to increase each
other functioning over time (p. 20). Transformational leadership results in a mutual relationship
that transforms followers into leaders and leaders into moral agents. As a transformational
leader, the principal would seek to obtain elevated levels of responsibility from all personnel
within the school, and work to improve organizational capacity that would drive continuous
school improvement (Marks & Printy, 2003).
Burns (1978) defines leadership as “Leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals
that represent the values and the motivation – the wants and needs, the aspirations and
expectations – of both leaders and followers” (p. 19). Transformational leadership ensues when
one or more individuals collaborate with one another and this involvement increases their levels
of drive and integrity - integrity in which the leadership is derived from the obligations of school
staff and their feelings for each other, the students, and the school (Sergiovanni, 2006, p. 162).
This then places the power base in a mutually supportive position toward a common purpose.
Transformational leadership seeks to “raise the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of
both the leader and the led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both” (Burns, 1978, p. 20).
Transformational leadership is a change process that seeks to advance both the connection as
well as the wherewithal of individuals involved. The resulting change then, focuses on others
level of responsibility and the subsequent increased commitment toward realizing mutually
agreed upon purposes.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 34
Table 2
Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership
Charisma: provides vision and sense of
mission, instills pride, gains respect and
trust
Contingent reward: contracts exchange of
rewards for efforts, promises rewards for
good performance, recognizes
accomplishments
Inspiration: communicates high
expectations, uses symbols to focus
efforts, expresses important purposes in
simple ways
Management by exception (active):
watches and searches for deviations from
rules and standards, takes corrective action
Intellectual stimulation: promotes
intelligence, rationality and careful
problem solving
Management by exception (passive):
intervenes only if standards are not met
Individualized consideration: gives
personal attention, treats each employee
individually, coaches and advises
Laissez-faire: abdicates responsibilities,
avoids making decisions
Bass (as cited in Stewart, 2006) concentrated his research on military, business, and
educational organizations by delving into, what was considered at the time, the new paradigm of
transformational leadership (p. 11). Most of Bass’s (1998) research resulted from shortcomings
and weaknesses that were recognized through Burns’ earlier work. Evidence was discovered that
indicated transformational leadership was remarkably influential and had the basis to change
followers beyond what was presumed.
The following four components of transformational leadership were developed (Bass, as
cited in Stewart, 2006, p. 12):
1. Charismatic leadership, or idealized influence
2. Inspirational motivation
3. Intellectual stimulation
4. Individualized consideration
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 35
Transformational leaders serve as role models, taking risks while maintaining a clear
vision and sense of purpose. Followers are respectful of these attributes and seek to emulate
them.
Transformational leaders also operate in ways that encourage others, create excitement
and challenge individuals. These types of leaders undoubtedly are able to impart beliefs and
demonstrate a devotion to a shared purpose and vision.
Transformational leaders enthusiastically seek out new ideas and develop and implement
new ways of doing things. They inspire the creativity of others and they in no way publicly
rectify or find fault with others.
Transformational leaders are also servant leaders, whereby they pay attention to the needs
and the potential for developing others. In order to accomplish this, they establish a supportive
climate where individual differences are respected, there is an awareness of individual concerns,
and interactions with followers are encouraged (Bass, as cited in Stewart, 2006, p. 12).
Transformational leadership theory makes the argument that, given adequate support,
individuals become highly involved and moved by goals that are encouraging because those
goals are connected with values in which they clearly believe—or are influenced to clearly
believe (Leithwood & Sun, 2012). Transformational leadership theory, then, recognizes what the
internal states of individuals are and determines those that are essential to their performance. It
then identifies a set of leadership routines most likely to have a significant impact on those
internal states (Leithwood & Sun, 2012).
Social Cognitive Theory
The Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1977; 1978; 1982; 1986) is a widely recognized,
empirically validated paradigm of individual behavior. It has been extensively applied across
many areas in the information systems literature with established legitimacy. The theory defines
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 36
human behavior as triadic, dynamic, and reciprocal. It is based on the idea that environment,
personal factors, and behavior occur in reciprocity between each other. Thus, individuals not
only choose the environments in which they exist but also how they will be influenced by those
environments. Furthermore, actions in a given circumstance are shaped by environmental or
situational features, which are in turn influenced by behavior. Finally, as illustrated in Figure 1,
behavior is guided by cognitive and personal factors, and in turn, have an effect on those same
factors. Of all the aspects that shape human functioning, and exist at the core of the theory, self-
efficacy and outcome expectations stand out. Self-efficacy is “a judgment of one's ability to
organize and execute given types of performances,” (Bandura, 1997, p. 21). Whereas an
outcome expectation is “ a judgment of the likely consequence such performances will produce”
(Bandura, 1997, p. 21). Several current studies deriving from the Social Cognitive Theory have
looked at the association between personal cognition, i.e. self-efficacy and/or outcome
expectations, and computer use and Internet behaviors (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Hsu & Chiu,
2004; Hsu & Chiu, 2004b; Luarn & Lin, 2005).
Figure 1. Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory Model
While Social Cognitive Theory has countless components, this research is particularly
concerned with the role of cognitive factors that influence individual behavior (Compeau &
Higgins, 1995). Bandura advances two sets of expectations as the main forces shaping behavior:
outcomes and self-efficacy (Compeau & Higgins, 1995).
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 37
Bandura (1986) defines self-efficacy as “Peoples judgments of their capabilities to
organize and execute courses of action required to attain designed types of performances. It is
concerned not with the skills one has but with judgments of what one can do with whatever skills
one possesses” (p. 391). Computer self-efficacy can then be considered a representation of
someone’s own perception of his capability to manage computers in the accomplishment of an
assignment, rather than exhibiting effortless component skills (Compeau & Higgins, 1995).
Computer self-efficacy gauges an individual’s self-confidence in overcoming new
technology (Compeau & Higgins, 1995). If a person has above average computer self-efficacy,
then he has the tendency to believe that he will be successful in using the technology. In contrast
if a person demonstrates below average computer self-efficacy, he will have problems using the
technology purposefully on his own (Lai, 2008). Venkatesh and Davis (1996) found that
computer self-efficacy acts as a determining factor in perceived ease of use both before and after
hands-on use with a system. Bandura and other scholars have identified more than 23 antecedent
and consequent factors that are theoretically related to computer self-efficacy (Marakas, Yi, and
Johnson, 1998), including computer attitude, computer use, and computer anxiety.
External variables also influence users’ technology acceptance behavior. These elements
comprise, but are not limited to, user characteristics, political influences, and organizational
factors (Szajna, 1996). In light of technology being such a prevalent piece of daily life, it is
essential that technology – in the school setting - is not only made available, but that it is
sustained, and more importantly, it is understood.
Technology In Schools
As technology compels industry to reevaluate old patterns of doing business, education is
obligated to attend to the new learning requirements of the 21st-century student who will vie for
jobs in a global economy. In 1994, slightly more than one-third of schools and just three percent
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 38
of classrooms had access to the Internet. Today, all elementary and secondary schools and over
92% of classrooms are connected (Roberts, 2004). Daggett (2008) believed, “The world in
general—and America in particular—is being pushed by fundamental changes caused by both
globalization and technology. The implication for what students need to know, and be able to do
is increasingly dramatic” (p. 1).
Today’s students were born in the Information Age and have been surrounded by videos,
computers, and DVD and MP3 players. Johnson (2004, p.8) explains that the student of today is
text messaging and sending digital photographs to each other on cell phones. They also have the
use of handheld computers, tablets, or smart phones that provide word processing, spreadsheets,
presentation programs, as well as digital photography and video capability and editing. The
aspects that define the need for service are both related to industry and society. As technological
advances of the 21st-century continue to persistently change the landscape of the United States,
countries such as India, Brazil, and China have acted in response to the global market by
employing targeted 21st-century education programs to instruct and groom their citizenry for the
global workforce. According to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science 2007 score
report, the U. S. held eighth place, behind Chinese Taipei, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan,
Hungary, England, and the Russian Federation on eighth grade math and science scores (Baldi,
Jin, Skemer, Green, Herget, & Xie, 2008). Presently, America, “at the politico-military level,
remains a single-superpower, but in every other dimension-industrial, financial, educational,
social, and cultural – the distribution of power is shifting away from American dominance”
(Zakaria, 2008, p. 4). Freidman (2006) advised that the U.S. and other economic superpowers
will have to transform educational organizations to make certain that workers are available for
the jobs that will actually exist within their societies.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 39
Green makes it known that education remains the most important aspect for facilitating
change, correcting societal inequity, improving life opportunities, advancing a productive
citizenry, and fostering a genuine democracy (as cited in Cooper et al., 2008, p. 406). Chen
(2010) reported the following United States school statistics:
Of 50 students behind in reading in the first grade, 44 will still be behind in the fourth
grade. An American student drops out of high school every 26 seconds, a total of 6,000 a
day. Thirty years ago, the United States ranked 1st in the quality of its high school
graduates. Today, it is 18th among twenty-three industrialized nations. (p. 2).
Technology in schools, with regard to educational reform, has been shown to generate
substantial results within the school setting (Rivard, 2010). Technology must be leveraged and
utilized in a way that will allow educators to comprehend its full capability, and produce
teaching strategies that are engaging and collaboratively developed and reinforced through
current and relevant professional development so that it can afford students the engaging and
effective learning experiences they deserve (Rivard, 2010). Technology has the potential to
transform what has traditionally been the task of teachers as the deliverer of knowledge to that of
facilitator, model, guide, resource, and technology leader to students (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson,
1999). Application of technology, particularly computers, will afford students the fundamental
educational requisites as well as attending to instructional needs through individualized content
presented at the level of the individual (Afshari, Bakar, Luan, Samah, & Fooi, 2008). Computers
can then function as effective providers in a collaborative environment versus the conventional
classroom environment that has existed for years (Afshari, et al., 2008).
The amount of elementary and secondary students who are enrolled in online courses
swelled between 2001 and 2007, from about 200,000 to almost 2 million (Association for Career
and Technical Education, 2010). This proliferation in course-imbedded technology for secondary
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 40
students can be witnessed throughout the United States. A study conducted by the Institute of
Education Sciences (2008) reported an estimated 100% of public schools had one or more
instructional computers with Internet access, and the ratio of students to instructional computers
with Internet access was 3.1 to 1. All of these reports showed that a trend existed in education
that was giving way to technology-supported instruction and curricula to groom students for the
21st-century workforce. As 21st-century trends come to light, changes to the way we view and
relate to the world and the information around us will be expected (Gladwell, 2002).
With the continued development of modern and cutting edge technological platforms, the
United Stated Department of Education developed the National Educational Technology Plan
(NETP, 2010). This plan emphasizes the notions researchers have characterized as being the
most effective way in which schools can turn into educational centers of excellence that assist in
closing the gap between what students know about technology, they way they use it, and how
their experiences out of the classroom will prepare them to eventually be college and career
ready.
Given its capacity to drastically alter the way instruction is presented to students and they
way educators can boost student achievement, schools in the United States have placed a
significant amount of financial resources in educational technology. According to surveys of
district expenditures from schools in the United States, there has been more than $6 billion
dollars spent on educational technology in schools from 2002-2003 (Anderson & Dexter, 2005).
In 2009, more than $7.6 billion dollars was spent on hardware and software (Compass
Intelligence, 2010). According to Technology Counts (2005, p. 8) schools spend an average of
$103 per pupil each year on educational technology, two-thirds of which is spent on hardware.
The state with the highest expenditure for technology in 2005 was New York, at $196.3 million,
while Mississippi was the lowest at $103 thousand. Trotter (2005, p. 30) reported the largest
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 41
expenditures for technology was awarded by Congress on the recommendation of former
President Clinton. The E-Rate program had provided $2.25 billion annually and had given a
total of $14.3 billion to various organizations by 2004-2005. These funds were used to discount
the costs of telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connectivity with priority
for schools and libraries serving low-income students or rural areas. This significant
commitment of finances to technology contributes to the acceptance that technology does in fact
embody the potential of turning around education both at the school and district level (Anderson
& Dexter, 2005).
Technology policy and subsequent shifts in philosophy have resulted over the years.
Two examples involve technology funding and the move toward online and blended learning.
Technology Counts (2005, p. 8) indicated a major shift in education technology policy as a result
of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Under the Clinton administration, federal education
technology policy was devoted to opening new educational horizons. In the Bush, and it would
also be safe to assume the Obama administrations, the commitment has been to using computer
technology as a tool to analyze student achievement data. States and school districts are now
spending millions of dollars to provide online student-data systems to help teachers plan better
for instruction.
In 2008, a significant amount of online and blended learning opportunities was offered to
an estimated 1-millon students across 44 states (Kowch, 2009). Allen and Seaman (2012) report
that since 2002 the number of students enrolled in at least one online course rose from 1.6
million to 6.7 million in 2011. Also, in the fall of 2011, online enrollment accounted for 32% of
total enrollment, an increase of 21.3% since 2002 (Allen & Seaman, 2012). Granted these
numbers represent significant growth rates among higher education in terms of student numbers
and enrollment relative to online learning. However, K-12 institutions are in close pursuit, and it
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 42
is projected that the online population of students in K-12 settings will increase 30% annually
(INACOL, 2008, p. 2). This is important as the need to facilitate a smooth transition between
high school and higher education for students is paramount to successful academic achievement.
Coupled with strong technology skills, students’ educational success has evolved since the early
years of public education in the United States and around the world as well.
Technology Leadership
In this time of change in education, “The actions of the school leader will determine the
fate of public education in the 21st century, and maintaining the status quo is not an option”
(Daggett, 2010, p. 61). Given all the research and findings behind educational technology in the
classroom, and taking into account all the money spent on technology over the last ten years, it
has realized that technology alone does not result in a greater use among teachers and students
(Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck, 2001). It is important then to look at both technology and its
integration in the academic setting as not only a means for assisting individuals in their use of
computers, but about assisting teachers as they incorporate technology as a tool for learning
(Sheingold & Hadley, 1990).
Leadership has demonstrated its purpose as an essential piece in changing the teaching
and learning mindset that is required to better prepare students to have the necessary skills and
knowledge to function appropriately in the twenty-first century (Byrom & Bingham, 2001).
Dinham (2005) reports that leadership has significant influence in establishing successful and
state-of-the-art schools of the future and in fostering effective teaching and learning. In the role
as an instructional and technology leader of the school, it is required that a principal possesses
the aptitude, competence, and understanding to effectively integrate technology into the
curriculum.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 43
Although a small amount of research exists on leadership and technology (McLeod &
Richardson, 2011), and a considerable amount less on the way leaders develop opportunities for
teachers to learn and understand how technology can strengthen advanced instruction for
students, organizations around the world have joined together to clarify the effective use of
technology in schools (Kara-Soteriou, 2009). Known as the Technology Standards for School
Administrators (TSSA), these standards serve as a guide to what educational leaders should
know and be able to complete in order to fulfill their responsibilities as leaders of effective use of
technology in schools (TSSA Collaborative, 2001). According to the TSSA Collaborative
(2001), the emphasis of the standards is on enriching learning through the use of technology.
The standards are designed to be used by leaders at both the school and district level, and contain
six areas of focus complete with performance indicators and technology leadership tasks based
on specific roles (TSSA Collaborative, 2001). The standards are: Leadership and vision;
learning and teaching; productivity and professional practice; support, management, and
operations; assessment and evaluation; and, social, legal, and ethical issues (Anderson & Dexter,
2005, p. 50).
Along with the TSSA, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)
developed and issued the National Education Technology Standards for Administrators (NETS-
A) (ISTE, 2005, 2009). The NETS-A identifies the standards for school leaders in regards to
technology in schools and provides appropriate indicators to measure effective leadership for
such technology in schools. The standards, which were created to improve learning and teaching
by enhancing the effective use of technology in schools, reflect a national movement among
educational entities concerning school leadership and the improvement technology can provide
towards advancing student achievement (ISTE, 2005, 2009). The following are the six areas of
the NETS-A: Leadership and vision; learning and teaching; productivity and professional
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 44
practice; support, management, and operations; assessment and evaluation; and social, legal and
ethical issues (Anderson & Dexter, 2005, p. 50).
ISTE’s Chief Executive Officer stated, “(I)ntegrating technology throughout a school
system is, in itself, significant systemic reform. We have a wealth of evidence attesting to the
importance of leadership in implementing and sustaining systemic reform in school. It is critical,
therefore, that we attend seriously to leadership for technology in schools” (ISTE, 2009, p. 1).
One aspect of educational leadership, as mentioned in the TSSA and the NETS-A that is
universally recognized, is that of the principal being instrumental to the successful integration of
technology within a school (Schiller, 2003; Wilmore & Betz, 2000). Duignan (2010) states that
leading an organization through the change process can be a daunting task as it requires a change
of mindset from a more traditional approach to leadership to that of a collaborative and inclusive
transformational leadership model. The expectation is that principals will be able to not only
manage and observe both school and classroom environments in a way that makes the lines that
separate teacher and principal complicated. Gladwell (2002) stated, “We are powerfully
influenced by our surroundings, our immediate context, and the personalities of those around us”
(p. 259). Li (2010) cautioned, “Open leaders will have to be very comfortable with using social
technologies when implementing an open strategy” (p.195). It cannot be overstated that the role
of the principal is substantial when it comes to facilitating teachers to develop classrooms that
not only encourage but also support learning for students (Afshari et al., 2009). Wilmore and
Betz (2000) clearly point out “information technology will only be successfully implemented in
schools if the principal actively supports it, provides adequate professional development and
supports his staff in the process of change, and engages in the learning process as well” (p.15).
According to Yee (2000), schools that have successfully integrated technology must be able to
inspire a collective sharing of the vision and mission of technology use among all staff, and
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 45
principals must then work to maintain an environment that ensures the vision and mission will be
fulfilled. Casson et al. (2001) reported schools that made the most gains in technology
integration have done so with the unyielding support of the principal (97.6%), an individual
chosen by the principal (94%), or even a group of educators supported by the principal (91%).
Four dominant elements of technology leaders in education have been identified, and they are:
1. Vision – Leadership believes in technology as a change agent in education. Leaders are
also able to convey, enact, and influence others.
2. Empowering others – Leaders work to energize staff in order to support their vision and
create collaborative environments were staff feel supported in their ability to take risks,
break down barriers, and obtain rewards for abilities.
3. Modeling technology use – Leaders, both principals and teachers, need to be competent
in their use of technology. Modeling effective and ethical use of technology on a regular
basis.
4. Interacting – Specific to principals, it is the process where technology integration
becomes seamless in both the school and the larger school community. Involving all
stakeholders in the change process is an integral part of this element (Casson et al., 2001).
The development of standards specific to technology leadership (such as TSSA and
NETS-A), and the connection of those standards to performance indicators change the way
principals work to improve student performance and support the integration of technology within
their school (Chang et al., 2008). Over 30 years ago computers were only beginning to make
their way into schools and scholars were excited to see what kind of impact they would have on
teaching and learning. The research that followed resulted in the implementation of professional
development programs, including those for principals as well (Davies, 2010). In today’s world,
schools have made leaps and bounds insomuch as positions now exist to support the integration
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 46
of technology in schools – such as Technology Coordinators and Technology Coaches (Davies,
2010). Absent the involvement of the principal in making key decisions regarding technology,
however, the full support and implementation of technology to help improve student learning and
achievement may not exist (Yee, 1998).
It is a necessity that principals create and nurture supportive school environments that
allow the unrestricted existence and growth of technology. Successful principals are those who
motivate and encourage others to share in the vision that is inclusive of technology integration
and is reflective in the unwavering and enthusiastic support of staff (Yee, 2000). Schepers and
Wetzels (2005) discovered that a correlation exists between what we know as transformational
leadership and technology use. If a principal who models and supports creativity among teachers
is in place, then a greater chance exists that teachers will be more apt to not only use, but also
test new and innovative technology (Schepers & Wetzels, 2005). Fullan (2001) says it best when
he comments that leadership is not just about working collaboratively to successfully accomplish
tasks, it is more about guiding and nurturing individuals to become confident in their work to be
effective problem solvers, especially with regard to problems not yet successfully addressed.
Afshari, Bakar, Luan, Samah, and Fooi (2008), looked at the extent to which principals in Iran
used technology in their schools and what the perceptions are of principal’s competence and
style of leadership. The findings demonstrate that 60% of principals reported using word
processing programs on a daily basis to complete essential tasks, while only 3% shared that they
utilize other programs such as spreadsheet, database, and presentation programs. Given the role
and work of principals, it is not surprising that basic computer and word processing skills are the
areas lacking necessary understanding and ability. These skills are not viewed as essential
functions of the position, as principals can use other staff to complete these tasks, which in turn
frees up time to address other areas of need in technology and information systems. In spite of
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 47
the global change toward a more progressive use of online and collaborative work groups,
principals also reported that nearly 50% of them did not participate in professional development
that would provide them the necessary skills to be successful in these areas (Afshari, et al.,
2008). Principals can expect to see only minimal growth as effective leaders of technology if
they fail to first work at becoming proficient in technology, and then ensure they encourage and
support the use of technology in teaching and learning among staff (Afshari, et al., 2008).
Anderson and Dexter (2010) also point out that any gains made in the reform efforts in schools
today would be squandered if principals fail to become active leaders of technology in their
schools.
In Wang’s (2010) work, she makes the point that a principal who visibly fails to support
educational technology and who does not provide a clear path for encouraging technology
integration runs the risk of alienating themselves from staff and fostering a negative work
environment that is crushing to the hard work and effort of motivated teachers. An argument can
then be made that the exact opposite is possible when principals openly advocate for technology
in schools teachers will then freely initiate work to use and experiment with technology (Wang,
2010). She also notes that by demonstrating interest in technology and tying that to a compelling
purpose, teacher self-confidence can increase and result in productive and positive school
environments. Anderson and Dexter (2010), in their study, learned that technology leadership
plays a more significant role than do systems, hardware, and a commitment to funding.
Although technology infrastructure is vital, without meaningful technology leadership effective
educational technology cannot survive in the school setting (Anderson and Dexter, 2005). Many
studies recognize that although technology can be a very powerful tool for teaching and learning,
the use and control of that power is much greater factor in determining the eventual success of
the school and the principal (Dexter, 2011).
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 48
Chang (2002) is clear to point out that technology leaders who have been effective are
those who work positively with others, are clear and effective communicators, and supportive of
the needs of teachers and staff. Principals who support technology will be better suited to guide
their schools in a way that will allow progressive gains of educational resources that are bound to
raise achievement and invigorate learning. Using a Structural Equation Modeling method to
define the multidimensional technology leadership construct, Chang, Chin, and Hsu (2008)
found that effective principals can be subsequently defined as: leading the school in
improvement on restructuring, and using technology that is cutting-edge as the core of his
educational change efforts (p.241).
Technology Leadership Needs
Traditionally, it was believed that leadership characteristics embodied aspects of certain
skill sets to ensure technical and interpersonal factors guided the development of highly effective
and responsive organizations. Due to a continuous contracting of school budgets and innovative
technology systems that are constantly being developed, long-established management skills
necessitate the understanding and use of more transformational leadership traits – elements that
allow transformational leaders and their mentees to move forward to a high-level of self-
confidence and purpose (Burns, 1978). This thinking appears to reinforce the developing needs
of a 21
st
century school system that is historically less coordinated and self-directed, due to the
integration of technology into the daily routines of a principal. It is essential then, for the
technology-related needs of principals to be acknowledged and focused upon (Dikkers, Hughes,
& McLeod, 2005). Most educational leadership programs fall well short in recognizing and
appreciating the nature of, and concerns associated with technology integration (Dikkers,
Hughes, & McLeod, 2005). The University of Minnesota took the lead when they created an
academic program designed to deal with the gap that exists in ensuring effective leaders of
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 49
technology across K-12 schools are available and well prepared (Dikkers, Hughes, & McLeod,
2005). Graduates of this program are cutting-edge leaders who can readily facilitate the long-
range planning and implementation of technology in schools. Whether this model can be
duplicated at other entities of higher education is yet to be seen. However, if proper preparation
of school leaders were the goal of schools of education across the United States, then a look at
the University of Minnesota would be pertinent and valuable.
Technology leadership in the school setting would best be served if it was able to
recognize that the successful integration of technology is more than just purchasing hardware
and software it is about the ability of principals’ to lead and sustain technology within the
building and the school community (Anderson & Dexter, 2005, Wang, 2010). Gargan and Guare
(1998) reasoned, “Today’s schools are caught in a whirlwind of social and political change,
shifting paradigms and promises, and intense public debate about the nature of schooling” (p.
32). With that in mind, 21
st
century education leaders must expect to work within in a new
construct as they reinvent schools. Failure to do so is a failure to the constituents being served.
Murray (2004) points out that the in order for technology integration to be successful, the
principal has the ability to leverage key positions on campus to facilitate and foster an
environment that recognizes the importance of technology in schools.
In 1981, America received a wake-up call with a study commissioned to report on the
state of the nation’s school systems. The findings from A Nation at Risk (USDOE, 1983)
reported, “Our nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry,
science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world,”
(Section I) and recommended,
State and local high school graduation requirements are strengthened and, at a
minimum, all students seeking a diploma are required to lay the foundations in the
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 50
Five New Basics by taking the following curriculum during their 4 years of high
school.... For the college-bound, 2 years of foreign language in high school are
strongly recommended in addition to those taken earlier. (USDOE, 1983,
“Recommendation A: Content”).
The Nation at Risk report further recommended, “Citizens across the Nation hold
educators and elected officials responsible for providing the leadership necessary to achieve
these reforms, and, citizens provide the fiscal support and stability required to bring about the
reforms we propose” (USDOE, 1983, “Recommendation E: Leadership and Fiscal Support”
section).
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated, “A 100 percent proficiency in reading
and mathematics by 2013-2014 by all U.S. public and private schools that receive public
funding” (Ravitch, 2010, p. 97). In 2009, Race To The Top (RTTT), a 21
st
century school reform
initiative and one of three major American school reforms that have shaped the nation’s school
programs within the last 30 years was introduced. Its purpose is to:
Adopt standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and
the workplace; build data systems that measure student growth and success and
inform teachers and principals how to improve instruction; recruit, develop,
reward, and retain effective teachers and principals, especially where they are
needed most; and turn around the lowest-performing schools. (Race to the Top
Fund, 2009, “Purpose”).
Part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, RTTT emerged from
$4.35 billion that Congress set aside for “state incentive grants” (McGuinn, 2012). Although
RTTT is not the first federal competitive grant program in education, it is by far the largest. In
many ways, RTTT is an effort to sidestep the noticeable failings of NCLB, and specifically, the
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 51
law’s dependence on constraining federal mandates and the culture of compliance that it
promoted at the state level (McGuinn, 2006).
In order for RTTT to succeed, the federal program must result in policy changes at the
state level, state level policy changes must result in changes of practice at the district level,
changes in practice at the district level must result in changes to the way principals and teachers
do their jobs at the school level, and changes at the school level must deliver a visible
improvement to student performance.
Standardized, high-stakes testing which is now completed mainly online supports these
mandates. For the first time, state assessments are making extensive use of technology. These
assessments offer students authentic and intricate performance tasks through an adaptive
computer based test, that provides immediate feedback, and offers appropriate accommodations
for the diverse needs of students (USDOE, 2010). The new assessment mandates however,
appear to curb administrators from individualizing instruction and, some may make a case that
they limit creativity in the way content is presented and understanding is measured.
Leadership in educational technology can only be effective if the full potential of
technology is allowed to flourish, support for technology is evident at all levels, and the principal
is fully committed to its purpose. The studies shared, and the resulting findings illustrate that
although much has been accomplished, there is a long road ahead when it comes to supporting
principals so that they can model effective and ethical use of technology.
Homer-Dixon (2000) believes that we are moving into the future while at the same time
in need of effective leadership. Fullan (2001) himself asserts that, “One of the main conclusions
I have drawn is the requirements of knowledge societies to bring education and business
leadership closer than they have ever been before. Corporations need souls and schools need
minds” (p. 136). With that said, the opportunity to provide technology leadership is at a critical
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 52
juncture. Technology is a key to raising student achievement; teachers are the key to providing
meaningful technology based instruction; and, principals are the key to ensuring that a vision,
systems, and infrastructure are in place at the school level to make this happen, while themselves
being able to understand technology and lead its implementation.
Table 3
Barriers to Technology Integration and Leadership
Barrier Needs
Lack of informed leadership
Principals must accept the challenge to
create supportive conditions that will
support teachers and students with new
technologies
Shared vision Principals need to shift (along with
teachers) from a hardware and skills
acquisition focus to one that allows
technology to be used to create meaningful
and authentic learning experiences
Equity of access Every effort must be made to ensure a
“digital divide” does not exist for
principals and their schools
Professional development Principals need to be provided access to
professional development for technology
and educational technology and there needs
to be closer alignment between the amount
of time for professional development and
its degree of perceived importance
Financial resources Principals need to be supported financially
to ensure that adequate resources exist for
hardware, software, infrastructure, and
support within their school
Non-existent technology plans Principals need to ensure that technology
within their school is planned for –
including its implementation, integration,
and support
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 53
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Technology is a part of students’ lives in the 21
st
century. Because of this, the repeated
attempts by educators to use differing types of technology in the hopes of enhancing teaching
and, ultimately improving student learning and achievement, is integral to the overall quality of
the educational experience that students will receive as schools enter the new millennium (Lee &
Winzenried, 2009; Rivard, 2011; Fiske and Hammond, 1997). Given the current state of
technology in education, there is an enormous amount of work that needs to be done by
principals and teachers to reinvent schools and classrooms to fit the transformed and digitally
savvy society in which we live. The administrator of a school largely determines the outcome of
technology integration; however, if technology is not understood, then school principals have a
difficult time finding support for its effective implementation and integration (Dawson & Rakes,
2003). It is vital, in this time of ubiquitous computing, that educational leaders be role models of
actions that facilitate teaching and learning which also cultivate progressive growth and which
lead to improved student achievement within individual school settings (Chang et al., 2008).
The application of this research was analyzed to investigate whether principals’ self-efficacy in
CSE, TAM, and WUSE as well as technology use and integration supported teaching and
learning, and how principals are able to better understand and use technology to support their
schools. This chapter includes the research questions, research design, population and sample,
instrumentation, and procedures for data collection and analysis.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
1) What is the relationship between school principals' self-efficacy for technology
systems (this includes the self-evaluation of their perceived skill sets) and their
self-efficacy for managing these systems?
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 54
2) What components of technology do school principals identify as being most
instrumental in raising their self-efficacy and affecting school management and
instructional practice?
3) Are there differences among schools in their levels of technology integration into
the schools' curricula and principals’ self-efficacy as indicated by the schools'
scores on the School Technology and Readiness Assessment (STaR) Campus
chart instrument with respect to principals' demographic variables?
Research Design
A quantitative approach was used to collect data for this study in the attempt to determine
how public school principals rated their level of self-efficacy in regards to the use of technology
as well as the level of technology implementation at their school. Using quantitative methods
(Salkind, 2011), this non-experimental study describes the current components of technology
that school principals identify as being most instrumental in raising their self-efficacy and
affecting school management and instructional practice as identified through a survey that was
distributed to 34 principals from within the Hawai`i Department of Education and who work
with an outside provider. Principals had the option of completing the survey online
anonymously through Qualtrics or via anonymous hard copy. The principals are from public
elementary, middle, and high schools predominantly receiving Title I supplementary funding
based on the amount of students receiving federal free and reduced lunch assistance. Principals
were asked to respond to 39 specific questions on the survey instrument to determine their self-
efficacy for technology and the management of technology systems. The survey consisted of
questions selected from the Computer Self-Efficacy (CSE) scale (Murphy, Coover, and Owen,
1989), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Legris, Ingham, and Collerette, 2003) and the
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 55
Web Users Self-Efficacy Scale (WUSE) (Eachus and Cassidy, 2004). Responses from the
individual surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
The third research question, which was also addressed through the survey, serves to
provide information about possible differences among schools in their levels of technology
integration into the schools' curricula and principals’ self-efficacy with respect to principals'
demographic variables. The survey questions used were selected from the STaR Campus chart
instrument to help understand: Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support as well as
Infrastructure for Technology.
Population and Sample
The Hawai`i Department of Education is a single-school district spanning six islands,
across approximately 300 miles. Hawai`i's State Board of Education formulates policy for the
public schools and state library system. The Board has nine members appointed by the governor
and one nonvoting student member selected by students in grades 7-12. The Board of Education
hires a Superintendent as the chief executive officer of the public school system, and the State
Librarian. The Superintendent appoints six Assistant Superintendents to run state-level offices
responsible for curriculum, instruction, and student support, for human resources, business
services, and information technology services. The Superintendent also appoints fifteen
Complex Area Superintendents who each oversee and support 2-4 school complexes. Each
complex consists of a high school and the elementary and intermediate/middle schools that feed
into it (DOE, 2013). There are approximately 183,251 students enrolled in 254 public
elementary, middle, and high schools, and 32 charter schools (DOE, 2013). The department
spends approximately $11,583.00 per pupil based on 2011-2012 dollars. The total budget for the
department comprise $1.762 billion of which, $1.34 billion is through state general funds, $99
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 56
million in special/revolving funds, $284.54 million in Federal funds, and $32.91 million in Trust
funds (DOE, 2013).
The researcher is interested in understanding how principals use, manage, and are
supported in technology integration within their individual schools. Currently all public schools
have some sort of technology on their campus and access to the Internet. Because of time and
resource constraints, the researcher cannot investigate all of the 286 public and charter schools in
Hawai`i. The principals included in this study were from nine of the 15 complex areas that are
serviced by the same outside provider and represent various urban, suburban, and rural locations
and differing socioeconomic status.
Instrumentation
The researcher developed a survey (see Appendix A) to assess the degree in which
technology is managed and understood by school principals. The survey was designed to
determine the relationship between a principal’s self-efficacy in technology and the management,
use, and implementation of technology in his school. The survey was comprised of questions
from the CSE scale developed by Murphy, Coover, and Owen (1989); as well as the TAM
(Legris, Ingham, and Collerette, 2003); the WUSE (Eachus and Cassidy, 2004); and, the STaR
Campus Chart (2012) assessment developed by the Instructional Materials and Educational
Technology Division of the Texas Education Agency and used by Stechelber, Li, Liu, and Kozak
(2008).
CSE is the judgment of an individual on their capability to use a computer and is not
focused on simple skills, but rather on the ability to apply skills in large and broad tasks and
contexts (Compeau & Higgins, 1995). Three categories can be assigned to CSE: magnitude,
which is ability of individuals to discern whether they are able to complete complex tasks with
minimal or no support versus those who may not be able to complete tasks or require a high
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 57
degree of support; strength refers to the confidence that an individual possesses regarding their
ability to complete tasks; and, generalizability which can best be described as the ability of an
individual with high CSE to competently use complex computer hardware and software
programs while an individual with low CSE would have limited ability to complete similar tasks.
Table 4 illustrates the wording of questions from the original CSE survey and the changes
to the wording of questions that were applicable to the administration of the survey for this
study. The original version of the CSE survey was based on a 5-point Likert scale where 1=very
little confidence and 5=quite a lot of confidence. The CSE survey used in this study was based
on a 6-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 6=strongly agree. Appendix B contains
the original CSE scale used by Murphy, Coover, & Owen (1989).
A Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the survey used in this study and matched to the
Cronbach's alpha of prior surveys to determine the reliability of the instrument. An alpha
coefficient of .97 (from prior surveys) and .95 for the survey used in this study indicated that the
instrument had excellent internal consistency for CSE. Thus, the obtained factor solution and
resulting reliability coefficients for CSE suggest that the instrument exhibited construct validity
and reliability. As such, it may be concluded that the resulting form of the instrument holds
promise for its use in further research.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 58
Table 4
Original Questions from CSE Survey and Changes Applicable to this Study
Computer Self-Efficacy Scale
(Murphy, Coover, & Owen, 1989)
Computer Self-Efficacy Scale in this
Study
I feel confident in organizing and
managing files
I feel confident I can organize and manage
files on a computer
I feel confident in explaining why a
program (software) will or will not run on
a given computer
I feel confident I can explain why a
program/software will or will not run on a
certain computer
I feel confident in troubleshooting
computer problems
I feel confident I can troubleshoot
computer problems
I feel confident in learning advanced skills
within a specific program (software)
I feel confident I can learn advanced skills
within a specific computer
program/software
I feel confident using the computer to
organize information
I feel confident I can use the computer to
organize information
I feel confident using the computer to
analyze number data
I feel confident I can use the computer to
analyze number data
The TAM is considered the most significant and universally retained theory for depicting
an individual’s acceptance of information systems (Lee, Kozar, & Larsen, 2003). The model
suggests that a number of factors influences an individuals decision about how and when they
will use technology, to include their perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease-of-use
(PEOU). PU can be defined as the extent to which an individual recognizes that his use of a
particular system will improve his job performance. PEOU can be defined as, the extent to
which an individual recognizes that he can use a particular system with minimal or no effort
(Davis, 1989).
Table 5 illustrates the wording of questions from the original TAM survey and the
changes to the wording of questions that were applicable to the administration of the survey for
this study. The original version of the TAM survey was based on a 5-point Likert scale where
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 59
1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. The TAM survey used in this study was based on a 6-
point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 6=strongly agree. Appendix C contains the
original CSE scale used by Davis (1989).
Table 5
Original Questions from TAM Survey and Changes Applicable to this Study
Technology Acceptance Model (Davis,
1989)
Technology Acceptance Model Scale in
this Study
Using (application) improves the quality
of the work I do
Using personal computing technology
(desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet,
smartphone) improves the quality of the
work I do
Using (application) allows me to
accomplish more work than would
otherwise be possible
Using personal computing technology
(desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet,
smartphone) allows me to accomplish more
work than would otherwise be possible
I find (application) cumbersome to use
I find personal computing technology
(desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet,
smartphone) cumbersome to use
It is easy for me to remember how to
perform tasks using the (application)
It is easy for me to remember how to
perform tasks using personal computing
technology (desktop computer, laptop
computer, tablet, smartphone)
I find it takes a lot of effort to become
skillful at using the (application)
I find it takes a lot of effort to become
skillful at using personal computing
technology (desktop computer, laptop
computer, tablet, smartphone)
Overall, I find the (application) easy to
use
Overall, I find personal computing
technology (desktop computer, laptop
computer, tablet, smartphone) easy to use
A Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the survey used in this study and matched to the
Cronbach's alpha of prior surveys to determine the reliability of the instrument. An alpha
coefficient of .86 (from prior surveys) and .76 for the survey used in this study indicated that the
instrument had acceptable internal consistency for TAM. Further refinement is needed to
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 60
develop a more reliable instrument to measure TAM. However, changes in alpha scores are
possible due to the clarification of personal computing technology in the wording of questions.
Although the ability of humans to interact with technology is becoming increasingly
more user-friendly, individuals who lack much experience still find it a formidable task to
accomplish. The Internet as well has an exponential ability to positively impact many areas of
our daily lives. But for some individuals, the capacity to use that power is curbed by their failure
to understand, control, and use that potential. This failure may be real – in that the individual
genuinely may not have the necessary skills or abilities – or it may simply be a belief which
results in incapacity and poor motivation, as in the case of self-efficacy expectations (Cassidy &
Eachus, 2002, p. 134). The WUSE is designed to measure four domains of Internet self-efficacy:
Information Retrieval, Information Provision, Communication, and Internet Technology.
Table 6 illustrates the wording of questions from the original WUSE survey and the
changes to the wording of questions that were applicable to the administration of the survey for
this study. Of the six questions selected, the wording in only one question used in this survey
differed from the original WUSE survey, however, the original version of the WUSE survey was
based on a 5-point Likert scale where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. The WUSE
survey used in this study was based on a 6-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and
6=strongly agree. Appendix D contains the original WUSE scale used by Eachus & Cassidy
(2004).
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 61
Table 6
Original Questions from WUSE Survey and Changes Applicable to this Study
Web Users Self-Efficacy Scale (Eachus
& Cassidy, 2004)
Web Users Self-Efficacy Scale in this
Study
I find using email easy....C21 I find using email easy
I am not really sure what a modem
does...T33
I am not really sure what a modem does
I know how to use software (e.g.
Dreamweaver or Frontpage) for creating
web pages... P12
I know how to use software (e.g.
Dreamweaver or Frontpage) for creating
web pages
If my computer became infected with a
virus, I wouldn't know how to get rid of
it...T38
If my computer became infected with a
virus, I wouldn’t know how to get rid of it
I feel confident about using most types of
browsers... R8
I feel confident about using most types of
web browsers
I am not very confident about my ability
to use the Internet...R10
I am not very confident about my ability to
use the internet
A Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the survey used in this study and matched to the
Cronbach's alpha of prior surveys to determine the reliability of the instrument. An alpha
coefficient .89 (from prior surveys) and .66 for the survey used in this study indicated poor
questionable internal consistency for WUSE. Further refinement is needed to develop a more
reliable instrument to measure WUSE
The first part of the survey gathered information about current principals’ levels of
computer skills and self-efficacy with computers. Measuring CSE first is important as much
research has demonstrated that a significant positive link exists between high levels of CSE and
employee participation, production, and persistence with technology in the workplace (Celik &
Ysilyurt, 2013; Chien, 2012; Compeau & Higgens, 1995; Karsten, Miltra & Schmidt, 2012) as
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 62
well as determining whether CSE is a common factor when being accepting of the use of
technology (Davis, 1989, 1993; Koufaris, 2002; Yanik, 2010).
The second and third part of the survey used Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) to identify principals’ Perceived Use (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU).
The TAM, PU, and PEOU have been used in over 88 studies and have been cited over 2,000
times (Lee, Kozar, & Larson, 2003). The WUSE (Eachus & Cassidy, 2004) looks at evaluating
principals’ confidence in using the Internet. As Web-based resources are becoming increasingly
important within education, it is vital that students, staff, and school leaders feel confident and
competent in the access, provision, and utilization of these resources (Eachus & Cassidy, 2004).
The final part of the survey used questions that were selected from the STaR Campus
Chart assessment, as provided in Appendix D, to evaluate principals’ current educational
technology knowledge, preparation, development, progress, and potential improvement as it
relates to his level of technology integration. Questions were chosen from three sections of the
STaR Campus Chart: educator preparation and development; leadership, administration, and
instructional support; and, infrastructure for technology. Questions, as shown in Appendix A,
were formatted to specifically address the school principal as the technology leader on campus,
and consisted of five response opportunities that were directly tied to the STaR Campus Chart.
Data Collection
Data was collected through an anonymous, 39 question survey given to principals while
attending an organized meeting held by and outside provider to the Hawai`i Department of
Education in the fall 2013 semester. Participation in the survey was completely voluntarily and
did not affect any professional licensure, certification, tenure, etc. Respondents were asked to
complete as much of the survey as possible, however no monitoring was conducted to verify
completion rates and principals responding. All surveys were collected anonymously either
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 63
through Qualtrics (if taken online), or by a representative of an outside provider to the Hawai`i
Department of Education (if done via hard copy).
Data Analysis
Information from the survey instrument assisted the researcher in answering the research
questions. For the purpose of this study, the independent variable is the technology self-efficacy
of principals and the dependent variables are the acceptance level, willingness to integrate, and
understanding of technology into his school. A multiple regression and correlational analysis
was used to determine the relationship between the principals’ self rating on the CSE, TAM, and
WUSE and the impact they have on technology acceptance, understanding, and integration. A
Pearson, or product-moment correlation analysis (Burgess & Smith, 2005) was run for this study.
The correlation analysis determined the strength of the relationship between variables such as a
principal’s computer self-efficacy and his ability to manage technology on his campus. With the
main result of a correlation being the correlation coefficient, or “r,” and ranging from -1.0 to
+1.0, the closer the variable is to +1 or -1, the more closely the two variables are related (Burgess
& Smith, 2005).
A
simple analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Salkind, 2011) was also run for this
study. The ANOVA sought to identify the variance that is due to differences between
individuals within groups and the differences that exist between groups (Salkind, 2011). Also
associated with the ANOVA is the F-test, which looks at the overall difference between groups
(Salkind, 2011). The higher the F-test value is over one, the more likely there is a significant
relationship between various areas of content, years of experience, schools, and research
questions.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 64
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
This purpose of this study was to determine Hawai`i public school Principals’ current
technology experiences. As well as determine if principals’ experiences can be correlated to
what influences their technology purchases at their school, and to make connections between the
technology training received by principals and what might influence the integration of
technology into the classroom. Question one sought to determine if a relationship exists between
principals’ technology self-efficacy and the management and integration of technology in their
schools. Secondly, what components of technology do principals self-identify as being most
instrumental in raising their self-efficacy and affecting school management and instructional
practice. The third question sought to determine if there is a correlation between principals’ self-
efficacy and the ability of the school to integrate technology into the schools curricula, with
respect to principals’ demographic variables. This chapter represents the results of the data
analysis.
The survey instrument used in this study was completed by 34 school level principals in
the fall of 2013. Principals had the option of completing the survey online anonymously through
Qualtrics or via anonymous hard copy. Only one of the respondents chose to take the survey
online, with the remaining electing to take the survey via hard copy. This was interesting as the
nature of the survey dealt with the self-efficacy of principals and technology use – yet only one
of 34 decided to actually use technology to complete the survey while the rest chose to use the
more traditional paper and pencil method. Of the 34 principals taking the survey 18 were male
and 16 were female, which represents an almost equal representation of gender where 52.9%
were male and 47.1% were female. As shown in Figure 2, participants in the survey were
between 36-65 years of age, with the majority of them between 51 and 65 years of age (64%).
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 65
The remaining principals were distributed as follows: 46-50 (18%), 41-45 (12%) and 36-40
(6%).
Figure 2. Age of Principals
Principals’ responses related to the number of years that they have been in school administration
reflected a relatively diverse group. As shown in Figure 3, 32% have been in school
administration for 11-15 years followed by 23% for 6-10 years. The remaining responses for
three categories were 15%.
Figure 3. Years in School Administration
26-‐30
0%
31-‐35
0%
36-‐40
6%
41-‐45
12%
46-‐50
18%
51-‐55
20%
56-‐60
23%
61-‐65
21%
66-‐70
0%
71
-‐
0%
Age
of
Principal
0-‐5
15%
6-‐10
23%
11-‐15
32%
16-‐20
15%
21-‐25
15%
26-‐30
0%
31-‐35
0%
36-‐40
0%
41-‐
0%
Years
in
School
Administration
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 66
When asked how long principals have been serving at their present school (as shown in Figure
4), responses ranged from 67% who have been at their school for 0-5 years, 18% have been at
their school for 11-15 years, 12% have been at their school for 6-10 years, and 3% have been at
their school for 21-25 years.
Figure 4. Years as Principal at Current School
Other demographic data that should be reported relates to the location (island) of the principals
school, the area in which the school is located, and the type of school. As shown in Figure 5, of
the principals surveyed, 32% came from the island of Maui, 23% from the island of Oahu, 21%
from the island of Hawai`i, 18% from the islands of Lana`i and Moloka`i, and 6% from the
island of Kaua`i. Although four individuals did not respond to this question, the 30 responses
were distributed as shown in Figure 6, with 34% indicating their school was located in an urban
area (population density generally exceeding 1,000 persons per square mile), 33% in a suburban
area (an outlying residential area of a city/commuter area on the fringe of a metropolitan area),
and 33% in a rural area (open country and area with less than 2,500 residents) as based on the
U.S. Census Bureau. Finally, as shown in Figure 7, 42% of principals came from an elementary
school, 32% from a middle school, 19% from a high school, and 7% from a K-12 school. There
were 3 principals who did not respond to this question.
0-‐5
67%
6-‐10
12%
11-‐15
18%
16-‐20
3%
21-‐25
0%
26-‐30
0%
31-‐35
0%
36-‐40
0%
41-‐
0%
Years
as
Principal
at
Current
School
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 67
Figure 5. Location of School
Figure 6. Type of Community
Figure 7. Level of School
Hawai`i
21%
Maui
32%
Oahu
23%
Lana`i/
Moloka`i
18%
Kaua`i
6%
Location
of
School
Urban
34%
Suburban
33%
Rural
33%
Type
of
Community
Elementary
42%
Middle
32%
High
19%
K-‐12
7%
Level
of
School
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 68
CSE is the judgment of an individual on their capability to use a computer and is not
focused on simple skills, but rather on the ability to apply skills in large and broad tasks and
contexts (Compeau & Higgins, 1995). Three categories can be assigned to CSE: magnitude,
which is ability of individuals to discern whether they are able to complete complex tasks with
minimal or no support versus those who may not be able to complete tasks or require a high
degree of support; strength, which refers to the confidence that an individual possesses regarding
their ability to complete tasks; and, generalizability, which can best be described as the ability of
an individual with high CSE to competently use complex computer hardware and software
programs while an individual with low CSE would have limited ability to complete similar tasks.
As shown in Table 7, an established mean for CSE was 3.84 based on the responses to
the six questions focused on self-efficacy in this portion of the survey instrument.
Table 7
Computer Self-Efficacy
Mean N Standard Deviation
3.8484
33
1.207876
This would indicate that principals neither agreed nor disagreed with the questions related to
computer self-efficacy.
A Cronbach’s alpha was run for the CSE scale, and the result, as shown in Table 8, was
an alpha of .956 indicating excellent internal consistency. This is only slightly different from a
prior administration of the CSE scale in other research that yielded an alpha of .97. The obtained
factor solution and resulting reliability coefficients for CSE suggest that the instrument exhibited
construct validity and reliability.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 69
Table 8
Computer Self-Efficacy Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
Number of Items
.956
.956
6
As shown through the histogram in Figure 8, responses to the CSE questions had a
normal distribution, with the exception of questions Q1_1 and Q 1_5, which had a negatively
skewed distribution, and Q 1_2, which had a slightly positively skewed distribution.
Figure 8. Frequency Distribution of Responses for Computer Self-Efficacy
The TAM is considered the most significant and universally retained theory for depicting
an individual’s acceptance of information systems (Lee, Kozar, & Larsen, 2003). The model
suggests that a number of factors influence an individual’s decision about how and when they
will use technology, to include their perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease-of-use
(PEOU). PU can be defined as the extent to which an individual recognizes that their use of a
particular system will improve their job performance. PEOU can be defined as, the extent to
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 70
which an individual recognizes that they can use a particular system with minimal or no effort
(Davis, 1989).
As shown in Table 9, an established mean for TAM was 4.08 based on 33 responses to
the six questions focused on technology acceptance in this portion of the survey instrument.
Table 9
Technology Acceptance Model
Mean N Standard Deviation
4.0858
33
.5305284
This would indicate that principals self-report a slightly positive acceptance of technology
systems.
A Cronbach’s alpha was run for the TAM scale, and the result, as shown in Table 10, was
an alpha of .769 indicating acceptable internal consistency. This is lower than the alpha (.86) in
prior administration of the TAM scales in other research. Changes in the alpha score is possibly
due to the clarification of personal computing technology in the wording of questions used in this
research survey instrument, which includes: desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet, and
smartphone.
Table 10
Technology Acceptance Model Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
Number of Items
.769
.803
6
As shown through the histogram in Figure 9, responses to the TAM questions had a
diverse distribution, with question Q 2_1 and Q 2_4 having a normal distribution, questions Q
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 71
2_2 and Q2_3 having a negatively skewed distribution, and question Q 2_5 having a positively
skewed distribution.
Figure 9. Frequency Distribution of Responses for Technology Acceptance Model
Although the ability of humans to interact with technology is becoming increasingly
more user-friendly, individuals who lack much experience still find it a formidable task to
accomplish. The Internet as well has an exponential ability to positively impact many areas of
our daily lives, but some may be hindered by their own ability to use, understand, and control
their individual potential. This inability may be real or it may simply be a person’s own self-
efficacy which results in incapacity and poor motivation (Cassidy & Eachus, 2002). The WUSE
is designed to measure four domains of Internet self-efficacy: Information retrieval, information
provision, communication, and Internet technology.
As shown in Table 11, an established mean for WUSE was 3.7 based on the 34 principals
and their responses to the six questions focused on web use in this portion of the survey
instrument.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 72
Table 11
Web-Users Self-Efficacy
Mean N Standard Deviation
3.7647
34
2.90770
With the increase in Web Based programs, assessments, and instructional tools in the education
sector, especially with the implementation of NCLB and RTTT, this is one area that principals
seem to still lack the confidence and ability to successfully navigate and in-turn, respond to.
A Cronbach’s alpha was run for the WUSE scale, and the result, as shown in Table 12,
was an alpha of .663 indicating questionable internal consistency. This is lower than the alpha
(.89) in prior administration of the WUSE scales in other research. Discrepancy in the alpha
score is possibly due to the fact that only six questions of the original 40 were used in this study.
Table 12
Web-Users Self-Efficacy Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
Number of Items
.663
.706
6
As shown through the histogram in Figure 10, responses to the WUSE questions had a
diverse distribution, with question Q 4_4 having a normal distribution; questions Q 4_1, Q4_2, Q
4_5, and Q 4_6 having a negatively skewed distribution; and, question Q 4_3 having a positively
skewed distribution.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 73
Figure 10. Frequency Distribution of Responses for Web-Users Self-Efficacy Scale
Cronbach’s alpha is a coefficient of internal consistency. It is commonly used as an
estimate of the reliability of a psychometric test for a sample of individuals. A Cronbach’s alpha
was run for the CSE, TAM, and WUSE scales and as shown in Table 13, with a score of 0.93
which indicates excellent internal consistency. Although the score could initially be interpreted
as being too high, an actual reliability of greatness for each question was run and it was
determined that no selection bias existed. Therefore it can be interpreted that the CSE, TAM,
and WUSE scales used in this study did have a high reliability.
Table 13
Cronbach’s Alpha for CSE, TAM, and WUSE
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
Number of Items
.930
.936
18
As shown in Table 14, a Pearson correlation analysis was run for and between the CSE,
TAM, and WUSE. The correlation analysis sought to determine whether and how strongly pairs
of variables were related between CSE, TAM, and/or WUSE.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 74
Table 14
Correlation Analysis Between CSE, TAM, and WUSE
CSE TA WUSE
Pearson Correlation 1 .998
**
-.016
CSE Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .930
N 34 34 34
Pearson Correlation .998
**
1 -.016
TA Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .926
N 34 34 34
Pearson Correlation -.016 -.016 1
WUSE Sig. (2-tailed) .930 .926
N 34 34 34
As can be seen from the data in Table 14, strong correlations can be made between
Computer Self-Efficacy and Technology Acceptance. A negative correlation exits between
WUSE and CSE/TA as in both cases the correlation coefficient was -.016.
Findings for the First Research Question
This section will describe the findings for the first research question: What is the
relationship between school principals' self-efficacy for technology systems (this includes the
self-evaluation of their perceived skill sets) and their self-efficacy for managing these systems.
The dependent variable that was identified for this question included computer self-efficacy,
technology acceptance, web-users self-efficacy, and the ability of the principal to establish a
vision and engage in data-rich planning. Independent variables included the gender of
principals, the age of principals, and the number of years as principal at the current school, the
island their school is located on, and the type of school.
The research was unable to provide evidence to suggest that a difference existed between
the gender of principals and their self-efficacy (using the CSE, TAM, and WUSE scales) as well
as the establishment of vision and engagement in data-rich planning of and for technology at
their school.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 75
There was, however, significant correlation, and a strong positive relationship between
the island a school is located on and CSE, TAM, and WUSE, as shown in Table 15, as well as
correlation between CSE, TAM, and WUSE and principal’s age and the number of years he has
been principal at his current school.
Table 15
Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and the Island on Which a School is
Located
User Self-Efficacy Q19
Pearson Correlation 1 .468
User Self-Efficacy
(CSE, TAM,
WUSE)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
32
.007
32
Pearson Correlation .468 1
Q19 Sig. (2-tailed) .007
N 32 34
In looking first at the correlation between islands on which a school is located, the data
illustrates that principals from Kauai have a higher Computer Self-Efficacy and Technology
Acceptance than principals from the other islands. No determining factor can be made for this,
except to note that Kauai is one of the more rural islands in the state and is home to a
considerably smaller amount of schools when compared to the more urban setting of Oahu.
In the second correlation, a Spearman’s rho was run which, as shown in Table 16,
indicates a moderate negative relationship between the length of time a principal has been at his
school and the older the principal is, in relation to CSE, TAM, and WUSE.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 76
Table 16
Spearman’s rho Correlation Between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and Length of Time
a Principal has Served at a School and the Age of a Principal
User Self-
Efficacy
Q18 Q23
User Self-
Efficacy
Correlation
Coefficient
1.000 -.390 -.387
(CSE, TAM,
WUSE)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.
32
.028
32
.029
Correlation
Coefficient
-.390 1.00 .422
Q18 Sig. (2-tailed) .028 . .013
N 32 34 34
Correlation
Coefficient
-.387 .422 1.00
Q23 Sig. (2-tailed) .029 .013 .
N 32 34 34
Findings for the Second Research Question
This section will describe the findings for the second research question: What
components of technology do school principal’s identify as being most instrumental in raising
their self-efficacy and affecting school management and instructional practice.
Seeking to answer this question, the researcher divided up findings into two parts. In part one,
the dependent variable that was identified for this question included computer self-efficacy,
technology acceptance, web-users self-efficacy, and the level to which a principal creates and
secures adequate support to technology and services; how a principal ensures his school is
equipped with a sufficient quantity of digital tools and resources; how a principal ensures
quality, universal broadband access is made available to all; how a principal ensures effective
technical support for all stakeholders; and, how a principal ensures he is involved in a
collaborative education network. In part two, the dependent variable that was identified for this
question included computer self-efficacy, technology acceptance, web-users self-efficacy, and
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 77
the percentage of a day that a principal spends using technology; and, what type of professional
development support has a principal had related to technology systems.
As shown in Tables 17-21, the research was unable to provide significant evidence to
suggest that a difference existed between a principals self-efficacy (using the CSE, TAM, and
WUSE scales) as well as the level to which a principal creates and secures adequate support to
technology and services; how a principal ensures his school is equipped with a sufficient quantity
of digital tools and resources; how a principal ensures quality, universal broadband access is
made available to all; how a principal ensures effective technical support for all stakeholders;
and, how a principal ensures he is involved in a collaborative education network.
Table 17
Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and the Level to Which a Principal
Creates and Secures Adequate Support to Technology and Services
User Self-Efficacy Q7
Pearson Correlation 1 .183
User Self-Efficacy
(CSE, TAM,
WUSE)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
33
.326
31
Pearson Correlation .183 1
Q7 Sig. (2-tailed) .326
N 31 32
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 78
Table 18
Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal Ensures his
School is Equipped with a Sufficient Quantity of Digital Tools and Resources
User Self-Efficacy Q11
Pearson Correlation 1 .171
User Self-Efficacy
(CSE, TAM,
WUSE)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
33
.341
33
Pearson Correlation .171 1
Q11 Sig. (2-tailed) .341
N 33 34
Table 19
Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal Ensures
Quality, Universal Broadband Access is Made Available to All
User Self-Efficacy Q12
Pearson Correlation 1 .022
User Self-Efficacy
(CSE, TAM,
WUSE)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
33
.905
33
Pearson Correlation .022 1
Q12 Sig. (2-tailed) .905
N 33 34
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 79
Table 20
Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal Ensures
Effective Technical Support for all Stakeholders
User Self-Efficacy Q14
Pearson Correlation 1 .121
User Self-Efficacy
(CSE, TAM,
WUSE)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
33
.509
32
Pearson Correlation .121 1
Q14 Sig. (2-tailed) .509
N 32 33
Table 21
Correlation between User Self Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal Ensures he is
Involved in a Collaborative Education Network
User Self-Efficacy Q15
Pearson Correlation 1 .135
User Self-Efficacy
(CSE, TAM,
WUSE)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
33
.461
32
Pearson Correlation .135 1
Q15 Sig. (2-tailed) .461
N 32 33
Further analysis through an ANOVA, which seeks to test for significant differences
between means and which is shown in Tables 22-27, found little significance as well. However
in one category, as shown in Table 26, subset analysis using ANOVA was run and identified in
that the longer a principal served as an administrator with the department of education (question
20) and the longer a principal served as an administrator at his school (question 23), the greater
his ability to ensure that he is involved in a collaborative education network connecting schools,
colleges, medical facilities, libraries, businesses, and homes to support the education system of
the 21
st
century.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 80
Table 22
ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and the Level to which a Principal Creates
and Secures Adequate Support to Technology and Services
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between 1722.519 3 574.173 1.458 .248
Groups
Within
Groups
10632.900 27 393.811
Total 12355.419 30
Table 23
ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and the Level to which a Principal Ensures
his School is Equipped with a Sufficient Quantity of Digital Tools and Resources
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between 524.663 3 174.888 .411 .746
Groups
Within
Groups
12327.397 29 425.083
Total 12852.061 32
Table 24
ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal Ensures Quality,
Universal Broadband Access is Made Available to All
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between 58.506 2 29.253 .069 .934
Groups
Within Groups 12793.554 39 426.452
Total 12852.061 32
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 81
Table 25
ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal Ensures Effective
Technical Support for all Stakeholders
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between 582.394 4 145.599 .323 .860
Groups
Within
Groups
12161.481 27 450.425
Total 12743.875 31
Table 26
ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and how a Principal Ensures he is Involved
in a Collaborative Education Network
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between 3345.647 4 836.412 2.400 .075
Groups
Within
Groups
9408.228 27 348.453
Total 12753.875 31
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 82
Table 27
ANOVA for User Self-Efficacy (CSE, TAM, WUSE) and Demographic Data (to Include
Respondent Gender, Age, How Long in School Administration, How Long as Principal at
Current School, Island School is Located on, Area in which School is Located, and Type of
School)
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
User Self- Between 3345.647 4 836.412 2.400 .075
Efficacy Groups
(CSE,
TAM,
Within Groups 9408.228 27 348.453
WUSE) Total 12753.875 31
Between .753 4 .188 .710 .592
Groups
Q17 Within Groups 7.429 28 .265
Total 8.182 32
Between 17.291 4 4.323 2.107 .106
Groups
Q18 Within Groups 57.437 28 2.051
Total 74.727 32
Between 18.081 4 4.520 4.097 .010
Groups
Q20 Within Groups 30.889 28 1.103
Total 48.970 32
Between 11.672 4 2.918 4.044 .010
Q23 Groups
Within Groups 20.206 28 .722
Total 31.879 32
Between 4.061 4 1.015 .714 .589
Q19 Groups
Within Groups 39.817 28 1.422
Total 43.879 32
Between 3.507 4 .877 1.361 .277
Q34 Groups
Within Groups 15.458 24 .644
Total 18.966 28
Between 4.408 4 1.102 1.284 .303
Q24 Groups
Within Groups 21.458 25 .858
Total 25.867 29
Note: ANOVA Subset for Question 15 and User Self-Efficacy showing statistical significance between Question 15
and principals years in administration (Q20) and years as principal at his current school (Q23).
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 83
Findings for the Third Research Question
This section will describe the findings for the third research question: Are there
differences among schools in their levels of technology integration into the schools' curricula and
principals’ self-efficacy as indicated by the schools' scores on the School Technology and
Readiness Assessment instrument with respect to principals' demographic variables?
A series of ANOVA’s was run to determine if there was statistical significance between
both the dependent and independent variables being addressed through this third research
question. Overall, four of the 21 ANOVAs showed strong statistical significance while the
others ran the gamut of non-significance to approaching significance. Only those that showed
strong statistical significance will be highlighted in this section.
As shown in Table 28, the longer a principal served as an administrator in the
department, the better he is able to ensure that budget and funding are provided at a level that
will ensure the effective implementation of the technology in his school.
Table 28
ANOVA the Length of Time a Principal Served as an Administrator and how a Principal Ensures
that Budget and Funding are Provided at a Level that will Ensure the Effective Implementation
of Technology
Question
8
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between 8.064 4 2.016 2.747 .049
Groups
Within Groups 19.811 27 .734
Total 27.875 31
As shown in Table 29, the older the principal, the better he is able to provide stewardship
for universal education at his school.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 84
Table 29
ANOVA for the Age of a Principal and how a Principal Provides Stewardship for Universal
Education
Question
9
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between 15.818 5 3.164 3.203 .022
Groups
Within
Groups
25.682 26 .988
Total 41.500 31
As shown in Table 30, the longer a principal served as an administrator in the
department, the better he is able to provide stewardship for universal education at his school.
Table 30
ANOVA for Length of Time a Principal Served as an Administrator and how a Principal
Provides Stewardship for Universal Education
Question
9
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between 12.618 4 3.155 2.949 .038
Groups
Within Groups 28.882 27 1.070
Total 41.500 31
As shown in Table 31, the longer a principal served as an administrator at his current
school, the better he is able to ensure that teachers and students access, evaluate, manage, and
use information in a variety of media formats from a wide array of sources, and they create
knowledge, apply it across disciplines and creative endeavors, and purposefully communicate
that knowledge, and the results of its use, to diverse audiences.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 85
Table 31
ANOVA for Years as Principal at Current School and how a Principal Ensures that Teachers
and Students Access, Evaluate, Manage, and Use Information in a Variety of Media Formats
from a Wide Array of Sources
Question
13
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between 8.337 3 2.779 6.854 .001
Groups
Within Groups 12.163 30 .405
Total 20.500 33
Conclusion
The current study resulted in findings related to the three research questions explored in
this research. Question one sought to determine if a relationship exists between principals’
technology self-efficacy and the management and integration of technology in their school. In
trying to find a correlation between CSE, TAM and WUSE and the island on which a school is
located, the data illustrates that principals from Kauai have a higher Computer Self-Efficacy and
Technology Acceptance than principals from the other islands. No determining factor can be
made for this, except to note that Kauai is one of the more rural islands in the state and is home
to a considerably smaller amount of schools when compared to the more urban setting of Oahu.
However, a negative correlation did exist between a principals CSE, TAM, and WUSE scores
and both the length of time a principal has been at his school and his age
When measuring the components of technology that principals’ self-identify as being
most instrumental in raising their self-efficacy and affecting school management and
instructional practice there was insignificant evidence to suggest that a difference existed
between a principal’s self-efficacy (using the CSE, TAM, and WUSE scales) and the level to
which a principal creates and secures adequate support to technology and services. Furthermore
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 86
there was the same lack of evidence to determine a relationship between principals’ self-efficacy
and their ability to ensure the school is equipped with a sufficient quantity of digital tools and
resources. The final three areas where a correlation was undetermined was the relationship
between principals’ self-efficacy and how a principal ensures quality, universal broadband access
is made available to all; how a principal ensures effective technical support for all stakeholders;
and how a principal ensures he is involved in a collaborative education network. The only two
correlations of significance found through ANOVA analysis were questions 20 and 23 which
recognized a relationship between a principal’s ability to ensure that he is involved in a
collaborative education network connecting schools, colleges, medical facilities, libraries,
businesses, and homes to support the education system of the 21
st
century and both the length of
time a principal served as an administrator with the department of education and the length of
time a principal served as an administrator at his school.
The third question sought to determine if there is a correlation between principals’ self-
efficacy and the ability of the school to integrate technology into the schools curricula, with
respect to principals’ demographic variables. The result of this analysis found once again that
the only significant correlation was related to the length of time a principal served as
administrator and both the ability to budget for technology in his school, and the ability to ensure
the use and access of technology in the school community. Furthermore, the age of a principal
and the length of time served as an administrator in the department was related to his ability to
provide stewardship for universal education at his school.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 87
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A quantitative, non-experimental research study (Salkind, 2011), focused on 34 public
school principals in the state of Hawai`i who were identified through their participation with an
outside provider to the Hawai`i Department of Education, and sought to answer the following
research questions: (1) What is the relationship between school principals' self-efficacy for
technology systems (this includes the self-evaluation of their perceived skill sets) and their self-
efficacy for managing these systems? (2) What components of technology do school principal’s
identify as being most instrumental in raising their self-efficacy and affecting school
management and instructional practice? (3) Are there differences among schools in their levels
of technology integration into the schools' curricula and principals’ self-efficacy as indicated by
the schools' scores on the STaR Campus chart assessment with respect to principals'
demographic variables?
To collect data to address these questions, 34 principals were provided a survey, which
sought to determine the relationship between a principals’ self-efficacy in technology and the
management, use, and implementation of technology in their school. Part one of the survey was
based on questions selected from the CSE scale, the TAM, and the WUSE, which gathered
information about current principals’ perceptions of their level of computer skills and self-
efficacy with computers. It is important to measure CSE first as research has demonstrated that a
significant positive link exists between high levels of CSE and employee participation,
production, and persistence with technology in the workplace (Celik & Ysilyurt, 2013; Chien,
2012; Compeau & Higgens, 1995; Karsten, Miltra & Schmidt, 2012) as well as determining
whether CSE is a common factor when being accepting of the use of technology (Davis, 1989,
1993; Koufaris, 2002; Yanik, 2010).
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 88
The second and third part of the survey used selected questions from the TAM to identify
principals’ PU and PEOU. The TAM, PU, and PEOU have been used in over 88 studies and
have been cited over 2,000 times (Lee, Kozar, & Larson, 2003). The WUSE looked at
evaluating principals’ confidence in using the Internet. As Web-based resources are becoming
increasingly important within education, it is vital that students, staff, and school leaders feel
confident and competent in the access, delivery, and utilization of these resources (Eachus &
Cassidy, 2004).
The final part of the survey used selected questions from the STaR Campus Chart
assessment to evaluate principals’ current educational technology knowledge, preparation,
development, progress, and potential improvement as it relates to his level of technology
integration.
Results of the survey provided insight into principals’ abilities to effectively use and
manage technology in their schools as well as self-identify their self-efficacy in computers,
technology, and web use. For example no relationship was identified with respect to the location
of a school and its propensity to have higher computer self-efficacy and technology acceptance
as only one of the outer islands demonstrated high CSE and TAM. Furthermore the length of
time a principal has been at his school and the older the principal is resulted in a negative
relationship to CSE, TAM, and WUSE. It was also noted that both length of time a principal
served as an administrator with the Department of Education and the length of time a principal
served as an administrator at his school were factors in his ability to ensure that he is involved in
a collaborative education network. It was also found that a relationship exists between the length
of time a principal served as an administrator in the department and his ability to budget for
technology in his school. Also, both the age of a principal and the length of time he served as an
administrator in the Department of Education were factors in his ability to provide stewardship
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 89
for universal education at his school. Finally, it was also noted that a relationship exists between
the length of time a principal served as an administrator at his current school and the ability to
ensure the use and access of technology in the school community.
The following sections provide the conclusions that were drawn from each of the
research questions in the study. Each research question will be discussed in turn and limitations
relating to that research question will be included in the analysis. Recommendations will then be
made for both school principals, the state, and for further study.
Conclusions for the First Research Question
The first research question sought to understand the relationship between school
principals' self-efficacy for technology systems (this includes the self-evaluation of their
perceived skill sets) and their self-efficacy for managing these systems.
The researcher’s assumption when initiating this study was that if a principal works in a
school located on the island of Oahu (which is the urban core of the state), they would more than
likely have higher self-efficacy for computers, a higher acceptance of technology, as well as a
greater use and understanding of the Internet, than those who worked on other islands in
Hawai`i, including the smaller and more remote locations. However, this was not the case, as
data from the survey illustrates that principals from the third smallest island in Hawai`i have a
higher computer self-efficacy and technology acceptance score than principals from the other
islands. Although clearly unable to make a determination through the study as to how this could
be, the results do show that regardless of setting, computer self-efficacy and technology
acceptance is truly a personal factor and those who work in more suburban or rural areas can
have a higher self-efficacy and acceptance than those who reside in more urban areas.
Computer self-efficacy, technology acceptance, and Internet use are self perceptions and
it was found that both the length of time as a principal and increased age resulted in a negative
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 90
relationship between the ability of principals to use, manage, and navigate technology and the
changes along with it. Principals’ hesitancy to use technology can have a significant impact on
the way they use technology to manage schools, as well as how they view technology and its use,
its impact on learning, and potential for change within schools and classrooms. Therefore,
teachers may be impacted as the less successful a principal is on using and managing technology,
the less support and understanding teachers may receive when working with technology in their
classroom environments.
It is important to note that from the andragogical point of view, adults learn because
individuals need to address issues in their lives. Without addressing the need for support to
principals who may be older or have served as a principal for an extended amount of time, the
ability for technology to be successfully used by not just the principal, but by the entire school
could be impacted. Also, as the leader of the school, principals, in an effort to be
transformational leaders, need to be able to embrace change that will benefit the resources and
the relationship between those involved. It is important that principals recognize the need for
this change and take ownership to make the change a reality. Finally when looking at this from
the social cognitive lens, behavior in a given situation is affected by environmental or situational
characteristics, which are in turn affected by behavior. That being said, without appropriate
support through either professional development, or on campus expertise in technology,
assumptions can be made that principals will tend to regress the longer on the job and the older
in age. There is a need to provide real time appropriate supports to principals that will enable
them to maintain a high sense of self-efficacy for computers, technology, and the growing use
and management of the Internet.
Brooks-Young (2009) recommended 15-60 hours of professional development to ensure
a comprehensive integration of technology. Currently, there are no formal face-to-face
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 91
professional development programs within the Department of Education that provides principals
with technology training on word processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and database or
classroom instructional technology. Most, if not all, professional development is concentrated to
the needs of teachers and little emphasis has been focused on professional development in
technology for educational leaders (Yu & Darrington, 2006). Any professional development or
instruction in those areas must be procured and managed by individual principals, at their
discretion, and through their own school funds. When a random sampling of school academic
and financial plans was made, through online school documents available to the public, it was
found that no school had set aside funds for principal professional development as it relates to
technology use, implementation, or management. In order to integrate technology successfully
within a school, academic plans must make connections between teaching, student achievement,
staff development, parent involvement, and instructional delivery (Whitehead et al., 2003).
Furthermore, the Department of Education itself lacks the ability to identify, track, and manage
the needs of principals when it comes to technology as most of the emphasis through general or
federal funding has been placed on statewide data systems and classroom technology for students
and teachers. If technology implementation is to be successful at the school level, then
principals, as both instructional and technology leaders, need to be provided the support to
ensure high self-efficacy, technology acceptance, and web user self-efficacy.
Conclusions for the Second Research Question
The second research question asked what components of technology do school principals
identify as being most instrumental in raising their self-efficacy and affecting school
management and instructional practice.
Through the survey and analysis, it was determined that no significant statistical evidence
was obtained to suggest that there is a difference between a principal’s self-efficacy (using the
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 92
CSE, TAM, and WUSE scales) and the level to which a principal creates and secures adequate
support to technology and services and his ability to ensures his school is equipped with a
sufficient quantity of digital tools and resources. The final three areas where a correlation was
undetermined was the relationship between principals’ self-efficacy and how a principal ensures
quality, universal broadband access is made available to all; how a principal ensures effective
technical support for all stakeholders; and, how a principal ensures he is involved in a
collaborative education network.
Although the results in this study did illustrate that both the length of time a principal has
been at his school and age of the principal result in a lower CSE, TAM, and WUSE score, it
could be assumed that the remainder of the test instrument itself may have been flawed in the
way that the questions were formulated or in the way it was presented to principals. Lacking a
Likert scale used throughout the survey instrument made it difficult to run correlational as well
as ANOVA analysis on the questions and to make connections between CSE, TAM, WUSE and
specific task oriented items on the remainder of the survey.
It is important to note that the lack of significant results and the reporting of non-
significant results are viewed as a powerful and positive step in educational research. As Rowley
(1976) argued, “It needs to be established that an instrument itself is neither reliable nor
unreliable… A single instrument can produce scores which are reliable, and other scores which
are unreliable” (pg. 53). Furthermore, researchers do not design questionnaires in obliviousness;
when more than a few questions show “non-significant” results that are nevertheless in a
direction already anticipated, it is not rational to discard these as having zero effects (Reese,
2004). Finally, Sohn (as cited in Chow, 1998) states:
“Statistical significance is not an index of the replicability of research results. Moreover,
a statistically significant effect is neither a clinically nor a genuine effect. Instead a genuine
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 93
effect is found if the treatment effect is ‘clearly discernable’ for the individual on a continuous
basis” (p. 323).
Given that only 34 principals were provided a survey instrument for this research, it can
be concluded that reliability is driven by variance – and the lack of a large number of scores
would lead to a lower reliability score. It would be important to expand any future surveys to
include all principals (287 schools) in Hawai`i public schools thus leading to a greater data pool.
However an argument can be made that effect size is no more important over significance
testing. As Zwick (1997) points out, human values, unlike values associated with the calculation
of p, are not part of the calculation of an effect size, and “largeness of effect does not guarantee
practical importance any more than statistical significance does” (p. 4).
Conclusions for the Third Research Question
The third research question attempts to identify if differences among schools exist in their
levels of technology integration into the schools' curricula and principals’ self-efficacy as
indicated by the schools' scores on the School Technology and Readiness Assessment instrument
with respect to principals' demographic variables.
It was found that a relationship exists between the length of time a principal served as an
administrator in the department and his ability to ensure that budget and funding are provided at
a level that will ensure the effective implementation of the technology in his school. This could
be attributed to the experience gained by a principal throughout his tenure as an administrator
and the ability to effectively manage weighted student formula, federal, or grant funds for his
school. A principal who is new to the department or new to a school may not have the expertise
to effectively manage and leverage school level funds for technology versus someone who is
more experienced. Furthermore, principals who have been in an administrative position longer,
have had the ability to manage and leverage funds at their school through fiscal control that
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 94
allows technology to be funded while ensuring that other areas of the school operation are not
negatively impacted. Those schools who receive Title 1 funding are also at an advantage, as this
extra infusion of money – albeit due to an increase of lower socio-economic students in
attendance – have traditionally been used to fund school level technology and information
technology systems. In order to accomplish this successfully, a principal would need to have a
longer service record, which would enable him to understand the intricacies of appropriate use of
federal dollars for school initiatives.
Also, a relationship exists between a principal’s ability to provide stewardship for
universal education at his school and both the age of a principal and the length of time a principal
served as an administrator in the Department of Education. Ahiazu (1989) reports that in African
culture, experience and age are considered integral to each other and result in older people given
priority for leadership in organizations. Similarly, it was found that leadership styles differ from
culture to culture and of course, country to country with life experiences, personal beliefs, and
cultural values facilitating growth (Trompenaars, 1993). That being said, institutional
knowledge of systems, processes, and programs connected with an individual’s age and service
considerably add to the ability for principals to direct educational programs and navigate the
plethora of state policies and directives to move student achievement and increase teacher
growth and leadership. In this day of increased accountability, changes in educational policy and
programs of focus, and high stakes testing with public posting of results, age and experience of
principals may lead to stability for schools and the stewardship for universal education that can
and should result.
It was also noted that a relationship exists between the length of time a principal served
as an administrator at his current school and his ability to ensure that teachers and students
access, evaluate, manage, and use information in a variety of media formats from a wide array of
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 95
sources, and they create knowledge, apply it across disciplines and creative endeavors, and
purposefully communicate that knowledge, and the results of its use, to diverse audiences.
Using technology to lead school reform does require leaders to have a significant amount
of practice and experience to draw from, especially in their interactions with the school
community. As technology evolves, school principals must anticipate and respond to this unique
situation to ultimately benefit students and teachers (Christensen, 2011; Jukes, McCain, &
Crockett, 2010; Wagner, 2012).
Finally, a key factor in the ability of a school to adapt and successfully implement change
initiatives is the stability of its leadership (Johnson, 2007; Loesch, 2010). Frequent, unstable, or
even unexpected leadership changes in a school can have a fundamentally devastating effect on
change (Wise, 2008; Scherer, 2008).
Recommendations for Further Study
The findings of this study presented a narrow view of Hawai`i public school principals’
self-efficacy for technology and technology leadership within their schools. Overall, there is a
benefit to the analysis of leadership at the school level, determining principal self-efficacy for
technology, and discovering practices that are effective in integrating technology. The results of
which certainly establish a foundation for follow up studies.
It is acknowledged that the study would have been more powerful with more principals
surveyed and responses obtained. The survey instrument itself could have been modified to
include more Likert scale responses to ensure that a correlation analysis could have been
performed between not only self-efficacy scales, but also that of technology planning,
implementation, and management at the school level.
It should be also be noted that the original intent for this study was to be a mixed methods
approach, however a number of factors including limited time for data collection and geographic
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 96
makeup of state and location of schools was not conducive to colleting qualitative data in a
timely manner. Using qualitative methods, the researcher had hoped to describe the current
components of technology that school principal’s identify as being most instrumental in raising
their self-efficacy and affecting school management and instructional practice. Because it was
not possible for the researcher to ask in-depth questions on the survey and to obtain appropriate
responses, it was difficult to gain a thorough understanding of the principal, and his technology
self-efficacy. The interview would also have been used to gather more information about the
past and current practices that principals use that would have helped to address the third research
question.
The following are recommendations for further research that emerged from the findings
and conclusions drawn from this study.
1. Repeat this study using a more focused survey design that includes similar scaled
response options throughout the survey instrument and a larger pool of respondents.
2. Develop and administer a mixed methods study, such as in-depth interviews, on-site
observations, and case analysis to help gain a more accurate and deeper
understanding of school principals’ abilities, perceptions, and needs in technology
self-efficacy and educational technology leadership
3. Develop and administer a quantitative study of principals’ understanding of the TSSA
and ISTE NETS-A, which may identify gaps or create an awareness level resulting in
the improvement of technology leadership.
4. Develop and administer a quantitative study focusing on technology planning and
funding in Hawai`i public schools that might identify gaps or existing successful
leadership practices for school level technology integration.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 97
5. Develop and administer a quantitative study focusing on existing professional
development related to principals and technology that may or may not be available in
the Department of Education.
6. Develop and administer a quantitative study focusing on school level administrator
certification programs within the Department of Education and the ability of such
programs to integrate technology education and management preparation for school
leaders.
7. Develop and administer a quantitative study of college and university programs of
study for school administrators in Hawai`i to determine the level of preparation, if
any, that might exist in technology use and integration for school principals.
Conclusion
This intent of this study is to leverage the self-efficacy of principals’ computer,
technology, and web use and their ability to implement and manage technology systems on their
campus. With principals serving as not only instructional, but technology leaders on their
campuses, it is imperative that they embrace technology and lead the creation of opportunities
for its use on campus. Students of today live in a world that is a fast-changing, technologically
advanced environment where principals must assimilate technology into existing curriculum
development and assessment models. School leaders need to not only understand how
technology can be used as tools in classrooms, they must also know how to use and manage
these systems and support teachers in their work to implement technology in their classrooms.
As advances to technology continue to alter the way business, industry, and education work in
the United States it is imperative that technology be leveraged in order to ensure students in all
school settings continue to enjoy learning experiences that are both engaging and powerful.
Technology must be leveraged and utilized in a way that will allow educators to comprehend its
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 98
full capability, produce teaching strategies that are engaging and collaboratively developed, and
reinforced through current and relevant professional development so that it can afford students
the engaging and effective learning experiences they deserve (Rivard, 2010).
Using existing standards (TSSA and the ISTE NETS-A) school leaders have the
necessary guides available to help facilitate learning and teaching by enhancing the effective use
of technology in schools. Principals who support technology will be able to take the lead in
moving their school forward on a path that provides necessary resources to enhance teaching and
learning, promote student engagement, and raise student achievement (Chang, Chin & Hsu,
2008). It is important then, for principals to:
• Increase their self-efficacy levels for computers, technology, and the Internet
• Receive ongoing professional development and learning opportunities regarding
technology and its use in the education realm to affect positive school change and drive
student achievement
• Create academic and financial plans that include extensive technology-related
professional development with the opportunity to make revisions to the plan based on
changing needs
• Provide principals, who through experience, years of service, or recognition as effective
technology leaders the opportunity to share ideas and successes through professional
dialogues, observations, modeling, mentoring, and coaching sessions.
Although little research exists on leadership and technology (McLeod & Richardson,
2011), it is the hope that the results presented through this study will be able to provide another
layer of information that can contribute to the overall library of material on the topic.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 99
References
Afshari, M., Bakar, K., Luan, W., Samah, B., & Fooi, F. (2008, October). School leadership and
information communication technology. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 7(4), 82-91.
Ahiazu, A. (1989). The “Theory A” system of work organization for the modern african
workplace. International Studies of Management and Organization, 19 (1), 6-27).
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2012). Going the distance: Online education in the United States,
2012. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group
Anderson, R., & Dexter, S. (2005, February). School technology leadership: An empirical
investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-
82.
Association for Career and Technical Education. (2010, November). Expanding career readiness
through online learning. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.acteonline.org/uploadedFiles/Publications_and_Online_Media/files/Career_R
eadiness_Online_Learning.pdf
Avolio, B. (2000). Full Leadership Development: Building the vital forces in organizations.
London: Sage.
Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skemer, M., Green, P., Herget, D., & Xie, H. (2008). Highlights from PISA
2006: Performance of 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an
international context. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008016.pdf
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 100
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy, in Advances in Behavioral Research and
Therapy, 1, S. Richman (ed.), Oxford, England: Pergamon Press
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37 (2),
122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York, NY: Freeman.
Barth, R. (1986). On sheep and goats and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 68 (4), 293-296.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational Leadership, (2
nd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Borgmann, Albert (2006). Technology as a cultural force: For alena and griffin. The Canadian
Journal of Sociology 31 (3), 351–360.
Brown, K. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative
framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 700-745.
Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burgess, S., & Smith, T. (2005). Correlation. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
development. (pp. 314-315). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.4135/9781412952484.n161
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 101
Byrom, E., & Bingham, M. (2001). Factors influencing the effective use of technology for
teaching and learning: Lessons learned from the SEIR*TEC intensive site schools (2
nd
ed.). Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale:
Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience
with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26
(2), 169-189.
Casson, L., Bauman, J., Fisher, E., Lindblad, M., Sumpter, J., Tornatzky, L., & Vickery, B. (n.
d.). Making technology happen. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from
http://www.southerngrowth.com/pubs/pubs_pdfs/mthappen.pdf
Celik, V., & Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and
computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers &
Education, 60(1), 148-158.
Chang, I., Chin, J., & Hsu, C. (2008). Teachers' Perceptions of the Dimensions and
Implementation of Technology Leadership of Principals in Taiwanese Elementary
Schools. Educational Technology, 11(4), 229-245.
Chang, I. (2002). Assessing principals’ leadership in implementing educational technology
policies: An application of structural equation modeling, Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.
Chen, M. (2010). Education nation: Six leading edges of innovation in our schools. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chien, T.C. (2012) "Computer self-efficacy and factors influencing e-learning effectiveness",
European Journal of Training and Development, 36(7), 670 – 686.
Chow, S. (1998). What Statistical Significance Means. Theory and Psychology, 8(3), 323-330.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 102
Christensen, C. (2011). Disrupting Class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the
world learns (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Compass Intelligence. (2010). U.S. education information technology expenditures by education
level, 2009-2014. Scottsdale, AZ: Compass Intelligence.
Compeau, D. & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a measure and
initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.
Conley, D. T., & Goldman, P. (1994). Ten propositions for facilitative leadership. In J. Murphy
& K. S. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform
efforts (pp. 237-262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Cooper, B. S., Cibulka, J. G., & Fusarelli, L. D. (Eds.), (2008). Handbook of education politics
and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high
school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. Journal of American Educational
Research, 38(4), 813–834.
Daggett, W. (2008). Rigor and relevance from concept to reality. New York, NY: International
Center for Leadership in Education.
Darkenwald, G. G., & Merriam, S. B. (1982). Adult education: Foundations of practice. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Davies, P. (2010). On school educational technology leadership. Management in Education,
24(2), 55-62.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 103
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user
perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies,
38(3), 475-487.
Davis, S., & Leon, R. (2011). How Not to Prepare School Principals. Planning and Changing,
42(3/4), 274-287.
Dawson, C. & Rakes, G. (2003). The influence of principals' technology training on the
integration of technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
36(1), 29-49. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/274700822?accountid=14749
Dexter, S. (2011, March). School Technology Leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice.
Journal of School Leadership, 21, 166-189.
Dikkers, A., Hughes, J., & McLeod, S. (2005, June). A bridge to success: STLI in that no man's
land between school technology and effective leadership, the University of Minnesota's
School Technology Leadership Initiative is a welcoming bridge. Technological Horizons
In Education, 32(11), 20.
Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43(4), 338–356.
Donmoyer,R.,& Wagstaff,J. G. (1990). Principals can be effective managers and instructional
leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 74(525), 20-29
Duignan, P. (2010). Educational leadership: Key challenges and ethical tensions. Melbourne,
Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Eachus, P. & Cassidy, S. (2004). Development of the Web Users Self-Efficacy Scale (WUSE).
Proceedings of the Education in a Changing Environment, University of Salford, UK, 14
September 2004.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 104
Fiske, E., Hammond, B. (1997). Identifying quality in American colleges and universities.
Planning for Higher Education, 26(1), 8-15.
Flanagan, L., & Jacobson, M. (2003). Technology Leadership for the Twenty-First Century
Principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142.
Forrest, S., & Peterson, T. (2006). It’s Called Andragogy. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 5 (1), 113-122.
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York,
NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Fullan M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gargan, A. M., & Guare, R. (1998). Redirecting the professional development of school
administrators: A collaborative approach. In R. Bernhardt, C. Hedley, & V. Svolopoulous
(Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Rethinking schools for the 21st-century (pp. 32-
38).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point. New York, NY: Little, Brown.
Greenfield, A. (2006). Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing. New Riders:
Berkeley, CA.
Hale, E., & Moorman, H. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy
and program innovations. Washington, D.C.: Institute For Educational Leadership.
Hadjithoma-Garstka, C. (2011). The role of the principal’s leadership style in the
implementation of ICT policy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42 (2), 311-
326.
Hansman, C. (2008). Adult Learning in Communities of Practice: Situating Theory in Practice.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 105
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional
to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 35-48.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (1999). Next generation methods for the study of leadership and
school improvement. In J. Murphy & L. Seashore (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Educational Administration. 2
nd
ed. (pp. 463-487). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hsu, M., & Chiu, C. (2004a). Predicting electronic service continuance with a decomposed
theory of planned behavior. Behavior and Information Technology, 23(5), 359–373.
Hsu, M. & Chiu, C. (2004b) Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decision
Support Systems, 38 (3), 369–381.
INACOL. (2008). Fast facts about online learning. Retrieved October 18, 2012, from
http://www.inacol.org/press/docs/naco!_ fast_facts.pdf
Ingalls, J. (1984). A trainer's guide to andragogy. Washington, D.C.: Peace Corps.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2008). Educational technology in U.S. public schools. Retrieved
from National Center for Education Statistics website:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010034.pdf.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2005). All children must be ready for a
different world. Retrieved from http://www.cnets.iste.org/intro.html
International Society for Technology in Education. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to
teach in the digital age? Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Educational
Technology.
Jackson, B. (2001). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Paper
commissioned for the first meeting of the National Commission for the Advancement of
Educational Leadership Preparation, Racine, WI.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 106
Johnson, D. (2004). Ban or boost student-owned technology? The School Administrator,
10(61), 8.
Johnson, L. (2007). Rethinking Successful School Leadership in Challenging U.S. Schools:
Culturally responsive practices in school – community relationships. ISEA, 35 (3), 49-57.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999) Learning with technology: a constructivist
perspective, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jukes, I., McCain, T., & Crockett, L. (2010). Understanding the Digital Generation. Canada:
Corwin.
Kara-Soteriou, J. (2009). Promoting technology integration through the leadership of school
administrators. The NERA Journal, 45(1), 91-95
Karsten, R., Mitra, A., & Schmidt, D. (2012). Computer self-efficacy: a meta-analysis . Journal
of Organizational and End User Computing., 24(4), 54.
Knowles, M. (1977). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. New
York: Association
Knowles, M. (1980). From andragogy to pedagogy. New York: Association
Knowles, M. ( 1980). The modern practice of adult education. New York: Adult Education
Company.
Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knowles, M. (1989). The making of an adult educator. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow Theory to Online
Consumer Behavior. Info. Sys. Research, 13(2), 205-223.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 107
Kowch, E. (2009, July). New Capabilities for Cyber Charter School Leadership: An emerging
imperative for integrating educational technology and educational leadership knowledge.
TechTrends, 53(4), 41-48.
Lai, M. (2008). Technology readiness, internet self-efficacy and computing experience of
professional accounting students. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(1), 18-29.
Lee, M., & Winzenried, A. (2009). The use of instructional technology in schools: lessons to be
learned. Australian Council for Education.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K., & Larsen, K. (2003) "The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and
Future," Communications of the Association for Information Systems: Vol. 12, Article
50.
Legris, P., Inghan, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A
critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40, 191-
204.
Leithwood,K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30, 498-518.
Leithwood, K. & Sun, J. (2012). The Nature and Effects of Transformational School
Leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423.
Li, C. (2010). Open leadership: How social technology can transform the way you lead. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Loesch, P. (2010). 4 Core Strategies for Implementing Change. Leadership, 39(5), 28-31.
Luarn, P. & Lin, H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile
banking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 873–891.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 108
Marakas, G., Yi, M., & Johnson, R. (1998). The Multilevel and Multifaceted Character of
Computer Self-Efficacy: Toward clarification of the construct and an integrative
framework for research. Information Systems Research, 9, 126-163.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance:
An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
McCarthy, M. (2002). Educational leadership preparation programs: A glance at the past with an
eye toward the future. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3), 201–221.
McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the top, competitive grants and the Obama
education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136-159.
McGuinn, P. (2006). No child left behind and the transformation of federal education policy,
1965-2005. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
McLeod, S., & Richarson, J.W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage. Journal
of School Leadership. 21 (2), 216-240.
Mecklenburger, J. (1989). Technology in the 1990s: Ten secrets for success. Principal, 69(2),
6-9.
Moss Kanter, R. (2001). Evolve: Succeeding in the digital culture of tomorrow. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Murphy, C., Coover, D., & Owen, S. (1989). Development and Validation of the Computer Self-
Efficacy Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 893-899.
Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study of
instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10 (2), 117-139.
Murray, C. (2004). In Ed Tech, leaders matter most. (cover story). eSchool News, 7(7), 1-25
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 109
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2002). What the research
shows: Breaking ranks in action. Reston, VA: Author.
National Education Technology Plan-Draft (2010). Retrieved June 20, 2010, from
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010/
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leadership
behaviors and their effects on follower’s trust in leaders, satisfaction and organizational
citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Pratt, D., & Associates (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education.
Kreiger: Malabar, FL.
Race to the Top Fund. (2009). Phase 1 application, review, and technical assistance.
Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and
choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Reese, R. A. (2004). Does significance matter? Significance, 1(1), 39-40. doi:10.1111/j.1740-
9713.2004.00009.x
Rivard, L. (2011). Enhancing Education Through Technology: Principal leadership for
technology integration in schools (Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor).
Retrieved October 18, 2012, from ERIC.
Roberts, L.G. (2004). Harnessing Information Technology for International Education. Phi
Delta Kappan, 86 (3), 225-228.
Rowley, G. (1976). The Reliability of Observational Measures. American Educational
Research Journal, 13, 51-59.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 110
Salkind, N. (2011). Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics 4th Ed + Statistics for
People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics 4th Ed Study Guide. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications.
Schepers, J. & Wetzels, M. (2005). Leadership styles in technology acceptance. Journal of
Managing Service Quality, 15(6), 496-508
Scherer, M. (2008). Perspective of the Question of Excellence. Educational Leadership, 66(2),
7-8.
Schiller, J. (2003). Working with ICT perceptions of Australian principals. Journal of
Educational Administration, 41(2), 171–185.
Sebring, P. B., & Bryk, A. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi
Delta Kappan, 81, 440-443.
Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into
classroom practice. New York: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College
of Education.
Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 52, 325-344.
Star, L. (September 2009). The administrator’s role in technology integration. Education World.
Retrieved from: http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech087.shtml
Starratt, R. J. (2003). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis in
schools. New York, NY: Falmer Press.
Steckelberg, A., Li, L., Liu, X., Kozak, M. (2008). A Rubric for Self-Assessment of Essential
Technology Conditions in Schools. Computers in the Schools, 25(1-2), 81-89.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 111
Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational Leadership: An evolving concept examined through the
works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 54, 2-29.
Szanjna, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model.
Management Science, 42(1), 85-92.
Technology Counts. (2005). Electronic transfer: Economic and policy forces are moving
technology dollars in new directions. Education Week, 24(35), 8-9.
Texas Education Agency, Instructional Materials and Educational Technology Division. (2012).
STaR Chart. Retrieved from: http://starchart.epsilen.com/
Thomas, W. (1999). Educational technology: Are school administrators ready for it? Atlanta,
GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding diversity in global
business. Chicago, IL: Irwin.
Trotter, A. (2005). E-Rate: The road ahead. Education Week’s Technology Counts 2005, 24
(35), 15-17.
TSSA Collaborative (2001). Technology standards for school administrators. Retrieved on
October 18, 2012, from http://www.ncrtec.org/pd/tssa/
U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatatAtRisk/risk.html
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. (1996). A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use:
Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 451-481.
Wagner, T. (2012). Creating Innovators: The making of young people who will change the
world. New York: Scribner.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 112
Wang, C. (2010, January). Technology Leadership among School Principals: A technology-
coordinator's perspective. Asian Social Science, 6(1), 51-54.
Wilmore, D., & Betz, M. (2000). Information technology and schools: The principal’s role.
Educational Technology and Society. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_4_2000/v_4_2000.html 105
Wise, B. (2008). High Schools at the Tipping Point. Educational Leadership, 65, 8-13.
Wright, R. (2004). A short history of progress. Toronto, ON: House of Anansi Press.
Yanik, C. (2010). The relationship between prospective teachers’ computer literacy perception
and their attitudes towards internet usage. Hacettepe University, The Journal of
Education, 39, 371–382.
Yee, D. (1998) IT in educational leadership: New Zealand perspectives. Available at:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/*dlyee/ictnz/itenzel.html
Yee, D. (2000). Images of school principals’ information and communications technology
leadership. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 287–302.
York, J. & Pendharkar, P.C. (2004). Human–computer interaction issues for mobile computing
in a variable work context. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 60, 771–
797
Young, M., Peterson, G. & Short, P. (2001). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for
independence among key stakeholders. Paper commissioned by for the first meeting of
the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation,
Racine, WI.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 113
Zakaria, F. (2009). The post-American world. New York, NY: Norton.
Zwick, R. (1997, March). Would the Abolition of Significance Testing Lead to Better Science?
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 114
Appendix A
Survey Instrument
2/27/14 9:16 AM Qualtrics Survey Software
Page 1 of 8 https://az1.qualtrics.com/CP/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview&T=NHQOV
Default Question Block
Computer Self-Efficacy
Strongly
Disagree 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
I feel confident I can organize
and manage files on a
computer
I feel confident I can explain
why a program/software will or
will not run on a certain
computer
I feel confident I can
troubleshoot computer
problems
I feel confident I can learn
advanced skills within a specific
computer program/software
I feel confident I can use the
computer to organize
information
I feel confident I can use the
computer to analyze number
data
Technology Acceptance
Strongly
Disagree 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
Using personal computing
technology (desktop computer,
laptop computer, tablet,
smartphone) improves the
quality of the work I do
Using personal computing
technology (desktop computer,
laptop computer, tablet,
smartphone) allows me to
accomplish more work than
would otherwise be possible
I find personal computing
technology (desktop computer,
laptop computer, tablet,
smartphone) cumbersome to
use
It is easy for me to remember
how to perform tasks using
personal computing technology
(desktop computer, laptop
computer, tablet, smartphone)
I find it takes a lot of effort to
become skillful at using
personal computing technology
(desktop computer, laptop
computer, tablet, smartphone)
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 115
2/27/14 9:16 AM Qualtrics Survey Software
Page 2 of 8 https://az1.qualtrics.com/CP/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview&T=NHQOV
I have a basic awareness of the potential of technology in education to lead to student achievement
I develop a shared vision and begin to build buy-in for comprehensive integration of technology leading to increased
student achievement
I communicate and implement a shared vision and obtain buy-in for comprehensive integration of technology leading to
increased student achievement
I promote a shared vision with policies that encourage continuous innovation with technology leading to increased student
achievement
Not evident or implemented
My school has few technology goals and objectives incorporated in the Academic and Financial Plan
My school has several technology goals and objectives that are incorporated in the Academic and Financial Plan
My school has a technology rich Academic and Financial Plan along with a leadership team that sets annual technology
benchmarks based on NETP Technology Applications standards
My school leadership team has a collaborative, technology-rich Academic and Financial Plan that is grounded in research
and aligned with the State strategic plan that is focused on student success
Not evident or implemented
computer, tablet, smartphone)
Overall, I find personal
computing technology (desktop
computer, laptop computer,
tablet, smartphone) easy to use
Web Users Self-Efficacy
Strongly
Disagree 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
I find using email easy
I am not really sure what a
modem does
I know how to use software
(e.g. Dreamweaver or
Frontpage) for creating web
pages
If my computer became
infected with a virus, I wouldn't
know how to get rid of it
I feel confident about using
most types of web browsers
I am not very confident about
my ability to use the Internet
As a Principal, to what level do you develop a shared vision for world-class learning in all instructional settings –
face to face or virtual - and for technology’s role in achieving that vision.
As a Principal, to what level to you engage in data-rich planning for and evaluation of learning and management systems that leverage
resources and opportunities throughout the community and around the world.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 116
2/27/14 9:16 AM Qualtrics Survey Software
Page 3 of 8 https://az1.qualtrics.com/CP/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview&T=NHQOV
My school has limited use of technology to communicate with teachers and parents
My school uses technology for communication and collaboration among colleagues, staff, parents, students and the larger
community
Current information tools and systems are used at my school for communication, management of schedules and
resources, performance assessment, and professional development
My school uses a variety of media and formats, including telecommunications and the school website to communicate,
interact, and collaborate with all education stakeholders
Not evident or implemented
My school has limited discretionary funds for implementation of technology strategies to meet goals and objectives
outlined in the Academic and Financial Plan
School discretionary funds and other resources are allocated to advance implementation of some technology strategies to
meet goals and objectives outlined in the Academic and Financial Plan
School discretionary funds and other resources are allocated to advance implementation of most of the technology
strategies to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the Academic and Financial Plan
School discretionary funds and other resources are allocated to advance implementation of all the technology strategies to
meet the goals and objectives outlined in the Academic and Financial Plan
Not evident or implemented
Grades K-8: I have a basic understanding about the use of online learning. Grades 9-12: Online for-credit courses are not
available to students to meet individual learning needs
Grades K-8: My school uses online learning and educators collaborate on the integration of online learning into the
curriculum. Grades 9-12: Online for-credit courses are available to meet individual needs learning needs in a limited
number (1-2) of specific circumstances
Grades K-8: Online learning is encouraged and supported through professional development; goals for the online learning
are being developed for the Academic and Financial Plan. Grades 9-12: Online for-credit courses are available to students
to meet a variety (more than 2) of specific circumstances
Grades K-8: Online learning is facilitated and supported through professional development and integrated into the
Academic and Financial Plan. Grades 9-12: Online for-credit courses are available to students as desired to meet their
individual learning needs
Not evident or implemented
As a Principal, to what level do you create and secure adequate support for innovative, flexible, and
responsive technology-rich environments and services to maximize learning and optimize
teaching.
As a Principal, how do you ensure that budget and funding are provided at a level that will
ensure the effective implementation of the technology in your school.
As a Principal, how do you provide stewardship for universal education.
As a Principal, how do you ensure that your school is equipped with a sufficient quantity of digital tools and resources for all learners.
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 117
2/27/14 9:16 AM Qualtrics Survey Software
Page 4 of 8 https://az1.qualtrics.com/CP/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview&T=NHQOV
Ten or more students per Internet-connected multimedia computers
Between 5 and 9 students per Internet-connected multimedia computer
Four or less students per Internet connected multimedia computer
All students have 1 to 1 access to Internet connected multimedia computers when needed
Not evident or implemented
Connectivity to the Internet available at the school level in less than 50% of the rooms/offices, including the library
Direct connectivity to the Internet available at the school in at least 50% of the rooms/offices, including the library
Direct connectivity to the Internet available at the school in at least 75% of the rooms/offices, including the library
Direct connectivity to the Internet available in all rooms/offices with adequate bandwidth
Not evident or implemented
Shared use of technologies such as computers, digital cameras, classroom phones, flash drives, portable digital devices,
probes, interactive white boards, projection systems, classroom sets of graphing calculators
Dedicated computer per educator with shared use of technologies such as digital cameras, classroom phones, flash
drives, portable digital devices, probes, interactive white boards, projection systems, and classroom sets of graphing
calculators
Dedicated computer per educator with assigned use of technologies such as digital cameras, classroom phones, flash
drives, portable digital devices, probes, interactive white boards, projection systems, and classroom sets of graphing
calculators
Fully equipped classrooms with readily available technology to enhance student instruction, including all the above as well
and emerging technologies
Not evident or implemented
One technical staff to more than 750 computers
At least one technical staff to 501-750 computers
At least one technical staff to 351-500 computers
At least one technical staff to 350 or less computers
Not evident or implemented
As a Principal, how do you ensure that quality, universal broadband access is made available to all,
including those with disabilities.
As a Principal, how do you ensure that teachers and students access, evaluate, manage, and use information in a variety of media
formats from a wide array of sources, and they create knowledge, apply it across disciplines and creative endeavors, and purposefully
communicate that knowledge, and the results of its use, to diverse audiences.
As a Principal, how do you ensure effective just-in-time technical support for students, educators, and other
stakeholders (please select ONE of the choices below AS WELL AS answering the next question related to background/degree).
What is the educational background/degree of the individual on your campus who is providing technical support to your school?
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 118
2/27/14 9:16 AM Qualtrics Survey Software
Page 5 of 8 https://az1.qualtrics.com/CP/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview&T=NHQOV
I have access to online learning: text-based with still images and audio
I have scheduled access to online learning with rich media such as streaming video, podcasts, applets, animation, etc.
I have simultaneous access to online learning with rich media such as streaming video, podcasts, applets, animation, etc.
I have simultaneous access to online learning with rich media such as streaming video, podcasts, applets, and animation,
and sufficient bandwidth and storage to customize online instruction
Not evident or implemented
Face-to-Face
Online
Read the Manual
Self-Directed
Other
None of the Above
Self
Department of Education (either Complex or State)
Private Contracted PD
As a Principal, how do you ensure that you are involved in a collaborative education network connecting schools, colleges, medical
facilities, libraries, businesses, and homes to support the education system of the 21st Century.
What percentage of your day is spent using technology (other than desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet, smartphone). And what
technology tool are you using?
What type of professional development have you had related to technology systems you use as well as those being used and
implemented in your school? (You may select more than one response if it applies)
Of the professional development indicated above, who provided that training for you? (You may select more than one response if it
applies). And what was the topic of the professional development?
Tool #1
0
Tool #2
0
Tool #3
0
Tool #4
0
No Other Tool
0
Total
0
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 119
2/27/14 9:16 AM Qualtrics Survey Software
Page 6 of 8 https://az1.qualtrics.com/CP/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview&T=NHQOV
Private Contracted PD
Other
Male
Female
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
66-70
71+
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
35-40
41+
0-5
6-10
What is your gender?
What is your Age?
How long (years) have you been in school administration?
How long (years) have you been principal at your current school?
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 120
2/27/14 9:16 AM Qualtrics Survey Software
Page 7 of 8 https://az1.qualtrics.com/CP/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview&T=NHQOV
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
35-40
41+
Hawaii
Maui
Oahu
Lanai/Molokai
Kauai
Urban Area/Urban Cluster (population density generally exceeding 1,000 persons per square mile)
Suburban (an outlying residential area of a city/commuter area on the fringe of a metropolitan area)
Rural (open country and areas with less than 2,500 residents)
Public Elementary
Public Middle
Public High School
Public K-12 School
Public Intermediate and High School
Public Charter School
Yes
No
On what island is your school located?
Please indicate the area in which your school is located. (Categories below based on U.S. Census Bureau).
What type of school are you principal of?
Is your school a Title 1 School?
If you answered yes, what percentage of Title 1 funds are devoted to technology?
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 121
2/27/14 9:16 AM Qualtrics Survey Software
Page 8 of 8 https://az1.qualtrics.com/CP/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview&T=NHQOV
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
65-70
71-75
75+
If you answered yes, what percentage of Title 1 funds are devoted to technology?
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 122
Appendix B
Computer Self-Efficacy Scale
Computer Self-Efficacy Scale
(Murphy, Coover, & Owen, 1989)
Very Little Quite a lot
Confidence of Confidence
I feel confident in adding and deleting
information from a data file
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in escaping/exiting from
the program/software
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in copying an individual
file
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in copying a disk 1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in making selections from
an onscreen menu
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in moving the cursor
around the monitor screen
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in using a printer to make a
“hardcopy” of my work
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in using the computer to
write a letter or essay
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in handling a floppy disk
correctly
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in entering and saving data
(numbers or words) into a file
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in storing software
correctly
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in getting rid of files when
they are no longer needed
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident working on a person
(microcomputer)
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in getting the software up
and running
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in calling-up a data file to
view on the monitor screen
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in organizing and
managing files
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in explaining why a
program (software) will or will not run on a
given computer
1 2 3 4 5
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 123
I feel confident in troubleshooting
computer problems
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in writing simple programs
for the computer
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in describing the function
of computer hardware (keyboard, monitor,
disk drives, computer processing unit)
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in understanding
terms/words relating to computer hardware
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in understanding
terms/words relating to computer software
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in understanding the three
stages of data processing: input,
processing, output
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in learning to use a variety
of programs (software)
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in getting help for problems
in the computer system
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident in learning advanced skills
within a specific program (software)
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident using the computer to
organize information
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident using the computer to
analyze number data
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident logging onto a mainframe
computer system
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident logging off the mainframe
computer system
1 2 3 4 5
I feel confident working on a mainframe
computer
1 2 3 4 5
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 124
Appendix C
Technology Acceptance Model Scale
Technology Acceptance Model Scale
(Davis, 1989)
Rate your opinion on the questions below using the 5-point Likert scale ranging from:
1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither disagree nor disagree, 4=Agree and 5=Strongly
agree
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
Using (application) improves the quality of
the work I do
1 2 3 4 5
Using (application) give me greater control
over my work
1 2 3 4 5
Application enables me to accomplish tasks
more quickly
1 2 3 4 5
Application enables me to accomplish tasks
more quickly
1 2 3 4 5
Application supports critical aspects of my
job
1 2 3 4 5
Using (application) increases my
productivity
1 2 3 4 5
Using (application) increase my job
performance
1 2 3 4 5
Using (application) allows me to
accomplish more work than would
otherwise be possible
1 2 3 4 5
Using (application) enhances my
effectiveness on the job
1 2 3 4 5
Using (application) makes it easer to do my
job
1 2 3 4 5
Overall, I find the (application) useful in
my job
1 2 3 4 5
Using (application) increases my
productivity
1 2 3 4 5
Using (application) increases my job
performance
1 2 3 4 5
Using (application) enhance my
effectiveness on the job
1 2 3 4 5
Overall I find the (application) useful in my
job
1 2 3 4 5
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 125
I find (application) cumbersome to use 1 2 3 4 5
Learning to operate (application) is easy for
me
1 2 3 4 5
Interacting with the (application) is often
frustrating
1 2 3 4 5
I find it easy to get the (application) to do
what I want it to do
1 2 3 4 5
The (application) is rigid and inflexible to
interact with
1 2 3 4 5
It is easy for me to remember how to
perform tasks using the (application)
1 2 3 4 5
Interacting with the (application) requires a
lot of mental effort
1 2 3 4 5
My interaction with the (application) is
clear and understandable
1 2 3 4 5
I find it takes a lot of effort to become
skillful at using the (application)
1 2 3 4 5
Overall, I find the (application) easy to use 1 2 3 4 5
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 126
Appendix D
Web Users Self-Efficacy Scale
Web Users Self-Efficacy scale (WUSE)
40 item Scoring Scheme
The 40-item version of the scale is presented below. 18 of the items have been worded
negatively and therefore the participant’s response has to be reversed before scoring can
commence. This means if the participant circled 5 as their response then after reversal this
becomes 1. If they circled 4 it becomes 2, if the circled 1 it becomes 5 and so on. The items that
need to be reversed are: 4,5,7,10,11,13,14,15,16,17,20,23,24,25,31,32,36, and 38.
The four subscales can then be calculated by adding the 10 items of each sub scale:
Information Retrieval = 1+5+9+10+15+21+28+32+38+40.
Information Provision = 2+6+11+16+17+22+23+29+30+31.
Communications = 3+7+12+13+18+24+33+34+35+36.
Technology = 4+8+14+19+20+25+26+27+37+39.
The four sub scale scores can then be added together to give an overall measure of Web User
Self-Efficacy (WUSE).
Below there are forty short statements concerning your thoughts and feelings about Internet use.
Please indicate the strength of your agreement or disagreement with each statement using the
scale shown, where 1 indicates that you Strongly Disagree and 5 means that you Strongly Agree
with the statement provided. Circle a number on the scale to indicate your response.
Again there are no right or wrong answers; it is your own opinion that is important.
1. I rarely have problems finding what I am looking for on the Internet....R1
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
2. I wouldn't have any problems creating a simple web page.P11
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
3. I find using email easy....C21
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
4. I am not really sure what a modem does...T33
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
5. I sometimes find using search engines like Google or Yahoo can be difficult...R2
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 127
6. I know how to use software (e.g. Dreamweaver or Frontpage) for creating web pages...
P12
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
7. Using messenger software, like MSN or ICQ always cause me some problems...C22
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
8. I think I could write a simple CGI script for a web site...T34
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
9. Finding my way around web sites is usually easy for me...R3
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
10. I would never try to download files from the Internet, that would be too
complicated....R4
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
11. I would find it very difficult to write a web page in html...P13
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
12. I would have few problems setting up a web cam...C23
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
13. I much prefer using letters or the telephone to communicate with people, rather than
the Internet...C25
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
14. I am not sure how to prevent spam...T35
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
15. I wouldn't know how to capture pictures from the Internet...R5
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
16. I am not sure how to use javascript in web pages...P14
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
17. Adding an image to a web page would be very difficult for me...P15
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
18. Newsgroups are a good way of reaching people...C26
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 128
19. I know how to test my computer for the presence of spyware...T36
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
20. Pop-up advertisements are a nuisance you just have to put up with...T37
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
21. Downloading music from the Internet is something I feel competent to do...R6
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
22. Adding hypertext links to an image (i.e. an image map) is quite straightforward...P16
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
23. I am not too familiar with the use of cascading style sheets for web site production...
P17
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
24. I have little real idea what peer to peer (p2p) software is for...C27
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
25. If my computer became infected with a virus, I wouldn't know how to get rid of it...T38
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
26. Most Internet terminology is easily understood...T39
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
27. I have no security worries when it comes to buying things over the Internet...T42
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
28. I feel confident about using most types of browsers... R8
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
29. I would know how to go about registering a domain name for a web site... P18
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 129
30. Adding links to a text document wouldn't cause me any problems...P19
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
31. Using ftp to upload web pages to a server is too complicated for me...P20
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
32. I sometimes "get lost" when trying to navigate through the Internet...R9
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
33. I regularly exchange music and/or video files with friends...C28
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
34. Using the Internet makes it much easier to keep in contact with people...C29
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
35. I regularly use the Internet for playing games...C32
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
36. I'm not sure how to communicate with people using chatrooms...C24
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
37. I can usually sort out any Internet access problems I may encounter...T40
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
38. I am not very confident about my ability to use the Internet...R10
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
39. I wouldn't have any fears about using an online help service to help me troubleshoot a
problem...T41
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
40. I know how to deal with annoying advertisements that appear while I'm using the
Internet...R7
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 130
Thank you, you have now completed all the sections.
Thank you for your time in helping with this research
Dr
Peter
Eachus
School of Community, Health Sciences and Social Care
Directorate of Psychology
University of Salford
Frederick Road
Salford M6 6PU
United Kingdom
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 131
Appendix E
School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Campus Chart
Professional
Development for
Online Learning
Levels of
Understanding
and Patterns of
Use
Access to
Professional
Development
Capabilities of
Educators
Models of
Professional
Development
Content of
Professional
Development
Capabilities of
Educators with
Online Learning
Levels of
Understanding
and Pattern of
Use
Technology
Professional
Development
Participation
Capabilities of
Educators
Models of
Professional
Development
Professional
Development
Experiences
EP 6 EP 5 EP 4 EP 3 EP 2 EP 1
Most teachers
have participated
in professional
development on the use
of online learning
Most teachers
understand technology
basics and how to use
teacher productivity
tools
Less than 9 hours
of technology
professional
development available
per school year for all
teachers
Most of the teachers
on my campus
demonstrate one of
the SBEC Technology
Applications Standards
Our campus
provides large
group professional
development sessions
that focus on skills
development and basic
technology integration
Most teachers have
completed professional
development in
technology literacy
skills, including
the Internet, district
information systems,
and basic software
applications
Most teachers adapt
technology knowledge
and skills for content
area instruction
Most teachers
have participated
in professional
development on the
customization of online
courses or content for
appropriate subject
area
9-18 hours of
technology
professional
development available
per school year for all
teachers
Most of the teachers
on my campus
demonstrate two
to three of the
SBEC Technology
Applications Standards
Our campus
provides large
group professional
development sessions
that focus on increasing
teacher productivity
and building capacity
to integrate technology
effectively into content
areas, and include
follow-up to facilitate
implementation
Most teachers have
completed professional
development on
the integration of
technology speci c to
their content area and
to increase productivity
to accomplish a variety
of instruction and
management tasks
Most teachers
have participated
in professional
development to teach
online
Most teachers use
technology as a tool
in and across content
areas to enhance higher
order thinking skills
19-29 hours
of technology
professional
development available
per school year for all
teachers
Most of the teachers
on my campus
demonstrate four
SBEC Technology
Applications Standards
Our campus provides
on-going professional
development utilizing
multiple staff
development models
including training,
observation/assessment
study groups and
mentoring
Most teachers have
completed professional
development on
integration of
technology and use
of proven strategies
that facilitate the
development of higher
order thinking skills
and collaboration with
experts, peers, and
parents
Most teachers
customize online
content and have taught
or are teaching content
units or courses online
Most teachers create
new interactive,
collaborative,
customized learning
environments
30 or more hours
of technology
professional
development available
per year school year for
all teachers
Most teachers
on my campus
demonstrate all of the
SBEC Technology
Applications Standards
Our campus promotes
anytime, anywhere
learning available
through a variety
of delivery systems
including individually
guided activities,
inquiry/action research,
and involvement in
a developmental/
improvement process
Most teachers
participate in or
mentor others in
the development
of strategies for
creating new learning
environments that
empower students to
think critically to solve
real-world problems
and collaborate with
experts across business,
industry and higher
education
EDUCATOR PREPARATION & DEVELOPMENT
The Texas Campus School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 132
The Texas Campus School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart
LEADERSHIP, ADMINISTRATION, & INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
Leadership and
Vision
Planning Instructional
Support
Communication and
Collaboration
Budget Leadership and
Support for Online
Learning
L 1 L 2 L 3 L 4 L 5 L 6
Campus leadership has
basic awareness of the
potential of technology in
education to lead to student
achievement
Campus leadership
develops a shared vision
and begins to build buy-
in for comprehensive
integration of technology
leading to increased
student achievement
Campus leadership
communicates and
implements a shared vision
and obtains buy-in for
comprehensive integration
of technology leading
to increased student
achievement
Campus leadership
promotes a shared
vision with policies that
encourage continuous
innovation with technology
leading to increased
student achievement
Leadership and
Vision
Planning Instructional
Support
Communication and
Collaboration
Budget Leadership and
Support for Online
Learning
Campus has few
technology goals and
objectives incorporated in
the Campus Improvement
Plan
Campus has several
technology goals and
objectives that are
incorporated in the
Campus Improvement
Plan
Campus has a technology-
rich Campus Improvement
Plan along with a
leadership team that
sets annual technology
benchmarks
based on SBEC
Technology Applications
standards
Campus leadership team
has a collaborative,
technology-rich Campus
Improvement Plan that is
grounded in research and
aligned with the district
strategic plan that is
focused on student success
Campus has limited
instructional support for
the integration and use of
technology in content areas
Campus provides regular
access to instructional
support for the integration
and use of technology in
content areas.
Teacher cadres have
been established to
create and participate in
learning communities that
stimulate, nurture, and
support faculty in using
technology to maximize
teaching and learning
Educational leaders and
teacher cadres facilitate
and support my use of
technologies to enhance
instructional methods
that develop higher-level
thinking, decision-making,
and problem-solving skills
Campus has limited
use of technology to
communicate with teachers
and parents
Campus uses technology
for communication and
collaboration among
colleagues, staff, parents,
students and the larger
community
Current information
tools and systems are
used at my campus
for communication,
management of schedules
and resources, performance
assessment, and
professional development
Campus uses a
variety of media and
formats, including
telecommunications and
the school website to
communicate, interact,
and collaborate with all
education stakeholders
Campus has limited
discretionary funds
for implementation of
technology strategies to
meet goals and objectives
outlined in the Campus
Improvement Plan
Campus discretionary
funds and other resources
are allocated to advance
implementation of some
technology strategies to
meet goals and objectives
outlined in the Campus
Improvement Plan
Campus discretionary
funds and other resources
are allocated to advance
implementation of most of
the technology strategies
to meet the goals and
objectives outlined in the
Campus Improvement Plan
Campus discretionary
funds and other resources
are allocated to advance
implementation of all
the technology strategies
to meet the goals and
objectives outlined in the
Campus Improvement Plan
Grades K-8:
Campus leadership has
basic understanding about
the use of online learning
Grades 9-12:
Online for-credit courses
are not available to students
to meet individual learning
needs
Grades K-8:
Campus uses online
learning and educators
collaborate on the
integration of online
learning into the curriculum
Grades 9-12:
Online for-credit courses
are available to meet
individual needs learning
needs in a limited
number (1-2) of speci c
circumstances
Grades K-8:
Online learning is
encouraged and supported
through professional
development; goals for the
online learning are being
developed for the Campus
Improvement Plan
Grades 9-12:
Online for-credit courses
are available to students to
meet a variety (more than
2) of speci c circumstances
Grades K-8:
Online learning is
facilitated and supported
through professional
development and
integrated into the Campus
Improvement Plan
Grades 9-12:
Online for-credit courses
are available to students
as desired to meet their
individual learning needs
PRINCIPALS’ TECHNOLOGY USE AND INTEGRATION 133
The Texas Campus School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TECHNOLOGY
Students
per Computers
Internet Access
Connectivity/
Speed
Other Classroom
Technology
Technical Support Local Area Network
Wide Area Network
Distance Learning
Capacity
INF 1 INF 2 INF 3 INF 4 INF 5 INF 6
Ten or more students
per Internet-connected
multimedia computers
Between 5 and 9 students
per Internet-connected
multimedia computer
Four or less students
per Internet-connected
multimedia computer
All students have 1 to
1 access to Internet-
connected multimedia
computers when needed
Students
per Classrooom
Computers
Internet Access
Connectivity Speed
Classroom
Technology
Technical Support Local Area Network
Wide Area Network
Distance Learning
Capacity
Connectivity to the Internet
available at the campus
level in less than 50% of
the rooms, including the
library
Direct connectivity to the
Internet available at the
campus in at least 50% of
the rooms, including the
library
Direct connectivity to the
Internet available at the
campus in at least 75% of
the rooms, including the
library
Direct connectivity to
the Internet available in
all rooms with adequate
bandwidth
Shared use of technologies
such as computers, digital
cameras, classroom
phones, ash drives,
portable digital devices,
probes, interactive white
boards, projection systems,
classroom sets of graphing
calculators
Dedicated computer per
educator with shared use
of technologies such as
digital cameras, classroom
phones, ash drives,
portable digital devices,
probes, interactive white
boards, projection systems,
and classroom sets of
graphing calculators
Dedicated computer per
educator with assigned use
of technologies such as
digital cameras, classroom
phones, ash drives,
portable digital devices,
probes, interactive white
boards, projection systems,
and classroom sets of
graphing calculators
Fully equipped classrooms
with readily available
technology to enhance
student instruction,
including all the above
as well and emerging
technologies
One technical staff to more
than 750 computers
At least one technical staff
to 501-750 computers
At least one technical staff
to 351-500 computers
At least one technical staff
to 350 or less computers
LAN/WAN provides
teachers and students
access to print/ le sharing
and some shared resources
At least half the rooms
connected to the LAN/
WAN with access for
teachers and students to
print/ le sharing, multiple
applications and district
servers
Broadband access to
the campus with most
rooms connected to the
LAN/WAN with access
for teachers and students
to print/ le sharing, and
district-wide resources on
the campus network.
All rooms connected to
a robust LAN/WAN that
allows for easy access
to multiple district-
wide resources for
students, teachers, and
administrators, such as
video streaming, desktop
videoconferencing, online
assessment and data access
Access to online learning:
text-based with still images
and audio
Scheduled access to
online learning with rich
media such as streaming
video, podcasts, applets,
animation, etc.
Simultaneous access to
online learning with rich
media such as streaming
video, podcasts, applets,
animation, etc.
Simultaneous access to
online learning with rich
media such as streaming
video, podcasts, applets,
and animation, and
suf cient bandwidth and
storage to customize online
instruction
Classroom
Technology
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom
PDF
The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals
PDF
The importance of technological training among public school teachers integrating one-to-one computing: an evaluation study
PDF
Latinas’ self-efficacy in computer science and potential factors undergirding their perspective
PDF
Factors influencing technology at a secondary school
PDF
Exploring primary teachers' self-efficacy and technology integration in early reading instruction
PDF
How effective professional development in differentiated instruction can save Hawaii's Catholic schools
PDF
Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...
PDF
Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5
PDF
Technology integration and self-efficacy of in-service secondary teachers in an international school
PDF
The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment
PDF
An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors
PDF
Indonesian teachers' adoption of technology in the K-12 classroom: a TAM-based quantitative study
PDF
Leadership and implementation of 1:1 technology: considering teacher self-efficacy in the implementation process
PDF
The relationship between students’ computer self-efficacy, self-regulation, and engagement in distance learning
PDF
Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...
PDF
Instructional coaching and educational technology in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools with educational technolo...
PDF
Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district
PDF
An evaluation of the character education program at Kamehameha Schools Hawai’i High School using the gap analysis approach
PDF
Raising cultural self-efficacy among faculty and staff of a private native Hawaiian school system
Asset Metadata
Creator
Parker, Scott Kaleiolani
(author)
Core Title
Hawaiʻi public school principals' level of technology use and the meaningful integration of technology in their school
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/22/2014
Defense Date
03/10/2014
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
computer self efficacy,Educational Leadership,educational technology,OAI-PMH Harvest,principal technology,school technology,technology use
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Martinez, Brandon (
committee chair
), Moreno, Babette (
committee member
), Pascarella, John, III (
committee member
)
Creator Email
parker96768@Yahoo.com,scottpar@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-382380
Unique identifier
UC11296204
Identifier
etd-ParkerScot-2391.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-382380 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ParkerScot-2391.pdf
Dmrecord
382380
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Parker, Scott Kaleiolani
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
Tags
computer self efficacy
educational technology
principal technology
school technology
technology use