23 2009 6 23-48 13 Expert Choice 2000 40 chang.ihua@gmail.com, zenerhsu@gmail.com 2009.04.21 2009.05.19 2009.05.19
24 Journal of Educational Administration and Evaluation June, 2009, Vol. 7 pp. 23-48 The Construction of Performance Criteria for Technology Leadership of Elementary and Secondary School Principals I-Hua Chang Cheng-Fang Hsu Abstract The purpose of this research is to develop performance criteria and their associated priority weights for technology leadership [TL] of elementary and secondary school principals in Taiwan. Following the Delphi method, thirteen experts, including researchers in TL and elementary school administrators who had experience in promoting and implementing technology in education, were selected to answer questionnaires to develop the performance criteria. As a result, seven principal performance criteria for TL were determined, associated with in total forty attributes (sub-criteria). Based on the determined performance criteria and attributes, further surveys were conducted, in conjunction with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), to determine the priority weight for each performance criterion and attribute. The performance criteria, in their order of importance, are (1) long term vision of TL development; (2) quality training for non-technical school staff in using technology; (3) provision of technical support; (4) integration of information technology in education; (5) interpersonal communication skill in promoting TL; (6) performance evaluation of school staff in adopting technology for teaching; and (7) addressing law and ethics for technology. Based on the findings, the author proposes specific suggestions that can be adopted by school principals and school authorities to promote effective use of technology in education. Keywords: elementary and secondary school principal, technology leadership, criteria I-Hua Chang: Associate Professor, Department of Education, National Chengchi University Cheng-Fang Hsu: Director of Student Affairs, Tung-De Junior High School E-mail: chang.ihua@gmail.com, zenerhsu@gmail.com Manuscript received: 2009.04.21; Revised: 2009.05.19; Accepted: 2009.05.19
25 Kearsley & Lynch, 1994 2003 1996 Technology in Learning and Teaching [TILT] 1996 1997 Master Plan for IT in Education 1998 2000 1995 1998 2001 strong leadership 2003 2002 Reeves 2004 technology leader Reeves, 2004 2006 Education Commission of the States [ECS] 25 2005 ECS, 2001 2004 2006
26 1 1 Bailey, Lumley, & 1995 Dunbar Aten 1996 Murphy & Gunte 1997 Anderson & Dexter 1998 Sampson & Wasser 1999 Speed & Brown 2001
27 1 Schmeltzer 2001 2003 2005 2006 2006 2006 2007 7-8 2005 1. 2. 3.4.
28 University of Twente Betty Collis Computers, Curriculum, & Whole-Class Instruction Collis, 1988; 2007 Collis Kearsley Lynch 1994 Collis technology leadership skills managerial requirements Bailey 1997 Ertmer 2002 Creighton 2003 Creighton The Principal as Technology Leader Education Commission of States 25 leadership academy consortium 2005 ECS, 2001 National Educational Technology Standards [ISTE] 1998 2000 2001 2004 2003 6 ISTE 29 7 ISTEISTE, 2004 Robinson 1994 Robinson 2006 2007 7 1 2004
29 2004 2007 8 31 2007a 2008 1 2007b 1982 2000 2003 2004 2004 2003 2004 2004 2003 2006 2003 2004 2004 1990
30 2006 AlbertaCalgary Board of Education 2000 1 2 3 4 5 Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003 2003 1980 building manager instructional and curriculum leader educational technology leader 2005 1 2 3 4 2006 1 2 3 4 5 2006 1 2 3 4 5
31 facilitators of change Moursund 1992 Bennett 1996mission 2003 123 4 56 2003 12 3 4 5 6 Brooks-Young 2006 1 LMC library/media center 2 3 acceptable use policy 1 2 3
32 4 5 7 45 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 45 1. 1-1 1-2
33 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 2. 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 3. 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 4. 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4
34 4-5 4-6 5. 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 6. 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 7. 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6
35 Analytic Hierarchy Process [AHP] 1 AHP 1 4 1 2 3313
36 e-mail structured questionnaire
37 Murry & Hammons, 1995 1. 2.
38 Expert Choice inconsistency ration index overall inconsistency ration index 0.1 0.1 2 2 1-1 2.3 1-2 3.1 25.8 1-3 6.2 1-4 6.4 1-55.2 1-6 4.5 1-7 3.8 1-83.9 13.0 2-1 1.7 2-2 1.5 2-3 3.2
39 2 24.6 2-4 1.3 3-1 6.1 3-24.5 3-3 5.8 3-4 4.0 3-5 1.7 16.0 6.4 4-1 4.0 4-2 3.7 4-3 1.3 4-4 1.7 4-5 3.5 4-6 1.7 4-73.5 5-1 0.6 5-2 0.9 5-31.1 5-4 1.6 5-5 0.3
40 2 5.6 8.6 6-1 0.8 6-2 1.4 6-3 0.5 6-4 0.3 6-5 0.6 7-1 2.1 7-2 1.1 7-3 1.1 7-4 1.3 7-5 0.7 7-6 1.2 7 45 7 40 1. 7 25.824.6 16.013.0 8.6 6.45.6 ISTE 2004 2006
41 2. 18.1 17.6 41.9 27.6 26.0 20.5 19.2 18.2 36.0 38.3
42 28.4 40 37 7 28 7
43 40 critical ratio 27 27 1. 27 11 2. 272718
44 3. 27 11 1. 2. 36
45 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 11
46 1. 2. 3. 2006 71 195-196 2007a 2007 11 16http:// www.edb.gov.hk/filemanager/tc/content_2129/prtrng_c.pdf 2007b2007 11 16 http://www.edb.gov.hk/filemanager/tc/content_93/edb_ite_c.pdf 2004 2007 9 1 http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=2&nodeid=2681 200364 68-84 2005
47 2006 29 1 1-27 2007 2004 2007 8 25http://www.kiec. kh.edu.tw/course/ 2003114 83-95 2007 2005 33 3 94-107 2004 4 2006 2001 2005 2 20http://masterplan. educities.edu.tw/conference/total.shtml 20032005 2 20http://teach. eje.edu.tw/data/kunda/200010222331/ 2002 2003 112 151-152 20042007 9 23http://www.tceb. edu.tw/web/b/center/1/1.htm 200455 5 72-91 Bailey, G. D. (1997). What technology leaders need to know: The essential top 10 concepts for technology integration in the 21st century? Learning & Leading with Technology, 25(1), 57-62. Bailey, G. D., Lumley, D., & Dunbar, D. (1995). Leadership & technology What school
48 board members need to know? Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association. Bennett, C. (1996). Schools, technology and educational leadership: A framework for change. NASSP Bulletin, 80(577), 57-65. Brooks-Young, S. (2006). Critical technology issues for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Creighton, T. (2003). The principal as technology leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. ECS (2001). Statewide leadership academies: A 50-state scan. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/26/93/2693.htm Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Online professional development: Building administrators capacity for technology leadership. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www2.edci.purdue.edu/ ertmer/main_conf.htm Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142. ISTE (2004). Use of NETS by States. Retrieved January 14, 2007, from http://cnets.iste.org/ docs/states_using_nets.pdf Kearsley, G., & Lynch, W. (1994). Educational leadership in the age of technology: The new skills. In G. Kearsley, & W. Lynch (Eds.), Educational technology: Leadership perspectives (pp. 5-17). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Moursund, D. (1992). The technology coordinator. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Reeves, D. B. (2004). Evaluating administrators. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 52-58.