Category Archives: Site Map

Technology decisions require a full perspective

10 Friday Feb 2012

Posted by in EDUC 633, EDUC 638, Site Map

≈ Leave a comment


When an organization considers a change that will mark a change in the schema, the technology leader must keep a few key concepts in mind.  These concepts include the decision to become an instructional partner with the students’ educational stakeholders; Determining to be at the table whenever and wherever discussion is had about the use or exclusion of educational technology; Knowing when the timing is right to make the big leap into greater technological application by both students and teachers; and, live on the precipice(Hall, 2008).  That is, continue to explore applications and hardware that will have an impact on the ever-changing nature of academics.

Some see the educational technology staff as supplementary and external to the daily well-functioning classroom.  In reality, the ed tech staff of any institution should play a closer part to the beneficial changes teachers, administrators and students, look for in a healthy school environment(Banoglu, 2011).  Curriculum services is the traditional source of new and interesting ideas for instructional materials.  Much of the best changes in curriculum development have, however grown from outside of this realm and, in recent years, reflect a more open proves that increasingly includes ed tech in the idea development aspects of curriculum development.  The bottom line is that the educational technology leader must understand what is going on in the school and advance ideas that will increase understanding by the students L&A, 2004).

The educational technology staff is no longer the geeks in the converted broom closet filled with spare computer parts and wires.  They are a powerful component of the educational improvement apparatus.  Hall (2008) describes this as having a place at the table.

The greatest single support the good ed tech leader can provide an education team is assistance in the decision of exactly when to make new technological changes.  Hall (2008) points out a number of questions which, in total, point toward more economic considerations.  The basic questions of economics are interwoven into the process here – Do I need it? And can I afford it? Become prime considerations guiding the final leap into the new technology.  Ultimately, the net impact of the decision must be determined and entered into the process concerning the timing of it all (Hall, 2008).

This all takes time to get right.  Getting these decisions right in a way that fits all of the variables is a tricky business.  It is best done slowly and with much discussion and consideration among all of the concerned parties (Hall, 2008).

 

References:

Banoglu, K. (2011). School principals’ technology leadership competency and technology coordinatorship.  Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri. 11(1). 208-220.

Hall, D. (2008) The technology director’s guide to leadership: the power of great questions. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education

Editor (2004) Leadership & Advocacy. The Journal. 31(12). 40.

Educational Technology Leadership

26 Thursday Jan 2012

Posted by in EDUC 638, Site Map

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

As we consider the technology needs of our schools and school districts, it is of the utmost importance to keep in mind that the issues we confront in this area of education should drive us toward a more well-rounded consideration of both hardware and software system needs, and a deeper consideration of the need for more depth in the area of management personnel (Banoglu, 2011).

Educational leaders in the field of educational technology should be evaluated to ensure technical expertise, but it may also benefit the organization to take a deeper look at that leader’s interpersonal skills as well (Banoglu, 2011).

It is true, as Leadership & Technology (2004) notes that all of the technology we are challenged to implement and improve upon requires a given level of technical expertise, but we must be careful to not apply the same demand on the entire tech team.

Not all tech team members are made equal.  Any well-crafted team contains individuals with different skill sets designed to design, build, implement, assist and correct errors in the system.  Some of the district and school tech team will be outstanding hands-on workers with a mastery of the hardware of the district.  Others will welcome the opportunity to pour themselves into deep problems involving intricate code.  Both of these groups will rely little on their ability to relate and interact with end users.  This Technical Services Staff are the “fixers.”  They live in cubicles, and for good reason, they work well on their own or with others who share their skill sets (Hall, 2008).

Applications Services Staff, however, tend to be more customer directed.   There are those who serve in this division who are less than customer friendly.  These are developers.   They enjoy technical challenges and should be kept from human contact.

Instructional Technology Staff tend to rise from the classroom, and are, thus, very solution-oriented and out-going.  They are not the strongest in the realm of hardware and software solutions where these involve code issues or hardware failures.  They simply enjoy seeing teachers and students learn about and implement new teaching and learning strategies.

Each of these groups requires careful calibration and execution of very different management skill sets.  Technical Services Staff, for instance, respect those in leadership who posses a high degree of technical expertise and provide strong direction as to the mission; more permissive forms of leadership are often dismissed by these team members.

Applications Staff in the two distinct divisions prefer very different leadership styles.  The authoritarian style so highly prized by the Technical Services Staff is rejected, here, while more relational leadership styles fit well into the customer -facing end of the Applications Staff (Hall, 2008).

The Instructional Services Team responds best to the mentor/coach style of leadership.  These team members are very relational and want to know they are adding value to the entire system.  The micro-managerial style of more authoritative leaders is seen as counter-productive (Hall, 2008).

Each of these components of the team is critical.  The entire team fails if any of these professionals fails.  It is, therefore, critical for the leader to reflect different leadership styles as he interacts with each segment of the Educational Technology Team.

References:

Banoglu, K. (2011). School principals’ technology leadership competency and technology coordinatorship.  Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri. 11(1). 208-220.

Hall, D. (2008) The technology director’s guide to leadership: the power of great questions. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education

Editor (2004) Leadership & Advocacy. The Journal. 31(12). 40.