Superintendent conceptions of institutional conditions that impact teacher technology integration

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 319-343

  Shuldman, Mitchell ^a  

^a Mitchell Shuldman   (United States)

Author keywords

Institutional conditions; Superintendents; Technology integration

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008796720     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2004.10782418     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Bauder, D. (1993). Computer integration in K—12 schools: Conditions related to adoption and implementation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse LTniversity.
2. Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291-321. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss2/seminal/article1.htm.
3. Becker, H. J. (2000a). The “exemplary teacher” paper—how it arose and how it changed its author’s research program. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss2/seminal/article2.htm
4. Becker, H. J. (2000b). Findings from the Teaching, Learning and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5(51). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51/. [PDF available from http://www.critio.uci.edu/tlc/html/finding.htm]
5. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
6. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Ellsworth, J. (1998). Factors affecting participant reactions to new training devices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
8. Ely, D. P. (1990a). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research on Computing' in Education, 23(2), 298-305.
9. Ely, D. P. (1990b). The diffusion and implementation of education technology in developing nations: Cross-cultural comparisons of Indonesia, Chile, and Peru. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 331 469)
10. Ely, D. P. (1999a). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, November/December, 23-27.
11. Ely, D. P. (1999b). New perspectives on the implementation of educational technology innovations. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 427 775)
12. Evans-Andris, M. (1995). Barrier to computer integration: Microinteraction among computer coordinators and classroom teachers in elementary schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(1), 29-45.
13. Jeffrey, J. A. (1993). Conditions in schools that facilitate implementation of peer coaching Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
14. Gibson, I. W. (2001). The role of the school administrator in the process of effectively integrating educational technology into school learning environments: New research from the mid-west. Paper presented at the 11th Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, March 5-10, Orlando, FL.
15. Glennan, T. K., & Melmed, A. (1996). Foster the use of educational technology: Elements of a national strategy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
16. Grogan, M. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconception of the superintendency from feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 117-142.
17. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
18. Haryono, A. (1990). Lecturer's perceptions of the conditions that facilitate the adoption and implementation of an instructional innovation introduce through a training program in higher education in Indonesia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
19. Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice (pp. 154-170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Available: http://www.nowhereroad.com/twt/index.html
20. Jerald, C. D., & Orlofsky, G F. (1999). Raising the bar on school technology. Education Week, XIX(4), 58-62.
21. Learning Quest, Inc. (2002). Level of Technology Use Profile. State of New Hampshire. Corvalis, OR: Author. Obtained from the New Hampshire Department of Education.
22. Marovitz, M. (1994). The diffusion of educational television at the United States Military Academy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
23. Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993/94). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220-236.
24. Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Welliver, R W. (1993). Procedures for assessing teachers’ computer use based on instructional transformation. In 15th Proceedings of Selected Research Development Presentations at the Convention of the AECT, January 13-17, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362 185)
25. MacNeil, A. J., & Delafield, D. P. (1998). Principal leadership for successful school technology implementation. In SITE 98: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, March 10-14, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421 126)
26. Merriam, S. B. (1991). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
27. Mims, N. G. (1998). School administrators: Leaders in technology? In SITE 98: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, March 10-14, Washington, DC.
28. Moersch, C. (1995) Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A frame-work for measuring classroom technology use. Leading and Learning with Technology, 23(3), 40-42.
29. Mullen, A. G., & Keedy, J. L. (1998). Examining a superintendent’s transformational leadership fom the model to successful practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 13-17, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 421 758)
30. Murphy, D. T., & Gunter, G. A. (1998). Administrative support: A key component of technology integration. In SITE 98: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, March 10-14, Washington, DC.
31. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and tech-nology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
32. Petersen, G. J. (1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An examination of five California superintendents. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(18). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7nl8.html.
33. Radlick, M. S. (1998). Hardware, software, vaporware, and wetware: A cautionary tale for superintendents (pp. 237-266). In R. R. Spillane & P. Regnier (Eds.), The superintendent of the future: Strategy and actions for achieving academic excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
34. Ravitz, J. (1999). Conditions that facilitate teachers’ Internet use in schools with high Internet connectivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
35. Read, C. (1996). Conditions that facilitate the use of shared decision making in schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
36. Reiber, L. P., & Welliver, P. W. (1989). Infusing educational technology into mainstream educational computing. International Journal of Instructional Media 16(1), 21-32.
37. Remen, I. J., & Plomp, T. (1993). Staff development as a condition for computer integration. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19, 149-166.
38. Reitz, R. (Ed.) (2000). Essential conditions for successful technology planning. Retrieved October 16, 2000 from AASA Online at http:l/www.aasa.org/technology/reitz.htm
39. Rhodes, L. (1997). Building leadership technology: The missing links between a superintendent’s vision and the school district’s actions. The School Administrator 4, 12-16.
40. Riley, M. (1997). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of a career development program to promote gender equity in middle and junior high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
41. Rogers, E. M. (1995;. Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
42. Rogers, P. L. (1999). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 429 556)
43. Ronnkvist, A., Dexter, S. L., & Anderson, R. E. (2000). Technology support in depth, breadth and impact in America’s schools. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998, National Survey Report #5. Center for Research on Information Technology and Organization, University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota. Available: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/html/findings.html.
44. Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 222-241.
45. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
46. Scheffler, F. L., & Logan, J.P (1999). Computer technology in schools: What teachers should know and be able to do. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 305-326.
47. Schoeny, A.G., Heaton, L. A., & Washington, L. A. (1999). Perceptions and educational technology needs of school administrators. In SLTE 99: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, February 28—March 4, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432 244)
48. Sherry, L. (1998). An integrated technology adoption and diffusion model. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(2/3), 113-145.
49. Sherry, L., Billis, S., Tavalin, F., & Gibson, D. (2000). New insights in technology adoption in communities of learners. Paper presented at the AACE/SITE conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from http://www.rmcdenver.com/webproject/SITEproc.html
50. Stein, R. (1996). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of innovative freshman experience courses: A comparative analysis of three courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Svracuse University.
51. TSSA Collaborative [The Collaborative for Technology Standards for School Administrators]. (2001). Technology standards for school administrators. TSSA draft introduction (v2.2) for national review and feedback. Available: http://cnets.iste.org/tssa/framework.html.
52. Thomas, W. R. (1998). Educational technology: Are school administrators ready for it? Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved from http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/pubsindex.asp
53. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Fast response survey system. Washington, DC: Author.
54. Wasser, J. D. (1996). Reform, restructuring, and technology infusion. In Technology infusion and school change: Perspectives and practices (pp. xxiv-lvi). Cambridge, MA: TERC.
55. Wilson, B., Sherry, L., Dobrovolny, J., Batty, M., & Ryder, M. (2000). Adoption of learning technologies in schools and universities. In H. H. Adelsberger, B. Collis, & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and training (pp. 293-307). New York: Springer-Verlag