JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW

North American University

Education Department
M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction
EDUC 5324 Integrating Technology into Education

Name: Murat Karaoglu Date: 7/11/2019

Cite the reviewed article in APA format:

Waxman, H. C., Boriack, A. W., Lee, Y. H., & MacNeil, A. (2013). Principals’
Perceptions of the Importance of Technology in Schools. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 4(3), 187-196

INTRODUCTION
Research Questions (if research questions are not specifically mentioned, what
is the theoretical background or overarching theme):
The study focuses on the questions:
(a) What are principals’ perceptions of the importance of technology? and (b) Do
principals’ perceptions of technology differ by years of experience and gender?

Purpose of the research:

The research explores principals’ perspectives and orientation toward technology by
asking an open ended and cognitive interview question as opposed to yes/no
questions of the prior studies. Furthermore, it focuses on principal characteristics such
as years of experience and gender.

METHODOLOGY
What is the methodology for the research or approach used to understand the
issue? Provide information regarding the following:

Participants:
A convenience sample of 310 principals (126 males and 184 females) from a large
metropolitan area in the southwest region of the United States participated at the
study.
A range of years of experience was present with 104 participants having 0-3 years of
experience, 82 participants having 4-7 years, 55 participants having 8-11 years, 32
participants having 12-15 years, and 31 participants having greater than 15 years of
experience.

Procedures:
Graduate students in the Educational Leadership program of a major, urban doctoral-
granting university located in the south central region if the U.S. were trained on how
to administer a questionnaire as a part of their principal certification course
requirements. The survey instrument that included both qualitative and quantitative
questions was also designed specifically for this purpose. A specific number of
principals were interviewed by these graduate students using the questionnaire.

Data Collection Methods/Data Source:

Only the data from the interviews were used in this research study. Two interview
questions used for the data collection purposes were: “Has technology had an impact
in your school?" and "If so, in what specific ways has it made a difference?”

Data Analysis:
A process of data reduction is used at the beginning of data analysis. The responses
of the participants to the interview questions were read several times to become
familiar with the data. Then the data was coded into meaningful categories. The
consistency of the coding was determined by another researcher who independently
coded 10% sample of responses. The inter-coder reliability results revealed a high
level of agreement.

RESULTS

Findings or Results (or main points of the article):

The responses of the principals regarding the major functions of technology were
grouped into six categories. The first category was using technology as a
communication tool and about 35% of principals indicated that technology was helpful
for communication. 28% of participants said that technology was used by teachers for
instruction. Use of technology for data collection and management purposes, the third
category, was brought up by about 14% of the participants. 15% of principals
indicated that technology was used as a resource to find information. Administrative
tasks and student learning were the other categories for the major functions of
technology and 10% of the participants gave responses that fell into each of these
categories.
The results for the major functions of technology by gender revealed that the two
highest percentage of males and females discussed using technology for
communication, 33% and 36% respectively, and for instruction, 33% and 25%
respectively.
Moreover, principals’ perspectives of major functions of technology were also
examined by the years of experience in the categories of 0-3 years, 4-7 years, 8-11
years, 12-15 years, and more than 15 years. The results showed that the highest
percentages in these categories were for communication and instruction. Principals
with 12-15 and more than 15 years of experience had the highest percentage in
instruction (31% and 39%, respectively) followed by communication (28% and 36%,
respectively).

DISCUSSIONS

Conclusions/Implications (for your profession):

Principals view technology as an important tool for communication and instruction.
Although principals are becoming technology leaders, their visions do not include the
role of educational technology in their schools. Paben’s 2002 study indicates that
 “school leaders’ visions for their schools must include technology” (as cited in
Waxman, Boriack, Lee, & MacNeil, 2013, p.193). Therefore, future studies should
investigate the visions of principals to understand if they are truly technology leaders
in schools. This study indicated that the perceptions of principals toward technology
differed by gender and years of experience but further studies might show the reasons
for these indications and how they can influence technology leadership.

REFLECTIONS

Student’s Reflections (changes to your understanding; implications for your

school/work):
This study has helped me realize that there is so much that needs to be studied for the
technology leadership. Although the percentages of participants who focused on the
communication and instruction as the main functions of technology are high, I found
the percentages for using technology to find resources and to enhance student
learning very low. This shows that school leaders need professional development and
training on the technology leadership and better implementation of technology in
schools. As a teacher, I know now that I need to use technology more effectively not
only for instruction but also to enhance student learning in my classroom.

Reference

Waxman, H. C., Boriack, A. W., Lee, Y. H., & MacNeil, A. (2013). Principals’ Perceptions
of the Importance of Technology in Schools. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 4(3), 187-196