EL CICLO DE LA VIOLENCIA

The literature reviewed in this Chapter has expanded on the often debated notion that the schools usage of ICT is a major driver for change; which, at least according to technology commentator Cuban (1986, 1992, 2001) has largely been unchallenged. This basic belief in technology‘s ability to facilitate change has been referred to as ―technological determinism‖ (Surry & Land, 2000, p. 146). Therefore, to avoid technological determinism and viewing technology use in education through rose coloured glasses, it is important to understand what is driving the push for the continued introduction and use of technology in the educational sector.

Within the literature empirical data about technological change an underlying assumption is that a higher level of technology usage in schools is equated to school change and improvement (Cuban, 2001; Moersch, 1995; Newhouse, Trinidad, & Clarkson, 2002; Surry & Land, 2000). Whilst this change measures the number of devices, specifically in terms of computer to student ratio, it however misses the point that simply providing more access to and more technology to teachers does not mean that sustainable educational change or educational improvement has or will occur. Even so there are some indirect relationships between education improvements and greater use of ICT in schools. For example, during the ten year period from 1992-2002 university participation rates in Australia rose by 8% to 18% (Nelson, 2003). Coinciding with this increase in Australian university participation rates was government funding for more digital technologies across the compulsory and post-compulsory education sectors (DETYA, 2000). A trend which is being replicated across most western societies (Zandvliet, 1999).

43 Through the introduction and use of ICT in the education sector governments, schools and others are trying to align the education sector to the new knowledge economy. In doing so, the introduction of that technology has occurred in different ways, some planned and others more ad-hoc. As such, there seems no single agreed mechanism or model for the successful introduction of technology into schools, or indeed how to measure that success. Although, the literature does indicate that the process is a gradual one of enrolling key individuals who in turn use the technology and then recruit others into its use-and the process is then repeated (Aviram, 2001; Cuban, 2001; Dede, 1989; Katz, Rice, & Aspden, 2001).

One of the key ―actors‖ and agents in the school is the principal who establishes and maintains the school‘s broad organisational structure and policies; as such Fullan (1991) recognized the principal as a key change agent within a school. By maintaining and enacting the school‘s organisational policies, vision, and recruitment the principal plays an important role in setting the agenda and ‗atmosphere‘ of the school. It is therefore important for the principal, and other school leaders, to have (and set) clear goals and expectations for technology development and use within the school (Gebhart, 2003). Associated with setting the strategic ICT plan, the principal also needs to allocate sufficient funding for technology infrastructure and regular maintenance, together with on-going staff training.

The decision on how much funding to allocate to what forms of technology is a difficult process not just because of the rapid developments in technology (Slowinski, 2000) but also because principals need to understand the purpose of the technology within the school along with its associated infrastructure requirements and training of staff. For principals to make the right decisions and to successfully manage the schools‘ technology, they and the school need to have expectations of what the technology is to be used for and why. Unless there are purposeful expectations for the technology Atkin (1997) stated that the technology may drive the decision- making process (technocentric) rather than its intended purposes. This technocentric decision- making process has been highlighted in the literature and indicated that schools can become

44 ‗blinded‘ by the purchase of the technology more for its own sake and at the cost of the limited innovations that technology sometimes can bring to teaching and students‘ learning (Atkin, 1997; Selander, 2003; Slowinski, 2000). Several studies have further indicated that the technocentric approach ―starts with the technology rather than the education‖ (Beynon, 1993, p. 228) and that this approach values technical or practical skills over the educational benefits arising from using the technology (Simpson & Payne, 2002; Venezky & Davies, 2002).

Researchers, such as Cooley and Reitz (1997); Hope, Kelly, and Guyden (2000) and Wilmore (2000) in their research on schools as change agents pointed out that the school principal is the key to the success, or otherwise, of school-based innovations. Further to this Wilmore (2000) also noted that an innovation will succeed or fail depending on how the principal actively supports either side, whilst Slowinski (2000) stipulated that effective leaders are ―forward- thinking leaders‖ (p. 1). Given that the principal influences how the school is run researchers, such as Barone (2001), Schiff and Solmon (1999) and Trotter (1997) have suggested that school leaders need to make decisions in consultation with experts and with those to whom their decisions will affect. This is particularly the case with technology as it would be unreasonable to expect the principal to be an expert in this ever changing field. Unfortunately, this approach is not always carried out with Riffel and Levin (1997) revealing that the principal‘s understanding, related to technology, were often shaped by ―relatively narrow sources of information‖ (1997, p. 62).

Research on effective schools indicated that the principals of such schools actively included staff members in school decision-making and problem-solving (Elliot, 1998). With effective school leadership being a collective task of the principal working along with other members of staff and the broader school community.

In obtaining information to help inform ICT decision-making Gebhart (2003) noted that school leaders, and hence schools, needed to establish clear goals and policies for school wide ICT

45 development, management and integration. The need for schools to have a concise and descriptive ICT plan and ICT policy is supported in the literature which further indicated that the ICT plan needs to have clear and specific links to financial instruments and curriculum goals (Hay, 2001; Riedel et al., 1998; Riffel & Levin, 1997). In addition, Ringle and Updegrove (1998) claimed that the school technology plan needs to be separated into two components, one to address the ‗socio-economic‘ and the other ‗pragmatic or technical‘.

Principals need to consider the use of ICT within the overall strategic plan of the school (Hay, 2001; NZ Ministry of Education, 2002; Wilmore, 2000) which is in line with government, business and educational researchers‘ calls for making learning with technology available 24/7, at home and school or ―anytime, anywhere‖ (NZ Ministry of Education, 2002, p. 1). To accomplish 24/7, anywhere/anytime learning, a school-wide strategic approach to technology adoption is required (Ringle & Updegrove, 1998). Principals therefore need to involve others, who are perhaps more knowledgeable, in assisting them to make technology decisions (Barone, 2001; Hope, Kelly, & Guyden, 2000; Wilmore, 2000).

Whilst it is important that principals, as the key educational leaders in their school manage the process, they must not become insular in the process. Indeed, Trotter (1997), and Riffel and Levin (1997) stipulated that school technological decisions need to also involve technological leaders or consultants from outside of the educational arena so that school technology is reflective of what is available in the corporate or ‗outside‘ world. What schools do with technology is also dependent on what teachers have seen, read or heard occurring in other schools as such ―schools‘ understandings [of technology] are often overly shaped by a relatively narrow sources of information‖ (Riffel & Levin, 1997, p. 62). This narrow view of technology in turn may lead to ―haphazard and serendipitous‖ (Simpson & Payne, 2002, p. 4) decision- making and technology implementation.

46 those with technological knowledge, or perceived understanding, into positions of power or authority (McClure, 2000). Further to this, several authors have suggested that given the pace of technological change school leaders need to be careful in simply delegating technological decisions to others, as this may lead to fragmentation of whole school ICT planning (Hay, 2001; Ward & Hawkins, 2003; Wilmore, 2000). In relation to technological planning a school needs to have a longitudinal focus which ―is driven by the school vision rather than by the technology‖ (Slowinski, 2000, p. 4). Such an integrated approach attempts to align the school‘s vision and technology, so that the technology is not just an add on rather it becomes an integral component of the teaching and students‘ learning process. By becoming an integral component of the school program, the technology plan becomes a key component of the school‘s future vision for teaching and students‘ learning. Indeed, Papert and Caperton (1999) related that having a vision is a crucial factor in determining the success, or otherwise, of school as a change agent and involved in reforms.

In aligning the technology with the school‘s vision the principal needs to seek advice and information from a number of sources. Principals seeking advice need to be mindful in not getting their information from just one source, which is typically from those who are perceived to be ‗experts‘ in technology. The reason principals need to get information from a wide variety of informants has been well reported (Pullen & Vaughan, 2008). For instance, Trotter (1997, p. 1) observed, that often information from IT professionals was full of ―jargon‖, and principals needed to be mindful that often ―the techie‖ (McClure, 2000, p. 108; Pullen & Vaughan, 2008) is placed in a position of power because of the possible mystique that surrounds the technology. To overcome this, educational leaders need to understand not only the technology but how it can be used to support teaching and students‘ learning (Fleit, 2000; Riedl, Smith, Ware, Wark, & Yount, 1998). Within the business sector Ross and Weill (2002) identified that successful ICT integration occurred when ―managers take a leadership role‖ (p. 83) in making decisions regarding how and what the technology was used for. The same report also indicated that when managers abdicated technology decision-making to others ―disaster often ensues‖ (p. 83).

47 Successful technology integration within a school therefore requires the principal to align the technology with the school‘s vision. To do so the principal needs to gain an understanding of what technologies are available and what they offer from asking pertinent questions from a wide array of informants including IT professionals, business groups, other schools, government policies, and the research literature. For some schools this may be easier said than done, due to how the school is managed and how change has been managed in the past. Thus, school governance is crucial in determining how change occurs and is managed and studies have concluded that good governance is shared across the school, its staff and its community (Beck & Murphy, 1995; Blase & Blase, 1997; Casey, 1993; Dale, Robertson, & Shortis, 2004; Eib, 2001; Hall, 2001; Schiller, 2000).

In terms of technology change, Fullan (1982) noted that implementation or change will occur to the extent that each and every teacher has the opportunity to work out the meaning of the implementation and how it will affect their individual teaching practice. He concluded that teachers should not be expected to implement or drive an innovation unheeded, or with limited time or financial support. Such an understanding supports the notion that school leaders through policy and resourcing play a vital role in helping teachers to deal with the challenges and changes required to improve the teaching and learning programs of the school (Wallace, 1997). Fullan further suggested that policies should not be restrictive as ―the more you ‗tighten‘ mandates, the more that educational goals and means get narrowed, and consequently the less impact there is‖ (Fullan, 1993, p. 23), so there needs to be a balance between policy and practice.

Additional educational leadership studies reiterate the need for principals through policy and resourcing to support staff in embracing change (Jones, 2001; Manson, 2000), and offer staff moral support in times of change (Brennan, 1997, 2000). Moreover, it has been acknowledged that it would be unreasonable for principals and teachers to know all about the myriad of digital

48 technologies available, but they must understand where technology is going and what the possible ramifications for teaching and students‘ learning might be (Brennan, 1997; Manson, 2000; Russell & Bradley, 1997). To do these principals need to ―work with teachers to develop a vision and an approach to implementing standards‖ (Eib, 2001, p. 17; Manson, 2000).