Journal of Research on Technology in Education

ISSN: 1539-1523 (Print) 1945-0818 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrt20

Using Systems Thinking to Leverage Technology

for School Improvement
Lessons Learned from Award-Winning Secondary Schools/Districts

Barbara B. Levin & Lynne Schrum

To cite this article: Barbara B. Levin & Lynne Schrum (2013) Using Systems Thinking to Leverage
Technology for School Improvement, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46:1, 29-51,
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2013.10782612

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782612

Published online: 21 Feb 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 584

View related articles

Citing articles: 14 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrt20
 Using Systems Thinking to Leverage Technology for School Improvement:
Lessons Learned from Award-Winning Secondary Schools/Districts
JRTE I Vol. 46, No. I, pp. 29-51 I ©20131STE I iste.org/jrte

Using Systems Thinking to Leverage Technology for School

Improvement: Lessons Learned from Award-Winning
Secondary Schools/Districts
Barbara B. Levin
University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Lynne Schrum
West Virginia University

Abstract

This paper offers lessons learned about what it takes to successfully leverage
technology for school improvement based on a cross-case analysis of eight
award-winning secondary schools!districts around the United States. The
researchers analyzed data from 150 interviews, 30 focus groups, and more
than 300 hours of observation in 150 classrooms, plus extensive document
analysis, to reveal numerous lessons learned across the eight sites. Findings
from this study indicated that eight factors must be addressed (nearly) simul-
taneously when technology is used as a lever for school reform: vision, distrib-
uted leadership, technology planning and support, school culture, professional
development, curriculum and instructional practices, funding, and partner-
ships. Implications for current and future practice include important lessons
for university and district-based technology specialists, educational research-
ers, and school and district leaders about taking a systems approach when
considering technology among these factors needed for comprehensive school
reform efforts to be sustained. (Keywords: technology, school leaders, school
improvement, distributed leadership, systems thinking)

e all know there are many barriers to successful technology inte-

W gration (e.g., Ertmer & Ottenbriet-Leftwich, 201 0; Kopcha, 201 0;

Zhao & Frank, 2003). In addition to barriers that are often outside
the control of the teacher (e.g., access, support, time), others include the
technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge of teachers, their sense
of self-efficacy, and their beliefs about the value of technology for making
a difference for students (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Ertmer & Ottenbriet-
Leftwich, 2010; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). And, as Ertmer and Ottenbreit-
Leftwich (2010) wrote, "Although beliefs can influence knowledge acquisi-
tion and use of technology, context also plays a role in teachers' uses of
technology" (p. 264). Other researchers have also detailed the importance
of context and other factors in schools that are influenced by (and in turn
can influence) teachers' attempts to integrate technology (e.g., Kopcha, 201 0;
Windschitl & Sahl, 2002; Zhao & Frank, 2003).

Volume 46 Number I 1 Journal of Research on Technology in Education 1 29

Levin & Schrum

Research also tells us that leadership matters for promoting the integra-
tion of technology in schools (e.g., Anderson & Dexter, 2005), and that
administrators need to be increasingly involved in technology projects in
their schools to model and support their use (Anthony, 2012; Stuart, Mills,
& Remus, 2009; Williams, 2008). By studying the leaders of award-winning
schools and districts who have been recognized for successfully leveraging
technology to improve their schools, we sought to move beyond listing bar-
riers to develop a more complete picture about how technology leadership
plays a role in school improvement. Our assumption was that we would be
better served by learning from successes instead of failures, so we focused
our research on places where technology has been used successfully as a
driver of school improvement (Levin & Schrum, 2012). Our original goal
was to develop in -depth case studies of award-winning leaders, and our
primary research question was: How are leaders of award-winning schools/
districts using technology to improve their schools? However, an additional
question we answered as a result of our research and focus in this paper is:
What key factors beyond technology leadership must be in place for schools
to improve outcomes for students?
To capture what we learned we invoke a simple image as our metaphor:
the jigsaw puzzle. Other researchers have used a more dynamic metaphor,
such as that of the zebra mussel being introduced into the Great Lakes (Zhao
& Frank, 2003), to capture complex change, but we believe the concept
of a jigsaw puzzle allows us to suspend the interactive nature of multiple,
interacting systems to study the individual pieces and also see the complete
picture. Doing so, we believe, can provide important lessons for university
and district-based technology specialists who are working to improve stu-
dent learning, educational researchers who study technology in schools, and
school leaders at both building and district levels.

Conceptual Framework and Literature Review

Early in our data collection, we observed the complexity and interdependence
of the activities and the people involved in trying to leverage technology for
school improvement (Adamy & Heinecke, 2005; Kopcha, 2010; Zhao & Frank.
2003). Therefore, systems thinking became a major part of our conceptual
framework (Davis & Sumara, 2006; Senge et al., 2000), because schools and
districts are organizational systems embedded in larger complex systems
made up of interacting, interrelated, and interdependent components. Taking
a systems approach means that all parts of the system have to be addressed in
concert, and acknowledging that adding one component (such as technology)
to a system disturbs other parts of the system. Further, adding to or chang-
ing just one part of any system will change it, although usually not enough to
make a real difference in the entire system, as has been seen in other studie5
about technology integration (e. g., Kopcha, 2010; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002;
Zhao & Frank, 2003). Thus a jigsaw puzzle metaphor seemed an appropriate

30 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I Volume 46 Number I

 Using Systems Thinking

image to capture both the parts and the whole system, even though it does
not capture the dynamic nature of interacting systems required for success-
ful technology integration and school reform.
Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2001) suggest that to understand
leadership, it is important to look beyond what one person can do, or
knows how to do, and look instead at what each person brings to the task
as well as how to build on strengths, and collaboratively tackle issues. The
central premise of Spillane et al. (2001) is that leadership is "understood
as a distributed practice, stretched over the school's social and situational
contexts" (p. 23). Like Spillane (2005), we observed complex systems operat-
ing in our data, which he described as distributed leadership: "a system
of practice comprised of a collection of interacting components: leaders,
followers, and situation. These interacting components must be understood
together because the system is more than the sum of the component parts
or practices" (p. 150). In our thinking, the puzzle is only complete when all
the pieces have been identified, studied, and joined. Furthermore, we agree
with Spillane, Camburn, and Pareja (2007), who suggested that what actually
happens in schools is "emerging from interactions among school leaders and
followers, mediated by the situation in which the work occurs. In our view,
practice is more about interaction than action" (p. 70).
In reviewing the literature on technology integration, Kopcha (2010)
offered a systems-based model for how mentors should operate to support
technology integration, and Anthony (2012) used activity theory to describe
how different systems interact to support or impede successful technology
integration. These and other authors (e.g., Vanderlinde, van Braak, & Dexter,
2012) describe the reciprocal relationships among many factors implicated
in how technology is integrated in schools, including how differences in
school culture may positively influence teachers to embrace or resist tech-
nology initiatives. As Anthony (2012) found:
Effective technology leadership extends beyond the work of vision set-
ting, developing strategic plans, purchasing equipment, and coord:.nat-
ing professional development but may also call for collective attempts by
technology specialists, teachers, and administrators to identify and ad-
dress differences in how intersystem linkages converge to affect teachers'
ability to integrate technology. (p. 337)
Other factors were also pertinent to the conceptual framework guiding
this research. For example, Moos and Johansson (2009) suggested, "Schools
are looking for support from parents; they are forming partnerships with so-
cial and cultural institutions that can support them in addressing challenges
that cannot adequately be met within" (p. 778). Moos and Johansson (2009)
also found that successful principals are "effective communicators-they
listen readily and intently, and they openly share their thoughts and v~sions"
(pp. 776-777) with their many constituents. They also work to develop

Volume 46 Number 1 I Journal of Research on Technology in Educati::m 1 31

Levin & Schrum

teachers, create leadership teams or "webs;' and challenge teachers to build

capacity, which we also observed in our data.

Methods
This paper is based on the cross-case analysis (Yin, 2008) of descriptive
case studies of eight award-winning secondary schools and their leaders
from across the United States (California, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington) where technology
was recognized as an integral part of transforming their schools and im-
proving student outcomes (Levin & Schrum, 2012). We began by purpose-
fully selecting cases (Maxwell, 2013; Patton, 2001) to identify an initial
pool of 24 potential schools based on the following criteria: (a) their lead-
ers or leadership teams had received state or national awards for leading
exemplary technology-using schools (e.g., from the International Society
for Technology in Education-ISTE), or (b) they had received more than
one technology grants (e.g., IMPACT grants in North Carolina, PT3 grants
from the federal government). We also used snowball sampling (Creswell,
2013) based on the reputation of schools or leaders recommended by
technology leaders at the state or national level. The goal of this purposeful
selection process was to identify what Yin (2008) calls intrinsic cases, so
we could learn about and share successful practices that others might learn
from and consider implementing themselves. Accessibility, which included
their willingness to allow us to do interviews and observations ranging
from 3 to 5 days, and to evaluate documents, was also a consideration in
selecting sites for study.
In addition to being acknowledged as leaders of places where technology
was an integral part of transforming their school(s), each site was situated
by its unique demographics, history, and culture. Ultimately, we selected
eight places for study based on additional criteria to maximize the diversity
of the types of schools and districts studied: different geographic regions;
urban, suburban, and rural settings; school level (middle or high schools);
socio-economic status based on the percentage of students eligible for free
or reduced-price meals; and school size. Among the eight cases, five are
traditional public schools, one is a public charter school, and two are magnet
schools. In several of the cases the entire school district became the research
site because of the relatively small size of the district. As can be seen in
Table 1 (pp. 34-35), school sizes ranged from about 400 students to about
1,500 students, and districts range in size from 1,700 students to more than
103,000. The percentages of free and reduced meals ranged from 23% to
86%. Table 1 also provides a snapshot of the range of technology being used
and describes the technical support available in each of the case study sites
at the time of this study. Some of the demographic information in this table
has changed since this study was conducted during the 2010-11 school year,
hence the use of the tilde (~) to indicate approximate numbers.

32 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I Volume 46 Number 1

 Using Systems Thinking

Data Sources
We used the same set of questions for multiple formal and informal inter-
views of key informants across all sites: principals and other school and
district-based administrators, teachers, support staff, as well as parents in
leadership roles, school board members, or other community leaders in
some of the case study sites (see Appendix, p. 50, for interview questions).
Our research team spent 3-5 days in each school/district. A typical day
included a mix of classroom observations, interviews with school leaders,
other teachers, and staff. We used focus groups to supplement interviews
where participants had time constraints (especially true for teachers). We
observed as many classrooms as possible for the purpose of documenting
and triangulating what we heard during interviews and focus groups (Max-
well, 2013; Yin, 2008). We scripted observations to describe the activities,
actions, and interactions in each classroom and to capture as much student
and teacher conversation as possible. We used a standard two-column for-
mat to separate observer inferences from descriptive data (Creswell, 2013).
We also mined websites and other documents (vision statements, strategic
and school improvement plans, agendas and minutes of meetings, technol-
ogy plans, internal and external publicity documents, curriculum guidelines,
student achievement data, school leaders' blogs, and other communications)
for further triangulation. Table 2 (p. 36) details the numbers of interviews,
observations, focus groups, and person hours in each location; we achieved
the larger numbers in North Carolina and Virginia because we were able to
take several graduate students on these two initial visits to help us refine our
data collection and analysis methods. In all, we recorded the voices of 150
educators during interviews, conducted 30 focus groups, completed more
than 300 hours of observation in more than 150 classrooms, and read and
analyzed hundreds of documents.

Data Analysis Procedures

Our research team engaged in debriefing sessions at the end of each day
to capture emerging patterns and insights and to make plans for filling in
any perceived gaps when gathering information during the following day.
Notes and audiotapes from these meeting were available for later analysis.
We analyzed transcribed interview data from key leaders at each site to
look for substantive categories about the participants' beliefs about leader-
ship, technology, and other concepts that emerged from these data. We then
supplemented this analysis with researchers' field notes, classroom observa-
tions, and analysis of documents. Next, we reviewed audiotapes of other in-
terviews for the purpose of data triangulation as well as to capture examples
and direct quotes related to these emerging concepts: vision, culture, change,
leadership, curriculum, teaching, expectations, and finances. Periodically
throughout the 10-month-long data collection process, we created several
matrices to summarize preliminary findings from each case study to look

Volume 46 Number 1 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I 33

 w
~
Table 1. Demographics of the Case Study Sites
~
s·
School Information Qo
(_
0 District Information (FRP = free or reduced price meals) Available Technology (f)
c ()
3 :r
California Magnet High School At the time of this study a wireless network supported 450+ laptops being used daily by students and teachers at this 2
~
9, Small Town District -370 HS students small high school. Most students brought their own laptops to school, but about 120 netbooks were loaned for $8.00 3
JJ -17,000 students -16 teachers per month to students who could not afford their own laptop. This school had a custom-built learning management
<D 36 schools 54% White, 22% Hispanic, 12% Multiracial, 5% Filipino, 3% system to keepJhe environment as paperless as possible, and to track student performance. Technical support was
(/)
<D
OJ -930 teachers African American, and 3% Asian<1% Pacific Islander, provided by one full-time staff member. Due to the expense of sustaining a 1:1 program, when a new, much larger
0 <1% American Indian/Alaskan Native. high school was built in the district, money was put into infrastructure for wireless access and cloud computing so
:r
0 23% FRP that the students could bring and use whntever r.nmr111ter rlevir.es they nwnerl. They r.illl this the college model.
::J
a;l Colorado Public Charter School At the time of this study, every student in the middle and high school was provided a laptop or tablet computer to
()
;;) Urban District -3GO liS students use at school and home. every classroom had an interactive whiteboard and data projection system. Due to the
::J
0 -80,000 students -30 teachers ongoing costs of sustaining 1:1 technology, this school was working toward a cloud computing environment so
0 162 SCI!OOIS &30 Cl!arter SCIIOOIS -400 MS students that all data, software, a11d supporl sysler11s would reside or 1l11e li1le111ell all1er ll1a1·1 on individual computers and
co
'<
s· -4,555 teachers -23 teachers servers in the building. This school also had a robust learning management system to support their assessment
m 35% White, 29% African-American, 25% are Hispanic, 7% system, teacher planning, and communication needs. A technical staff of three people manage these systems.
Q_
c Multi-racial, 2% Asian, <1% American Indian/Alaskan Native
()
~
47% FRP
a·
::J Maryland Magnet High School At the time of this study, 14 laptop carts (all PCs) were distributed to departments in this high school, as well as
Urban District -1 090 students document cameras, interactive whiteboards, and content-specific technology in the business, technical, and sci-
& -103,180 students -89 teachers ence classrooms. All teachers had laptops, and digital video cameras, MP3 players, and class sets of clickers were
c 174 schools 54% African American, 38% White, 5% Hispanic, 1% American available for checkout. This school also had a $3 million Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) similar to the Applied
3
<D -8850 teachers Indian, 1% Asian, 1% Multiracial Physics Lab at John Hopkins University. Technical support was arranged through the school library/media center
.j:::..
Q) 61% FRP and supported by the district. There was one technology integration specialist as well as a three-person Technol-
z ogy Education Department and two-person Interactive Media Department.
c
3 Michigan Public Schools At the time of this study, the middle and high school buildings were wireless, and every student in grades 6-12
0"
~ Urban District -350 HS & -315 MS students had an e-mail address to use with their own personal or school mobile device. In addition to the BYOD plan at the
-1 ,700 students -24 teachers high school, the sixth grade began a 1:1 netbook initiative in fall 2010, and seventh grade teachers had access
5 schools 61% Hispanic, 20% White, 17% Black, <1% Asia/Pacific to carts of netbooks to prepare their students for a 1:1 rollout in fall 2011. To save money and paper, students ·
-113 teachers Islander, and teachers use free tools like Google Docs to complete and submit assignments to their teachers. The district
<1% American Indian/Alaskan Native also purchased Scholastic's Read 180 and System 44 programs with federal school improvement grants for low-
-86% FRP performing schools. A team of five (technology integration specialist, network administrator, library/media special-
ist, technical and AV support, and the director of technology) provided both technical and instructional support.
 Minnesota Public Schools At the time of this study, 70 interactive whiteboards were spread across this small district, including in all AP
Suburban District - 1200 HS students classrooms at the high school. There were two PC labs at the high school, 64 older Macs in the common areas
-3,766 students - 75 HS teachers in the new middle school, plus 10 class-size and three smaller labs at the middle and high school with dual-boot
5 schools 65% White, 18% Hispanic, 11% Black, 5% Asian/Pacific Macs. All middle and high school teachers had Macs with dual boot capabilities, and all other teachers in the
-258 teachers Islander, 1% Native American district had laptops or desktops. There was video conferencing equipment at each school, and the administrators
35% FRP had iPads. Technical support was provided by just two people, and one position was vacant. The district belonged
Ci to Minnesota TIES, which also provided technical support, PO, and several kinds of software for data management
E
3 of all types.
CD
_.,.
(J) North Carolina Public Schools At the time of this study, all students in grades 3-12 had their own Mac laptop. The K-2 classrooms had carts of
z
c Small Town District -1545 HS students, -900 MS students, -700 intermediate laptops or iPads, and interactive whiteboards were located in each elementary classroom. All teachers had laptops.
3 -5000 students students, and three elementary schools with -600 students The district's technical staff of five managed the district's wireless network, 20 servers, and the learning manage-
0"
g; 8 schools 72% Caucasian, 15% African American, 7 % Hispanic, 3% ment system (Angel). A help desk person and an instructional Tech Facilitator were located in each school. The
-256 teachers Multiracial, 2% Asian/Pacific Islander high school offered a help desk elective, and these students provided additional technical support at their school
40% FRP and other schools in the district.
L
0
c
3 Virginia Rural Public Middle School At the time of this study, this middle school had three-and-a-half computer labs with PCs, plus two laptop carts,
Q2_
Diverse District -400 students two iPod touch carts, and several sets of clickers. Interactive whiteboards were in all seventh and eighth grade
9, -13,000 students -32 teachers classrooms. Every sixth grader had a new laptop for their 1:1 initiative, and in 2011-12, the entire school went
JJ
CD 29 schools 77% White, 14% African American, 6% Hispanic, 3% Asian- 1:1 with netbooks. All teachers had laptops and iPads. The school was wireless, and teachers were using a variety
(j)
CD -1 ,200 teachers Pacific Islander of Web 2.0 tools ranging from Moodie to Wardle, as well as programs like Rosetta Stone and Discovery Education.
m
0::::r 40% FRP* Technical support was provided by two specialists housed in this school but responsible for tech support at five
0 other schools each. The library/ media coordinator also provided some minor technical assistance, as did some
::J tech-savvy teachers.
~
0
::::r Washington Public Junior High School At the time of this study, this junior high school had 171 desktop PCs available in four labs and classrooms, a
::J Suburban District -486 students cart of netbooks for checkout, and 180 netbooks for the seventh grade 1:1 initiative. Interactive whiteboards and
0
0
CD
-25,000 students -38 teachers projection systems had been installed in every classroom for several years. Teachers all had computers, and they c
(j)
'< 51 schools 65% White, 16% Asian/Pacific Islander, 14% Hispanic, regularly used a variety of software programs and Web 2.0 tools. Although a challenge, this 40-year old building s·
::J CD
-1600 teachers 3% African American was wireless. In 2012-13, netbooks were distributed to every student for school and home use. Technical support
~
m
o_ 25% FRP* was provided by the district through a ticket system, although the library/media coordinator provided some minor
c
0 technical assistance or loaners. CD
~ 3
(j)
6"
::J -1
::::r
s·
A"
(I) s·
01 CD
Levin & Schrum

Table 2. Numbers of Interviews, Observations, Focus Groups, and Person Hours

States Interviews Focus Groups Observations Person Hours
California 15 2 13 64

Colorado 13 2 12 46

Maryland 18 10 50

Michigan 13 3 13 48

Minnesota 17 10 36

North Carolina 43 14 57 208

Virginia 18 3 20 140
Washington 13 4 18 70

TOTALS 150 30 153 662

for commonalities and to make connections across sites (Maxwell, 2013).

We wrote individual case studies at the end of the data collection phase and
compiled a series oflessons learned for each case (Levin & Schrum, 2012).
Member checking included sending individual case studies to the appropri-
ate school and district leaders for their review (Creswell, 2013, Yin, 2008).
Finally, we undertook a cross-case analysis to analyze and synthesize
common findings and lessons learned across the schools/ districts we stud-
ied. Our goal for the cross-case analysis was to compile, organize, and share
what we learned from the schools and districts we studied rather than to re-
duce the data to a few common patterns or themes. We also used the lessons
learned from each case to do a secondary level of data analysis by counting
and categorizing so that we could report which lessons learned were repre-
sented in all eight cases, in the majority of the cases (six or seven of the eight
cases), or in most of the cases (four or five of the eight cases). Throughout
our analysis, we used the method of constant comparative analysis (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985; Merriam. 2009) to analyze data both within each case and the
across all eight cases, knowing that from a systems-thinking perspective, we
could pause the system only temporarily to describe what we learned.

Findings
As a result of completing the cross-case analysis, we recognized the com-
plexity and interdependence of our findings and concluded that the leaders
of these award-winning schools and districts were most likely described as
exemplary because they focused on and had attended to (nearly) simultane-
ously the following eight pieces of the puzzle required for successful technol-
ogy integration: (a) vision, (b) leadership, (c) school culture, (d) technology
planning and support, (e) professional development, (f) curriculum and
instructional practices, (g) funding, and (h) partnerships. That is, to success-
fully leverage technology for school improvement, we learned the impor-
tance of consciously focusing comprehensively on more than just planning
for and supporting technology integration, and more than just having a
vision and applying the principles of distributed leadership. We also realized

36 I Journal of Research or Technology in Education I Volume 46 Number I

 Using Systems Thinking

that providing ongoing, high -quality professional development was crucial,

and that purposefully revising curriculum and moving away from tradi-
tional, teacher-directed tasks toward more 21st century, student-centered
instructional practices were critical pieces of the puzzle. Further, we learned
that in addition to these leaders working conscientiously to improve school
culture and addressing funding issues, they also partnered with parents,
families, and the community. Developing partnerships with the community
also included collaborating with nearby colleges, universities, businesses,
and industries. All these pieces of the puzzle had to be put together before
the picture was complete and they were successful in their efforts to improve
their school(s).
Next, we share some of the many specific lessons we learned that together
reveal the complex and interdependent nature of what happened when
technology was used to improve the schools and districts we studied. To do
this, we have to pause the system to talk about each of its parts, but it must
be remembered that all of these parts work together as components of a
larger system, each of which has to be addressed (nearly) simultaneously
for school improvement to happen and be sustained. We discovered that
attending to only some parts of the system is not enough to make any real or
sustainable change happen. Further, we realize that there may be additional
pieces to the puzzle that we did not uncover in our research, or that may be
called by other names. Nevertheless, this is what we learned, and as they are
presented, we encourage readers to remember that all of these are essential
for sustained progress toward the ultimate goal of school improvement.

Vision
Teachers told us that it is important that their leaders communicate a clearly
articulated vision for why technology is important to improving their school
and a plan for how this is going to happen. Teachers also told us they felt
that once a vision is clear, then their leadership has to "walk the walk" and
not just "talk the talk;' be passionate about the vision, and pursue it relent-
lessly. For example, teachers and other administrators in North Carolina
described their superintendent in the following terms: "a visionary leader:'
"strategic thinker;' "motivational;' "a big-picture person;' "like a coach;' "a
master at fundraising;' "straightforward;' "goal oriented;' "lets you know
where you stand;' "gathers information;' and "makes informed decisions:'
These are examples of the kinds of leadership practices of exemplary, award-
winning district leaders in this study that others might emulate.
At the school level, the principal of a large STEM (science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and mathematics) magnet high school in Maryland was
described by those who work for her in the following terms: "visionary;'
"makes things happen:' "is all about the students:' "advocates for us:' "reach-
es out into the community;' "brings in resources:' "sets expectations but
doesn't micromanage;' "encourages us to try new things;' "very supportive:'

Volume 46 Number 1 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I 37

Levin & Schrum

"approachable:' "values family life:' "believes in collaboration:' "empowers

us:' and "capitalizes on our strengths:' One teacher remarked, "I would go
anywhere she goes. She rocks; she has the ability to make her ideas happen:'
Another concurred: "She perseveres. She is all about the students:'
From district and building administrators themselves, we heard about
the importance of having a clearly articulated vision, getting their staff 100%
on board, testing every new idea against the vision, and sticking to their
core values. Most school and district leaders also talked explicitly about the
importance of being forward thinking and planning several years down the
road because they understood that systemic change takes time and buy-
in from everyone. They also talked about working tirelessly to fulfill their
school and district visions but realized the importance of incorporating
everyone's ideas when establishing specific goals. They meant using ideas
from all their constituents-teachers, students, parents, and community
members-because this helped them see the systemic nature of trying to
realize any vision. For these leaders, taking a systems approach involved set-
ting goals and objectives, analyzing resources, devising a plan of action, and
continuously evaluating and modifying their technology initiatives.

Distributed Leadership
When talking about leadership style, nearly every school and district leader
we interviewed (in seven out of eight sites) talked explicitly about believ-
ing in and practicing distributed leadership (Spillane, 2005; Spillane et al.,
2007). They talked about encouraging people to find their niches and lead
from their strengths, working as a team, building teams, and being sure their
leadership team was fully on board. The majority of leaders also talked about
leading by example, with passion, and focus; the importance of planning;
advocating for teachers and schools to get the needed resources; being open
and transparent about new initiatives and having no hidden agendas; engag-
ing the community in planning changes/initiatives; and being willing to try
new things. The majority of leaders also valued being able to share ideas
across schools in their districts, regions, and states and connecting with
other school leaders who think outside the box. For example, one district
leader in Virginia shared the following:

I've learned deep change does not happen overnight. It can't be mandat-
ed.... That systemic change means you have to build the capacity of the
organization to sustain it and to move it beyond just the early adopters,
and that systemic change takes an up and down the organization, vertical
and horizontal level of distributed leadership support, [and] that it can't
be about any one person.... I try to continue focusing on systemic change,
building capacity, distributed leadership, making sure that we're build-
ing that ownership vertically and horizontally across the organization ....
(personal communication, 2011)

38 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I Volume 46 Number I

 Using Systems Thinking

Other lessons we learned from these leaders had to do with valuing

relationships and supporting teachers, especially early adopters, which the
majority mentioned. The majority ofleaders also talked about the impor-
tance of knowing every student and building relatbnships with students,
which was not restricted to leaders of small schools or districts. In fact, as
we discuss next, we noted that the culture of the schools we visited was very
student centered, which was another lesson we learned in these technology-
rich sites we studied.

School Culture
While the majority of teachers and leaders we talked with value positive
student relationships, every school and district leader also talked to us about
the importance of establishing high expectations regarding the use of tech-
nology. They expected everyone to plunge in. Student interest was high at
every school, so these conversations were about teachers.
To support teachers as they learned to integrate technology and use it as
a tool for school improvement, every leader at both the school and district
level recognized that technology use would entail some trial and error. In
fact, all leaders supported a culture that said it was 0 K to make mistakes
when using technology, but you had to at least try. One high school principal
acknowledged that when they moved to a completely digital environment
with their 1: 1 laptop initiative, every teacher was a first-year teacher again,
but this was OK because they were all in it together. Another school leader
described his thinking about school culture in this way:
You have to build the team and collaborative environment where peo-
ple are working together. ... You have to have a culture where people are
working together with a common goaL It can't just be that we are in the
same place, but we have to have a common goal and we have to commu-
nicate about it. ...
The majority of the leaders in this study also talked about acknowledging
even small successes, celebrating every success on a regular basis, and ac-
knowledging each person's contributions, which is exactly what we observed
about the culture in the schools we studied. The majority of the school
leaders in this study also told their teachers that every lesson did not have
to include a technology component, that they should use technology where
it made sense in their lessons, and that while they expected teachers to use
technology, they were not going to mandate a certain number of technology-
driven lessons.
However, the biggest cultural difference we observed was in schools with
3 or more years of experience with ubiquitous technology. By ubiquitous
technology, we mean that every student had a school-provided laptop that
he or she could take home and use 24/7 throughout the school year, and/ or a
school that allowed students to bring and use their own personal computing

Volume 46 Number 1 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I 39

Levin & Schrum

devices at schooL In these schools, the culture included students tracking their
own progress using data provided tl:rough the school's learning management
system (LMS). Furthermore, teachers in these schools had created common
assessments across disciflines and grade levels, which is what students were
tracking. We note this be!:ause embracing data-driven decision making is a
hallmark of school improvement, and in these schools a culture of self-assess-
ment was well established and extended beyond just teachers and administra-
tors tracking student data to students tracking their own data.
Another aspect of school culture, found especially in places with 3 or
more years of experience with ubiquitous technology, were schoolwide ex-
pectations and trust that students would be good digital citizens. One school
leader described the results of this kind of positive, student -centered culture
that corresponded to what we observed:
The longer they have been here they come to own the school, or take
ownership of the process here. They begin to have a certain pride because
we've been trusting tl:.em all this time, and they feel an obligation to be
trustworthy.

Technology Planning, Infrastructure, and Support

Many of the lessons we learned about how school and district leaders handled
planning for technology ::ntegration came from interviewing school and
district technology staff. -we also noted that all but one small school had
increased the number of people providing both technical and instructional
support for technology over the years. Nevertheless, the number of people
providing technical supp::>rt varied (see Table 1, pp. 34-35), but in all cases
there were teams of people working together on technology planning and
support. We also found that teachers found it ideal to have tech support on
site at each school and tech facilitators who can do professional development
and work directly with teachers. If that was not possible, then having a quick-
response team at the district level was the next best thing. We also observed
students running the help desk in a few high schools and at the other schools
in one small district. At these schools, the help desk was an elective course led
by an interested teacher, and it made tech support readily accessible for all.
In all cases, both school and district leaders emphasized the importance
of having the right people in place doing the right jobs. This was especially
true with regard to having a chief technology leader at the district level
who understood curriculum and instruction as well as the technical side of
things, not just one or the other. We also learned from technical staff that
they would like to be more involvec in the educational uses of techcology
in addition to providing technical support. They told us they appreciated
school and district leaders who included them in planning based on data,
including data they can provide, leadership that is intentional and transpar-
ent with every decision, and leaders without any hidden agendas.

40 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I Volume 46 Number I

 Using Systems Thinking

In places that had already implemented one-to-one (1:1) technology

initiatives successfully, we learned that getting parents on board early is
crucial for educating them about how to take care of the laptops that come
home. Further, in places with the longest history of ubiquitous technology
use, engaging parents and the community when planning new initiatives or
when making changes was a key factor in their success, as was partnering
with local universities, businesses, and industries. As one district leader with
a 1:1 program in grades 3-12 said:
Whether it was making sure that we engaged the community with
thoughtful dialog, whether we looked at the infrastructure with great de-
tail, teacher preparation, and planning, so the whole planning component,
down to deployment scheduling with minutiae, to dealing with discipline
issues .. So we looked at the whole spectrum of deployment implemen:a-
tion challenges and detailed that out.
Communication was also an important part of planning so that everyone
knew the reasons behind decisions made and how these connected to the
vision and goals for technology integration. Being flexible and able to over-
come and regroup when there were glitches or technical difficulties was also
a critical part of the planning process.

Professional Development
Planning how to support the integration of new technologies required seri-
ous, ongoing attention to professional development (PD) at every site. The
main lessons we learned were that PD is a necessity, that it has to be con-
tinuous, and that it has to be responsive to changing needs by differentiating
PD rather than having a one-size-fits-all model. We also learned that a lot
of technology PD can be accomplished using local expertise, and teachers
see this as a very effective model because it allows PD to be customized to
needs of the school. Further, due to budget constraints, most of the schools
and districts we studied had very limited funds for hiring outside people to
deliver technology PD, or for sending staff to outside training sessions or
conferences. Instead, most of these award-winning school leaders enlisted
their own teachers and other staff members to lead PD.
Professional development was offered during the school day, during
early-release days, and during the summer. We observed several examples
of how PD was accomplished during the school day. These included Tech
Thursdays, when teachers shared how they were using technology in their
classes; during grade-level or department meetings; through sharing and
modeling at whole-school staff meetings; by using videos about how to
use new tools; through demonstration lessons videotaped by the school's
instructional technology facilitator and placed on the school network; and
through lots of informal sharing among teachers who helped each other
when requested. Interestingly, in every school we visited, it was clear who

Volume 46 Number 1 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I 41

Levin & Schrum

the technology leaders were, whether they had a formal title or not, because
their names came up often as those people everyone else asked for help. In
one district, the teachers even started their own after-school user groups so
they could share and help each other. Members decided when and where to
meet and set their own agendas.
More formal PD offered after school, during early-release days, and in
the summer was often based on surveying the teachers about their needs
and wants, and then providing a menu of workshops from which they could
choose. Furthermore, the best PD we heard about was differentiated so that
there were offerings for novices, intermediates, and experts. We saw very
little PD delivered in large group settings, with the exception of introduc-
ing new tools at staff meetings. Rather, we observed PD delivered in small
groups; in one-on-one, just-in-time settings; during PLC meetings support-
ed by technology or curriculum facilitators; and through video that teachers
could access when it was convenient for them.

Curriculum and Instructional Practices

The instructional practices we observed indicated that the vast majority of
teachers in these schools were working hard to incorporate technology into
their lessons on a regular basis in ways that engaged the students and fit
logically into their curricula. Teachers told us they were designing lessons
and finding appropriate online materials, and then engaging in guiding,
facilitating, questioning, encouraging, and assessing their students' learn-.
ing during class time. We observed students who were focused and working
independently using a variety of technologies (e.g., laptops, iPods, iPads,
digital cameras, scanners, and numerous Web 2.0 tools). We also observed
more student talk and group work and much less teacher-directed instruc-
tion than in our previous work in schools that were not using technology for
school improvement.
We heard from teachers that one of the main things they liked about
students having laptops with access to the Internet was their ability to take
advantage of teachable moments and to capitalize on current events. For
example, we observed students following events related to the Japanese
earthquake and problems with their nuclear power plants, and in another
place students were following news related to the U.S. economic situation
and a plunging stock market in real time. Teachers told us they could make
their curriculum more relevant by making real-world connections to their
curriculum using local, national, and worldwide events. Other benefits
they talked about included students engaging in the kinds of tasks they will
encounter in college and in the workplace, such as doing online research,
evaluating the validity of several sources, synthesizing information, present-
ing it to others, working in groups, and writing often. They also loved being
able to individualize and differentiate their instruction, which they felt they
could do more easily using technology than they ever could without it. The

42 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I Volume 46 Number 1

 Using Systems Thinking

teachers we interviewed also saw the variety of ways students could show
what they were learning beyond paper and pencil testing.
We also observed teachers providing opportunities for students to be
creative and/ or innovative. Every time a teacher allowed students to choose
how they wanted to demonstrate what they had learned, beyond just mark-
ing answers on a test or writing an essay, the students had a chance to be
more creative. This might be as simple as offering students more choices for
how to practice a new skill, as one teacher said during a sixth grade math
class we observed: "Here are three activities to practice graphing in Edmodo,
and you can pick which one you want to do:' In another school, we observed
.videos that sixth grade students created about multiplying fractions. Both
the teacher and the students said their projects, which they call Math TV,
were amazing examples representing what they had learned. In this same
district, another teacher told us that creative uses of technology played a big
role in the success of one student in particular who was failing algebra and
had to repeat it. "The laptop initiative started;' she said, "and this student
became a different person. She made an iMovie about algebraic thinking,
which was terrific:'
Every school we studied used technology to assess students and to gather
and organize the data from multiple assessments. Some schools used tech-
nology for both formative and summative assessments, but all schools used
technology to help them examine their data. Further, once they collected
and analyzed the assessment data, they used technology to differentiate in-
struction during re-teaching and/ or to provide additional practice for those
who needed it.
We frequently observed and heard teachers talking about moving
away from teaching the standard curriculum in traditional ways (e.g.,
lectures or recitations, reading texts in class, independent seat work,
whole-class discussions) and toward teaching in more interactive ways.
They told us they changed the way they had been teaching because
computers were a catalyst for supporting 21st century skills, including
communication and collaboration, problem solving and critical thinking,
and innovation and creativity. In the 1: 1 schools with longer histories
(more than 3 years) of ubiquitous access to technology, we observed
students working on challenge-based learning projects (http:/ /ali.apple.
com/cbl!), which is Apple's version of problem-based learning (http:/ I
pbln.imsa.edu!) and similar to the project-based learning (http:/ /bie.org)
we saw in other schools. These instructional models offer a different way
to deliver the standard curriculum and engage students in exercising 21st
century skills as well as reading, researching, and writing. Such instruc-
tional models require students to make use of the Internet for informa-
tion gathering to develop creative solutions to real-world problems, and
include the use of a variety of tools for data analysis and presentation,
which easy access to technology made possible.

Volume 46 Number 1 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I 43

Levin & Schrum

Funding
The majority ofleaders we observed were very creative at finding new mon-
ies or redirecting annual funds for technology initiatives. For example, many
leaders told us about changing their policies about textbooks into a broader
instructional materials policy so they could fund technology-related pur-
chases. They also talked about using funds for new buildings or renovations
and their summer school funds for technology purchases. Many school lead,..
ers took advantage of a wide variety of fundraisers, directed rental income
from their building into their technology fund, and made arrangements
with local businesses to raise funds for technology purchases. In general,
they tried to think outside the box when it came to using what they had and
raising additional funds to support the technology aspect of their school
improvement plans. The main lessons we learned were that this is a never-
ending process and that leaders have to be entrepreneurial when it comes
to finding resources for starting up and sustaining technology initiatives.
However, the leadership in half the sites we studied realized that sustaining
1: 1 initiatives was going to be impossible, so they were moving toward the
bring-your-own-device (BYOD) model. Finally, most leaders we talked with
often linked funding and partnerships together. For example, every leader
talked about taking advantage of business and/or university partnerships
and seeking grants to help fund some of their technology initiatives.

Partnerships
When talking with us about partnerships, school and district leaders dis-
cussed developing relationships with parents as well as with nearby busi-
nesses or industry and institutions of higher education. They recognized that
involving and communicating early on with parents and families is a crucial
part of the planning process and even more important when students can
bring their own personal computing device to school or take home comput-
ers provided by the school. Because most parents didn't use a lot of comput-
er-based technology when they were going to school, this change in their
children's education requires that they are included throughout the planning
process, which every one of these award-winning school and district leaders
made sure to do. Clear communication was important when families were
asked to pay a part of the cost, either as insurance or as rent that ranged
from $50 to $150 each year, and the majority paid it.
Partnerships with nearby businesses, industries, colleges, or universi-
ties sometimes provided financial resources for the school(s) in the form
of grants or donations for special projects, but in many cases partnerships
also provided human resources and technical support. For example, all the
schools we visited involved parents as tutors, but some also brought in men-
tors from nearby businesses, industries, or universities who participated in
special projects and/or mentored students. Many schools today have busi-
ness partnerships, but in several places we visited, such partnerships were

44 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I Volume 46 Number 1

 Using Systems Thinking

the source of internships for students, collaborators on grant applications,

sponsorship for special projects or competitions, and locations for faculty
externships during the summer. They also offered expertise in the form of
membership on planning committees and advisory boards. In other places,
partnerships with nearby institutions of higher education provided oppor-
tunities for students to take college classes for credit, both onsite and at a
nearby campus, or allowed teachers to attend classes that led to advanced
certification in technology leadership.

Discussion
To summarize, we learned the necessity of having clearly articulated vision
and mission statements along with a strategic plan that is tightly coupled to
the vision/mission and transparent to all stakeholders. We learned about the
importance of testing every new idea against the vision. We also learned that
planning is crucial, including planning how to support the technology itself
so that teachers do not have to struggle with techniCal issues and lose valu-
able instructional time. We also found that school culture and climate must
be attended to purposefully throughout the process of integrating technol-
ogy into school(s). We base this conclusion on our research, but MacNeil,
Prater, and Busch (2009) also noted that school culture and school climate
can be influenced by the leadership and, in turn, can also mediate what lead-
ers are able to accomplish by supporting or limiting what they are able to
do on their own. Further, MacNeil et al. (2009) found that when schools fail
to address the importance of culture and climate, they fail to improve their
students' achievement, which is a goal the schools and districts in this study
shared.
We also learned that the integration of technology in schools can change
how teachers teach their curriculum, which others have also observed (e.g.,
Anthony, 2012; Anderson & Dexter 2005; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer,
1997), but only if ongoing professional development is provided (Zhao &
Frank, 2003). In addition, where schools were moving to fully 1:1 environ-
ments-including allowing secondary students to experience the ((college
model" (bringing and using their personal computing devices at school and
in a few cases flipping their classrooms) or providing everyone with iPads,
iPods, laptops, or netbooks-we found that changes in teaching practices
appeared to be speeded up and inevitable, unless there were technical
problems that could not be resolved quickly. Providing ongoing profes-
sional development is also extremely important because the technology tools
change constantly. Finally, we learned many lessons about the importance
of being entrepreneurial about funding technology initiatives and the value
of partnerships that go beyond providing opportunities that include other
nonmonetary but very tangible outcomes for teachers and students.
Because of the diversity of the eight schools and districts we studied, we
believe there are numerous lessons learned from our research that we hope

Volume 46 Number 1 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I 45

 Levin & Schrum

other schools and districts can heed, borrow, adapt, or try. However, as a
result of analyzing what was going on in the schools and districts in this
· study from a systems-thinking approach, we found that if a school failed to
attend to any one of the factors described above wholeheartedly, its school
improvement efforts faltered or did not reach their full potential. In other
words, schools had to have all the pieces of the puzzle in place and atte:J.d to
them (nearly) simultaneously to sustain school improvement.
This was reinforced whe:J. we visited one of the schools we studied 2..-:)0ut
18 months after our initial visit and found its original progress wearing away,
low student and faculty morale, and only pockets of change in instructional
practices. In our view, this school was going backward instead of forward
with its school reform initi.:tives because ofleadership changes, numer::>us
technical problems that were not fixed quickly, eroding attention to school
culture, and failure to provide ongoing professional development.
Finally, getting out of the hardware business as soon as possible and
allowing students to use their own personal computing devices is anoth-
er lesson that the leadership learned in half the schools we visited. \Vhat
they told us was that fund:ng 1:1 technology for every student was not
sustainable, and they needed to put their limited funds into infrastruc-
ture and cloud computing because that meant they would have to rent or
loan computers only to those students who could not afford their own.
They believed this would be a more sustainable model for 1:1 comr·.1ting
for them.

Implications for Practice

This study has implications for schools and districts considering or
already using technology as part of their school improvement plan, and
for those assisting schools and districts with technology integration or
preparing the next generation of teachers. All the lessons we learned,
especially about taking a systems approach to leveraging technology
for school improvement, are ignored at one's peril (and the peril of the
implementation). Therefore, as a result of our research, we offer a S<t
of questions (see Table 3) that school and district leaders, researchers,
and consultants can use for self-analysis or self-study to determine if all
pieces of the puzzle are in :;:>lace to use technology successfully as a ~ever
for school improvement. Eowever, we caution that, while these questions
address pieces of the puzzle we uncovered in our research, others should
be on the lookout for additional questions and other important aspects
of the puzzle that may r.eed to be put in place and considered systemati-
cally, based on individual contexts and challenges. For even though you
may have to pause the system to evaluate and address each aspect of it,
not addressing every piece of the puzzle simultaneously may produce
unintended outcomes and will certainly slow down efforts for school
improvement.

46 I Journal of Research 01 Technology in Edt...cation I Volume 46 Number 1

 Using Systems Thinking

Table 3. Questions for Self-Assessment: Are All the Pieces of the Puzzle in Pace?
Vision Is there a clear vision for what, why, and how technology will be used?
Have all stakeholders been involved in developing this vision?
Is the vision followed by the development of a mission statement and strategic planning?
Is every new idea, program, and initiative tested against its fit with the established vision?

Leadership Do all stakeholders understand and practicE the principles of distributed leadership?
Is systems thinking a part of how the leader:;hip thinks about leading change?
Are the right people in place to execute the Jision, mission, and strategic plan?
Are systems in place for ongoing evaluation of the strategic plan?

Technology Planning, Infra-
structure, and Support
Is infrastructure (pipes and wires) in place tc support plans for new technology?
Is enough technical support onsite to support teachers and students using new technology?
Have school policies and procedures been ooveloped/revised to support new technology?
Does the technical leadership at the district eve! understand curriculum and instruction as well
as the technical issues?

School Culture Is addressing and improving school culture and climate a major part of the strategic plan?
Are all teachers, students, and parents on board with the goals and purposes for integrating new
technology?
Is there a focus on and high expectations for both students and teachers?
Are systems in place to recognize and celeb-ate successes and repair any failures?

Professional Development
Have teachers received PD prior to each new technology initiative?
Is ongoing PD available to teachers that is fccused on integrating technology into their content
areas?
Is the PD differentiated by skill level, by intemst, and by how and when it is offered?
Is modeling and sharing among a school's s~aff and teachers a part of the culture of the school?

Curriculum and
Instructional Practices
Are teachers expected to try new instructiom.l practices, use technology for formative assess-
ment as well as for learning, and take risks without fear of reprisal?
Has the curriculum been revised to focus on 21st century knowledge and skills, including
problem solving and critical thinking, commtnication and collaboration, and creativity and
innovation?
Have instructional practices become more active, student centered, problem or project based,
connected to the real world, and relevant to 3tudents' futures?
Are teachers able to differentiate their instruction and their assessments using technology?

Funding Is the funding in place to support new technology, upgrade and maintain the infrastructure, and
sustain technical needs over time?
Is the leadership able to think outside the bl)>( and be entrepreneurial to finance technology
initiatives?
Have old policies been changed or new policies been enacted to address ongoing funding
needs?
Have potential cost savings been factored in~o estimating the value of investment in new
technology? Has a plan for BYOD been cons:dered?

Partnerships Are parents, families, and other members ofihe school/district involved in strategic planning for
technology initiatives?
Is communication ongoing so that all constituents are continuously updated regarding the
progress of technology initiatives?
Are partnerships with business, industry, anc institutions of higher education in place?
Are partnerships considered for their potential assistance beyond just financial or technical
support?

Volume 46 Number 1 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I 47

Levin & Schrum

Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Future Research

As with all research, there are limitations to this study and questions that
still need answering. First, we know that these eight cases are not the only
examples of schools and districts where the leadership has used technology
successfully as a key element in school improvement. Much could be learned
from studying other exemplary cases to determine if our findings about the
importance of distributed leadership and systems thinking are visible, and
to determine if other factors may need to be addressed (e.g., Anthony, 2012;
Vanderlinde et al., 2012). Another limitation is the methodology used and
the amount of time we were able to spend in each location. It would be ideal
to do an ethnography of each site to gain a deeper, fuller picture of every-
thing that happens in places where leaders have used technology successfully
to improve their schools. Taking a historical perspective on how a school or
district successfully employed technology for school improvement over time
is also ideal; therefore, we recommend learning about the stories of places
with long histories of ubiquitous technology use.
Another limitation is our own stance as researchers whose goal was to
provide useful information by offering examples that real schools and districts
used to leverage the power of technology to engage, encourage, and support new
ways of teaching and learning. We believe we achieved our goal, but this raises
other questions for future research. If instructional practices change and become
more constructivist in places with a longer history of ubiquitous technology, as
they appeared to do in our research, then how are these places faring with the
demands of high-stakes testing? How are schools using technology successfully
to support teachers using the new Common Core State Standards? And how
do school and district leaders find a balance in helping teachers use technology
to teach 21st century skills while ensuring their students learn the basic skills
assessed by standardized tests? Given the accountability pressures schools face,
these and other questions need further research so that all school and district
leaders will feel confident about taking the steps the leaders of these sites did to
successfully leverage technology for school improvement.

Author Notes
Barbara B. Levin is a professor in the Department of Teacher Education and Higher Educa-
tion and director of the Teachers Academy at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Her research interests include teacher beliefs, the development of teacher thinking, technology
integration, and constructivist-based pedagogies, such as problem-based learning and case-based
learning. Please address correspondence regarding this article to Dr. Barbara B. Levin, School of
Education, 1300 Spring Garden Street, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC
27402-6170. Email: bblevin@uncg.edu

Lynne Schrum is dean of the College of Education and Human Services at West Virginia
University. Her research interests focus on appropriate uses of technology, preparing teachers
for the 21>1 century, and effective and successful online teaching and learning. She recently
finished 10 years as editor of the Journal of Research on Technology in Education (JRTE)
(2002-2012) and is a past-president of ISTE.

48 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I Volume 46 Number 1

 Using Systems Thinking

References
Adamy, P., & Heinecke, W. (2005). The influence of organizational culture on technology
integration in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13,233-255.
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). Technology leadership: Its inciC.ence and impact.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 41,49-82.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the
conceptualization, development, and assessment ofiCT-TPCK: Advances in technology
and pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education, 52, 154-168.
Anthony, A. B. (2012). Activity theory as a framework for investigating district-classroom
system interactions and their influences on technology integration. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 44, 335-356.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches
(3'd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries i:1to learning, teaching, and
research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Te-:.hnology in Education,
42,255-284.
Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring
and communities of practice. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 175-190.
Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2012). Leading technology-rich schools: Award-winning models for
success. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on
student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12, 73-84.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3'd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3'd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moos, L., & Johansson, 0. (2009). The international successful schoo~ principals' project:
Success sustained? Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 765-780.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3'd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publication.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating
student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B. Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools
that learn. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Spillane, J.P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 143-150.
Spillane, J.P., Camburn, E. M., & Pareja, A. S. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the
school principal's workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), ~03-125.
Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
Stuart, L. H., Mills, A.M., & Remus, U. (2009). School leaders, ICT competence and
championing innovations. Computers & Education, 53, 733-741.
Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Dexter, S. (2012). ICT planning in a context of curriculum
reform: Disentanglements ofiCT policy domains an artifacts. Computers & Education, 58,
1339-1350.
Williams, P. (2008). Leading schools in the digital age: A clash of cultures. School Leadership
and Management, 28(3), 213-228.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop computer
school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American
Educational Re~earch Journal, 39, 165-205.

Volume 46 Number 1 I Journal of Research or Techrology in Education I 49

Levin & Schrum

Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (41hed.). Los Angeles: Sage
Publication.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An
ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.
doi: 10.3102/00028312040004807

Manuscript received March 27, 2012 I initial decision March 1, 2013 I Revised manuscript accepted March 18, 2013

Appendix
Interview, Focus Group, and Observation Questions

For Superintendents, Principals, and Assistant Principals

• What do you want to tell me about the context of your school/district?
• What are three things you are most proud of?
• What is your philosophy of leadership?
• What are some of the major problems and/or goals that have been identified for school improvement?
• What solutions have you tried and found to be successful for school improvement?
• What solutions have you tried and found to be less successful for school improvement?
• What are the takeaways from these efforts?
• What do you consider to be key factors/measures of success?
• When did technology begin to play a big role in your school/district?
• Can you tell me about the history and the key players involved?
• What was the original impetus for your technology initiative?
• How does the decision-making process work for new initiatives (e.g., 1:1 laptops)?
• How is your technology initiative funded?
• What do you consider to be your measures of success with regard to using technology as a lever
for school improvement?
• Do you have any future plans?
• Have you made any connections (to universities or other affiliated groups) or to other supports
(from grants, for example) to help with technology integration/implementation?
• Anything else you want to share?

Additional Questions for Principals and Assistant Principals

What is the total number of computing devices (desktops, laptops, netbooks, tablets, smart-
phones, iPads, etc.) being used in your classrooms?
Estimate the ratio of computing devices to students.
Can students take their laptops home?
What kinds of PO are available to teachers/staff at your school? Technology PO?
What kinds of changes are you seeing in teaching practices and outcomes?
What kinds of changes are you seeing in students' learning practices and outcomes?
How frequently do you think students are using computing devices in their classes during a
typical week?

For District or School Tech Coordinators

• When did technology begin to play a big role in your school/district?
• Can you tell me about the history q.nd the key players involved?
• What was the original impetus for your technology initiative?
• How is you technology initiative funded?

50 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I Volume 46 Number 1

 Using Systems Thinking

• How does the decision-making process work for new initiatives (e.g., 1:1 laptops)?
• What do you consider to be your measures of success with regard to using technology as a lever
for school improvement?
• What percent of the technology budget is allocated for teacher PO vs. hardware and software vs.
infrastructure needs?
• What is the replacement cycle? How is it funded?
• What is the total number of computing devices (desktops, laptops, netbooks, tablets, smart-
phones, iPads, etc.) being used in your classrooms?
• Estimate the ratio of computing devices to students.
• Can students take their laptops home?
• How frequently do you think students are using computing devices in their classes during a
typical week?
• How does the decision-making process work for new initiatives (e.g., 1:1 laptops or interactive
white boards)?
• How do teachers/staff get tech PO in this school/district?
• Do administrators participate in the tech PO?
• Anything else you want to share?

For Interviews or Focus Groups with Department Chairs/Lead Teachers/

Classroom Teachers
• Why do you think your school was selected to be part of a study of innovative/award-winning
schools that have used technology effectively as an integral part of improving their schools?
• What three things are you most proud of?
• What do you know about you leader's (superintendent, principal/head, assistant principal) philoso-
phy? What do you think about it?
• When did technology begin to play a big role in your school's success?
• Can you tell me about the history and the key players involved?
• What kinds of PO are available to teachers/staff at your school? Technology PO?
• What kinds of changes, if any, are you seeing in teaching practices and outcomes?
• What kinds of changes, if any, are you seeing in students' learning practices and outcomes?
• What factors do you think make this school work well?
• What do you think still needs work or continues to be challenging?
• How would you feel if all your technology was taken away? What would you do?
• In the future, how do you see technology being used to enhance this school and keep its reputa-
tion as an innovative/award-winning school?
• Anything else you want to share?

Volume 46 Number 1 I Journal of Research on Technology in Education I 51