Without evidence or empirical data to support this, I believe one reason for a lack of involvement and commitment from segments of faculty is directly related to a misunderstanding of what effective use of technology really means. Too many of our colleagues still equate technology with computers in classrooms, and have yet to move beyond this thinking. Moss Kanter clearly warns, "Most people still imagine that technology in schools means computers in classrooms -but, that is the least important, and often most counterproductive application of technology, fostering individual isolation" (p. 25).
In order to implement technology effectively, the principal must strive to include as many faculty as possible in the process. Think about other programs or innovations in our schools -cooperative learning strategies, site-based decision making, and the inclusion of special needs students, among others. No innovation or program has been successfully implemented without the involvement and commitment of a significant portion of faculty. I am not suggesting the implementation of technology is simple. But one or two teachers here and there, as powerful as these folks may be, will not result in the highest impact, most productive application of technology to improve teaching and learning. Insert any other significant idea or implication to this position.
We must be careful not to create "in-groups" and "out-groups" and avoid the temptation to be satisfied with a few teachers and staff members on board. The priority agenda for the principal as technology leader is to encourage and support wide-based involvement and commitment to technology use in our schools. OK, but be specific: How might one accomplish such a feat?
- 1378 reads
