JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW TEMPLATE

North American University

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

Name:__Gabriel Hernandez_______ Date: _9-18-17__________________

Cite the reviewed article in APA format:

Waxman, H., Boriack, A., Yuan-Hsuan, L., & 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):

Principal leadership has been found to be a prominent factor in integrating

technology in schools. Findings in this article suggests that principals should
establish and implement technology plans for their school and become
technology leaders in order to increase teachers' technology literacy, teaching
effectiveness, and increase student knowledge and use of technology in
classrooms to teacher discretion.

Purpose of the research:

The present study builds on the prior research and includes an open-ended,
cognitive interview question that allows for the examination of principals
perspectives and orientations toward technology. Furthermore, while other
studies have explored differences by type of school, the present study focuses
on principal characteristics such as years of experience and gender. There have
been relatively few studies that have examined the influence of gender and
experience on principals use of computers (Serhan, 2009). The present study
specifically examines the following two research 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?
 METHODOLOGY
What is the methodology for the research or approach used to understand the
issue? Provide information regarding the following:

A convenience sample of 310 principals from a large metropolitan area in

the southwest region of the United States responded to a cognitive
interview questionnaire that asked principals about their perceptions
regarding the importance of technology for their schools. The sample
consisted of 126 males and 184 females. 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.

Procedure:
The questionnaire was administered by graduate students in the
Educational Leadership program at a major, urban doctoral-granting
university located in the south central region of the U.S. As part of the
principals certification course requirements, students were trained on
how to administer the instrument and required to interview a specific
number of current public school principals. The survey instrument was
designed specifically for this purpose and included both qualitative and
quantitative questions.

Data Collection Methods/Data Source:

As previously discussed, principals cognitions and perceptions have
been found to be valid and reliable and the use of cognitive interviewing
further improves the validity of the data (Desimonte & Le Floch, 2004). For
this study, only the data from the interviews was used. The interview
questions were Has technology had an impact in your school? and If
so, in what specific ways has it made a difference?

Data Analysis:
Analysis of the interview data began with a process of data reduction. The
participants responses were read several times to become familiar with
the data. The data was then coded into meaningful categories. Once the
categories were established, another researcher independently coded a
10% sample of responses to determine the consistency of the coding. The
inter-coder reliability results revealed a high level of agreement (Cohens
kappa = .94).
 RESULTS

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

The principals responses for the major functions of technology were grouped
into six categories. About one-third (35%) of the principals indicated that
technology was used as a primary communication tool. Over one-quarter (28%)
of principals responded that technology was integrated in teachers classroom
instruction. The third category was using technology for data sharing and
management (14%). Category four was using technology as a resource to find
information (15%). Technology was also used for administrative tasks, such as
taking attendance (10%). Finally, technology was used for student learning
(10%).

When examining the major functions of technology by gender, the highest

percentage of males and females discussed using technology for
communication (33% and 36%, respectively). The next highest percentage of
males and females felt that technology was used for instruction (33% and 25%,
respectively).

Finally, principals perceptions of the major functions of technology were

examined by years of experience: 0-3 years, 4-7 years, 8-11 years, 12-15 years,
and more than 15 years. The two major functions of technology with the highest
percentage were 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):
Without a doubt, technology is increasing and its demand is high. This influence
cannot be ignored, especially for young children who are easily attracted to
such innovations. However, I have come to realize that as a college student I
have now, more than ever, started to rely more and more on technology. This
comes true especially for any presentation type or school work I am assigned.
Nevertheless, I do not expect this reliability to diminish going into teaching or
administrating in education. In fact, I aim to be one of the principals who views
instruction being a major function of technology for children (which was not the
major function of technology in principals with 0-11 years of experience). I am
not saying that it is not an important source for communication purposes, but I
would like to agree with the end goal being technology and its advances
serving children more in the area of instruction. To further explain, I can
sympathize with the principal who responded technology used for instruction
could reteach particular learning objectives stemming from the classroom. It
is no doubt technology has made communication among each other more
efficiently but the real question stands on how we, as educators, bring this
efficiency to students in classrooms through instruction.
 REFLECTIONS
Students Reflections (changes to your understanding; implications for your
school/work):

Before reading the results and outcomes from this research study, I hoped that
because the principals interviewed were from an approximate similar area, that
each would generally have the same thoughts or feelings of technology and its
functions in schools. That was not the case, but most principals had similar
views of the 6 different functions analyzed in this research. This information is
valuable as perceptions usually give a certain amount of insight on attitudes and
how they (principals) feel about the use of technology in their schools. For
example, if I were to head a school, I would encourage the use of technology in
classrooms, that is personal phone usage, which would be left for teacher
discretion. However, if teacher/admin observing teacher feels like it is causing
students more harm for the use of phones in classrooms, then that method
would be discontinued. I believe before we push for technology in schools,
administration needs to layout boundaries for such use in a way that does not
limit the students learning potential. You do not want to discourage the use of
technology but teachers should also understand technology is a tool for
learning and not their replacement or answer for effective teaching.