-

Öz

The purpose of the study is to examine school administrators’ accounts of barriers and constraints encountered during ICT integration. Although 12 narrative summaries were developed for this qualitative study, in this article, the researchers focused on the stories of three school administrators, who work at socio-economically low schools. Four themes emerged from these interviews; financing and establishing ICT infrastructure, maintenance of ICT, teachers’ professional development and technology leadership. The results of this study are expected to provide ICT coordinators and school administrators with rich descriptions and experiences when dealing with the similar problems of ICT integration.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ICT integration, success stories, qualitative research, school administrators

School Administrators Turning Dystopias into Utopias: Technology Stories From Low Socio-Economic Schools

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı okul yöneticilerinin BİT entegrasyonu sürecinde karşılaştıkları engeller ve kısıtlamaları incelemektir. Araştırma 12 okul yöneticisi ile yürütülmüştür. Bu nitel çalışmada ise sosyo-ekonomik düzeyi düşük olan okullarda görev yapmakta olan üç yöneticinin deneyimleri yansıtılmıştır. Bu görüşmelerden dört tema belirlenmiştir; BİT altyapısının finanse edilmesi ve kurulması, BİT’in bakım-onarımı, öğretmenlerin profesyonel gelişimi ve teknoloji liderliği. Çalışma sonuçlarının, benzer BİT entegrasyonu problemleri ile uğraşan BİT koordinatörleri ve okul yöneticileri için zengin betimlemeler ve deneyimler sağlaması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• BİT entegrasyonu, başarı hikayeleri, nitel araştırma, okul yöneticileri.

Kaynakça

1. Aşkar, P. & Usluel-Koçak, Y. (2003). Bilgisayarların benimsenme hızına ilişkin boylamsal bir çalışma: Üç okulun karşılaştırılması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 15-25.
2. Akkoyunlu, B. (2002). Educational technology in Turkey: Past, present and future. Education Media International, 39(2), 165-17
3. Aydın, A. (2010). Yaşadığımız dünya. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
4. Bakioğlu, A. & Hacıfazlıoğlu, Ö. (2008). Lecturers’ and students’ attitudes towards the use of technology in lectures: No taboos, more thinking. J.A. Kentel & A. Short, (eds.). Totems and taboos: Risk and relevance in research on teachers and teaching (pp. 155-171). Sense Pub: The Netherlands.
5. Bakioğlu, A., Hacıfazlıoğlu, Ö. & Özcan, K. (2010). Influence of trust in principals mentoring experiences at different career phases. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 245-258.
6. Balanskat, A., Blamire, R. & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT impact report: A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. European Schoolnet.
7. Bingimlas, K.A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.
8. Celep, C. (2004). Dönüşümsel liderlik. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

9. Ertmer, P.A. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
10. Flanagan, L. & Jacobsen,M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal, Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142.
11. Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E. & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
12. Hacıfazlıoğlu, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. & Dalgıç, G. (2010). Eğitim yöneticileri teknoloji liderliği standartlarına ilişkin eğitimcilerin görüşleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi. 64, 535-579.
13. Hew, K.F. & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research, Educational Technology Research & Development, 55, 223-252.
14. ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) (2009), National educational technology standards for administrators.
15. Lim, C.P. (2007). Effective integration of ICT in Singapore schools: Pedagogical and policy implications. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55, 83-116.
16. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub.
17. Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub.
18. Miles, M. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
19. Plante, J. & Beattie, D. (2004). Connectivity and ICT integration in Canadian elementary and secondary schools: First results from the information and communications technologies in schools survey, Ottawa: Minister of Industry.
20. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
21. Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp.449–460).New York: Springer.
22. Toran Hacıfazlıoğlu, Ö. (1998). Looking backward 2000-1887, men like gods and brave new world: Utopia, Anti utopia and Marxist criticism. Unpublished Master Thesis. Ankara University: Institute of Social Sciences.
23. Tondeur, J., Devosac, G., Van Houtteb, M., van Braaka, J. & Valckea, M. (2009). Understanding structural and cultural school characteristics in relation to educational change: the case of ICT integration. Educational Studies, 35(2), 2232
24. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (5. Basım). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.