Development and Initial Validation of Leadership for Technology Integration Scale in Schools

Abstract

The literature highlights the critical role of principals in fostering a digitally-enabled educational environment. In this sense, this study aims to develop and validate "The Leadership for Technology Integration Scale for School Principals (LETIS-SP)". The scale measures the principals’ technology integration leadership behaviors based on teachers’ perceptions. A thorough literature review was conducted and an item pool of 60 items were created. Following expert opinions and content validity ratios a draft scale with 18 items emerged. First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with a sample of 225 teachers. The EFA findings showed that the scale was uni-dimensional. Then, confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the uni-dimensional structure of the scale. In this step, 200 teachers participated in the study. Consequently, the findings showed that the scale included 18 items. Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency coefficient was .96 which was satisfactory. Based on these findings, it can be concluded the scale has adequate psychometric properties sought in the literature.

Keywords

• Leadership
• technology integration
• school principal
• teacher
• technology
• effective schools

References

1. Antonietti, C., Schmitz, M. L., Consoli, T., Cattaneo, A., Gonon, P., & Petko, D. (2023). Development and validation of the ICAP Technology Scale to measure how teachers integrate technology into learning activities. Computers & Education, 192, 104648.
2. Banoğlu, K. (2012). Eğitim yöneticilerinin teknoloji liderliği yeterlikleri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(3), 43-65.
3. Barton, E. A., & Dexter, S. (2020). Sources of teachers' self-efficacy for technology integration from formal, informal, and independent professional learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-4.
4. Berkovich, I., & Hassan, T. (2024). Principals’ digital instructional leadership during the pandemic: Impact on teachers’ intrinsic motivation and students’ learning. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 52(4), 934–954. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221113411
5. Bülbül, T., & Çuhadar, C. (2012). Okul yöneticilerinin teknoloji liderliği öz-yeterlik algıları ile bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerine yönelik kabulleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(23), 474-499.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
7. Byrom, E., and Bingham, M. (2001). Factors influencing the effective use of technology for teaching and learning: Lessons learned from the SEIR-TEC intensive site schools. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED471140 on 01.01.2025.
8. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.

9. Dawson, C., & Rakes, G. C. (2003). The influence of principals’ technology training on the integration of technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 29-49.
10. Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2020). What does technology integration research tell us about the leadership of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 17-36.
11. Dexter, S., Richardson, J. W., & Nash, J. B. (2016). A review of the empirical research and implications for leadership preparation. In M. D. Young, & G. M. Crow (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (pp. 202–228). Routledge.
12. Dinç, H., & Göksoy, S. (2020). Okul müdürlerinin teknoloji liderliği yeterlilikleri. International Journal on Lifelong Education and Leadership, 6(1), 20-35.
13. Durnalı, M. & Akbaşlı, S. (2020). Okul müdürleri teknolojik liderlik davranışlarının okulda bilgi yönetiminin gerçekleşme düzeyine etkisi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49(225), 23-54.
14. Durnalı, M. & Limon, İ. (Eds.). (2020). Enriching teaching and learning environments with contemporary technologies. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3383-3
15. Durnalı, M. (2013). The contributions of E‐School, a student ınformation management system, to the data process, environment, education, and economy of Turkey. In Proceedings of the International Academic Forum (IAFOR) Official Conference: The Third Asian Conference on Technology in the Classroom 2013, 170–84. Osaka, Japan: Ramada Hotel.
16. Durnalı, M. (2019a). Technological leadership behavior level of secondary schools principals according to teachers’ views. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 12(2), 401-430. https://doi: 10.30831/akukeg.449484.
17. Durnalı, M. (2022a). The development and validation of technological leadership behavior ınstrument for school principal. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 7(2), 210-221.
18. Durnalı, M. (2022b). Destroying barriers to critical thinking’ to surge the effect of self-leadership skills on electronic learning styles. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101130.
19. Durnalı, M. (Ed.). (2019b). Utilizing technology, knowledge, and smart systems in educational administration and leadership. IGI Global.
20. Durnalı, M., Orakcı, Ş., & Aktan, O. (2019). The smart learning potential of Turkey's Education System in the context of FATIH Project. In A. Darshan Singh, S. Raghunathan, E. Robeck, & B. Sharma (Eds.), Cases on Smart Learning Environments (pp. 227-243). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6136-1.ch013
21. Durnalı, M., Orakcı, Ş., & Çetin T. (2022). Distance education students’ acceptance of online learning systems, attitudes towards online learning and their self-directed learning skills. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2),1-19.
22. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., Akbaşlı, S., & Durnalı, M. (2018). Dijital teknolojilere erişim motivasyonu ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 8(4), 75-88, doi: 10.19126/suje.431126.
23. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
24. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (Third Edition). London: SAGE Press.
25. Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Watson, G. (2006, January). Measuring learning with ICTs: an external evaluation of Education Queensland's ICT curriculum integration performance measurement instrument. In Proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference (AARE 2005). University of Southern Queensland. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/9306953c-f4d0-5bd8-95c5-d1d6f1998736/content
26. Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press.
27. Gao, P., Wong, A. F., Choy, D., & Wu, J. (2010). Developing leadership potential for technology integration: Perspectives of three beginning teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(5).
28. Gökbulut, B., & Durnalı, M. (2023). Professional skills training in developing digital materials through augmented and virtual reality applications. Psychology in the Schools, 60(11), 4267-4292.
29. Gümüş, M. M., Kayhan, O., Kukul, V., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2024). Preparing teachers to integrate technology in education according to SQD model: Scale development and validation. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 3993–4023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11978-0.
30. Hacıfazlıoğlu, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Dalgıç, G. (2011). Eğitim yöneticileri teknoloji liderliği öz-yeterlik ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 2(2), 145-166.
31. Hair Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis. Cengage: Hampshire.
32. Hoe, S. L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modelling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76-83.
33. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
34. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. ISTE (2009). NETS for administrators 2009. Retrieved from https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/Libraries/Images/Standards/Download/ISTE%20Standards%20for%20Administrators%2C%202009%20(Permitted%20Educational%20Use).pdf 21.01.2025.
35. Jhurree, V. (2005). Technology integration in education in developing countries: Guidelines to policy makers. International Education Journal, 6(4), 467-483.
36. Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). Faktör analizi, (Ed. Şeref Kalaycı), Spss uygulamali çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri, Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
37. Karaca, F., Can, G., & Yildirim, S. (2013). A path model for technology integration into elementary school settings in Turkey. Computers & Education, 68, 353-365.
38. Kline, R. B. (2009). Becoming a behavioral science researcher: A guide to producing research that matters. The Guilford Press.
39. Kline, R. B. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Y. Petscher & C. Schatsschneider (Eds.), Applied quantitative analysis in the social sciences (pp. 171–207). Routledge.
40. Krabonja, M. V., Kustec, S., Skrbinjek, V., Aberšek, B., & Flogie, A. (2024). Innovative professional learning communities and sustainable education practices through digital transformation. Sustainability, 16(14), 1-19.
41. Larson, L., Miller, T., & Ribble, M. (2010). 5 Considerations for Digital Age Leaders: What Principals and District Administrators Need to Know about Tech Integration Today. Learning & Leading with Technology, 37(4), 12-15.
42. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
43. Leonard, L. J., & Leonard, P. E. (2006). Leadership for technology integration: Computing the reality. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52(4).
44. Lu, R., & Overbaugh, R. C. (2009). School environment and technology implementation in K–12 classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 89-106.
45. Mardia, K. V. (1974). Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B, 36(2), 115-128.
46. McLeod, S. (2015). Facilitating administrators’ instructional leadership through the use of a technology integration discussion protocol. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10(3), 227-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115623393
47. McKenzie, J. (1999). How teachers learn technology best. Bellingham, WA: FNO Press.
48. Meltzer, J., and Sherman, T. M. (1997). Ten commandments for successful technology implementation and staff development. NASSP Bulletin, 81(585), 23-32.
49. Proctor, R. M. J., Watson, G., & Finger, G. (2003). Measuring information and communication technology (ICT) curriculum integration. Computers in the Schools, 20(4), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v20n04_06
50. Raman, A., & Thannimalai, R. (2019). Importance of technology leadership for technology integration: Gender and professional development perspective. Sage Open, 9(4), 2158244019893707.
51. Raman, A., Thannimalai, R., & Ismail, S. N. (2019). Principals' technology leadership and its effect on teachers' technology integration in 21st century classrooms. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 423-442.
52. Ritchie, D. (1996). The administrative role in the integration of technology. Nassp Bulletin, 80(582), 42-52.
53. Russo, R. (2004). Statistics for the behavioural sciences: An introduction. Psychology Press
54. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
55. Schrum, L., Galizio, L. M., & Ledesma, P. (2011). Educational leadership and technology integration: An investigation into preparation, experiences, and roles. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 241-261.
56. Sepúlveda, A. (2020). The digital transformation of education: connecting schools, empowering learners. [Survey on the Use of Information and Communication Technologies in Brazilian Schools] TIC EDUCAÇÃO, 249.
57. Sincar, M. (2009). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin teknoloji liderliği rollerine ilişkin bir inceleme (Gaziantep ili örneği). (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). İnonü University, Malatya.
58. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6 Ed.). Pearson.
59. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2019). In Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 7). Pearson.
60. Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel.
61. Thannimalai, R., & Raman, A. (2018). Principals technology leadership and teachers technology integration in the 21st century classroom. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(2), 177-187.
62. Thannimalai, R., & Raman, A. (2018b). The influence of principals' technology leadership and professional development on teachers’ technology integration in secondary Schools. Malaysian Journal of learning and Instruction, 15(1), 201-226.
63. Tilya, F. (2008). IT and educational policy in the sub-Saharan African region. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education: Part one (pp. 1145–1160). Springer.
64. Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Çubukçu, Z., & İnci, T. (2019). A holistic view to barriers to technology integration in education. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 10(4), 439-461.
65. UNESCO. (2020). The digital transformation of education: connecting schools, empowering learners. Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374309 on 21.01.205.
66. Vallance, M. (2008). Beyond policy: Strategic actions to support ICT integration in Japanese schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(3), 275-293.
67. Van Niekerk, M., & Blignaut, S. (2014). A framework for information and communication technology integration in schools through teacher professional development. Africa Education Review, 11(2), 236-253.
68. Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Lai, K. W. (2018). Developing an understanding of the impact of digital technologies on teaching and learning in an ever-changing landscape. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K. W. Lai (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (Springer International Handbooks of Education). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_113-1
69. Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using MPLUS: Methods and applications.John Wiley & Sons.
70. Watts, C. D. (2009). Technology leadership, school climate, and technology integration: A correlation study in K–12 public schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), The University of Alabama).
71. Worthington, R. L., ve Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838
72. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.
73. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.