Introduction
In the last ten years, access to computers and technology resources has increased dramatically in K-12 public schools (Moursund, 1992). During this time, schools have realized a need for the personnel to manage these technology resources. In the beginning, many schools appointed teachers who were considered technologically savvy to deal with these responsibilities (Beattie, 2000). These persons were not trained to be technology coordinators and often had too many responsibilities for one person to manage. The effectiveness of these persons as technology leaders was limited because of a lack of time to fulfill all of the job responsibilities as well as support the needs of teachers in integrating technology and student achievement (Strudler, 1995).
As access to technology resources increases, school systems are increasingly recognizing the need to have one or more technology support personnel available to deal with technology related issues. The roles and responsibilities of these persons vary dramatically depending on the school system and the local school administration. Many technology support personnel are performing job duties that may be taking time away from providing adequate support to the teachers and students. Without adequate support, teachers are not able to use the available technology efficiently and effectively to increase student achievement, the original goal of integrating technology in the classroom. The role of the technology coordinator needs to be well defined so that both technology coordinators and school administrators understand and are in agreement on the job duties and responsibilities. This definition is also important because it will help to limit the multivariate duties the technology coordinator is asked to perform which do not contribute directly to technology integration and student achievement.
One school system in the southeastern United States has recognized the need for technology support personnel within each of its schools. In July 1994 and April 1996 respectively, this county created a local school technology coordinator position as well as a technology support technician position to address technology related issues at the local school level. The county defines the primary responsibility of the local school technology coordinator as:
“To provide leadership and support of the use of technology in teaching and learning. This position serves as an advocate for the effective integration of technology into the curriculum. The local school technology coordinator is a leader in staff development that links the use of technology to classroom applications and improved student achievement” (Appendix A).
The county defines the primary responsibility of the technology support technician as:
“The primary function is to facilitate the implementation of technology at the local school and to support the administrative and local school instructional programs through technical support and troubleshooting” (Appendix B).
The technology support technician position is designed to deal with networking and technical support while the technology coordinator position is designed to support teaching and learning. Some school systems may only have one person per school to deal with all of the technology related issues. However, this county has realized the need for two separate positions to meet the needs of students and teachers in technology integration.
Given the number of responsibilities the local school technology coordinator is expected to perform, there may be differences between the expectations and attitudes a school’s technology coordinator and the principal towards how these tasks should be prioritized. If the technology coordinator is spending time on tasks not considered to be of high priority by the administration or that do not support the use of technology in teaching and learning, the coordinator will not be as effective in integrating technology in the curriculum.
Purpose of the Study
This study examined the various roles and responsibilities of the technology coordinator position and defined appropriate and inappropriate expectations for the position. It also examined the technology coordinator’s and the local school principal’s perceptions of the relative importance of each of the duties the local school technology coordinator is expected to perform. The purpose of the study was to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the technology coordinator. The study also discusses ways to align the perceptions of the technology coordinator and principal in order to create a shared vision for technology integration within the school.
Research Questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
- How do administrators perceive the roles and responsibilities of the technology coordinator?
- How do technology coordinators perceive their roles and responsibilities?
- How do different perceptions of the technology coordinator position affect the job duties, if at all?
- To what extents are technology coordinators performing the job duties as listed on the job description (Appendix A)?
Assumptions
The first assumption presumes that the technology coordinator will continue to be an employment position. The second assumption asserts that the school included in this study is representative of all of the schools in this county. The third assumption expects that both the principal and technology coordinator are willing participants and therefore, will accurately describe their perceptions concerning the roles and responsibilities of the local school technology coordinator.
Limitations
This study was conducted with a high school’s local school technology coordinator and principal in the southeastern United States. However, other school districts may use the results of this study to help clarify the roles and responsibilities of their technology support personnel.
This study does not consider student achievement as it relates to the role of the technology coordinator. However, the roles and responsibilities of the technology coordinator were examined in detail.
Importance of the Study
The results of this study allow schools to identify appropriate and inappropriate roles and responsibilities for the local school technology coordinator position. This study also offers suggestions on how to align the expectations of the principal and technology coordinator so that technology integration can be enhanced.
Overview of the Methodology
In order to answer the research questions, a case study method was used. A high school principal and local school technology coordinator were interviewed and observed to determine how they viewed the responsibilities and job duties of the local school technology coordinator. This study compared the perceptions of the local school technology coordinator and the local school principal toward the duties of the technology coordinator position and offered suggestions on how to improve the expectations of both parties so that technology integration can be enhanced.
Literature Review
The role of the technology coordinator is constantly evolving. As new technologies develop, the needs for technical support and the demands on the technology support staff change as well. It is important to define and redefine the responsibilities of these positions to make sure the technology needs of staff and students are being met. Without a description of the position and specific job duties, the focus on technology integration may get lost in other duties and responsibilities. The principal and school administration must also fully understand and support the role of the technology coordinator for the person to function effectively. The administrators have the ability to create a vision and school culture of effective technology integration to enhance student learning. This review of the literature serves to help define the roles of the technology coordinator and the importance of administrative support in technology integration.
Role of the Technology Coordinator
There are many different names for the technology coordinator. Some are called local school technology coordinators, while others are instructional technology specialists. Just as there are variations in the name of the position, there are many variations in the job duties and responsibilities. While each school has different needs, there are some proficiencies that the technology coordinator must have to be successful in helping teachers integrate technology in the curriculum.
Chamberlin (2004) defines the technology coordinator position as one that works with teachers to enhance student learning through the use of technology. She sees collaboration with teachers, conducting training for students and teachers for technology proficiency, coordinating the budget, recommending and purchasing hardware or software resources, identifying trends in technology, creating a technology plan for the school, and creating learning resources for teachers and students as some of the most important responsibilities of the technology coordinator. She believes that technical troubleshooting should only be done on a limited basis, however, the technology coordinator may serve as the teacher liaison to the technology support technician. She also suggests that the technology coordinator is one who can work to get grant funding and corporate sponsorships or partnerships to increase the technology resources available to the school.
Furthermore, Chamberlin (2004) proposes that there are also proficiencies for the technology support technician or network specialist. She says there should be a person within the school that is responsible for networking, wiring, and computer lab maintenance besides the technology coordinator. She states many technology coordinators are expected to be responsible for administrative databases such as attendance and grading programs, developing the school website, or dealing with email administration. Chamberlin continues to say these are inappropriate expectations of the technology coordinator position because they do not directly relate to enhancing student learning. A technology support technician or network specialist should be hired to perform these job duties. Finally, Chamberlin says the technology coordinator is unable to fulfill their other job responsibilities if their time is spent on these types of tasks.
Bray (1998) explains the duties associated with the technology coordinator position can be broken into three categories: things you want to do, things you want input on, and things you want to delegate. She believes that the job of a technology coordinator has to be team based in order for the coordinator to be effective. She included developing and facilitating a technology team, finding technology champions within the school, coordinating staff development activities or presentations to the staff, being a liaison to the district and community, attending meetings and conferences, and keeping current on new research and development as things the technology coordinator would want to do themselves. She says the technology coordinator would want to be consulted on developing technology goals, preparing budgets, developing Acceptable Use Policies, developing methods of assessment, writing grants, previewing hardware and software, and ordering, installing, and maintaining equipment and software. The technology coordinator should not have ultimate responsibility for these tasks but should have input on these issues. Bray’s most important commandment for the technology coordinator is to remember that the “kids” come first.
It seems that often there are expectations of the technology coordinator that do not turn out to be the reality of the position. Reilly (1999) discusses a situation where the technology coordinator began helping teachers design technology rich lessons but soon became more technical in nature. The coordinator began spending more time with network issues, repairing computers and dealing with administrative information than in facilitating technology integration. The technology coordinator of a school in New York City, Ted Nellen says, “One of the major problems is that schools either do not know what they want in a Technology Coordinator, or they expect a single Technology Coordinator with a limited budget to take care of everything related to technology” (Reilly, 1999).
If the responsibilities of the technology coordinator are too vast, the person can begin to experience overwhelming workloads and begin to feel burnt out in their positions. Beattie (2000) reminds us that most corporations have one technical support person for every 50 computers while schools may have only one person to deal with over 400 computers. One of the major challenges to having the proper personnel in each school is funding for the positions. Both the nation and the state of Georgia seem to understand the need for technology support staff. The Georgia Department of Education (2003) reports in their K-12 technology plan that the nation sees technical support as one of the critical areas in technology integration. Their report indicates the reasons for adding technical support are because teachers are unable to support the technology tools by themselves and when the tools are not working, they cannot be used for instruction. Another reason for technology support personnel includes the need to secure the school network to protect from outside attacks. Finally, technology personnel are needed to develop technology plans and keep up with emerging technologies.
Despite the need for technical support personnel within the schools, a survey by EdWeek (2003) shows that only 16 percent of schools in the nation have a full time technology coordinator. The survey also found that 21 percent of schools in the nation have a full time teacher who also has the title of coordinator. Without proper support, effective technology integration is not possible.
The Georgia Department of Education (2003) reports that the state is ahead of the national average with 44 percent of schools in Georgia having a technology coordinator and 66 percent of schools having a technical support person at the district or school level. As of the 2003 report, Georgia ranked in the top five states for technology coordinator staffing and in the top three for technical support staffing in the nation.
A Georgia Statewide Survey of Instructional Technology Use (2002) showed that only five percent of teachers felt their greatest obstacle to technology integration was technical support. Time to use the technology and time to learn, practice and plan using technology were the leading obstacles listed in the survey. In their K-12 Technology Plan, the Georgia Department of Education (2003) continues to support the need for increased technical support since it is critical to the goal of effective technology integration within the schools.
Strudler (1995) states that selection and training of technology coordinators is a very important area to consider. He says that technology coordinators must have technical skills, but they must also possess good interpersonal and organizational skills. Fisher (1998) explains that one role of a technology coordinator is to help teachers understand how they can improve their teaching through the use of technology. He sees the biggest challenge coming from those teachers who do not welcome technology or do not see the need for technology integration. Without exceptional interpersonal skills, teachers are less likely to work with the technology coordinator in integrating technology into their curriculum.
Beattie (2000) put it well when he said that technology coordinators should be as comfortable in the faculty lounge as they are in the computer lounge. He also believes that technology personnel should be patient, knowledgeable, flexible, diligent, and accessible. He says that technology coordinators ultimately must be teachers in the truest sense of the word.
Two of the main responsibilities of a technology coordinator include integration of technology into the curriculum and providing professional development for teachers. Ronnkvist, Dexter, and Anderson (2000) found in their “Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey” that full time coordinators spent the majority of their time supervising classes, troubleshooting and installing software while part time coordinators spent the majority of their time troubleshooting and installing software. They found that only two hours per week were spent on integrating technology into the curriculum by full time coordinators and part time coordinators reported even less time.
The survey also showed that full time coordinators spent 14 percent of their time giving personal, one-on-one assistance to teachers while part time coordinators spent 24 percent of their support time with individualized help. Technology coordinators reported that on average, their school offered training sessions twice a year while district training sessions were offered three times a year. The survey reported that at least 92 percent of schools offered at least one professional development opportunity for teachers each year. Part time technology coordinators reported they spent one or two hours per week while full time coordinators spent three to four hours a week on planning and running professional development. The report seems to indicate that teachers are receiving more technical than instructional help. Coordinators reported spending only one or two hours per week helping teachers design lessons that integrate technology into their curriculum. Three out of four of the topics for professional development sessions were technical in nature. Those topics included mechanics of computer technology and software, how to use the Internet and on-line activities, and how to enable students to create multimedia activities. The only instructional topic provided was integrating computers into instructional activities in your subject area (Ronnkvist, Dexter, and Anderson, 2000).
The CEO Forum (1999) discusses the four elements of a successful technology program. The first element is helping teachers integrate technology, not just operate it. The second element includes providing regular professional development opportunities as well as the personal, one-on-one help sessions. Thirdly, a successful program must provide for access to technology resources. Finally, the program must try to involve all teachers in the school, not just a few.
Ronnkvist, Dexter, and Anderson (2000) conclude that without adequate instructional support on how to integrate technology into the curriculum, teachers are not likely to use technology frequently or with a variety of techniques to enhance student learning. The supports provided by a technology coordinator must be well planned and include many different elements that meet the needs of the teacher.
Importance of Administrative Support in Technology Integration
Pfeifer (2002) states that many principals feel they provide a great deal of technology resources to their staff, but they express frustration with teachers who are still refusing to integrate technology into their curriculum. Many teachers respond to this assertion by stating their frustration in integrating technology when they are continually faced with network crashes or the Internet connections that do not work. Pfeifer continues that despite expenditures and high expectations for technology integration, many principals forget to include technical support. He says that technology integration cannot occur until the expectations of teachers and policy makers are aligned. Pfeifer urges principals to find ways to staff technology support personnel because the success of technology integration depends upon it.
The Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative was created to define the role of school administrators in technology integration. They developed six standards for administrators to work towards in the area of technology integration. The first standard was developed for leadership and vision. It advocates inspiring a vision for technology integration and creating an environment that will allow the vision to become a reality (Ezarik, 2001).
The second standard was in the area of teaching and learning. This standard focused on the administration making certain that appropriate technology resources are used to support teaching and learning. In other words, technology should not be used just for the sake of using it. In the article, Ezarik quotes Peggy Kelly, a professor of education at California State University, as saying, “The hard part is getting administrators to understand how technology is used in the classroom – that quick solutions don’t exist. Technology is going to continue to evolve. So teaching methods must evolve” (Ezarik, 2001, p.26).
Productivity and professional practice are discussed in the third standard. It encourages administrators to use technology in their own daily routines to increase productivity and aid in communication among staff and the community. This standard is based on the belief that if administrators use technology themselves, they are more likely to understand and promote its use within their schools (Ezarik, 2001).
The fourth standard covers support, management, and operations. This standard stresses the importance of supporting technology through budgets and technical support personnel. Without proper support, technology integration cannot occur (Ezarik, 2001).
Assessments and evaluation are discussed in the fifth standard. It proposes that administrators must be able to plan and put into practice systems of assessment and evaluation that incorporate technology. They must be aware of the tools that are available to help them with making decisions based on data (Ezarik, 2001).
The final standard covers social, legal and ethical issues. Some of these issues include privacy, security, copyright and intellectual property. Administrators must be aware of these issues and must promote responsible technology use among staff and students. It is hoped that administrators will strive to work towards these standards so that they can become effective technology leaders in the digital age (Ezarik, 2001).
Holland and Moore-Steward (2000) state that the principal is the key person who can affect technology infusion within a school. As a result, they believe technology training for principals is as important as training for teachers. They feel that principals are not able to adequately support technology integration if they do not fully understand it.
Merkley, Bosik, and Oakland (1997) also report that even if teachers are adequately prepared to integrate technology, they will be unsuccessful if they do not have the backing and support of their principal. Coxette Buckney, the chief education officer for the Chicago public schools, stated that poor decisions, wasted money, and inadequate technology supplies are the result of technologically uninformed principals (Wisniewski, 1999).
A study by Dawson and Rakes (2003), investigated how a lack of information or involvement with technology among principals affects technology integration within their schools. The authors found a significant difference in the level of technology integration that occurred depending on the amount and type of technology training received by the principals. They concluded from these findings that schools are more likely to have high levels of technology integration if the technology training for principals is tied to the school curriculum or the principal’s needs. The report suggested superintendents support principals in taking risks and sharing technology uses when they are proven to enhance student learning. Finally, the report advocates increasing technology training for administrators so that effective technology integration and technology leadership can occur within the schools.
Summary
The responsibilities of the technology coordinator are often poorly defined, subject to interpretation, and constantly changing. The phrase, other duties as assigned, seems to ring true for technology coordinators since they are never sure exactly what job they will be asked to do next. While the technology coordinator should be focusing on helping teachers effectively integrate technology, they often spend the majority of their time troubleshooting or dealing with administrative tasks.
Technology coordinators may be asked by their principals to perform tasks that are not part of their roles or responsibilities. If local school administrators do not understand the importance of allowing a technology coordinator to focus on teacher professional development and technology integration, the impact of technology on student achievement is likely to be minimal.
Awareness of the perceptions of both the local school technology coordinator and the principal as to the role of the coordinator are important to investigate. These two groups must be aligned in their thinking about the role technology will play in the school, and how the use of technology will be supported. The school principal and technology coordinator are key in getting teachers and students to value the integration of technology into their curriculum. Their impact on teacher practices can also be the catalyst that serves to move teaching and learning to a new level by increasing student learning and achievement. Identifying differences in the perceptions of principals and technology coordinators, and adequately defining the role of the technology coordinator will help to increase the impact of technology integration on students and decrease the uncertainty that can develop when both groups are unclear as to the vision for technology within the school.
Methods
The purpose of the study was to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the technology coordinator. The following research questions were addressed:
- How do administrators perceive the roles and responsibilities of the technology coordinator?
- How do technology coordinators perceive their roles and responsibilities?
- How do different perceptions of the technology coordinator position affect the job duties, if at all?
- To what extents are technology coordinators performing the job duties as listed on the job description (Appendix A)?
This study was conducted by interviewing both a high school technology coordinator and principal about their perceptions of the duties of the local school technology coordinator and observing their behavior as related to those perceptions. This study helps to align the perceptions of these two groups in order to create a shared vision for technology integration within the school.
Design
A case study was used to collect data for this study. Leedy and Ormrod (2001, p. 149) define a case study as an in depth study of a particular individual, program, or even for a defined period of time. Case study data might include interviews, observations, documents, past records, and audiovisual materials. The advantage of a case study is the ability to explore a situation more deeply in its natural environment. This information can often be used by groups of people in similar situations. The major weakness of the case study is its low degree of generalizability to all situations.
This study involved in depth interviews with the principal and local school technology coordinator. The interview allowed the participants to explain their perception of the local school technology coordinator position. Both open and closed ended response questions were used in the interview. The closed ended response questions allowed for the participants responses to be more easily compared. The open-ended response questions allowed for more explanation and a better understanding of the participants’ perceptions. The list of interview questions can be found in Appendix C. The interview lasted approximately one hour. All interview questions and responses were typed and given to the participants for their review and clarification before the results were analyzed.
After the interviews were conducted, the local school technology coordinator was observed on the job. The technology coordinator was observed for four hours on separate days. During these observations, all duties were recorded and notes were made about the types of jobs s/he was asked to perform. The observation allowed for a better understanding of the position and the frequency and types of activities the technology coordinator was asked to perform on a given day. The observation notes were compared with the interview responses for data analysis.
Participants
This case study was conducted with a high school technology coordinator and principal in the southeastern United States. The names of the participants and school used in this research were kept confidential to protect their anonymity. The high school opened for the 2004-2005 school year. In its first year, the school enrolled 2,300 students in grades 9-12. The ethnic breakdown of the school included 75 percent white students, 7 percent Hispanic, 11 percent African American, 4 percent Asian, 2 percent multiracial, and 1 percent American Indian. Approximately 86 percent of the graduates in the school system plan to attend college or post-secondary school. The graduation rate for this particular high school could not be obtained at the time of this study because of the fact there has not yet been a graduating class.
Procedures
The first step was to identify the duties listed on the job description for the technology coordinator. The major duties were included in the interview questions to determine their level of importance for both the technology coordinator and the principal. The next step was to identify additional appropriate and inappropriate expectations of a technology coordinator through a review of literature. During the interview, both appropriate and inappropriate duties were discussed to determine their importance to each of the respondents. Open-ended questions were also included in the interview to allow the principal and technology coordinator the opportunity to discuss any other job duties that are frequently performed by the technology coordinator.
In order to obtain more accurate data, the technology coordinator was observed for a period of eight hours on separate days during the fall semester. All duties the technology coordinator performed were recorded for further analysis on the form in Appendix D. Consent forms were given to all participants. All interview responses and observational records were recorded and analyzed. To ensure accurate data, the interview questions and answers were typed up and given to the interviewees. They reviewed the document to make sure the responses were recorded correctly.
Data Analysis
After the data was collected, all details about the case were arranged in a logical order. The interview responses were analyzed and categories of responses were created to allow for a more accurate comparison of the data. Any responses that were only mentioned by one of the participants were examined carefully to determine their impact on the study. The interview responses and observational records were analyzed for any recurring patterns or themes. Finally, the overall data was synthesized and recorded. Conclusions were drawn from the data ascertaining which duties were the highest priority for the technology coordinator and the principal, respectively. The perceptions of each participant, as determined in the interview, were compared with the observational records to determine if the job duties of the technology coordinator were affected by these perceptions.
Results and Discussion
The research provided substantial information about the role of the local school technology coordinator. Each identified job duty fell into one of five main categories as listed on the technology coordinator job description (Appendix A): Application Knowledge/Software Support, Technology Staff Development, Integration of Technology and Instructional Curriculum, Instructional Technology Planning and Administration, and Active Member of the Local School Technology Team. The interview responses from the principal are presented first in this section, followed by the results of the interview responses and observations of the local school technology coordinator.
Principal
When asked how technology can impact learning the principal stated, “It cannot by itself.” He asserted, “The use of technology has the potential to enhance learning but it has to be used as the tool it is designed to be, not as a dog and pony show.” He also mentioned that it has to be incorporated as part of the lesson and not added as a special piece. He said technology can make learning exciting and enhance the learning experience but the interpersonal relationship between the teacher and the student is also key in learning and nothing can take the place of that type of instruction.
Next, the principal discussed his vision for technology integration. He believes that educators will have to work backwards to have the technology proficient youth and the “dinosaurs” meet in the middle. He would like to see technology that enhances the learning experience and is not talked about separately anymore. He would also like for technology to be as common as a whiteboard or pen and paper. The principal noted that schools are currently behind the curve and the “dinosaurs” are not getting proficient as quickly as needed. The local school technology coordinator offers a Tech Tues session each week to help teachers with technology issues but the professional development opportunity is not mandatory.
The principal said that the biggest challenge to technology integration is financing. He said another issue is, “professional development is being done the same way it was 50 years ago.” He stated that his school does not have a problem with technology resources since it is a brand new school with state-of-the-art technology available for staff and students but he knows that keeping up with technology advances over time is a major problem. He also believes that opportunities for professional development are too little. He mentioned that you have to use technology all of the time and, not just now and then, for it be effective.
When asked how the technology coordinator position has changed over the years, the principal said, “Ten years ago, the technology support technician and the local school technology coordinators were the same person.” He said they outgrew each other evolving into their own positions. He noted that in the past, they were self-taught people who usually had a science background and were just interested in technology. He stated, “Now they are planners and trainers. They are professional educators of educators.” The principal said that, in time, the position will become part of the school leadership team, an Assistant Principal for Curriculum and Technology.
When asked about the most important attributes for a technology coordinator, the principal responded that they must have a strong technology background, humor, and the understanding that they are serving people. He said that knowledge can be seen as power and in this position you must be willing to give up that knowledge.
When asked about the duties and responsibilities of the technology coordinator, the principal said the local school technology coordinator is key in professional development. He asserted that they are not responsible for repairing machines. The technology coordinator is expected only to be a backup to the technology support technician. However, the technology coordinator is responsible for backups and some report preparation. He believes they show the staff how and help them use the technology resources to incorporate it into their lesson. The principal also said the technology coordinator is not asked to perform bus or hall duty so they can be available to teachers before or after school.
Although collaborative planning and professional development are the most important duties of the local school technology coordinator, the principal feels there is not enough time for this planning and training to occur. He said he struggles with when to offer the sessions, before or after school, Saturdays, nights or weekends. He said right now Tech Tues sessions on a given topic are provided for teachers during their planning period each week. It is totally voluntary. The principal feels they should be mandatory but he will not make them mandatory because he has a problem with mandating collaborative planning. He also mentioned that, for now, the Tech Tues sessions are more technical in order to fix the teacher’s struggles with technology and help them to master the equipment within the school. Future sessions will be more instructional in nature. FOCUS sessions are mandatory for teachers twice a month on Wednesdays during their planning period. These sessions will cover many topics over the course of the year, but technology will be incorporated into these sessions. The principal feels this may help close the gap somewhat.
When asked if teachers were enthusiastic about collaborative planning, the principal stated, “Teachers do not know how to plan.” He said you must start at the beginning and get them to understand the purpose of planning in order for it to be effective. The principal stated, “Collaboration is the key to the future of education. You have to take baby-steps to achieve a goal or you start getting into trouble.”
The principal indicated the Tech Team, which includes the local school technology coordinator, technology support technician, media specialists, the Assistant Principal for Curriculum and the student information system (SASI) clerk, is responsible for many technology issues around the school. This group previews and recommends software, hardware, peripherals and instructional management, and communication systems. They are also responsible for evaluating the technology needs of the school. The team meets monthly to discuss issues. The principal mentioned that a future technology team will include one member of each department who will help to identify special technology needs in each content area.
When asked about the biggest challenges of the technology coordinator, the principal felt the major challenge was all of the time constraints. He said, “There are only eight-hours in a day and five-days in a week. People have families and 125 students they are responsible for each day. It is just hard to find time for collaborative planning and professional development.” However, the principal felt that success can result from tiny segments of time, and that is what he is trying to achieve through the local school technology coordinator. He said, “It is important to remember those teachable moments are constrained to a very tight span of time.”
Local School Technology Coordinator
When asked how technology can impact learning the local school technology coordinator stated, “It can only facilitate it.” He said that now there are more ways to access information, a richer environment for learning, and more practical applications including virtual dissections in science. He feels technology is the foundation of our day-to-day activities. He mentioned there are teacher websites and webquests that can aid in student learning. Students can also get more information, quicker, more accurately and from international sources more so than ever before.
Next, the technology coordinator was asked about his vision for technology integration. He said that because of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation and the State of Georgia requirements, technology has been much more directed towards administration and attendance reports instead of facilitating learning. He mentioned that we are a decade behind industry which is now moving out of the information age while we are still very deep into it. He stated that he felt we had reached his initial vision for technology integration because we have the ability to do so many things now with technology. His vision now is to see more teachers continue to embrace technology in the classroom. The technology coordinator believes the biggest challenge to technology integration is resistance from teachers. In his experience, the people who need to be at the training are not there. He also feels teachers are often intimidated about asking questions.
When asked how the technology coordinator position has changed over the years, the technology coordinator responded, “There are more administrative duties and less teaching.” He said now he is dealing with Acceptable Use policies, licensing, and new operating systems. County training sessions, conferences, and university classes help local school technology coordinators stay current on new trends in educational technology. He feels that in the future the job will become an administrative role. He said, “It is currently quasi-administrative and definitely already a leadership role within the school.”
The technology coordinator felt the most important attribute for a technology coordinator was classroom experience. He explained that the technicians that come to install the computers and equipment do not really understand how the teacher will need to use the technology. He gave the example that over the summer all of the computer labs were installed with monitors facing in different directions around the room. For a teacher, the ideal set-up would be with all of the monitors facing the front so all screens can be seen at the same time. He asserted, “People that do not have classroom experience cannot anticipate the needs of teachers or students.”
When asked about a typical day for the technology coordinator, he said, “There is no such thing as a typical day.” He said some days were more structured with training sessions or being the training instructor, such as during Tech Tues, while other days you deal with small problems all day. Some of the common duties identified by the technology coordinator include resetting passwords, helping teachers save in the right place, executing attendance correctly for FTE counts, getting price quotes on phone systems for the student information system (SASI), dealing with licensing issues and rights issues with the new active directory system, dealing with sign in issues, getting access set up for teachers/students, creating student logins, suggesting equipment and room placements, and setting up the SAVIN printers.
The technology coordinator serves on a technology committee called the Tech Team, which includes the technology support technician, technology coordinator, media specialists, Assistant Principal for Curriculum, and the student information system (SASI) clerk. The technology coordinator indicated this committee is responsible for developing technology plans. They meet once a month to identify technology needs within the school. However, the technology coordinator said standardization is becoming an issue. He said that with a new school, there are not as many technological needs since there was a standard issue of equipment from the county when the school was opened. He also mentioned that decisions about hardware, peripherals and instructional management, and communication systems are becoming more standardized as well. He said the local school technology coordinator only makes decisions about items purchased by the local school. For example, he was heavily involved with the purchase of a walkie/talkie system for administrators and the new telephone system which is integrated with the student information system database (SASI). When dealing with software, the technology coordinator said most of the recommendations are teacher or county generated, however, the technology coordinators are responsible for facilitating the process.
The technology coordinator stated he is not responsible for repairs or networking. However, he does serve as a backup to the technology support technician if he is not available. Although backups are automated at the county level in the new active directory network, the technology coordinator said he is often required to work on state technology reports, attendance reports, testing and performance reports, and backup files out of the student information system (SASI). As he put it, the technology coordinators are “Query Queens.” These general daily tasks are a common part of the technology coordinator job description.
The technology coordinator feels he should be responsible for training and collaborative planning with teachers. However, he is more consumed with administrative work than work with teachers. He believes more time is needed for class instruction but time is taken on other jobs throughout the day. The technology coordinator is not happy with the level of collaborative planning he is able to do, but he does not think there will ever be enough time for it. When asked if teachers are enthusiastic about collaborative planning, he stated, “Those that are into technology are, but others are not. It seems to be generational. The younger teachers are more open to collaborative planning.” When asked about a collaborative planning experience, the technology coordinator said the greatest thing was the student projects that always resulted from the experience.
When asked about professional development, the technology coordinator said he offers a Tech Tues during every planning period once a week. In the past, he has offered another technology class for recertification, but this class will end after next semester because the technology requirement must be met by teachers by Spring 2005. He said the Tech Tues sessions during first semester will be more technical to learn the basic programs used every day for administrative functions. During second semester, he will offer more instructional sessions which might include one on how to use PowerPoint, Word, Access, and Excel in the classroom.
The technology coordinator stated the biggest challenge of the technology coordinator is technology is ever changing. With Active Directory and XP, he has been on a new learning curve, and this has been a year of learning experiences. He said there have been major changes in the way technology coordinators do things, and he is evolving into this new role.
Observation of the Local School Technology Coordinator
During the observations, which were conducted over a two week period over eight days, the technology coordinator indicated that each day is varied in the types of job duties and responsibilities. He said that he may start working on something and not get back to it for several days depending on the needs that arise throughout the day. He said his job often consists of “putting out fires.” Although it can be challenging to handle multiple tasks at once, the technology coordinator stated that the diversity of the job was the best thing about his job.
During the first hour of my observation, the local school technology coordinator was involved in training for a Tech Tuesday session. His work during this hour can be classified in the Technology Staff Development category of job duties. During the fourth period session on how to use the student information system (SASI) database, seven teachers were present. The technology coordinator had created a handout for teachers to use during the session. He went through the information in the handout on his laptop which was projected in the lab, while the teachers followed along on their computers. This Tech Tuesday session took approximately 40 minutes. He gave the remaining 10 minutes to the teachers to return to their classrooms and get prepared for their next class. In between sessions, the technology coordinator took a quick break and prepared the lab for the next group of teachers.
In the second hour of observations, the technology coordinator was working on solving a problem with the student information system (SASI) database. This job duty can be classified in the Instructional Technology Planning and Administration category. The technology coordinator explained that the SASI database is tiered and files must be reconciled each day. He called the process a reorganization of the files. During this process, the grade book rosters and the attendance rosters are updated in their respective programs, IGPRO and ClassXP. Under the old networking system, Novell, the technology coordinator could see a job cue which would tell him who is still logged into the program.
The reorganization of files cannot happen if anyone is in the program while it is trying to run. The administration made the decision to run the reorganization at 2:00 p.m. each day. Currently, an announcement is made for everyone to logout of SASI because there are often many people still logged in at 2:00 p.m. The technology coordinator is working with the county Information Management Division (IMD) to find a way to time the reorganization for 2:00 a.m. He needs a job cue to check and see if anyone is logged in right before the reorganization occurs. During this time period, he was checking with the company that distributed the program about installing a utility to check who is logged into the database.
A site license is available for the program and he was able to register the program, however, when he checked to see if it was working properly, the program told him that he had insufficient privileges. He explained our computer network is locked down at the county level, and he believes that is why he is not able to use the utility.
He said, “I am like an old hound dog. I am not giving up on the trail.” He explained that he would continue to work with IMD to find a solution to this problem.
During this hour, the principal dropped in to say his email was working very slowly. He said it was taking 10 minutes to send a message. The technology coordinator quickly stopped what he was doing to check on the principal’s computer. The machine needed to be rebooted. This job duty can be classified in the Application Knowledge and Software Support category.
Also during this time period, a student showed up to pay for getting his account password reset. The student had a red X by his name so the technology coordinator had to look up the code to find out why he had been disabled. The student came back in about 10 minutes because he was still having problems logging in. The technology coordinator checked again and told him to give it a little time before trying again.
He explained how the update process occurs, and how it has to travel to the county and back down to our computers before it will be updated. When the student left, he understood that the process was not instantaneous and might take some additional time. This duty can also be classified in the Application Knowledge and Software Support category.
During the third hour, the technology coordinator began working on an instruction sheet and exercise for the upcoming Tech Tuesday session on querying in SASI. He created a detailed instruction sheet with screen shots. The exercise was created to give teachers the opportunity to practice creating a query. This job duty can be classified in the Technology Staff Development category.
During this time, a teacher dropped in because she could not get a Microsoft Word document to open off of her floppy disk. She said that all of the other documents would open. The technology coordinator explained that floppy disks are magnetic storage devices and often files can become corrupt. He tried to open the document for her. The computer took a great deal of time but would not open the document. The teacher asked if there was any way he could pull the file off the disk for her. He told her he would try to run a recover program to retrieve the data. He explained the importance of not reusing old floppy disks. He was able to recover the file, and he copied all of the documents to a new floppy disk. She was thrilled and said she would save it to her networked drive as soon as she returned to her classroom. This job duty can be classified in the Application Knowledge and Software Support category.
In the fourth hour, the technology coordinator was charged with setting up laptops for the new Assistant Principal and the School Resource Officer. This job can be classified in the Application Knowledge and Software Support category. Currently, teachers at this school do not have rights to the C drive. One high school in the county is piloting teacher access to this drive. The School Resource Officer explained to the technology coordinator that he needs access to his iPAQ Pocket PC, and he cannot do that without rights to the C drive.
The technology coordinator made phone calls to the county to discuss this issue. He also spoke with the technology support technician because he had been given a solution by the county. The technology coordinator explained they do not like to have more than one person trying to get an answer to the same problem so it is important that they be on the same page. The technology coordinator also explained that the county is the “keeper of information” and now, more than ever, has to come out to the local school to resolve problems and issues.
In the fifth hour, the technology coordinator received an email from one of the Assistant Principals regarding how to use screen shots. She was preparing a document and needed a training guide or handout to follow. The technology coordinator explained that he does have some how-to guides already created but he would have to create a handout for this particular application. He worked on creating an instruction sheet during this time period. This job duty can be classified in the Application Knowledge and Software Support category.
During this time, a technology coordinator from another school within the county emailed to see if she could come for a tour of the school. Her school is being retrofitted with all new computers next month and wireless access. Since this coordinator’s school is one of only two schools with this technology, she wanted to observe to see how things are done. The technology coordinator responded the visit would be fine and to plan a good bit of time to really see everything. This duty can be classified in the Active Member of the Local School Technology Team category.
In the sixth hour, the technology coordinator was once again involved with training for a Tech Tuesday session. This week the topic was querying in SASI. There were eight teachers present during this session. During the training, one teacher said she had no idea what they were doing. The technology coordinator quickly helped her get to the same screen as everyone else. Detailed handouts and an exercise were provided for teachers. The exercise was meant to extend the learning and allow teachers to practice creating their own query. After doing a sample query, the technology coordinator floated around the room helping teachers who were having problems. This job duty can be classified in the Technology Staff Development category.
During the seventh hour, the technology coordinator created instruction sheets on how to use the wireless laptop carts. He also created a wireless cart quick checklist for teachers to use when requesting or returning laptop carts. He located an empty lab in the Business Education wing to house the carts for this year. He reviewed the procedures for handling the wireless carts informally with some of the local school technology team. This job duty can be classified in the Instructional Technology Planning and Administration category.
In the eighth hour of observations, the technology coordinator dealt with a variety of issues. One teacher came in because she was having problems with her email. The technology coordinator rebooted the computer, and the problem was resolved. Another teacher was having problems emailing progress reports. The technology coordinator checked the settings, and the email addresses to make sure they were correct. The error was in the settings.
The teacher in charge of the school newspaper wanted to be able to FTP the newspaper. She was having trouble getting past the county firewall. The technology coordinator contacted the “keeper of the portals” at the county level to see if this issue could be resolved. He left a phone message and sent an email regarding this issue. Finally, a teacher reported her attendance program (ClassXP) would just close while she was working in it. The technology coordinator asked the teacher if she was using the wireless access. The coordinator explained some of the location access points for the wireless are still an issue, and it may not be advisable to use the programs associated with the student information system (SASI) database while on the wireless connection. He also explained the county has been out virtually every day trying to correct the faulty access points. Each of these duties can be classified in the Application Knowledge and Software Support category.
During the eight hours of observations, the job duties most often involved Application Knowledge and Software Support. Of the 12 different types of duties identified during these hours, 6 were Application Knowledge and Software Support, 3 were Technology Staff Development, 2 were Instructional Technology Planning and Administration, and 1 was Active Member of the Local School Technology Team. During the observations, there was not one instance of a job duty that fell into the category of Integration of Technology and Instructional Curriculum.
Conclusions
This research showed there was a difference in what the technology coordinator should be doing, and what they are actually doing. It further demonstrated that there is a difference in what the principal thought the technology coordinator should be doing and what they are actually doing. In addition, the research indicated some duties listed on the job description (Appendix A) are performed more frequently and others are rarely performed. In order for technology integration to be effective, the technology coordinator must have time to fulfill their job duties.
This study addressed the following research questions:
- How do administrators perceive the roles and responsibilities of the technology coordinator?
- How do technology coordinators perceive their roles and responsibilities?
- How do different perceptions of the technology coordinator position affect the job duties, if at all?
- To what extents are technology coordinators performing the job duties as listed on the job description (Appendix A)?
In order to compare how the principal and technology coordinator perceived the roles and responsibilities of the technology coordinator, each person was interviewed separately and asked the same questions. The principal overwhelmingly believes the major roles of the technology coordinator are to help teachers integrate technology into their curriculum and provide staff development opportunities. He stated that collaboration is the key to the future of education. The principal discussed some of the challenges associated with these two job duties including time constraints and willingness of teachers to collaborate. The principal was not sure how to overcome these obstacles.
The technology coordinator was performing job duties as listed on the job description (Appendix A); however, the balance of duties was unequal. The technology coordinator indicated technology staff development and application knowledge and software support are major parts of the job. He said technology coordinators are increasingly being asked to deal with administrative functions such as report preparation and information databases. This seems to be driven by more standardization and responsibilities coming down from the county level. In previous years, he was able to spend more time collaboratively planning but now little time is available for the technology coordinator to work on technology integration with teachers. During the eight hours of observation, not one instance of Integration of Technology and Instructional Curriculum was observed.
It is also important to note that this study was conducted in this high school’s first year of existence. While the technology coordinator did feel he did not have time for technology integration, this feeling could also be due to the fact that there are more technical and software issues to deal with in getting a new school up and running. After the new technology has been mastered by the technology coordinator and the staff, more time may be available for technology integration activities.
The technology coordinator spends a great deal of time troubleshooting with teachers and administrators. The most frequently performed job duty was Application Knowledge and Software Support. In particular, the technology coordinator frequently demonstrated knowledge of various hardware and software applications available for use in instruction and administrative operations . Again, the frequency of this duty may be due to the fact the technology coordinator is opening a new high school. The technology coordinator said the major challenge for him was that technology is constantly changing which requires him to be on a learning curve.
Technology Staff Development was the next most frequent job duty. The weekly Tech Tuesday sessions allow the technology coordinator to provide learning opportunities for the staff during their planning periods. Both the principal and the technology coordinator said the training sessions would be more technical in nature, especially at first while they are trying to fix the teacher’s struggles with technology. The only issue which was mentioned by both the principal and the technology coordinator was getting more teachers to attend the sessions. The major barrier to successful professional development identified by the principal was time constraints.
The technology coordinator was not asked or expected to repair machines or perform any of the duties listed in the job description of the technology support technician (Appendix B). Both the technology support technician and the local school technology coordinator report directly to the principal. The technology coordinator and principal both indicated the coordinator serves only as a backup to the technology support technician. They work together as a team, but the primary function of the technology coordinator is to work with teachers and help them use the technology.
Both the technology coordinator and the principal agreed that technology itself cannot impact learning. They felt it has great potential to enhance learning and make it more accessible, however, they felt it could not be used as a special piece. It had to facilitate learning and be incorporated into the lesson. The principal’s vision for technology integration included all teachers using technology to enhance the learning experience and not talking about it as a separate piece. Without adequate time for technology integration and training, this vision will never become a reality.
Recommendations
While the principal is supportive of the duties that should be performed by the technology coordinator, there needs to be some dialogue between the two parties concerning how to make technology integration a priority within the school in order to fulfill the principal’s vision. Since the technology coordinator and technology support technician directly report to the principal, he should spend some time becoming aware of the types of tasks the technology coordinator and technology support technician are performing throughout the day. If the administrative tasks performed by the technology coordinator can be lessened or given to another staff member, he would be able to find more time to promote collaboration and technology integration.
The technology coordinator should also spend time documenting how they spend their time. This would help them to identify the areas in which they are spending the majority of their time. They may also be able to identify alternative ways to handle the duties, which would allow more time for technology integration.
Since this is the first year in a new school, the technology coordinator should compare the duties of this year with the duties frequently performed next year to determine if that was a factor in the unequal balance of job duties. It seems logical that some of the troubleshooting and administrative type duties will be relieved after this first year. The technology coordinator may feel more time is available for technology integration and collaborative planning.
The technology coordinator mentioned in the interview that teaching experience was important for a technology coordinator to possess so that he or she could identify how teachers would need or want to use the technology. However, none of the data from the observations indicated this to be true. It can be assumed that if the technology coordinator were spending time on Integration of Technology and Instructional Curriculum duties, teaching experience would be more important. A future research question might be: Do technology coordinators with teaching experience have more success than those without? This research could be a quantitative study whereby teachers could rate technology coordinators on various effectiveness characteristics based on the job responsibilities of the technology coordinator position.
Summary
I have learned a great deal as a result of this research. I feel that I will be a better teacher and in the future, a better local school technology coordinator. I have a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the technology coordinator and the demands that are placed on persons’ holding this position.
Before beginning my research, I believed the technology coordinator would be involved in various administrative or technical tasks and would not be involved in many collaborative planning sessions. After observing the technology coordinator, I realized I was correct about the lack of collaborative planning opportunities. However, I was shocked to see how many technology staff development opportunities were available. I have never been at a school that offered technology sessions each week for teachers. While the attendance in these sessions is low, I believe this is a great opportunity for the technology coordinator to reach out to teachers and open the door to collaborative planning.
During my research I also learned that it is important to find out how the principal perceives the roles and responsibilities of the technology coordinator position. While both the principal and technology coordinator both felt collaborative planning was a very important function of the job, it was not frequently performed by the technology coordinator. With the number of administrative tasks and other responsibilities of the technology coordinator, there is not much time left for collaborative planning. However, I feel the technology coordinator could try to promote collaborative planning among the teachers. I believe many teachers might be interested in collaborative planning but are afraid to approach the technology coordinator or do not know they are available in that capacity.
References
Beattie, R. (2000). The truth about tech support. Electronic School. Retrieved February 17, 2004 from http://electronic-school.com/2000/09/0900f3.html
Bray, B. (1998). Technology coordinator – An impossible job? Retrieved February 17, 2004 from http://www.techlearning.com/db_area/archives/WCE/archives/bray.htm
Chamberlin, B. (2004). Re-defining the role of the k-12 technology coordinator. Retrieved February 17, 2004 from http://www.cahe.nmsu.edu:16080/bchamberlin/techcoord/description.html
CEO Forum. (1999). School technology and readiness report: Professional development: A link to better learning. Retrieved February 17, 2004 from http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.cfm?RID=2
Dawson, C., & Rakes, G. (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.
EdWeek. (2003). Tech Counts Special Issue, 22(35). Retrieved March 18, 2004 from http://www.edweek.com/sreports/tc03/chart.cfm?slug=35tracking-c6.h22
Ezarik, M. (2001). The 21 st century leader. District Administration. Retrieved March 19, 2004 from http://www.districtadministration.com/pageprint.cfm?p=146
Fisher, A. (1998). Coordinators influencing teachers. Retrieved February 17, 2004 from http://www.techlearning.com/db_area/archives/WCE/archives/afisher.htm
Georgia Department of Education. (2003). The state of Georgia K-12 technology plan. Retrieved February 20, 2004 from http://www.techservices.doe.k12.ga.us/edtech/2003techplan.php
Georgia Department of Education and the National Business in Education Alliance. (2002). Georgia’s Statewide Study of Instructional Technology Use. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Education.
Holland, L,. & Moore-Steward, T. (2000). A different divide: Preparing tech-savvy leaders. Leadership, 30(1), 37-38.
Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research planning and design (7 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Merkley, D.J., Bozik, M., & Oakland, K. (1997). Investigating support for teachers using distance learning in education. Deosnews, 7(11). Retrieved March 18, 2004 from http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosnews7_11.asp
Moursund, D. (1992). The technology coordinator. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Pfeifer, R. (2002). Who’s minding the store? District Administration. Retrieved March 18, 2004 from http://www.districtadministration.com/page.cfm?p=202
Reilly, R. (1999). The technology coordinator: Curriculum leader or electronic janitor? Multimedia Schools, 6(3), 38-41.
Ronnkvist, A., Dexter, S., & Anderson, R. (2000). Technology support: Its depth, breadth, and impact on America’s schools: Teaching, learning, and computing 1998 survey, report # 5. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information, Technology, and Organizations at University of California, Irvine and the University of Minnesota. Retrieved February 17, 2004 from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/technology-support/
Strudler, N. (1995). The role of school-based technology coordinators as change agents in elementary school programs: A follow-up study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(2). Retrieved February 17, 2004 from http://www.scsv.nevada.edu/~strudler/techcoordinator.html
Wisniewski, M. (1999). Counting on computers. Electronic School. Retrieved March 18, 2004 from http://www.electronic-school.com/199909/0999f3.html
APPENDIX A
Division: Educational Leadership
Department: Local School
Job Title:Local School Technology Coordinator
Position Code:
Adopted Date: July 1994
Revised Date: March 2003
________________________
Reports To:
Principal or Local School Administrator
|
Local School Technology Coordinator
|
Supervises:
________________________
Employment Terms:
Contracted
FLSA Exempt
________________________
Qualifications:
Required Licenses:
Valid Georgia Teaching Certificate.
Education:
Bachelors Degree. Completion of InTech, GTAT or PSC approved course. Masters Degree in technology field preferred or an equivalent combination of education and experience sufficient to perform the essential job functions. Continued employment in this position is contingent upon completion of the following training within one calendar year of appointment to this job classification: New LSTC training, mentor/mentee program, SASI training, GTAT instructor training.
Desirable Skills:
Excellent communication skills, ability to work well with others, problem solver, flexible, visionary, leader, ability to multitask. Strong background in the use of technology to support teaching and learning. The ability to teach/redeliver complex technology systems to end users.
Experience:
Three years teaching experience with evidence of integrating technology into the curriculum with technology-based instructional lessons, use of teacher productivity software in classroom management/data collection, web page development.
________________________
PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY: (Indicate if a line or support staff position)
To provide leadership and support of the use of technology in teaching and learning. This position serves as an advocate for the effective integration of technology into the curriculum. The LSTC is a leader in staff development that links the use of technology to classroom applications and improved student achievement.
________________________
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS:
I. Application Knowledge and Software Support
a. Plans cooperatively with teachers to enhance instruction and to empower students with technology.
b. Facilitates the use of technology as a tool in the process of instruction.
c. Previews appropriate software and recommends purchases to the review committee.
d. Provides demonstrations of cutting edge educational applications.
e. Demonstrates knowledge of various hardware and software applications available for use in instruction and administrative operations.
II. Technology Staff Development
a. Expands faculty training and provides staff development in instructional technology and professional productivity.
b. Redelivers the county technology staff development course for recertification requirements.
c. Provides curriculum adopted software application training for staff.
III. Integration of Technology and Instructional Curriculum
a. Collaborates with teachers to design student experiences that focus on authentic learning, information literacy, and curricular mastery.
b. Promotes the use of technology as a tool for continuous learning.
c. Demonstrates knowledge of instructional strategies that integrate Academic Knowledge and Skills with educational technology competencies.
d. Demonstrates knowledge of learner development and cognitive levels to organize teaching and learning with various technologies.
e. Makes recommendations to support teaching and learning with technology using available resources.
f. Provides leadership for the integration of video technology into the curriculum
g. Provides leadership in the use of distance learning technologies to support teaching and learning.
h. Guides teachers and students to determine the appropriate technological tools for student learning, interventions ad extensions.
IV. Instructional Technology Planning and Administration
a. Surveys faculty and staff to evaluate technological needs of the school.
b. Evaluates and recommends purchases of hardware, peripherals and instructional management and communication systems.
c. Facilitates the implementation of technology standards at elementary, middle and high school levels.
d. Completes survey documents to evaluate the technological needs of the school.
e. Manages technology assessment and collects data to make decisions about technology impact on teaching and learning.
f. Coordinates technology goal planning with school improvement goals.
V. Active Member of the Local School Technology Team.
These functions are representative of the responsibilities shared among each of the members of the local school technology team: TST, LSTC, and Media Specialist.
a. Acts as a backup for the TST with technical support to insure efficient network/computer operations.
b. Collaboratively plans with the Technology Team and other key people at the local school.
c. Collaborates with the learning community to plan, implement, and continually refine an effective student-centered technology plan to support the AKS.
d. Promotes technology efforts throughout the system, cluster and the local school.
e. Insures equitable access and full utilization of technology.
f. Disseminates knowledge, information and skills to students, staff, administration and community.
g. Expands current knowledge through professional development, conferences, workshops, publications, and networking of colleagues.
h. Serves on local school technology committee to help develop short term and long range technology plans.
I. Communicates with school personnel to facilitate implementation of the instructional technology initiative and related school instructional goals.
j. Receives direct supervision from the principal or his/her appointed administrator.
________________________
PHYSICAL DEMANDS:
This position requires extended periods of computer use. The lifting of computer equipment and peripherals are often required of this position.
Sitting is required 1/3 time.
Stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl is required 2/3 time.
Weights of up to 25 pounds will need to be lifted.
Vision requirement of the job are:
Close vision
Distance vision
Color vision
Peripheral vision
Depth vision
APPENDIX B
Division: Educational Leadership
Department: Local School
Job Title:Technology Support Technician - Local School
Position Code: 1235
Adopted Date: 06/20/2003
Revised Date: June 2003
________________________
Reports To:
Principal
|
Technology Support Technician - Local School
|
Supervises:
________________________
Employment Terms:
FLSA Exempt
Non Contracted
________________________
Qualifications:
Novell CNA and/or CNE version 4 or Higher, or Microsoft MCSE 2000 and/or MCP 2000 preferred.
Required Licenses:
Valid Georgia Driver's License
Education:
High school diploma; formal post high school course work in technology field; associate degree in technology preferred.
Desirable Skills:
Strong ability to communicate and interact with others (both internal staff and end users); ability to diagnose and resolve problems with various technologies (both instructional and administrative); personal characteristics and professional competencies to work independently; ability to reason logically using human factor analysis; ability to work closely with schools and school district personnel to provide excellent customer service and support.
Experience:
Three years of full-time verifiable work experience troubleshooting, supporting and administering Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Novell Network ver 4.1 or higher, computer networking, tape backup solutions, Windows 9x, and Windows XP support is required. WAN, Fast Ethernet, frame relay, multiple platform hardware and software, AV support, and instructional technology support experience are preferred.
________________________
PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY: (Indicate if a line or support staff position)
This position reports to the local school Principal and has dotted line responsibility to the
Division of Information Management. The primary function is to facilitate the implementation of
technology at the local school and to support the administrative and local school instructional
programs through technical support and troubleshooting. The position requires the incumbent
to perform the following essential functions. Other related duties may be assigned as required
or as circumstances necessitate.
________________________
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS:
1. Provides support to school based users of technology.
a. Provides on-site installation, repair, and support for hardware, software, basic networking services, peripheral devices, and other technologies.
b. Local network administration including Novell, SASI, backups, ZENApps, antivirus and server management.
c. Supports and maintains Web / Intranet infrastructure.
d. Integrates networking systems to provide maximum, secure access to information.
e. Maintains familiarity with various hardware and software applications available to users.
f. Provides on-site technical assistance and individual training / knowledge transfer to users.
g. Initiates problem escalation after effectively performing Tier 1 technology repair.
h. Maintains familiarity with various hardware and software applications available to users.
i. Provides on-site technical assistance and individual training / knowledge transfer to users.
j. Maintains GCPS technical standards.
2. Active member of local school technology team.
a. Evaluates and makes recommendations for the purchase of all educational technology hardware, software, and networking including preparation of specifications.
b. Assists the local technology team in the evaluation of the technology initiative on classroom instruction and student learning.
c. Serves on school technology committees to help develop long-range technology plans.
3. Assists in coordinating efforts with the Division of Information Management.
a. Eligible to serve on system wide technology committee to help develop long range technology plans and/or procedural standards.
b. Participates in information sessions and training about innovations in technology.
c. Acquires and maintains GCPS IMD certification.
d. Participates in pilot programs and provides necessary technical feedback for proper pilot evaluation.
- Researches and reviews new and updated technology and software.
4. Collaborates with the local technology team regarding staff development and training in the use of technology.
a. Facilitates workshops, seminars, and training sessions with school staff to increase knowledge of hardware, software, networking, telecommunications, and peripheral devices for successful implementation into the instructional process.
b. Assists staff in selecting technology training courses.
c. Communicates with school personnel to facilitate implementation of the instructional technology initiative and related school instructional goals.
d. Provides assistance with technology support not available from other staff.
5. Administrative duties
a. Performs daily general tasks such as maintenance, backups, and report generation.
b. Manges LAN / WAN connections.
c. Applies updates provided as necessary.
d. Functions as Tier I technical support.
e. Models use of technology for problem solving.
________________________
PHYSICAL DEMANDS:
1. Occasional lifting and carrying of boxes, materials and equipment.
2. Prolonged periods of sitting, may range from 4 to 6 hours.
3. Prolonged periods in front of a computer monitor.
APPENDIX C
Interview Protocol - General Questions
The questions in this document are broad prompts to engage the participant in big-picture thinking and conversation. Use active listening techniques to encourage further conversation, such as “I heard you say…” then repeating the major ideas communicated by the participant.
- Tell me about the job of the local school technology coordinator. What is the typical day like?
- What do you think the technology coordinator should do?
- What does the technology coordinator actually do?
- Is there a difference, if so, why?
- What kinds of duties is the technology coordinator asked to perform on a daily basis?
- Does the technology coordinator preview appropriate software and recommend purchases?
- Does the technology coordinator evaluate and recommend purchases of hardware, peripherals and instructional management and communication systems?
- Does the technology coordinator evaluate the technological needs of the school? How?
- Does the technology coordinator serve on a local school technology committee?
- Does this committee develop short term and long range technology plans?
- Does the technology coordinator provide on-site installation, repair, and support for hardware, software, basic networking services, peripheral devices, and other technologies?
- Does the technology coordinator perform daily general tasks such as maintenance, backups, and report generation?
- Are there any other duties or responsibilities that are performed frequently by the technology coordinator?
- Are there any other duties that should be performed by the technology coordinator?
- What are the most important attributes for a technology coordinator?
- How can technology impact learning?
- What is your vision for technology integration?
- What steps are you taking for that vision to become a reality?
- What are the biggest challenges to technology integration?
- Tell me about collaborative planning between the technology coordinator and teachers.
- Are you happy with the level of collaborative planning you are able to do?
- Do you feel enough time is available for collaborative planning?
- Are teachers enthusiastic about collaborative planning?
- Tell me a story about a collaborative planning experience.
- What types of professional development does the technology coordinator typically offer?
- Are there any others that you think should be offered?
- Are professional development sessions technical in nature or instructional?
- How do you promote responsible use of technology with staff and students?
- How do you keep current on new trends in educational technology?
- What are the biggest challenges of the technology coordinator?
- How has the technology coordinator position changed over the years?
- How do you think the position will change in the future?
APPENDIX D
Observation Log
Date:
Hour 1:
Observation Notes:
Date:
Hour 2:
Observation Notes:
Date:
Hour 3:
Observation Notes:
Date:
Hour 4:
Observation Notes:
Date:
Hour 5:
Observation Notes:
Date:
Hour 6:
Observation Notes:
Date:
Hour 7:
Observation Notes:
Date:
Hour 8:
Observation Notes:
