Madsen, M.D. (2005). A comparison of the job expectations versus the daily duties of a docal school technology coordinator. Instructional Technology Monographs 2(1). Retrieved <insert date>, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/itm/archives/spring2005/madsen.htm.

A Comparison of the Job Expectations versus the Daily Duties of a Local School Technology Coordinator

by

Melissa D. Madsen
University of Georgia

 

Abstract

 

The last twenty years have seen the creation of a new position in K-12 school districts, that of the technology coordinator. However, this position is not uniform from district to district or even school to school. Instead, it encompasses many job duties. The purpose of this study is to compare the expectations of one school’s community towards the duties of this position and the realities of the duties that this position entails. Based on surveys designed to gauge the expectations of a technology coordinator by the school faculty and a personal log designed to measure actual time spent upon job duties, the results of this study show that the expectations of the school’s teachers, administration and technology team do not match the actualities of the job and that the individual technology coordinator determines most of what job duties will be performed.

 

 

Introduction

What does a local school technology coordinator do? I first pondered this question as I anticipated becoming a local school technology coordinator (LSTC) at a new school. Changing schools and becoming an LSTC is not like changing schools and becoming a teacher. For a teacher, there is almost a universal expectation as to what teaching entails. No matter what differences there are between the cultures of the schools, at the end of the day, the teacher will have been in a classroom helping students master the curriculum at hand. This is what the parents expect, what the district administrators expect, and what the local administration expects.

The expectations for an LSTC is not so easily objectified and not as universally accepted. As Dr. Sheila Kieran-Greenbush from Teacher’s College at Columbia University states, a technology coordinator is required to “teach, design courses, keep up with technology, fix microcomputer (sic), fix LAN networks, monitor and fix WAN’s, be a network administrator, be a WWW administrator, be an Internet guru, be a help desk, evaluate software and hardware, find and get grants, and generally do what an academic computing department in a small college would do” (Reilly, 1999, p. 38). However, these requirements wholly depend on the school district and local school administration. Schools have different needs and resources, consequently, they have different expectations.

The purpose of this study is to identify the expectations of a new LSTC and to compare these expectations to what the LSTC actually does during the day-to-day operation of one elementary school. The elementary school in question has slightly more than 1000 students and is located in a suburban school system in the southeastern United States. Like all elementary schools in the district, the school has several employees who work directly with technology and staff: the Local School Technology Coordinator, the Technology Support Technician (TST), and the Media Specialist. The principal, on the local level, has chosen to complement this group by hiring a lab manager to assist with technology responsibilities at the school. The LSTC, TST, media specialist and lab manager form a group called the Tech Team. At the district level, the Information Management Division (IMD) directs the school system’s technology planning as well as providing support for the local schools.

All of the groups — the local school administration, the Tech Team and the district hierarchy — have expectations as to the duties of a LSTC. The district has qualified the expectations as per the following:

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. (Gwinnett County Board of Education, 2003, p. 1)

However, the way in which this objective is put into practice is determined by the local school. Like at all schools in the system, the principal is the authority in terms of job duties at the local level. Since the principal is responsible for what takes place in the school, the principal’s expectations form the basis of the job responsibilities of the LSTC. Since the Tech Team is primarily responsible for the technology in the school, they too have specific beliefs and input as to the functions of the LSTC as a member of the team. Lastly, the teachers, whom the LSTC serves, also have specific ideas as to what the LSTC is supposed to do for them.

In this study, I addressed the following questions:

1. What are the expectations of the LSTC by the district administrators?
2. How do the principal and or a designated administrator perceive the duties of the LSTC in relation to the local school?
3. How does the Tech Team discern the duties of the LSTC from other members’ responsibilities?
4. How do the teachers define the role of LSTC in the school?
5. How do all of these beliefs match the actual day-to-day tasks the LSTC performs?
   

I asked these questions because when there is a gap in expectation and reality, conflicts can arise. It is hoped that the results of this study will allow those at the local school involved with technology to better understand the role of the LSTC by contrasting expectations of an LSTC to the realities and actual duties of this position. With this knowledge, the school faculty will have a better understanding about this position and what it entails.

In this study, I analyzed the district’s job description for a LSTC, and conducted a survey to determine the expectations of the duties of an LSTC from the school’s administration, Tech Team and teachers. I also recorded the tasks performed by an LSTC over a period of nine weeks (one grading period) during a school year. I compared the expectations of all parties involved to the tasks performed to see how they deviate. Finally, I considered ways to more closely align the expectations to actualities when they diverge.

Literature Review

Technology Coordinator. Technology Facilitator. Instructional Technology Specialist. Technologist. Each of these terms denotes an ever evolving position in K-12 education. Unlike most academic jobs, that of technology coordinator has not been adequately defined. There are no specific standards to which a technology coordinator aspires nor is there a standardized test to qualify a person for this position. Instead, the technology coordinator plays a catch-all role in regards to technology in a school. Until the function of a coordinator is understood and delineated, the job will not reach its potential of helping teachers fully integrate technology into their classrooms. This literature review describes the evolution of the role of technology coordinators and the part they play in schools today.

Historical Overview

As the twentieth century closed, computers became an integral part of K-12 education. Beginning with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, mainframe computers found their way into school districts across the country. These computers mainly contained student information databases for use by district offices. With the microcomputer revolution of the 1970’s, personal computers started infiltrating schools. By the early 1980’s, computers arrived in the classrooms of America pioneered by individual teachers who saw them as a way to foster experiential learning (Carter, 1997). When productivity software became available, more teachers clamored for computers in their schools and classrooms. As technology became more prevalent in schools, the need arose for someone to manage it. This job often fell to the person who pioneered the computers in the school. That person became the technology coordinator.

The 1980’s were when many school systems officially introduced the position of technology coordinator. November (1990) described the role of the technology coordinator during this period in clear terms: The technology coordinator created classes for students and teachers that focused on programming and productivity applications. The majority of technology coordinators at both the district (60%) and local school level (70%) considered their duties to be part time (Bruder, 1990) because as Studler (1995/1996) found in a study of technology coordinators conducted in an elementary school in 1986, technology coordinators envisioned that their jobs would be obsolete in two to five years since the teachers would be at ease with computers and their applications. However, during the late 1980s, a shift occurred in the duties of school technology coordinators away from teaching classes to students and teachers to more administrative and maintenance tasks. Indeed, Bruder (1990) discovered that technology coordinator’s responsibilities had increased considerable since the early eighties to include more custodial type tasks. Indeed, November (1990) also noted that the technology coordinator’s job was once again beginning to shift away from teaching application classes to collaborating with the teachers on integrating technology into their classrooms.

Current Trends

In the twenty-first century, the role of the technology coordinator is a hodgepodge of technological responsibilities. No longer do they only perform a single duty like teaching a class or maintaining hardware. Instead, technology coordinators often are accountable for every aspect of technology in their school from infrastructure maintenance to motivating teachers (Fisher 1998). Brey (1998) lists a diverse range of duties for today’s technology coordinator: Preparing a technology budget; ordering software and hardware; installing and maintaining network infrastructure; inventory control; supporting the staff through professional development and curriculum integration; marketing the technology efforts of the school to parents, teachers and the community; developing the school web site; and keeping current on technology innovations. Ted Nellen, a technology coordinator in New York confirmed this plethora of responsibilities by saying “One of the major problems is that schools either don’t 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, p. 39). This is because the technology coordinator position has not been well defined at any level of a school system. The school district does not define the job of a technology coordinator; rather, the job of a technology coordinator depends on the local school assignment (Studler, 1995/1996). The job often varies from school to school within the same school system depending on the priorities of the school’s principal.

Vision of Technology Coordinators

Schools and school districts are not the only places that lack a vision for technology coordinators. The National Board for Profession Teaching Standards web site lists no standards for technology coordinators. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has created National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for students, teachers and administrators, but has not yet created standards for technology coordinators. However, ISTE has created program standards for institutions wanting to provided certification or degrees for technology coordinators. ISTE’s standards includes eight categories, as listed in Table 1. These categories encompass every aspect related to technology that might appear in a K-12 environment.

Table 1
ISTE’s Standards Categories

1.    Technology Operations and Concepts

2.   Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences

3.   Teaching, Learning and the Curriculum

4.   Assessment and Evaluation

5.   Productivity and Professional Practice

6.   Social, Ethical, Legal and Human Issues

7.    Procedures, Policies, Planning, and Budgeting for Technology Environments

8.   Leadership and Vision

The first category, Technology Operations and Concepts, deals with the creation and evaluation of professional development for the staff of the school or system. The second, third and fourth categories — Planning and Designing Learning Environments, Experiences and Teaching, Learning and the Curriculum and Assessment and Evaluation — detail appropriate technology integration within the school setting. Productivity and Professional Practice specifies the development and modeling of technology products. The category of Social, Ethical, Legal and Human Issues concerns preparation and implementation of appropriate uses of technology. The category of Procedures, Policies, Planning, and Budgeting for Technology Environments, denotes the design and implementation of the technology infrastructure. The last category, Leadership and Vision, stipulates that a technology leader will create a shared vision of technology by inspiring groups. Overall, ISTE advocates a wide breath of requirements for a technology coordinator.

Chamberlin (2004) characterizes technology coordinators in much more narrow terms. She advocates that the technology coordinator only be responsible for tasks which enhance student learning. Collaboration with teachers, professional development, technology planning and resource development are the primary responsibilities. Infrastructure maintenance, attendance, student information and grading database administration along with web site development should be duties of others because those tasks do not impact student learning. Moreover, Chamberlin believes that a technology coordinator cannot be effective if they are saddled with these other responsibilities. Carter (2000) agreed with Chamberlin in that separate positions must be established in schools in order for jobs to get completed. She states “the days of one person wearing several different technology ‘hats’ are coming to a close” (Carter, 2000, p. 26).

Actualities of being a Technology Coordinator

Ronnkvist, Dexter, and Anderson (2000), in a study of technology staff in 1998, found that unlike Chamberlin’s ideal, full time technology coordinators spend a great deal of time, approximately 14.65 hours per week, installing and troubleshooting hardware. Indeed, they only devote 13.82 hours to aiding teachers with technology integration, staff development and training. Surprisingly, 15.72 hours per week was spent teaching student classes, a job responsibility that is not addressed either in the ISTE standards or by Chamberlin. Hawkes and Brockmueller (2003/2004) concur with Ronnkvist et al.’s findings. In their study, Hawkes and Brockmueller disaggregate the job responsibilities into the following twelve tasks: teaching student courses; technical support to other teachers/staff; maintaining or repairing network equipment; installing hardware/software; teaching teachers/staff to use technology; purchasing hardware/software; integrating technology into the curriculum; developing school/district policies for technology use; serving on technology and computing related committees; developing products for the teachers or the school like web sites and other such as extracurricular activities like coaching or serving on other school related committees. Similar to Ronnkvist et al. technology coordinators in Hawkes and Brockmueller’s study estimate that they spend a considerable amount of their time teaching student courses (24.3%) and maintain/installing hardware or software (24%). Activities that directly impact student learning amounted to approximately 32.4% of a technology coordinator’s time.

Expectations of School Districts

Georgia supports the goal of technology integration as a primary responsibility of the technology coordinator. In 1994, Georgia began providing educational technology to school districts based on Full Time Equivalency (FTE) funding. According to The State of Georgia K-12 Technology Plan (2003) 66% of schools report having a computer maintenance technician on at either the local school or district level and 44% of Georgia schools employ a technology coordinator at some level. Consequently, Georgia ranks among the top five states in employing technology coordinators and in the top three in employing technical support staff.

Local schools in Georgia lean towards Chamberlin’s view of technology coordinators as facilitators of student learning rather than as technology custodians (Dudley, 2004). Gwinnett County Public Schools (Gwinnett County Board of Educators, 2003), for example, lists five essential functions of technology coordinators in its job description. They are expected fill the following roles in their local schools: application knowledge and 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 system provides technology support technicians to maintain the hardware and clerks for database administration. However, Thurmond (2003) reported that in a sample day, technology coordinators in Gwinnett County still spent approximately 1.3 hours a day on infrastructure maintenance and administrative issues even though these responsibilities were the duties of others in the school. One hour a day is spent on non-technology oriented tasks such as bus duty. The rest of the day, Thurmond found, is spent on technology integration.

Expectations of Local Schools

Like the schools in Studler’s (1995/1996) analysis, local entities determine the functions of the technology coordinator. Thrumond’s (2003) study discovered a divide in the daily functions of the three elementary local school technology coordinators despite the fact that they were in the same district and had the same job description. Since the local school determines what technology coordinators do rather than district administrators, three main groups establish the priorities of the technology coordinator: The principal and other administrators, the teachers and the technology coordinator. Holland (2000) concluded that school principals are a driving force behind technology planning and staff development within the local school. Harrington-Leuker (1996) uncovered similar findings and advocated school principals to become knowledgeable about how technology works in the classroom. School principals, lacking this knowledge of technology, can not effectively guide the technology coordinator in the job responsibilities. Proctor and Livingston (2001) noted that teachers too play a role in deciding the priorities of a technology coordinator. Most teachers believe that while technology coordinators should be able to repair the hardware, their primary responsibility is curriculum integration. Teachers see the role of technology coordinators as helping to prepare curriculum materials and modeling lessons in order to achieve successful technology integration. Bray (1998) and Reilly (1999) concluded that the technology coordinator greatly influences this role in the school as well. By aligning the school’s technology plan to personal goals, the technology coordinator can validate the duties that are s perform and explain why others were not accomplished. By creating technology teams within the school, some of troubleshooting and product creation can be delegated to others. The technology coordinator must be savvy enough to navigate the gray area between educator and technician (Bushweller, 1996).

Conclusion

The duties and responsibilities of a technology coordinator have been transforming since the position came into being in the 1990s. Since the position responsibilities evolved according to demands of the school and context rather than appeared be identified according to pre-determined criteria, there is not a specific standard to which technology coordinators are held. So what should the job duties of a technology coordinator be? Facilitating the integration is seen as the primary concern by teachers and administrators (Proctor & Livingston, 2001). However, if the technology does not function, teachers will dismiss it as a learning tool (Ronnkvist, Dexter, & Anderson, 2002). Since the duties and responsibilities are open to interpretation, technology coordinators are often on their own as to what their role in the school should be. Without an adequate understanding of how the perceptions of the duties of a technology coordinator by the school faculty relates to the job the technology coordinator actually performs, then a clear vision for the school can no be developed. By identifying the relationship between expectations and reality, the role of the technology coordinator become more defined and more achievable.

 

Methods

The primary purpose of this research was to determine the relationship between myself as a local school technology coordinator and the expectations of my school’s administration, Tech Team and teachers. For this purpose, the Local School Technology Coordinator’s (LSTC) job expectations were defined by the administration, teachers, and Tech Team while the actual duties of the technology coordinator were logged. The secondary purpose of this study was to determine how the Tech Team distinguished their jobs from that of the technology coordinator.

Participants

The study was conducted at a suburban elementary school in the southeastern United States. The school has slightly more than 1000 students in kindergarten through fifth grade. There are 126 staff members at the school. The administration consists of one principal and two assistant principals. The principal has led the school for 5 years, worked in the system for 21 years and has 31 years of education. One of the assistant principals worked at the school for 16 years while this is the other’s first year. A total of 34 teachers took part in the survey. The median years of experience of the teachers is 11 years and most had taught at the elementary school for a median of three years and in the system for eight years. The Tech Team consists of the LSTC, Technology Support Technician (TST), media specialist and computer lab manager. This was my first year as an elementary technology coordinator. I have eight years of experience as a middle school or high school classroom teacher and two year of experience as a middle school technology coordinator. However, the two years I served in that capacity were from 1996-1998. Moreover, I have not ever worked in an elementary school prior to this year. The TST had worked at the school in this capacity for five years, four years at the elementary school. The media specialist had served for 22 years, ten of them at the elementary school, while the computer lab manager has worked at the school for 14 years as a lab manager. All participants were chosen based on employment at the particular elementary school.

Research Design and Procedures

The faculty and staff of the elementary school were used as part of an illustrative case study design (Palmquist, et al., 2004). This design is one in which a single event illustrates what a situation is like. In this instance, the event is the job of a local school technology coordinator. Data in case studies can be acquired from observations, interviews, documents and archives. In this study, data were collected from surveys and observations.
The survey included questions about job titles, experience, education and LSTC job duties (Appendix A). The 13 tasks in the survey were developed from Hawks and Brockmueller’s (2003) study on gender differences in the roles and training of technology coordinators, the district’s job description, and the proposal for new LSTC staff development training. Relationships between the survey questions, the Local School Technology Coordinator and the ISTE technology leadership institutional program standards were confirmed. The administrators, Tech Team and teachers were asked to identify their role in the school, experience and education levels. They then were asked to rank the 13 tasks of a technology coordinator from greatest to least priority. Furthermore, the members of the Tech Team were asked to fill out an identical survey for the lab manager, TST and media specialist (Appendix B).

The nine week observation portion took place during the second grading period of the school year from October 11 to December 17, 2004. This time period was chosen because it represents the most “normal” time during the school year, meaning that most school routines had been established. The school year for elementary schools in this school district is divided into four nine week grading periods. By observing the second grading period, all the elements that comprise a marking term like single student enrollment, multiple teaching units, and report cards are represented; however, interruptions such as testing, full-time equivalency data collection and mass class scheduling do not occur.

Data Collection and Analysis

Once the new school year had begun, consent forms and surveys were placed in participants’ boxes and returned in the mail room of the elementary school. I analyzed the surveys to determine each group’s ranking of the duties of a local school technology coordinator.

For nine weeks, I kept a log of what duty I performed categorized by the survey list along with a brief description and time requirements of the task. From this a comparison of the expectations as determined by the survey and the actual duties was created.

Permission and Approval

Permission for this study was granted by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Georgia and by the local school principal

Time Line

This study began in August 2004 once I had received the University of Georgia’s Institutional Review Board’s permission to proceed and the hectic pace of the new school year had slowed. Observation logs were recorded from October 11 to December 17, 2004 which represents the second nine weeks grading period.

 

Results and Discussion

The research tools yielded much information about the perception of the job of a Local School Technology Coordinator (LSTC) by the various groups in the school and what duties the job actually requires. The survey responses are presented first. The data from the daily logs are presented next with an indication of approximate time measures spent in the thirteen categories.

Survey Data

An average of the rankings 1-13 in each of the thirteen categories was taken for each survey group, teachers, administrators, and tech team to gather information on their perspective of the job of an LSTC. An overall group ranking was established for each group. The rankings for the teachers are below, followed by the administration and the members of the tech team, media specialist, lab manager, Technology Support Technician (TST) and LSTC.

Teachers

Teachers rank the job responsibilities of an LSTC in Table 2.

Table 2
Teachers' Rankings of the Job Responsibilities of a LSTC

Ranking	Job Duties
1	Technical Support for Teachers
2	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff
3	Integrating Technology into the curriculum
4	Teaching Student Courses
5	Developing Products for teachers or school
6	Purchasing hardware/software
7	Installing new hardware/software
8	Database Administration
9	LSTC Meetings
10	Serving on technology committees
11	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment
12	Developing school/district policies
13	Other Capacities

Overall, teachers felt that technical support for teachers is the most important job a LSTC does followed by teaching staff development courses and integrating technology in the classroom. These were consistently ranked by teachers in the top three spots. All three of these go together. Teachers seek “just-in-time” technology support as a foundation to their integration efforts. Often the technology they choose to integrate is what they have learned in a staff development class. Without these classes teachers do not conceive of the possibilities of using technology in their classrooms. Many teachers at the elementary level like the autonomy that they have in their classrooms; therefore they want to integrate the technology themselves knowing that there is helper for those unexpected glitches that arise.

The remaining categories rankings were not consistent across the surveyed teachers since they were not relevant to their role in the classroom.

Administration

The administration of the school ranked the job duties of an LSTC in Table 3.

Table 3
Administrators' Rankings of the Job Responsibilities of a LSTC

Ranking	Job Duties
1	Integrating Technology into the curriculum
2	Technical Support for other Teachers
3	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff
4	Purchasing hardware/software
5	Teaching Student Courses
6	Database Administration
7	Developing Products for teachers or school
8	Installing new hardware/software
9	Other Capacities
10	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment
11	Developing school/district policies
12	LSTC Meetings
13	Serving on technology committees

Even though the order is different, the first three categories are the same as the rankings for teachers. The ranking of integrating technology as number one reflects a different perspective on classrooms from the administration than from the teachers. The administration feels that the teachers need encouragement to integrate technology into their classroom practices and see this as the primary job of a LSTC. This view is disseminated by the Media and Technology Department of the school system who advocates that LSTCs not teach student courses in order to facilitate technology instruction in the classrooms.

Tech Team

The tech team, which is composed of the media specialist, technology support technician (TST) and lab manager, also were polled. This group has the most contact with the LSTC because often their jobs overlap. Consequently, they also must take into account their job priorities and responsibilities when considering that of the LSTC. The media specialist is a certified teacher whose classroom is the media center. This elementary school’s media center contains 26 computers, a projection device and screen, video production lab and computer based checkout system also with the traditional books and magazines. The media specialist prioritized the two jobs in Table 4.

Table 4
Media Specialist’s Rankings of the Job Responsibilities of a LSTC and a Media Specialist

LSTC		Media Specialist
Ranking	Job Duties	Ranking	Job Duties
1	Integrating Technology into the curriculum	1	Integrating Technology into the curriculum
2	Teaching Student Courses	2	Purchasing hardware/software¡Xbooks.
3	Database Administration	3	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff
4	Serving on technology committees	4	Technical Support for other Teachers
5	Developing Products for teachers or school	5	Developing school/district policies
6	Other Capacities	6	Teaching Student Courses
7	Developing school/district policies	7	Developing Products for teachers or school
8	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff	8	Serving on technology committees
9	LSTC Meetings	9	Media Training
10	Installing new hardware/software	10	Installing new hardware/software
11	Purchasing hardware/software	11	Database Administration
12	Technical Support for other Teachers	12	Other Capacities
13	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment	13	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment

Interestingly, the media specialist also saw herself as a person responsible for integrating technology into the curriculum, primarily computers for research and video production. Moreover, the media specialist felt that she was more responsible for staff development of the faculty than the LSTC. The media specialist also rated the TST and lab manager as to their responsibilities in the school as featured in Table 5.

Table 5
Media Specialist's Rankings of the Job Responsibilities of a TST and a Lab Manager

TST		Lab Manager
Ranking	Job Duties	Ranking	Job Duties
1	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment	1	Teaching Student Courses
2	Installing new hardware/software	2	Integrating Technology into the curriculum
3	Technical Support for other Teachers	3	Technical Support for other Teachers
4	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff	4	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff
5	Database Administration	5	Lab Manager Training
6	Developing school/district policies	6	Purchasing hardware/software
7	Purchasing hardware/software	7	Serving on technology committees
8	Serving on technology committees	8	Developing Products for teachers or school
9	TST Training	9	Developing school/district policies
10	Developing Products for teachers or school	10	Installing new hardware/software
11	Integrating Technology into the curriculum	11	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment
12	Other Capacities	12	Other Capacities
13	Teaching Student Courses	13	Database Administration

The Technology Support Technician (TST) is a critical member of the technology team. This position is considered a classified job which means that a teaching certificate is not required. She ranked the job duties of the LSTC as compared to her job duties in Table 6.

Table 6
TST’s Rankings of the Job Responsibilities of a LSTC and a TST

LSTC		TST
Ranking	Job Duties	Ranking	Job Duties
1	Integrating Technology into the curriculum	1	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment
2	Teaching Student Courses	2	Installing new hardware/software
3	Serving on technology committees	3	Technical Support for other Teachers
4	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff	4	Purchasing hardware/software
5	Database Administration	5	Database Administration
6	Technical Support for other Teachers	6	TST Training
7	Developing Products for teachers or school	7	Developing Products for teachers or school
8	Other Capacities	8	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff
9	Installing new hardware/software	9	Developing school/district policies
10	Purchasing hardware/software	10	Serving on technology committees
11	LSTC Meetings	11	Integrating Technology into the curriculum
12	Developing school/district policies	12	Teaching Student Courses
13	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment	13	Other Capacities

Integrating technology once again appears at the top of the list of the job duties of the LSTC. The TST does not feel that it is a priority in her position and ranks that job close to the bottom of the list. Her job priority is the care and maintenance of the hardware and the installation of hardware and software. Consequently, she ranked these duties low on the LSTC’s job description. As for the media specialist and the lab manager, the TST ranked their responsibilities as found in Table 7.

Table 7
TST’s Rankings of the Job Responsibilities of a Media Specialist and a Lab Manager

Media Specialist		Lab Manager
Ranking	Job Duties	Ranking	Job Duties
1	Integrating Technology into the curriculum	1	Integrating Technology into the curriculum
2	Technical Support for other Teachers	2	Teaching Student Courses
3	Teaching Student Courses	3	Technical Support for other Teachers
4	Database Administration	4	Database Administration
5	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff	5	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff
6	Media Training	6	Lab Manager Training
7	Purchasing hardware/software	7	Developing Products for teachers or school
8	Developing Products for teachers or school	8	Purchasing hardware/software
9	Serving on technology committees	9	Installing new hardware/software
10	Developing school/district policies	10	Serving on technology committees
11	Installing new hardware/software	11	Developing school/district policies
12	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment	12	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment
13	Other Capacities	13	Other Capacities

For both of these positions, integrating technology is a priority. However, the TST feels that the media specialist is as responsible for delivering technical support to teachers as she is and, furthermore, the media specialist is more responsible than the LSTC. Perhaps this is because the media specialist is the keeper and maintainer of the TV’s VCR’s DVD players, film strip and overhead projectors and close-circuit system which is not within the TST’s domain.

The lab manager is the last member of the Tech Team. She is a not a certified teacher; however she does hold a paraprofessional license. One of the computer labs is her classroom. She ranks her job duties along with the LSTC’s in Table 8.

Table 8
Lab Manager’s Rankings of the Job Responsibilities of a LSTC and a Lab Manager

LSTC		Lab Manager
Ranking	Job Duties	Ranking	Job Duties
1	Developing school/district policies	1	Integrating Technology into the curriculum
2	Integrating Technology into the curriculum	2	Teaching Student Courses
3	Serving on technology committees	3	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment
4	Database Administration	4	Database Administration
5	Purchasing hardware/software	5	Lab Manager Training
6	Developing Products for teachers or school	6	Serving on technology committees
7	Technical Support for other Teachers	7	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff
8	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff	8	Developing school/district policies
9	Other Capacities	9	Purchasing hardware/software
10	Teaching Student Courses	10	Installing new hardware/software
11	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment	11	Developing Products for teachers or school
12	Installing new hardware/software	12	Other Capacities
13	LSTC Meetings	13	Technical Support for other Teachers

Surprisingly, she felt that the LSTC’s primary duty was to develop school/district policies which was not a priority for any other group. She too ranked integrating technology as important duty of the LSTC; however, she saw that as her number one goal. As for the TST and the media specialist, her rankings of the job duties in Table 9.

Table 9
Lab Manager’s Rankings of the Job Responsibilities of a TST and a Media Specialist

TST		Media Specialist
Ranking	Job Duties	Ranking	Job Duties
1	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment	1	Developing school/district policies
2	Installing new hardware/software	2	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff
3	Purchasing hardware/software	3	Teaching Student Courses
4	Technical Support for other Teachers	4	Integrating Technology into the curriculum
5	Developing school/district policies	5	Database Administration
6	Database Administration	6	Serving on technology committees
7	Serving on technology committees	7	Media Training
8	TST Training	8	Purchasing hardware/software
9	Staff Development for Faculty and Staff	9	Other Capacities
10	Other Capacities	10	Maintaining/Repairing Equipment
11	Developing Products for teachers or school	11	Technical Support for other Teachers
12	Integrating Technology into the curriculum	12	Developing Products for teachers or school
13	Teaching Student Courses	13	Installing new hardware/software

Once again, developing school/district policies ranked number one under the job duties of the media specialist which does not appear high on any other list.

Observation Data

The information obtained from the daily logs was classified into the thirteen categories by 15 minute increments. This data was then tallied and divided by the total number of 15 minute increments in that nine week period. Figure 1 displays a graph of the results from the daily logs. Table 10 displays these same data in order of most time spent to least time spent on specific duties.

Figure 1:
Pie Graph of percent of time spent per duty

Table 10:
Percent of time spent per job duty in order from most time spent to least time spent

Job Duties	Percent of Time
Integrating Technology into the curriculum	21.02%
Database Administration	19.83%
Technical Support for other Teachers	19.03%
Developing Products for teachers or school	16.89%
Other Capacities	9.67%
LSTC Meetings	7.93%
Maintaining/Repairing Equipment	2.38%
Staff Development for Faculty and Staff	1.51%
Serving on technology committees	1.19%
Purchasing hardware/software	0.40%
Installing new hardware/software	0.16%
Developing school/district policies	0.00%
Teaching Student Courses	0.00%

80% of my time is spent performing four duties: Integrating Technology into the Curriculum, Database Administration, Technical Support for other Teachers and Developing Products for Teachers or School. The majority, 18%, of the rest of my time is spent either in other capacities like bus duty or in meetings. I only spend 2% of my time on the other seven duties.

Conclusions

This research shows that inconsistencies exist between what the LSTC is doing and what the school community of teachers, administrators, and the Tech Team perceives the LSTC should be doing. I spend 98% of my time performing six duties: Integrating technology into the curriculum, database administration, technical support for teachers, developing products for teachers and school, other capacities and LSTC meetings. No group listed all six duties where I spend the majority of my time in their top six ranking. Moreover, Hawkes’ and Brockmueller’s (2003/2004) study where I derived my duties also does not list the same duties in the same order. Only one duty, technical support for teachers, appears in the top six ranking for both their study and mine. Marovitz’s 1998 case study also confirms that technical support or “support by walking around” is the primary role of a technology coordinator.

The reason for the inconsistencies between what the school community thinks the LSTC should be doing and what is actually done is a lack of understanding of the job itself and prior personal knowledge of other LSTCs. Since this job has so many duties assigned to it, the emphasis for those duties can be determined by the job holder and the immediacy of what needs to be done. Hawkes and Brockmueller (2003/2004) came to the general conclusion that women technology coordinators generally facilitate technology use at the teacher-student level while male technology coordinators focus on working at the network level system. Thurmond (2003) acknowledges that every LSTC does the job differently and emphasizes a different component. This year I choose to balance integrating technology and database administration. Integrating technology requires a understanding of the curriculum and collaborative planning with the teachers involved. Database administration in the form of data retrieval and presentation, while not acknowledged as a priority by any group, is an important job in light of the No Child Left Behind Act. When I, with input from the administration and teachers, set the schedule in the lab, I determined what is happening there and how I will participate. To balance my goals, this year the second through fifth grade teachers visit the lab every other week for curriculum related projects. During this time I help them integrate technology into their curriculum by finding or developing WebQuests, aligning current school software to the objectives they are teaching in their classroom, or facilitating the creation of presentations of student work. Kindergarten and first grade teachers work primarily with the lab manager of the primary lab. She helps them in whole group and small group session to integrate technology into their classrooms. All teachers visit the lab every Tuesday or Wednesday or at another prescheduled time to work on a student performance driven math program. Since the teachers need no guidance for this program, this is when I can work on database administration to gather data so teachers can better plan for their classes or other administrative duties like developing products (finding the WebQuests or creating rubrics). McGillivray (2000) suggests being in daily contact with teachers. By being accessible to the teachers, they are comfortable about asking me to help them integrate technology or experiment with technology on their own. Because I consult with the teachers, I know who needs my assistance in the lab. When I am not needed there, I can assist teachers in their classrooms with technical questions about their grade books, creating their own presentation and developing handouts for their classroom. They know I will be there to help them and guide them if need be. As for LSTC meetings, those arise periodically throughout the year. These are often training opportunities where I learn skills and ideas that I bring back to my school. Every day, I work in other capacities like bus duty because that is a requirement of all of the support staff.

After much reflection, I have decided that it is the LSTCs philosophy towards the job that governs the majority of what is done. My philosophy is to help the teachers improve instruction for their students in whatever capacity I can. The six duties upon which I spend my time all focus on that goal. Integrating technology into the curriculum, developing products for the teachers and technical support for the teachers have direct impact on teachers and their students. In contrast, other duties such as database administration, bus duty, test proctoring, and class coverage, and holding LSTC meetings, have more indirect but important implications. They all provide teachers with support to help their students succeed. Proctor and Livingstone (2001) found that “technology coordinators have helped to change the culture of school districts” (p 28). As the teachers at my school have worked with me, I have begun to change the culture of my school because of my philosophy. Consequently, an alignment of the philosophy of the LSTC with the philosophy of the school community must take place to alter the divergence in the expectation of an LSTC by the faculty and the realities of the job. In light of this, the job description for an LSTC must remain fluid and be developed by each local school based upon its culture and goals rather than by the district hierarchy in order for an alignment between the expectations and realities to take place.

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C