Technology Leadership and Its Relationship with School-Malaysia Standard of Education Quality (School-MSEQ)

Abstract

This study examined the level of technology leadership practice among administrators in High Performing Schools (HPS) and its relationship with School-Malaysia Standard of Education Quality (School-MSEQ). A set of questionnaires was administered to 96 administrators in 12 HPS of secondary schools category. The data were analysed and interpreted using SPSS version 16.0. The statistics used were descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. Analysis of t-test, one way ANOVA and Pearson Correlation were used to test the hypotheses. This study found that the level of technology leadership practice was moderate with mean value at 3.934 and the practice of School-MSEQ among administrators was high with mean value at 4.729. There was no significant difference from the aspects of administration experiences and status pose of HPS administrators in term of the practice of technology leadership. This study revealed a relationship between technology leadership and School-MSEQ (r = 0.649, p<0.05) towards the practice of technology leadership among HPS administrators. The findings suggest that school administrators should play key roles in promoting technology in schools. It is hoped that the findings will improve the practice of school administrators and more studies should be conducted in the near future towards the improvement of technology leadership in schools.

The Influence of Principals' Technology Leadership and Professional Development on Teachers’ Technology Integration in Secondary Schools

“…Many studies related to the use of technology in secondary schools (Fullan, 2001;Senge, 1990;Michael, 1998;Johnston & Cooley, 2001;Hamzah, Juraime, Hamid, Nordin & Attan, 2014) agree that principals play a key role in the use of ICT in the classroom. Additionally, studies such as by McLeod (2011), Wang (2010), Badri, Alnuaimi, Mohaidat, Yang, and Al Rashedi (2016), and Evers, Van der Heijden, and Kreijns (2016) suggest that professional development should be further examined.…”

“…Previous studies pertaining to principals' leadership were more focused on primary factors such as technology literacy (Chang, 2012), technology leadership in High-Performance Schools or Sekolah Bestari (Hamzah et al, 2014), the impact and role of school leaders (Anderson & Dexter, 2005;Fisher & Waller, 2013), leadership style (Tan, 2010), distributive leadership (Dexter, 2008) and teacher's ICT competence (Leong, Chua, & Sathiamoorthy, 2016). However, Wang (2010); Richardson and McLeod (2011);Fisher and Waller (2013); Dunham (2012), and Sincar (2013) suggested that professional development components should be investigated as research variables.…”

“…Although there have been studies linking NETS-A (2009) with other variables such as receiving and using SMS by teachers (UTAUT2) (Leong, Chua, Sathiamoorthy & Shafinaz, 2016), not many studies in Malaysia had investigated the relationship of the five constructs of NETS-A (2009) with Teachers' Technology Integration in secondary schools. In addition, most studies used the NETS-A (2002) and not the latest standard introduced by ISTE, which is the NETS-A (2009) (Hamzah et al, 2014;Chang, 2012;Hamzah, Nordin, Jusoff, Karim, & Yusof, 2017;Machado & Chung, 2015). Moreover, not many have studied the relationship and level of each of the five constructs in NETS-A (2009) with the use of ICT in the classroom (Leong et al, 2016).…”

Technology leadership in Saudi schools

“…Planned behaviour is important to the Saudi context because there is difficulty moving on from ICT adoption (the availability of ICT adopters who have ICT tools at their disposal) to further ICT implementation (pedagogical uses of technology which are contextualized and standardized to enhance an ultimate goal of ICT integration). In other countries that are reforming their education system, technology leadership is considered, like in Malaysia, together with standards of quality education (Hamzah et al 2014). The Malaysian studies also demonstrate that technology leadership can be top-bottom oriented (technology leadership of school headmasters) (Raman et al 2014).…”

“…Today, teacher leadership has become a commonplace topic globally; it is studied in relation to learning and teaching, leadership and vision, assessment and evaluation, professional practice and productivity, and sociolegal and ethical issues (Hughes et al 2005). The problem of standardized technology leadership in schools is on the agenda (Hamzah et al 2014). School administration's technology leadership is given priority in the process of teachers' technology implementation (Raman et al 2014).…”