Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Internet for Teachers - Ed Tech "Meme"

T Erben, 2009, technology quotes, inspirational ed tech quotes, ed tech quotes
Ed Tech Meme. (2017). Uploaded by Kirsten Thompson. Available online at: http://fishbowlteaching.blogspot.ca/2017/11/internet-for-teachers-ed-tech-meme.html

Source Picture:
Kirsten Thompson (Oct 12, 2017).

Source Quote:
Erben, T., Ban, R., & CastaƱeda, M. E. (2009). Teaching English language learners through technology. New York: Routledge

Quote Justification:
I chose this quote because I strongly believe that technology is capable of providing learning opportunities for students that were previously unavailable. Whether that is as simple as "hooking" a disengaged student, establishing cross-curricular applications, collaborating with others, or sharing original content.

Image Justification:
This is an original image taken from my Grade 7 Social Studies classroom.
Students were using our school iPads to compare map projections in order to analyze distortions in regards to size, shape, and distance using the MetroCosm interactive. This visual provided them with an effective analysis that was previously difficult to understand when comparing static projections on paper.

Principals on Social Media: Why Should You Get Online?

     Schools can no longer be autonomous organizations that operate behind closed doors.  Schools are held accountable by a wide spectrum of diverse stakeholders that includes everyone from student family’s and community members to divisional administration and governmental departments.  As the leader of their building it is one of the principal’s primary objectives to communicate school information clearly and concisely with all stakeholders (Farrell, 1999, Parents & Community chapter, para. 7) (Ferriter, Ramsden, & Sheninger, 2011, p. 20) (Waxman, Boriack, Lee, & MacNeil, 2013, p. 191).  One indicator of a principal’s managerial effectiveness relates to their ability to select the most appropriate platform(s) to best meet their communication needs (Hines, Edmonson, & Moore, 2008, p. 278).  With 23 million social media users in Canada, representing 63% of the population, social media is quickly becoming one of the leading platforms for school administrators to communicate with their clientele (We Are Social, 2017, p. 27).  Due to the rising participation in social media and call for transparency by school administrators, it is essential that principals utilize technological tools like social media to communicate about their building, enabling a diverse range of stakeholders to receive information in a timely fashion and see into the world of the school.

            The Dalai Lama is quoted as stating, “A lack of transparency results in distrust and a deep sense of insecurity” (Student Affairs Berkley, 2017, para. 1).  A school’s stakeholders, whether they be student family’s, school employees, community members, or governing organizations, have interrelated goals that can all directly benefit from increased communication that provides more information about what is happening within the school (Farrell, 1999, Parents & Community chapter, para. 3).  With social media use in Canada rising 10% from 2016-2017 the quickest way for a principal to inform the most amount of stakeholders in one click of a mouse is through social media (We Are Social, 2017, p. 27).  Additionally, maintaining an online presence can provide an authentic model of the digital literacy skills that are becoming necessary for students, and all stakeholders, to develop (Johnson, Riel, & Froese-Germain, 2016, p. 9).

The Importance of Transparency through Communication
Transparent communication is a conscious skill that is vital to the health of the school community.  In fact, communication has been argued to be the most important job a principal can participate in throughout their day (Ferriter, Ramsden, & Sheninger, 2011, p. 20).  In 1999, Farrell stated that, “The school should aim to improve its links with parents and the community through clear communications and making systematic and full use of the community” (Parents & Community chapter, para. 19).  This sentiment is echoed by Ferriter who identified that, “With transparency being more important now than at any time ever, it is important that we use every means necessary to get out our message as schools leaders and get the feedback necessary to get our stakeholders invested.” (2011, para. 7).  While it can be easy for an administrator to default to only sharing information surrounding school schedules, events, and successes, a deeper sense of authenticity is required to build trust through transparent communication.  This includes sharing personal feelings during times of uncertainty, sharing news of what is known about various topics affecting the school and being open about what is being kept confidential, and clarifying that if information changes that updates will be provided (Student Affairs Berkley, 2017, para. 3).  It is important for administrators to recognize that a fear of negativity cannot warrant opting out of communication and in fact, negative feedback provides opportunities to change stakeholders’ perceptions (Reuban, 2017, p. 7).  With the importance of transparency through communication identified, a principal should then ask themselves what platform(s) should they be utilizing to communicate.


Why Should You Use Social Media?
As of 2017, 33 million users, representing 91% of the population, had access to the internet in Canada (We Are Social, 2017, p. 27).  Of the 23 million using social media, 88% of these users “checked-in” and interacted with the medium every single day (lbid.).  The network of school stakeholders can span across multiple geographical locations, be represented across generations, and follow a variety of different schedules.  Despite the communication concerns that arise from these logistics, social media can provide an effective means of targeting the masses in a timely fashion.  In fact, 74% of Canada’s internet users have access through some type of mobile device; meaning that a principal’s communication can most likely reach them at any time as opposed to relying on a fixed location (We Are Social, 2017, p. 31).  As opposed to more traditional communication methods such as phone calls or television announcements that rely on stakeholders being available at a particular time, tools such as social media are popular with stakeholders because they can be accessed and interacted with at any time; gone are the days of playing “telephone tag” (Hines, Edmonson, & Moore, 2008, p. 283).  In Canada, the top four social media platforms are currently Facebook (and its associated Facebook Messenger), YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram (We Are Social, 2017, p. 41).  Tools such as “HootSuite” and “If This Then That” can easily allow principals to post the same message automatically across various platforms; broadening their audience with minimal time requirements on their side.  With such prominent statistics, Reuban was inclined to state that participation in social media is no longer an option (2017, p. 11).

The Case for Digital Literacy
Defining the important and essential role of ICT education within the vast curricular network of public education has been the focus of recent initiatives undertaken by provincial and territorial governments within Canada.  As of 2015, 11 of Canada’s 13 provinces and territories have established ICT curricular policies that range from infusion and dispersal amongst pre-existing curriculums to structured cross-curricular models and specifically assessed benchmarks (Hoechsmann & DeWaard, 2015, pp. 15-17).  Regardless of the format in which an ICT curriculum is organized, one of the best ways to model the digital literacy and citizenship skills required by students is for principals and other educators to get involved online (Jackson, 2011, para. 18).  In a 2016 study of Canadian teachers, it was identified that the top five digital literacy skills related to social media that students should know are: (1) how to stay safe online, (2) appropriate online behaviour, (3) dealing with cyberbullying, (4) understanding online privacy issues and settings, and (5) verifying the authenticity of online information (Johnson, Riel, & Froese-Germain, 2016, p. 9).  It is time for educators to not only “talk the talk” but to also “walk the walk” when it comes to applying the digital literacy skills we expect from our students.  Furthermore, modelling appropriate use and keeping up to date with new technology programs and tools allows for principals to more effectively support their teaching staff in their technological development as well (Waxman, Boriack, Lee, & MacNeil, 2013, p. 193). 

Conclusion
            In conclusion, it is necessary that principals utilize social media platforms to effectively practice transparent communication with their diverse range of stakeholders.  All principals have several different stakeholder groups that can include everyone from student families and community members to divisional administration and governing agencies and it is their responsibility to create and deliver information in ways that not only allow their message to be accessed but to also establish trust (Ferriter, Ramsden, & Sheninger, 2011, p. 20).  As identified by Reuban, social media is no longer a spectator sport and principals need to recognize this and jump on the bandwagon to reach their stakeholders through mediums they are using daily (2017, p. 11).  As leaders within their building, a principals’ use of social media can provide an effective and appropriate model to both students as well as other teaching staff.  Like it or not, a school’s stakeholders are already creating a story about the school on social media and principals need to get online so that they can be involved in the narrative.


References
Farrell, M. (1999). Key issues for primary schools. London, UK: Routledge.
Ferriter, W.M. (2011). What you are saying about social media in schools. Tempered Radical.
Ferriter, W.M., Ramsden, J.T., & Sheninger, E.C. (2011). Communicating & connecting with
            social media. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Hines, C., Edmonson, S., & Moore, G. (2008). The impact of technology on high school
            principals. NASSP Bulletin, 92(4), 276-291.
Hoechsmann, M., & DeWaard, H. (2015). Mapping digital literacy policy and practice in the
            Canadian education landscape. Ottawa, ON: MediaSmarts. Retrieved from
Jaxson, C. (2011). Your students love social media... and so can you. Teaching Tolerance 39.
Johnson, M., Riel, R., & Froese-Germain, B. (2016). Connected to learn: teachers’ experience
with networked technologies in the classroom. Ottawa: ON: MediaSmarts. Retrieved from: http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/publication-report/full/ycwwiii_connected_to_learn.pdf
Reuban, R. (2008). The use of social media in high education for marketing and
communications: A guide for professionals in higher education. Retrieved November 5, 2017, from http://www.fullerton.edu/technologyservices/_resources/pdfs/social-media-in-higher-education.pdf
Student Affairs UC Berkley. (Upload date not stated). Communicating with transparency and
Waxman, H. C., Boriack, A. W., Lee, Y., & MacNeil, A. (2013). Principals’ perceptions of the
            importance of technology in schools. Contemporary Educational Technology, 4(3), 187-
            196. Retrieved from http://www.cedtech.net/articles/43/433.pdf
We Are Social. (2017, January 26). Digital in 2017: Northern America. Retrieved November 5,


Saturday, November 04, 2017

Crowdfunding in the Classroom: Controversial or Simply 21st Century Fundraising?

*This post has been written as part of my journey through my Master's Degree in Curriculum & Planning through Brandon University


  Does your school participate in fundraising activities to raise money for educational resources or opportunities that fall outside of the budget constraints of your building? If so, it most likely involves students and staff petitioning their friends, family, and community selling any number of items: chocolate bars, baked goods, cooking supplies, cash calendars, etc.

At any time have you shared these endeavours through social media? If so, you have moved your traditional fundraising into the 21st century and one-step closer to the concept of crowdfunding. Traditional fundraising asks donors to support your cause by purchasing some type of item which offers you a percentage of the sales to go towards your cause. For example: 10% of all clothing items sold goes towards the purchase of new gym equipment. Crowdfunding, on the other hand, asks donors to directly support your cause where there is no exchange of goods occurring (this often utilizes online platforms for easy transfer of money).

crowdfunding in the classroom, my class needs
Slide 18: Fundraising Trends. (2016). Uploaded to SlideShare by Yelena Lowenfield. Available online at: https://www.slideshare.net/YelenaLowenfeld/fundraising-trends-easy-ways-to-collect-donations 

To explore this topic further I was asked to examine a CBC article discussing the use of crowdfunding for educational resources in British Columbia through a platform called, My Class Needs. Here are two videos that provide some context regarding what My Class Needs is all about:



    Here is a copy of the slides I put together discussing this topic: 


Let me know your thoughts!

What sources of funding do you currently access that fall outside of traditional government funding?

Do you feel that crowdfunding is uniquely different than other fundraising campaigns your school has participated in?

Would you use crowdfunding to fund something in your building? If so, what?

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Digital Citizenship: From Design to Recycling

*This post has been written as part of my journey through my Master's Degree in Curriculum & Planning through Brandon University


This week our Internet for Teachers (#BU755) class delved into the question of:

What does Digital Citizenship look like in a global political context?

digital citizenship, global digital citizenship
Global Digital Citizen Quickstart Skills Guide. (Accessed 2017). Uploaded by the Global Digital Citizen Foundation. Available online at: https://globaldigitalcitizen.org/
When it comes to the concept of digital citizenship a quick Google search brings up numerous items involving skills around netiquette, digital footprint, collaboration, or any number of other individual skills designed to teach the, "norms of appropriate, responsible online use" (Ribble, 2017). Admittedly, the majority of the conversations I have had surrounding digital citizenship have been primarily focused on these types of skills as well. While I strongly believe that these skills are arguably essential for anyone using web 2.0 technologies, our readings this week pushed past these seemingly surface-level aspects and forced us to reflect on the global political context surrounding digital technology.

What is global citizenship in a digital world?
(Redekopp, 2016).

  Reynold Redekopp (2016, p. 126-127) argues that in order to approach digital citizenship within a global political context students need to engage in the following areas:

1. Design
- Why do we go through SO many devices so quickly?
- Who else has a drawer full of device designs that they no longer use?
- A quick walk around our house unearthed old Samsung flip phones, a Motorola Razr phone, multiple iPod version,
2 iPhone 4s (not to mention everything from an original NES and Playstation, to multiple Wii and X-Box models)
- Many devices are designed to be difficult or nearly impossible to upgrade
- Companies naturally want you to buy new when something goes wrong or a "better" model is available
- Batteries that lose their charge, screens that crack easily, new/"better" models released regularly
- I remember seeing the Phoneblocs concept pop up on my Facebook feed as part of a fundraising campaign and thought that it was such a simple yet ingenious idea! This could solve many design issues. Why aren't more products designed using this type of model?
Phoneblocs. (2013). Uploaded to YouTube by Dakehakkens. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDAw7vW7H0c

2. Mineral Sourcing
- What minerals are needed to create the devices you use?
- Where and how are the minerals extracted?
- What conflicts surround these resources and how long are they sustainable?

conflict minerals in technology, digital citizenship, global digital citizenship
Cell Phones are the new blood diamonds. (2016). Uploaded to Return to Now. Available online at: http://returntonow.net/2016/09/25/cell-phones-are-the-new-blood-diamonds/

Conflict Minerals 101. (2009). Uploaded to YouTube by Enough Now. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF-sJgcoY20

3. Manufacturing
- Where is your device made?
- What conditions do those employees work under?
- Do you want to support this company or take action?
- Consumers do have a voice and their actions can force companies to make the appropriate changes
- Students should realize that they do have the power to make big changes for others in the world
Apple accused of failing to protect workers. (2014). Uploaded to YouTube by BBC News. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSvT02q4h40

4. Consumption
- How often do you NEED a new device?
- Is the NEED related to a design-flaw like what was discussed in point 1 or is it a WANT?
- While I admit that I cycled through phones A LOT as a late teen and in my early 20s because I wanted the new and upgraded model
- I did however, hold onto my iPhone 4 for about 4 years (almost unheard of in the Apple world!) before the battery wouldn't last an hour and I upgraded (design flaw)
- Those multiple video game devices though? Purely want; not need
- What is responsible consumption and what factors influence it?
technology consumption, digital citizenship, global digital citizenship
Good idea. (2015). Uploaded to Twitter by Terry Small. Available online at: https://twitter.com/terrysmall/status/597834214650695680

5. Energy
- When most student think of energy and technology they think of how long their battery is going to last through the day
- Where is the nearest charger?!?
- But how much energy does it take to complete the tasks technology can accomplish?
- How much energy does a Google search take?
- Think of how much some devices heat up while you use them
- Is the energy involved in the mineral extraction, manufacturing, and consumption a CLEAN energy?
How much energy does the internet use? (2015). Uploaded to YouTube by SciShow. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuZDylVFbhs

6. Recycling
- How do we go about recycling our unwanted technology?
- People are getting better about appropriately recycling items like batteries, but what about the rest of the device?
- Where is the nearest drop-off location?
- In Manitoba you can find more information by checking out Recycle my Electronics
digital citizenship, global digital citizenship
Recycle my Electronics. (2017). Uploaded by CPRA. Available online at: https://www.recyclemyelectronics.ca/mb
7. Cost
- How much would you be willing to pay to fix these problems?
- Would you donate to organizations fighting for conflict free mineral extraction and fair manufacturing conditions?
- How much does your consumption cost you?
- How much does it cost to switch over to greener energies?
- Are these costs realistic for you?

How would you go about discussing these aspects of digital citizenship with your students? As a social studies teacher I naturally think of the multiple outcomes these areas could fall into at different grade levels. Would you incorporate it into a pre-existing curriculum? Mention it as topics arise? (ex. a new piece of technology is installed in the classroom). Integrate it with other digital citizenship topics? Share your thoughts in the comment section below!

Weekly Reading References:
Redekopp, R. (2016). Digital Citizenship Reconsidered: Global Citizenship In A Digital World. In Nantais, M., & Reddekopp, R. (Eds.) Education and technology: Manitoba action and reaction. Retrieved from http://www.manace.ca/hot-off-the-press/

Emejulu, A.,  & McGregor, C.  (2016): Towards a radical digital citizenship in digital education, Critical Studies in Education, DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2016.1234494

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Understanding our Ecosystem

*This post has been written as part of my journey through my Master's Degree in Curriculum & Planning through Brandon University

Tonight Chelsea and myself will be presenting our summary of two articles using Thinglink. Our presentation is embedded below.


Weaver, J., & Grindall, K. (1998). Surfing and getting wired in a fifth grade classroom: Critical pedagogical methods and techno-culture. In J. Kincheloe & S. Steinberg (Eds.), Unauthorized methods: Strategies for critical teaching (pp 231-251). New York, NY: Routledge.
Zhao, Y., Gaoming, Z., Lei, J., & Wei, Q., (2016). Never send a human to do a machine’s job:
Correcting the top 5 edtech mistakes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. (note: only the
Introduction & Chapter 1, pp 1-31.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

TPACK - Tech Integration Series

*This post has been written as part of my journey through my Master's Degree in Curriculum & Planning through Brandon University

     This post is Part TWO of a four-part series titled Model Mayhem where I am exploring and critiquing different models of tech integration. For each model I will provide a general overview of the model, what it might look like in a classroom setting, and attempt to critique the pedagogical theory and foundations behind the model's development.

     The first model of the series was the SAMR model, a four-step model of tech integration designed to improve student outcomes, developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura. You can read all about that post by clicking HERE.

     The second model of the series that we will be discussing today is the TPACK or TPCK model, a three-component model of tech integration designed to identify the knowledge required by teachers to integrate technology in their classrooms; built off the work of Lee Shulman.

_______________________________________________________

GENERAL OVERVIEW

TPCK, tech integration models, TPACK in the classroom, using TPACK, using TPCK
TPACK. (2012). Uploaded by Koehler and Mishra. Available online at: http://tpack.org/
TPCK, tech integration models, TPACK in the classroom, using TPACK, using TPCK
TPACK World Cloud. (2013). Uploaded by ilborukedtech. Available online at: https://lborukedtech.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/tpack2.jpg

Short video introduction of the TPACK Model

Introduction to the TPACK Model. (2014). Uploaded to YouTube by Common Sense Media. Available online at: https://youtu.be/EmRw_wkARuM

Full length slides & lecture of the TPACK Model





_______________________________________________________

APPEARANCE IN THE CLASSROOM SETTING

TPCK, tech integration models, TPACK in the classroom, using TPACK, using TPCK
Beginning with the End in Mind. (Accessed 2017). Uploaded by Tracy Clark. Available online at: https://www.smore.com/w1cj-tpack-as-a-model-for-change 

TPCK, tech integration models, TPACK in the classroom, using TPACK, using TPCK
TPACK Game. (Accessed 2017). Uploaded by Public Schools of North Carolina. Available online at: http://ncltitpack.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/RePack+Your+TPACK
TPCK, tech integration models, TPACK in the classroom, using TPACK, using TPCK
Integrated TPACK in Teacher Education Program. (2015). Uploaded by Gur and Karamete. Available online at: http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/ERR/article-full-text/068A05B51888

_______________________________________________________

PEDAGOGICAL THEORY AND FOUNDATIONS

Concept Development Timeline*
- 2001
     - Pierson uses the term TPCK to describe teacher's technology integration
- 2005
     - Koehler & Mishra use the term to describe a knowledge-base for teachers using technology
     - Niess uses the term to refer to technology-enhanced PCK
- 2009
     - Angeli & Valanides argue that TPCK is a unique knowledge-base unto itself rather than growth in the three domains
      contributing the TPCK as described in 2005
     - Cox & Graham argue that technology has always been a part of Shullman's original PCK model 
- 2011
     - Bowers & Stephens argue that TPACK is more about a teacher's orientation towards technology than a fixed knowledge
     base

*Timeline based on research from Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeurt, J., & van Braakt, J. (2012). Technological pedagogical content knowledge - a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Retrieved October 10, 2017 from, https://ai2-s2 pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/fc67/9e00468ed22c40d11bcd84aae0462c40d89c.pdf 

Influences
 
Educational Philosophy

     When looking at the TPACK model as a way to describe the knowledge required by teachers to successfully incorporate technology I would argue that TPACK tends to follow a essentialism educational philosophy. I say this because the three realms are shown as essential skills for educators to have and a mastery of these concepts, in balance, showcases the "great teaching" that can occur. The venn diagram approach is systematic, has clear symmetry, and provides practicality for users; all of which model aspects of an essentialism philosophy.

     When looking at the TPACK model and the impact appropriate technological integration has on students I would argue that TPACK tends to follow a progressivism educational philosophy. I say this because the ever-changing nature of technology and emphasis on individual classroom/student contexts echoes Dewey's focus on an ever-evolving reality for students. The use of technology opens up increased opportunities for multi-media platforms and interdisciplinary approaches to subject manner; all of which model aspects of a progressivism educational philosophy.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: foundations, principles, and issues. New Jersey, US: Pearson Education.
_______________________________________________________


PERSONAL THOUGHTS

     When comparing the TPCK/TPACK model to my critique of the SAMR model I appreciate the various sources of information that I can find explaining the model and the theories behind it, from the TPACK website itself to a host of many peer-reviewed scholarly articles.

     I am a fan of how this model accounts for the three realms of content, pedagogy, and technology and emphasizes that "great teaching" can occur when all three are accounted for.  I agree with the Common Sense Media video I embedded above when they say that it is easy to get excited about a new technology and how some educators begin designing lessons around the technology rather than accounting for content and pedagogy first.  I believe the TPACK model can help alleviate some of the frustration educators find when they rush into using a technology simply for the sake of using technology and then find it is not working for their specific classroom context. If content and pedagogy drive the purpose of using a technology then classroom integration should function much more smoothly than if we try to use a technology just to say we used it.

     Unfortunately, I feel as though my B.Ed degree and most PD I have attended tend to focus on either content, pedagogy, or technology and not necessarily how to use these realms simultaneously. Alternatively I feel like many educators have a strong PCK or TCK but much of our formal training in pedagogy or our pedagogy experiences have not involved the technology we have access to today. Understanding the TPC realm and how it has to shift from a more traditional approach can be a big undertaking for some educators.

Friday, October 06, 2017

The Role of School Administration in the Success of ICT Program Implementation: Traditional vs. Distributed Support Models

An administrator’s role in their building or district is becoming increasingly complex as today’s education system involves multiple stakeholders and programming needs.  One such role includes the development and implementation of technology use within their facility(ies).  The use of technology by educators and their students is becoming an essential component of interacting successfully within our globalized 21st century society.  Successful programming, however, requires an administrator to be directly involved in all aspects of any technology-based implementation from planning, to classroom use, to troubleshooting.  An administrator that is directly involved in the implementation of an information and communication technology (ICT) program with their staff will have more program success than those who only offer encouragement.
Introduction - Why is ICT Implementation Important?
As members of the future workforce and society, today’s students require guidance and education, in order to successfully navigate and utilize the digital world that they were born into.    Acknowledging the importance of becoming digitally literate, the provincial and territorial governments of Canada have been developing various forms of information and communication technology (ICT) curricula, which will assist students in their skill development.  School-age children have a unique set of experiences awarded to them due to the digital age in which they were born.  However, their birth date alone is not sufficient to equip them for navigating the digital world without support.  Successfully utilizing technological tools and communicating within the digital world requires that students incorporate a skill set that differs from other aspects of their life.  An ICT curricula that is implemented with purpose and support produces direct benefits for the students, such as enriched learning opportunities, ease of life, and practical post-secondary preparation.  For these various reasons, investing in the digital literacy and education of all students is important, in order to help students navigate the digital world that continues to evolve before their eyes.  
The Role of Admin within ICT Implementation
Integration of an ICT program is not only the responsibility of policy-makers and classroom teachers, but also the responsibility of the administrative team at a school and division level.  Teachers have identified that new technology programs and activities would be easier to implement if they could work as part of a team to support one another and exchange ideas (Stephenson, 2013, p. 11).  However, it has been found that although most school leaders have positive opinions towards technology, they fall into two very different categories in regards to their approach: (1) distributed principals who work closely with their teachers and ICT teams to ensure effective implementation and (2) formal principals who offer positive encouragement towards ICT ideas but do not personally participate in planning or training (Peterson, 2014, p. 302).  Of the two types of leaders, the schools that commit to ICT development as a team initiative and focus on collaboration and communication are more successful in their implementation than those schools who force a top-down approach with minimal support (Peterson, 2014, pp. 304-310).  In order to support their teachers effectively, school leaders need to keep up to date with new technology programs and tools, and model appropriate use for their staff (Waxman, Boriack, Lee, & MacNeil, 2013, p. 193).  Furthermore, an effective ICT implementation should be one that includes long-term planning with school leaders and addresses budgeting, hiring of necessary specialists, teacher training, and long-term maintenance plans (Peck, Mullen, Lashley, & Eldridge, 2011, p. 47).  Thus, in addition to provincial ICT policies, an effective administrative team that is committed to the purposeful implementation of an ICT program also contributes to successful implementation, which benefits both staff and students.
Distributed Administration Structure
Peterson (2014, p. 305) identified administrators who approached technology implementation with a distributed support structure as those who saw themselves as a team-member alongside their staff; where every person involved in the program goal shared in the successes and challenges of the journey.  This style of administration support fosters a culture of respect amongst staff members and is a high predictive influence on the long-term adoption and implementation of an ICT program (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002, p. 40-411).   The distributed support structure provides teachers with access to multiple resources and a network of colleagues that can assist in planning and troubleshooting from different perspectives.  Upon study of the role leadership plays in technology implementation Peck (2011, p. 47-48) noted that school leaders who were actively involved in successful implementation programs shared the following characteristics: (1) they developed long-term implementation plans in advance, (2) worked with staff to determine individual needs such as PD, (3) created formal support networks to assist with challenges, (4) showcased program successes and (5) developed and enforced consistent technology policies for staff and students.  The team approach of the distributed support model can result in an increased morale amongst staff members as they feel supported in implementing new technologies because of a belief their administrators have systems in place to help ensure program success (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002, p. 410-411).  Furthermore, positive attitudes towards technology encourages participation amongst both staff and students (p. 397). When an administrator is able to recognize the value technology has to staff and students they are more likely to participate alongside their staff members in the implementation of such programming which in turn can result in increased program success.
Formal/Traditional Administration Structure
Peterson (2014, p. 302) identified administrators who adhered to a formal/traditional support structure as those who respond to teacher-directed technology implementation with support but are not directly involved in the planning or training required to meet the program goal.  While appearing positive and encouraging to their staff this style of administration support offers only surface level  assistance and can negatively influence long-term adoption and implementation of the technology in question (Ritchie, 1996, as cited in Waxman, 2013, p. 188).  The formal/traditional support structure provides teachers with autonomy to develop and implement programs that suit their interests and classroom needs but can hinder long-term success by not accounting for required infrastructure or policy modifications.  A study of high schools in the Southeastern United States documented examples of how the formal/traditional structure contributed to implementation challenges including: (1) requiring staff to maintain online and offline records in case of technological failure which required staff to double their workload, (2) not providing sufficient professional development for staff, (3) allowing wait times for maintenance of technology tools to exceed two months and (4) not enforcing policies relating to technology that lead to inconsistencies between staff members (Peck, 2011, p. 43-45).  The removed nature of the formal/traditional support model can result in staff members feeling frustrated and not valued as they do not believe their administrators truly understand what they are doing within their classrooms (Peterson, 2014, p. 306).  This perception may be accurate as a study by Waxman (2013, p. 191) concluded that the majority of administrators believe that the primary function of technology in their building is for professional communication, not instruction or student learning.  When an administrator is unable to recognize the value technology has to students they are unlikely to participate alongside their staff members in the implementation of such programming which in turn can result in the failure of such endeavours.   
Conclusion
In summary, the role of an administrator needs to evolve to include the implementation of an information and communication technology (ICT) program that will equip students for the higher-level skills required for being successful in the digital world.  A positive attitude towards technology, however, is insufficient when it comes to ensuring programming success within their facility(ies).  School leaders who adopt a distributed support model that places them alongside their staff as a team-member will see a much higher chance of implementation success than those who adhere to a formal/traditional support model that, while positive, are unwilling to walk-the-walk.  Baylor & Ritchie (2002, p. 412) summarize this topic eloquently with the simple statement, “The bottom line appears to be that administrators who wish to nurture a technology culture need to figuratively ‘‘roll up their sleeves and join in’’ rather than sitting by the side.”

References
Baylor, A., & Ritchie, E. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived  student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers and Education, 39, 395-414.

Peck, C., Mullen, C. A., Lashley, C., & Eldridge, J. A. (2011). School leadership and technology challenges: Lessons from a new American high school. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 7(4), 39-51. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Newsletters/JSP_Winter2011.FINAL.pd f

Peterson, A. (2014). Teachers’ perception of principals’ ICT leadership. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(4), 302-315. Retrieved from http://www.cedtech.net/articles/54/543.pdf

Stephenson, G. (2013, September). Flipping the classroom upside down. The Manitoba Teacher, 9-11. Retrieved from http://www.mbteach.org/library/Archives/MBTeacher/Sept13_MBT.pdf

Thompson, Kirsten. (2016). "Digital Literacy and the ICT Curriculum", BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education. 8.1, pg 10-13.

Waxman, H. C., Boriack, A. W., Lee, Y., & MacNeil, A. (2013). Principals’ perceptions of the importance of technology in schools. Contemporary Educational Technology, 4(3), 187-196. Retrieved from http://www.cedtech.net/articles/43/433.pdf