School reform advocates have been frustrated over the slow pace of integrating proposed school improvements, hypothesizing that the resiliency of established roles contributes much to the conserving tendencies of educational institutions. In seeking to understand this issue, the school reform movement has paid close attention to established roles, such as teachers and principals, and the issues these individuals face as they seek to address change. They have paid relatively little attention, however, to the emergence of new roles. The educational technologist (ET) is a role that is growing rapidly within schools in conjunction with the widespread adoption of networked technology. Looking back over 6 years of research data from a qualitative research study of networked technology integration in one K-12 system, the author examines the emergence of the ET role from the classical sociological perspectives of social structure, space, and time and its relationship to the cluster of core positions. This study demonstrates the importance of role to school reform issues, indicating that it can be used as a critical lens for understanding the progress of reform and the nature of technology integration.
References
1.
BizarM., & BarrR. (Eds.). (2001). School leadership in times of urban reform.Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
2.
BlissT., & MazurJ. (2002). K-12 teachers in the midst of reform: Common thread cases.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
3.
ClandeninD. J., & ConnellyF. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
CollierJ.Jr., & CollierM. (1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
5.
ContiS., EllsaserC., & GriffinG. (2000). School restructuring: A literature review., Washington, DC: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and Teaching: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching.
6.
CubanL. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920.New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
CubanL. (1993). How teachers taught.New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
CubanL. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 433–477.
9.
DavidsonJ. (2000). Living reading: Exploring the lives of reading teachers.New York: Peter Lang.
10.
DavidsonJ. (2001, April). The technology ensemble: Making sense of technological transactions in the networked school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
11.
DavidsonJ., McNamaraE., & McGillivrayK. (1999). Broad and deep: Achieving whole-school change with technology. Electronic School, 186, 54–56.
12.
DavidsonJ., & OlsonM. (2002, April). School leadership in networked schools: Deciphering the impact of large technical systems on education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
13.
DavidsonS., NailM., FergusonB., LehmanM., & HareR. (2001, October). Investigating the significance of the role of the educational technologist in middle school environments: A qualitative study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
14.
DorstJ. (1989). The written suburb: An American site. An ethnographic dilemma.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
15.
ElmoreR. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership.Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
16.
ElyD. (2000). The field of educational technology: Update 2000. A dozen frequently asked questions.Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED438807).
17.
FindersM. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high.New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
FullanM., & HargreavesA. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher development and educational change.London: Falmer Press.
19.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society.Berkeley: University of California Press.
20.
GlesneC. (1999). Becoming a qualitative researcher: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
21.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life.Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
22.
GokalpI. (1992). On the analysis of large technical systems. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 57–79.
23.
GronnP. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management & Administration, 28(3), 317–338.
24.
HargreavesA. (1992). Time and teachers’ work: An analysis of the intensification thesis. Teachers College Record, 94(1), 87.
25.
IhdeD. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
26.
JenkinsS., & RossettA. (2000). Wanted: Educational technologist—Whatever that is. Educational Technology, 40(2), 52–57.
LiebermanA. (1995). The work of restructuring schools: Building from the ground up.New York: Teachers College Press.
29.
MaxwellJ. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
McGillivrayK. (2000a). Help inside the classroom: Educational technologist as curriculum specialist—Part II. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(2), 36–41.
31.
McGillivrayK. (2000b). Help outside the classroom: Educational technologist as curriculum specialist—Part I. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(1), 42–44.
32.
McNamaraE., & GrantC. (1998). Strategies for teacher collaboration: An individualized approach to help teachers bring content and technology together (Implementation Manual). Cambridge, MA: TERC.
33.
McNamaraE., GrantC., & WasserJ. (1998). Using technology to support systemic education reform. Hands-On!, 20, 3.
MurphyC., & LickD. (1998). Whole-faculty study groups: A powerful way to change schools and enhance learning.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
36.
MyerhoffB. (1978). Number our days.New York: Touchstone.
37.
NesporJ. (1994). Knowledge in motion: Space, time and curriculumLondon: Falmer Press.
38.
PerinbanayagamR. (1985). Signifying acts: Structure and meaning in everyday life.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
39.
SchratzM., WalkerR., & WiedelJ. (1995). Being there: Using pictures to see the invisible. In SchratzM., & WalkerR. (Eds.), Research as social change: New opportunities for qualitative researchers.London: Routledge.
40.
SpillaneJ., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(4), 23–28.
41.
StraussA. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
TelemM. (2001). Computerization of school administration: Impact on the principal's role—A Case Study. Computers and Education, 37(3-4), 345–362.
43.
TurnerV. (1974). Dramas, fields, and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
44.
WanzareZ., & Da CostaJ. (2001). Rethinking instructional leadership roles of the school principal: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Educational Thought/Revue de la Pensee Educative, 3(3), 269–295.
45.
WasserJ. (1998, April). Working in heterogeneous implementation teams—Thinking through the role of the qualitative researcher. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
46.
WasserJ., & McNamaraE. (1998). Professional development and full-school technology integration: A description of the professional development model for the Hanau Model Schools Partnership (Hanau Model Schools Partnership Research Report 5). Cambridge, MA: TERC.
