Title Transformational leadership and the integration of information and

communications technology into teaching Author(s) Ng Wee Leng Source The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17(1), 1-14 Published by De La Salle University Manila This document may be used for private study or research purpose only. This document or any part of it may not be duplicated and/or distributed without permission of the copyright owner. The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Copyright © 2010 De La Salle University, Philippines

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 17:1 (2008), pp. 1-14

Transformational Leadership and the Integrationof Information and Communications Technologyinto TeachingNg Wee LengNational Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singaporeweeleng.ng@nie.edu.sg

Information and communications technology (ICT) has now permeated nearly every facetof society and there is a growing need for school leaders to play a more active role in integratingICT into teaching. While it is conceivable that transformational leadership, which has beenfound to be an essential form of leadership in dealing with challenges facing contemporaryschools, has effects on efforts to implement school innovations such as ICT integration, to dateno such study has been conducted. This study therefore field-tests a questionnaire designed toinvestigate teachers' perceptions of positive influence of transformational leadership practiceson the integration of ICT into teaching.

Keywords: ICT, transformational leadership, teaching, school innovation

Does tratisfortnational leadership positivelyinfltience teachers to integrate information andconimunications technology (ICT) into teaching?This is an important question for school leaderswho are, and will continue to be, key figures inefforts to leverage the strengths and the promiseof ICT in offering a tremendous range of newlearning opportunities for students. In this paper,we shall report on the development of aquestionnaire which attempts to answer thisquestion and a field test using this instrument.

ICT has pervaded almost every facet of oursociety. Around the world, ICT is ubiquitous inthe business world, the workplace, and the home.To ensure that schools keep pace with thesedevelopments in the larger society and to tapthe enormous potential of ICT in teaching andlearning, many countries have invested

considerable amounts of resources to integrateICT into education. Singapore, for instance, hadinvested S$2 billion between 1997 and 2002 tofacilitate ICT integration in schools, spendingmostly on hardware, software, infrastructure andti-aitiing of teachers (Ministry of Education, 1997).In particular, by the year 2002, all serving teachers,regardless of age or number of years of service,had completed a series of training designed toprepare them to be proficient users of a wordprocessing software application, a spreadsheetsoftware application, and a presentation softwareapplication. With the equipment and infrastructurein place, the challenge now is for teachers toexplore ways to use ICT in their teaching and, inturn, for school leaders to examine their roles inthe integration of ICT into teaching and learning inschools.

© 2008 De La Salle University-Manila, Philippines

THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL 17 NO. 1

Integration of ICT into education, as Eib andMehlinger (1998) define it, is a procedure in whichinstructional technologies such as computers andsoftware are applied regularly to support bothteaching and learning across levels and subjectmatter. There has been a significant amount ofresearch devoted to the integration of ICT inschools, its effects on student learning andattainment, and hindrances that prevent itssuccessful use (e.g. Becker, 1993; Butzin, 1992;Cafolla & Knee, 1999; Cradler, 1999; Kozma &Croninger, 1992). While some researchers haveindicated the benefits of integrating ICT intoeducation (e.g. Holinga, 1999; Taylor, 1992;Wiburg, 1997), others have found that applicationsof ICT in the classroom conferred little or nopositive improvement in student attainment (e.g.Slavin, 1991; Stevens, 1992). Picciano(1998),on the other hand, observed that the benefits thatICT integration confers on student attainment arenot uniform at all grade levels.

While Baily (1997) suggested that the foci ofICT application should be teaching and learningdue to its potential use in the classroom, Levinson(1990) pointed out that in addition to providingsupport in teaching and learning, ICT may be usedto alleviate common problems in school such asteacher shortage and high costs of education.Technology could also create new solutions tocope with the spectrum of needs that arise in theclassroom in this information age (Krajcik,Sóloway, Blumenfeld, & Marx, 1998).

Given the enormous potential of ICT to impactupon education, it is imperative that factors thatinfluence the success of ICT integration efforts beexplored. Many researchers have identifiedeffective leadership as a key ingredient of, andvitally important to, the success of any innovationin education (e.g. Bennett, 1996; Fullan, 1993).In particular, Becker (1993) contends thatleadership is even more critical for successfulintegration of ICT in schools today. Rieber andWelliver (1998) also recognise that effectiveleadership is needed to enhance the transformationof our education system by taking advantage ofthe potential of ICT. Others go so far as to say

that the success or failure of integration efforts restson the shoulders of school leaders (e.g. Salzano,1992). Substantiating the view that leadership is acritical factor in ICT integration efforts, Lockard,Abrams, and Mary (1990) explain that ICTintegration is an enormous task that entailsconsidering many issues and making manydecisions. Agreeing, Dede (1992) points out thatas leaders influence, make decisions, providesupport, and model behaviour, the possible impactleadership can have upon successful ICTintegration is obvious.

Having identified leadership as a key factor thatcan potentially influence ICT integration, it isimportant to examine the kind of leadership that isparticularly relevant to the current climate of changein schools known as transformational leadership(Leithwood, 1994). The concepts and constructsof the theory of transformational leadership, whoseorigins are usually traced to the work of JamesMcGregor Burns (Burns, 1978), have beenextensively studied and developed in nori-educational settings (e.g. Bass, 1985; Bass &Avolio, 1993) and utilized to study the impact ofleaders on organisational performance (Bennis &Nanus, 1985; DePree, 1989; Senge, 1990;Tichy& Devanna, 1986). The principles and practicesof transformational leadership have also beenexplored, adapted and applied to the field ofeducation (e.g. Brown, 1993; Leithwood, 1994;Sergiovanni, 1990) and are well supported byempirical research (Fisher, 1994; Jantzi &Leithwood, 1996; Lam, 2002; Leithwood &Jantzi, 2000; Yu, Leithwood & Jantzi, 2002).Some experts have in fact concurred that practicesof transformational leadership do contribute to theimplementation of innovations in schools (e.g. Yukl,1994; Leithwood, 1994).

While the effects of transformational leadershipon organisational conditions and studentengagement with school (Leithwood & Jantzi,2000) and on teachers' commitment (Yu et al.,2002) have been researched, no study has beenconducted to examine the relationship betweentransformational leadership and the integration ofICT in teaching. The purpose of this paper

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ICT INTEGRATION INTO TEACHING NG, W.L

therefore is to field-test a questionnaire developedto investigate teachers' perceptions of the positiveinfluence of transformational leadership practiceson integration of ICT into teaching. This is a strandof a principal study that investigates factors thatimpact upon successful ICT integration in schoolsin Singapore.

As mentioned earlier, the theory oftransformational leadership was originallydeveloped in non-educational contexts. Thepresent study adopts a recent model oftransformational leadership by Leithwood, Jantzi,and Steinbach (1999) which was developed basedon empirical research adapting conceptions oftransformational leadership in school settings(Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Steinbach,1995). In the theory of transformationalleadership, it is the agency of the principal thatmatters in how the model of transformationalleadership is meant to operate. In the presentinvestigation, leaders therefore refer to schoolprincipals.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

As pointed out by Leithwood and Jantzi (2000),the challenges of school restructuring such as highdegrees of uncertainties about educational endsand means and a desire to professionalise teachinghave been cited as reasons for advocating arelatively recent move from instructional totransformational forms of school leadership whichhave now become the subject of systematicempirical inquiry in school contexts. AlthoughBurns (1978) and Bass (1985) did not base theirwork on transformational leadership in schools,there is evidence of similarities in such leadershipwhether it is in a school setting or in a businessenvironment (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990;Leithwood, 1994; Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996).

However, current literature reveals considerablevariation in the conceptualisation of transformationalschool leadership. While some researchers (e.g.Kowalski & Oates, 1993) accept Bums' (1978)original claims that transformational leadership

represents the transcendence of self-interest byboth leader and led, others work on a spectrum ofvarious modification of Burns' (1978) theory.Leithwood (1994), for instance, built on Bass'(1985) two-factor theory in which transformationaland transactional leadership represent oppositeends of the leadership continuum. This model oftransformational leadership was developed basedon a series of research studies, including factoranalytic studies, in schools (Leithwood, 1994;Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996; Leithwood et al, 1999;Leithwood et al., 2000) and describes three broadclusters of leadership practices, each of whichincludes several more dimensions:

• Setting directions includes building ashared vision, developing consensus aboutgoals and priorities, and creating highperformance expectations.

• Developing people includes providingindividualised support, offering intellectualstimulation, and modelling important valuesand practices.

• Redesigning the organisation includesbuilding a collaborative culture, creatingand maintaining shared decision-makingstructures and process, and buildingrelationships with parents and the widercommunity.

Based on these constructs that form thedimensions of transformational leadership,Leithwood (1994) developed the Nature of SchoolLeadership Survey (NSLS). Studies have beenconducted to illustrate how each of these practiceshave been carded out in school settings (Leithwoodet al., 1999), describe the thinking and problem-solving processes used by transformational schoolleaders (e.g. Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995), andreport the effects of this new form of leadershipon a wide array of organisational and studentoutcomes when exercised by principals(Leithwood, Tomlinson & George, 1996;Leithwood et al., 1999).

In a nutshell, for Leithwood (1994), thetransformational leadership process is all about

THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL 17 NO. 1

helping to define a cultural identity, using symboliclanguage and rituals to reinforce that culturalidentity, and ensuring that a school is responsiveto changing circumstances in its environment. Italso requires a capacity to engage others in acommitment to change. Consistent withLeithwood's findings regarding the potential oftransformational leadership are the ideas ofSergiovanni (1990) who proposed thattransformational leadership for schools requiresthe harnessing of social and interpersonalpotential in addition to demonstrations of expertknowledge about education and schooling. Theemphasis is also on modeling important goalsand behaviors and articulating and strengtheningenduring values, beliefs and cultural strands thatwill allow the school to develop a unique identityover time in continuous efforts to build excellentschools which society demands today (Sergiovanni,1990).

Empirical research on transformational schoolleadership has been dominated by efforts todiscover leader behaviours or practices thatcontribute significantly to valued organisationalconditions and outcomes (e.g. Hallinger & Heck,1996) and that is not without good reasons.Studies such as that by Leithwood and Steinbach(1995), which expanded the research to inquireabout internal cognitive and affectivecharacteristics giving rise to leader practices,do seem to generate knowledge which is ofdirect use in improving school leader effects.There is now a convincing body of empiricalevidence concerning the effects of the particularconception of transformational school leadershippractices first formulated by Leithwood (1994)on a wide array of organisational and studentoutcomes when exercised by principals(Leithwood et al., 1996). It has also been foundthat such transformational leadership practiceshave a sizeable influence on teacher collaboration(Yu et al., 1995) and that significant relationshipsexist between aspects of transformationalleadership and teachers' own reports of changesin both attitudes towards school improvement andaltered instructional behaviour (Leithwood et al..

2000). Sergiovanni's (1990) study also suggeststhat such leadership practices can improve studentachievement. On the other hand, Sagor (1992)found that schools whose principal wastransformational in leadership style had a cultureconducive to school success. In a recent article.Lam (2002) covered similar ground as the presentstudy in terms of examining the role oftransformational leadership theory on schooloperations in diverse domains, drawing data fromAsian societies.

The foregoing discussion supports this particularmodel of school leadership practices by Leithwood(1994) as a credible conception of transformationalleadership particularly applicable to education andon which this study shall therefore focus. It isacknowledged in this study that transformationalleadership should be seen, as pointed out byMitchell and Tucker (1992), as only one part of abalanced approach to creating high performancein schools. It is useful to point out that some writershave expressed concern that transformationalleadership is not necessarily democratic but inpractice may actually be used as a managerial toolfor influencing the organisation in accordance withthe wishes of the leaders, thus betraying some ofthe moral dimensions of transformational leadershiparticulated by Burns (e.g. Allix, 2000). It is forthis reason that the key components of what hasbeen termed "authentic transformationalleadership" have been identified: idealised influence,inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, andindividualised consideration (Bass & Steidlmeier,1999). It shall be seen in the subsequent parts ofthis paper that it is authentic transformationalleadership that provides the core of our theoreticaldiscussion.

METHOD

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to field-test the

Perceived Influence of TransformationalLeadership on ICT Integration into TeachingQuestionnaire (PITLICTQ), which we have

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ICT INTEGRATION INTO TEACHING NG, W.L.

developed by adapting items from NSLS toinvestigate teachers' perceptions of positiveinfluence of transformational leadership practiceson integration of ICT into teaching.

InstrumentData were collected using PITLICTQ, a survey

instrument comprising 50 items pertaining toinfluence of transformational leadership practiceson integration of ICT into teaching (see Appendix).Demographic data such as age, gender and highesteducational qualifications were also collected.

As mentioned earlier, the present study adoptsLeithwood's (1994) conceptions of transformationalleadership described in the last section and includesall dimensions of practices specified therein.Specifically, eight dimensions of leadershippractices were included and a brief definition ofthese leadership dimensions is as follows:

1) Identifying and articulating a vision:practices aimed at identifying newopportunities for the school, anddeveloping, articulating, and inspiringothers with a vision of the future.

2) Fostering the acceptance of group goals:practices aimed at promoting cooperationamong staff members and assisting themto work together toward common goals.

3) Providing individualised support:indications of respect for staff membersand concern about their personal feelingsand needs.

4) Offering intellectual stimulation: challengesto staff members to re-examine some ofthe assumptions about their work andrethink as to how it can be performed;

5) Providing an appropriate model: settingexamples for staff members to follow that areconsistent with the values leaders espouse.

6) Creating high performance expectations:behaviours that demonstrate leaders'expectations for excellence, quality, andhigh performance on the part of the staff.

7) Strengthening school culture: behaviourson the part of leaders aimed at developing

shared norms, values, beliefs, and attitudesamong staff.

8) Building collaborative structure: providingopportunities for staff to participate indecision-making about issues that affectthem and for which their knowledge iscrucial.

Items in the PITLICTQ are statements adaptedfrom those in the NSLS and are distributed amongthe eight dimensions as described above. Using asix-point Likert scale ("strongly disagree" = 1 ;"disagree" = 2; "slightly disagree" = 3; "slightlyagree" = 4; "agree" = 5; "strongly agree" = 6),Part 1 asks respondents to indicate, for eachstatement, the intensity of their agreement thatleadership practices by school leaders as describedin the statement will have a positive influence onthe integration of ICT into teaching in secondaryschools in Singapore. Most of the statements fromthe NSLS were used without alteration. Otherswere modestly adapted to better reflect localcontext;

Applying quantitative methods of data analysisin research of this nature is commonplace as is seenin studies such as that by Lam (2002). Alsoacknowledged in this study is the debate amongsome statisticians that attitude rating may not meetthe strict criteria of interval data, and that theapplication of the Pearson correlation coefficientwould therefore be inappropriate in this case, whileothers agree to the contrary.

SampleData for this study came from a survey in 2005

of 80 randomly selected secondary schoolteachers. The ages of the 80 respondents (48female, 32 male) range from 21 to 45 years oldwith the median age range being 25-29 years. Themedian age range of serving secondary teachers inSingapore is 35-39 years. Most of the respondents(78%) had at least five years of formal teachingexperience in a secondary school in Singapore.Respondent confidentiality was ensured and clearlycommunicated to the participants. Results of dataanalysis were later presented to the participants.

THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL 17 NO. 1

Table 1.Means, Standard Deviations and Reliabilities: Dimensions of Transformational LeadershipoftbePITLICTQ

Mean SD Reliability

Transformational Leadership

Developing a widely shared vision for the school

Building consensus about school goals and priorities

Providing individualized support

Providing intellectual stimulation

Modelling behaviour

Holding high performance expectations

Strengthening school culture

Building collaborative structures

4.714.52

4.47

5.07

4.71

4.81

4.45

4.82

4.68

0.420.58

0.57

0.51

0.53

0.62

0.64

0.46

0.57

0.960.82

0.85

0.80

0.93

0.92

0.76

0.72

0.75

It was noted that the views of these 80 teachersmay not be entirely representative of those of theoverall target population of the research, namelysecondary teachers, as a whole. While the abovelimitation certainly needs to be considered wheninterpreting the results of this study, as the purposeof the study is to field test the instrumentPITLICTQ, it was decided that such a samplecould be used.

Data AnalysisTable 1 reports the mean ratings and standard

deviations of responses for each set of itemsmeasuring dimensions of transformationalleadership on the survey. The reliabilities(Cronbach's alpha) for each of the scalesmeasuring the eight dimensions of transformationalleadership, based on Leithwood's (1994) model,included in the framework are also given.

The reliabilities of the eight subscales of thePITLICTQ are all within an acceptable range (0.72to 0:93). The reliability of the PITLICTQ was0.96 (see Table 1). As a composite variable,transformational leadership received a mean ratingof 4.71 (on a six-point scale). All of the eightdimensions of transformational leadership receivedvery similar mean ratings (in the 4.45-5.07 range).

These results suggest that teachers generally agreedthat all of the eight dimensions of transformationalleadership practices do have positive influence onintegration of ICT into teaching.

Note that while in this study high performanceexpectations received the lowest mean rating of4.45; in various studies (e.g. Jantzi & Leithwood,1996; Leithwood & Jantzi 1997), teachers moststrongly perceived this set of leadership practicesto be in evidence more than any of the others. Thisseems to suggest that whüe having high expectationson the part of the principal is commonplace, it doesnot necessarily translate to a motivation for teachersto integrate ICT into teaching. The standarddeviations associated with all eight leadershipdimensions range from 0.42 to 0.64. This indicatesa small variation in the perceptions of respondents.

The above findings contrast with those of recentstudies (e.g. Leithwood & Jantzi, 1997) which havereported a low level of agreement among teachersthat principals made much effort to clarify schoolvision or to build consensus about school goalsand that teachers disagreed that principals had ahigh priority to change teachers' values, althoughthey invited teachers' collaboration in theimplementation of change. In a study whichexamined the effects of transformational leadership

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ICT INTEGRATION INTO TEACHING NG, W.L

on teachers' commitment to change, Yu et al.(2002) found that though the teachers surveyedagreed that principals intended to provideintellectual stimulation, the teachers disagreed thatprincipals were professional enough to helpteachers further develop themselves professionally.Furthermore, there was a low level of agreement thattheir support for teachers was strong and extensiveenough; the support mainly being confined to thearea of teachers' professional development. Also,teachers only slightly agreed that their principalsprovided leadership in building collaborativestructures in schools (Yu et al., 2002).

Among the 50 items measuring transformationalleadership, no item had a mean rating lower thanthe scale mid-point. The lowest mean ratingreported was the item about expecting teachers tobe effective innovators (Mean = 4.03, SD = 0.82)which is part of the scale measuring highperformance expectations. On the other hand, fouritems received a mean rating above 5.0. Theseitems were part of the three scales about providingindividualised support, modeling behavior, andstrengthening school culture. The item with the

highest mean rating was: Are open and genuine indealing with staff and students (mean = 5.45, SD= 0.63). The other three items are:

• provide resources to support teachers'professional development (M = 5.41, SD= 0.68);

• take teachers' opinion into considerationwhen initiating actions that affect their work(M = 5.23, SD = 0.61);

• show respect for teachers by treating themas professionals (M = 5.13, SD = 0.55)

These findings came as no surprise as previousresearch and observations do point to theimportance of support and respect on the part ofthe leader when technology integration initiativesare implemented (Kearsley & Lynch, 1996). Inparticular, many researchers have suggested thatthe lack of high quality teacher training is a majorfactor impeding the integration of technology intoeducation (Stoddart & Neiderhauser, 1993).

Table 2 shows Pearson-product correlationsestimating the strength of relationships between

Table 2.Correlation matrix: Dimensions of Transformational Leadership of the PITLICTQ

Independent

Variables

Leader

Vision

Goal

Support

Stimulation

Model

Expectation

Culture

Structure

Dependent variables

Dimensions of transformational

Leader

1.000

0.887**

0.917**

0.532**

0.949**

0.865**

0.659**

0.766**

0.688**

Vision

0.887**

1.000

0.912**

0.431*

0.834**

0.694**

0.671**

0.646**

0.517**

Goal

0.917**

0.912**

1.000

0.478*

0.816**

0.776**

0.599**

0.658**

0.515**

leadership

Support

0.532**

0.431*

0.478*

1.000

0.489*

0.486*

0.412*

0.479*

0.496*

Stimula-tion

0.949**

0.834**

0.816**

0.489*

1.000

0.717**

0.792**

0.723**

0.664**

Model

0.865**

0.694**

0.776**

0.486*

0.717*

1.000

0.413*

0.697**

0.633**

Expecta-tion

0.659**

0.671**

0.599**

0.412*

0.792**

0.413*

1.000

0.442*

0.465*

Culture

0.766**

0.646**

0.658**

0.479*

0.723**

0.697**

0.442*

1.000

0.684**

Structure

0.688**

0.517**

0.515**

0.496*

0.664**

0.633**

0.465*

0.684**

1.000

Notes: *Pearson correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); **Pearson correlation is significant at the 0.01level (2-tailed)

8 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL 17 NO. 1

dimensions of transformational leadership. All eightdimensions of transformational leadership aresignificantly strongly correlated with each other (at5% level), suggesting that strengthening onedimension might help strengthen other dimensions.

Though the eight dimensions of transformationalleadership seem conceptually distinct, quantitativetests of such distinctiveness in studies such as thatby Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) have suggestedotherwise. Factor analysis using principalcomponents extraction with varimax rotation wastherefore used in the present study to analyze theindividual items rating the influence oftransformational leadership on ICT integration toestimate the number of factors measured by thespecific items. As a result of this analysis, elevenfactors explaining 88.7 percent of the variance wereextracted. Factor 1 had an eigenvalue of 16.78and explained 33.5 percent of the variance. Factor2 had an eigenvalue of 5.75 and explained only afurther 12.7 percent of the variance. Thirty-oneof the items loaded on Factor 1 with loadingranging from moderate to high (0.61-0.87). Theremaining 11 items loaded rather evenly on theother 9 factors, with low to moderate strengthsranging from 0.48 to 0.71. Factor 1 attracted allthe items from the dimension modeling behavior.Items not attracted by Factor 1 distributed quiteevenly among the other seven dimensions.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study has been to field-testPITLICTQ, an instrument designed to investigatewhether transformational leadership positivelyinfluence teachers to integrate ICT into teaching.Results of data analysis in this study suggest thatsecondary school teachers generally agreed thatall of the eight dimensions of transformationalleadership practices included in this study havepositive influence on integration of ICT intoteaching. While these teachers agreed in particularthat being open and genuine in dealing with staffand students would have a positive influence onteachers' integration of ICT into teaching, the level

of agreement as to whether having highexpectations for teachers' professional growth andstudents' performance positively influences ICTintegration was low.

Findings of the present study, together with theliterature review presented in the Discussionsection above, suggest that a lot more has to bedone by school leaders to be transformational intheir role in fully integrating ICT into the curriculumand, in a wider context, in managing change.Leaders in schools must first of all be concernedwith the development of a clear and appealingvision. Appealing to a universal need in humans tofeel good about themselves, the vision for a school,containing an idealistic picture of where the schoolis headed, should empower individuals and serveas a source of self-esteem and common purpose(Sergiovanni, 1990). As asserted by Yukl (1994),the vision must be crafted and explicated by andfor all stakeholders and must emerge from acommon understanding of current reality.

Based on the data collected, the reliability ofPITLICTQ was very high (0.96) and the eightdimensions strongly correlated with each other.The instrument PITLICTQ developed in this studydoes therefore seem to be a viable measure ofteachers' perception of the influence oftransformational leadership practices on ICTintegration. Further studies should be conductedto further validate the PITLICTQ. Exploratory andconfirmatory factor analyses on items included inthe various scales should also be carried out inaddition to factor analysis using principalcomponents extraction with varimax rotation toassess construct validity.

The present study has used a particular form ofTransformational Leadership, namely that asdefined by the work of Leithwood (1994), toconstruct a questionnaire about teacherperspectives on the use of ICT in schools. Giventhe complexity of school management, this modelas it is may not be sufficient to enable us to fullydescribe, understand, and explain the role ofleadership in the context of ICT integration.Indeed, transformational leadership is about theorganisation and so is contingent upon rather than

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ICT INTEGRATION INTO TEACHING NG, W,L

integrated with teaching and learning. The optimismand normality of this model needs to be furtherchallenged in future studies. Possibilities for furtherenquiry could include: (a) a wider sample ofrespondents (for instance, one might expect long-serving teachers to be less well-disposed towardsincorporating ICT into their teaching than a newgeneration of teachers who are relatively more wellversed in ICT); (b) conception of thetransformational leadership role of heads ofdepartment in integrating ICT into teaching (thepresent study considered the influence oftransformational leadership practices of only theprincipal so one might consider inter-relating theprincipal with other role incumbents), as well as(c) envisioning whole-school leadership role at thesenior management level. Future in-depthqualitative studies should also be conducted toachieve theoretical triangulation. For example, in-depth interviews could be conducted to providefuller explanation of the interesting patterns thathave emerged from the quantitative data analysis.

Other limitations of this study include thosepertaining to the instrument used in the field test todetermine the impact of transformational leadershipon ICT integration in that the items of the instrumentmay not be discriminating enough to warrantsubstantial conclusions or observations that atransformational type of leadership is indeed thebetter way of doing ICT integration. The instrumentmay not adequately show how a teacherresponding to items of the instrument is able tomake a clear assessment of the problem in questionas the instrument items deal with general aspectsof transformational leadership and may be appliedto any type of project. Furthermore, the instrumentdoes not have specific items dealing with theprincipal's process of ICT integration. Futurestudies could address these limitations by includingin the questionnaire items that are specific to ICTintegration and items that enable a respondent toprovide data on the leadership practices whichwere found to be helpful or not helpful in thisproject so that the data is gathered from the groundup. The kind of leadership (which may notnecessarily be transformational) which is effective

for ICT integration should also be examined in amore critical way.

It is also acknowledged that while it is perhapseasier to make some links between transformationalleadership and cultures of change, given that theintricate relationships that exist between leadershipand school culture are widely documented in thecurrent literature, more work needs to be done toestablish the links between transformationalleadership and the integration of ICT into teaching.Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that dispositionstowards one area of change in a school wouldnecessarily mean similar dispositions to all aspectsof change. There is therefore a need to determinein future studies which feature of the change isinfluenced by practice of transformationalleadership and the precise contributiontransformational leadership makes in the contextof ICT integration.

REFERENCES

AUix, N.M. (2000). Transformational leadership:Democratic or despotic? EducationalManagement & Administration 28 (1), 7-20.

Baily, G D. (1997). What technology leaders needto know: The essential top 10 concepts fortechnology integration in the 21" century.Learning & Leading with Technology, 25(1),57^62.

Bass, B. & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, characterand authentic transformational leadershipbehaviour. Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2), 181-217.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership andperformance beyond expectations. NewYork: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1993).Transformational leadership: A response tocritics. In M. M. Cheners & R. Ayman (Eds.),Leadership theory and research: Perspectiveand directions (pp. 49-80), San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Becker, H. J. (1993). Instructional computer use:Findings from a national survey of school and

1 o THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL. 17 NO. 1

teacher practices. The Computing Teacher,20(7), 6-7.

Becker, H. J. (1993). Teaching with and aboutcomputers in secondary school.Communication of the Association forComputing Machinery, 36(5), 69-72.

Bennett, C. K. (1996). Schools, technology, andeducation leadership: Aframework for change.NASSP, 80 (577), 57-65.

Bennis, W. G, & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Thestrategies for taking charge. New York:Harper & Row.

Brown, J. (1993). Leadership for schoolimprovement. Emergency Librarian, 20(3),8-20.

Burns, G. M (1978). Leadership. New York:Harper & Row.

Butzin, S. (1992). Integrating technology into theclassroom: Lessons from the project CHILDexperience. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(4), 330-333.

Cafolla, R., & Knee, R. (1999). Factors limitingtechnology integration in education: Theleadership gap. Retrieved November 18,2004from http://www.coe.uh.edu/insite/elec-pub/htmll995/152.htm.

Cradler, J. (1999). Implementing technology ineducation: Recent findings from research andevaluation studies Retrieved May 3, 2005from http://www.education.lanl.gov/R E S O U R C E S / M o d e l _ N e t s / t e a m /team_fwl.html.

Dede, C. (1992). Leadership without followers.The Computing Teacher, 20(6), 9-11.

DePree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. NewYork: Doubleday.

Education, Ministry of, (1997). Speech by RADMTeo Chee Hean, Minister for Education and 2ndMinister for Defence at the launch of theMasterplan for IT in Education on Monday 28April 97 at Suntec city at 10 am. Retrieved June28, 2003, from http://wwwl.moe.edu.sg/iteducation/masterplan/summaryO.htm

Eib, B. J., & MehUnger, H.D. (1998). Technologyin education: From segregation to integration.The High School Magazine, 6(1). Retrieved

March 12, 2005, from http://nassp.org/publications/hsmag/teched.htm.

Fisher, J. L. (1994). Reflections on transformationalleadership. Educational Record, 75(3), 54-60.

Fullan, M. G (1993). Change forces: Probingthe depths of educational reform. London:Falmer Press.

Halhnger, P. and Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing theprincipal's role in school effectiveness: Areviewof empirical research 1980-1995. EducationAdministration Quarterly, 52(1), 5-44.

Holinga, M. J. (1999). Project LINCOL'N'.Learning & Leading with Technology, 26(1),54-60.

Jantzi, D. & Leithwood, K. (1996). Toward anexplanation of teachers' perceptions oftransformational school leadership.Educational Administration Quarterly,32(4), 312-538.

Kearsley, G & Lynch, W. (1996). Educationaltechnology: Leadership perspectives.Englewood Chffs, NJ: Educational TechnologyPubhcations.

Kowalski, J. & Oates, A. (1993). The evolvingrole of superintendents in school-basedmanagement. Journal of School Leadership,3(4), 380-390.

Kozma, R. B., & Croninger, R. G (1992).Technology and the fate of at-risk students.Education and Urban Society, 24(4), 440-453.

Krajcik, J., Soloway, E., Blumenfeld, P., & Marx,R. (1998). Scaffolder technology tools topromote teaching and learning science. InC.Dede (Ed.), ASCD year book (pp. 31-45).Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development.

Lam, J. (2002). Defining the effects oftransformational leadership on organisationallearning: a cross-cultural comparison. SchoolLeadership & Management, 3(4), 439-452.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for schoolrestructuring. Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 30, 49S-51S.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (1990).Transformational leadership: How principals can

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ICT INTEGRATION INTO TEACHING NG, W.L. 11

help reform school cultures. School Effectivenessand School Improvement, i(4), 249-280.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (1997). Explainingvariation in teachers' perceptions of principals'leadership: A replication. Journal ofEducational Administration, 50(4), 312-331.

Leithwood, K. & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expertproblem solving: Evidence from school anddistrict leaders. New York: SUNY Press.

Leithwood, K. A. & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effectsof transformational leadership on organisationalconditions and student engagement with school.Journal of Educational Administration,38(2), 112-124.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999).Changing leadership for changing times.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D., & Genge, M.(1996). Transformational school leadership. InK. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P.Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of educational leadership andadministration (pp. 785-840). Dordrecht,Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Levinson, E. (1990). Will technology transformeducation or will the schools co-opt technology?.Phi Delta Kappan, 72(2), 121-126.

Lockard, J., Abrams, P D., & Mary, W. A. (1990).Microcomputers for educators (2"'' Ed.).Northen Illinois University.: Harper Collins.

Mitchell, D. E. & Tucker, S. (1992). Leadershipas a way of thinking. Educational Leadership,49(5), 30-35.

Picciano, A. G. (1998). Educational leadershipand planning for technology (2"^ ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Rieber, L. & Welliver, P. (1998). Infusingeducational technology into mainstreameducational computing', International Journalof Instructional Media, 16(1), 21-31.

Sagor, R. D. (1992). Three principals who makea difference. Educational Leadership, 49(5),13-18.

Salzano, J. (1992, March 16-20). The key tosuccessful computerization is through goodtrainers. Paper presented at the InternationalConference on Technology and Education.Paris, Erance.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED363698)

Senge, P. J. (1990). The fifth discipline: The artand practice at the learning organization.Toronto: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). The principalship: Areflective practice perspective. Toronto: AUynand Bacon.

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Reading effects of IBM's"Writing to Read" program: A review ofevaluations. Educational Evaluation andPolicy Analysis, 75(1), 1-11.

Stevens, D. J. (1992). Why computers in educationmay fail. Education, 104(4), 370-376.

Stoddart, T. & Niederhauser, D (1993).Technology and educational change.Computers in the Schools, 9(2/3), 5-21.

Taylor, L. (1992). Teaching mathematics withtechnology. Arithmetic Teacher, 40(3), 187-191.

Tichy, N. M. & Devanna, M. A. (1986). Thetransformational leader. New York: JohnWüey.

Wiburg, K. M. (1997). The dance of change:Integrating technology in classrooms. In D. L.Johnson, C. D. Maddux, & L. Liu (Ed.), Usingtechnology in the classroom (pp. 171-184),New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Yu, H., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2002). Theeffects of transformational leadership onteachers; commitment to change in Hong Kong.Journal of Educational Administration,40(4), 368-389.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3"*Ed.). Englewood Chffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

12 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL. 17 NO. 1

APPENDIX

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Regularly encourages teachers to evaluate their progresstowards achieving the school goals

Excites teachers with a vision of what they may be able toaccomplish if they work together to change their practices

Rarely takes teachers' opinion into account when makingdecisions

Leads by doing rather than simply telling

Provides resources to support teachers' professionaldevelopment

Encourages teachers to re-examine some basic assumptionsthey have about their work

Gives high priority to developing within the school a shared setof values, beliefs and attitudes related to education

Distributes leadership broadly among the staff, representingvarious viewpoints in leadership positions

Has high expectations for teachers as professionals

Maintains a very low profile

Provides teachers with a process through which they generateschool goals

Is a source of new ideas for teachers' professional learning

Holds high expectations for students

Gives teachers a sense of overall purpose

Takes teachers' opinion into consideration when initiatingactions that affect their work

Shows respect for teachers by treating them as professionals

SD

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

SA

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND I Q INTEGRATION INTO TEACHING NG, W.L. 13

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Stimulates teachers to think about what they are doing fortheir students

Ensures that teachers have adequate involvement in decisionmaking related to curriculum programmes and teaching

Supports an effective committee structure for decision making

Makes an effort to know students

Sets a respective tone for interaction with students

Encourages teachers to pursue their own goals for professionaldevelopment

Encourages ongoing teacher collaboration for implementingnew programmes and practices

Helps clarify the specific meaning of the school's vision interms of its practical imphcations for curriculum programmes

Encourages teachers to develop/review individual professionalgrowth goals consistent with school goals and priorities

Expects teachers to engage in ongoing professional growth

Displays energy and enthusiasm for their own work

Lacks awareness of the unique needs and expertise ofindividual teachers

Encourages teachers to evaluate their practices and refinethem as needed

Expects teachers to be effective innovators

Demonstrates a willingness to change their own practices inthe light of new understandings

Encourages teachers to try new practices consistent with theirinterests

Rarely refers to school goals when they are making decisionsrelated to changes in programmes and practices

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

14 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER VOL. 17 NO. 1

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Stimulates discussion of new ideas relevant to schooldirections

Facilitates effective communication among staff

Establishes working conditions that inhibit staff collaborationfor professional growth and planning

Communicates school vision to staff and students

Encourages the development of school norms supportingopenness to change

Shows favouritism toward individuals or groups

Facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other

Reinforces isolation of teachers who have special expertise

Provides an appropriate level of autonomy for teachers intheir own decision making

Provides moral support by making teachers feel appreciatedfor their contributions to the school

Helps us understand the relationship between the school'svision and the ministry's initiatives

Models problem solving techniques that teachers can readilyadapt for work with their colleagues and students

Promotes an atmosphere of caring and trust among staff

Symbolises success and accomplishment within theprofession

Supports the status quo at the expense of being at the cuttingedge of educational change

Works toward whole staff consensus in establishing prioritiesfor school goals

Is open and genuine in dealing with staff and students

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

V

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6