| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立花蓮教育大學 === 國民教育研究所 === 95 === The responsibility for the role of a principal is considered as a beginning of development in school technology leadership. A principal in one school must lead members to make good use of technology introduced into the school as a welcome the new century. It is therefore necessary for elementary school principals to possess knowledge in technology leaderships
The purpose of this research leads into discussion on how Hualien elementary school principals practice technology leadership. First of all, we designed a survey for principals in order to investigate the current process and development on principal’s perception on school technology leadership. Next, we designed another survey for teachers to explore current condition on whether elementary school teachers possess enough perception to become aware of the principals who do, or do not practice technology leadership. The survey result from both principals and teachers was then analyzed into assigned four classes. Followed by a semi-constructive interview, we could finally reach a conclusion of several differences and discovery of disagreements between the two.
Firstly, the investigation survey of technology leadership on principals’ perception and teachers’ perception regarding technology leadership were designed to collect information from each school within the county. The targets in this research were set to include a total of 613 teachers and 102 principals from all 102 public elementary schools in Hualien County. However, only 466 surveys from teachers and 81 from principals were successfully retrieved and considered valid for this research. The result and all the statistical data including mean values, standard deviations, t-test, and single factor analysis of variables had been calculated and obtained through the software of SPSS version 13.0. As a supplement to the survey, semi-constructive interviews were done in 5 selected schools, including 5 principals and 16 teachers.
The obtained survey result showed that principals of different sexuality, age, term of service, individual development on information technology, had different perception on school technology leadership. On the other side, teachers with different sexuality, age, physical school sizes, and whether their schools being elite schools in information technology, varied in their opinions on whether their principals were capable with the perception on school technology leadership. Finally, our result concluded that 69.1% of all teachers disagreed against their school principals who had identified themselves with perception on school technology leadership.
According to the result from data analysis and semi-constructive interview, our conclusion had identified each survey result as one of the four designed classes. For the first class "advanced leadership style", we defined both the teachers and whose principal as high perception group. For the second class "egotistic leadership style," the principal was defined as high perception group while the teacher of the same school was defined as low perception group whereas the teachers did not agree with the principal's own awareness on such perception. The third class was called "preparative leadership style," which defined the principal as low perception group, whereas the teachers were defined as high perception. In this case, the teachers became aware of their principal's leading style as they acknowledge accomplishments on various aspects by their principal's perception on technology leadership. The last calss was "conservative leadership style," whereas both the principal and the teachers were defined as low perception group, while both of them were expecting each other to work and make advancements.
Base on these data and calculated result, possible solutions and suggestions can now be made and serve as a reference to associated administrative units and school principals for new policies and educational programs.
|
|---|
