The study assessed the effectiveness of an online Educational Technology Leadership (ETL) master's program in enhancing graduates' leadership in online learning and technology professional development in K-12 schools. Utilizing a convergent mixed-methods design, data was collected through surveys and electronic portfolios from program graduates, revealing that many graduates successfully implemented web 2.0 tools and advanced technology professional development in their educational environments. Recommendations include expanding electronic portfolio usage for assessing leadership potential and providing ongoing online professional development opportunities to support graduates in their roles.

1. Lamar University Faculty
Dr. Diane Mason, Assistant Professor
Dr. Sheryl Abshire, Assistant Professor
Dr. Cindy Cummings, Assistant Professor
Dr. L. Kay Abernathy, Associate Professor

2.  This research study investigated the
effectiveness of an online Educational
Technology Leadership (ETL) master’s program
to advance graduates’ leadership in the use of
online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology
professional development in PK-12 schools.
 Convergent, mixed methods design
 110 of 271 responds to Likert-style survey with
open-ended questions
 Examined purposeful sample of 60
electronic portfolios

3.  Master’s Degree – Educational Technology
Leadership
 Fully online program
 Coursework – 18 months
 Internship – 18 months
 Researched program effectiveness to
implement strategies in Pk-12
› Leadership
› Online learning
› Web 2.0 tools

4.  Educational leadership single greatest factor of a learning
environment (Daugherty, Kelley, & Thornton, 2005)
 Skills training important for teachers, but the most critical
element leadership development (Ledesma, 2006)
 Nationwide, nearly 40% of principal positions vacant in
2010. Dwindling pool of certified principals requires a
greater focus on teacher leadership
(Ballek, O’Rourke, Provenzanom &
Bellamy, 2005)

5.  Higher education
› Concerns about the quality of online programs
(Abdullahi, 2011; Allen & Seaman, 2010;
Mendenhall, 2011)
› Technology for assessment helped to better
understand students’ learning than just attending
class (Mendenhall, 2011)
 Online Learners
› National Online Learners Priorities Report – Factors
for online: convenience, work schedule, reputation of
institution, cost, and future employment opportunities
(Noel-Levitz, Inc., 2008)

6.  K-12
› 47% increase in the number of K-12 students
enrolled in online courses (Picciano & Seaman
, 2009)
› Online enrollment in K-12 could reach close to 6
million students by 2016 (Picciano & Seaman, 2009)
› Online teaching requires different skill set
(Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin & Rapp, 2011)
› Limited information regarding best practices for
online teaching in K-12 settings
(DePietro, Ferdig, Black, & Preston, 2008)

7.  Enables interaction and collaboration (Parker &
Chao, 2007; Tapscott & Williams, 2008)
 One-fifth of US higher education students actively
contributing content to blogs, wikis, photo or video
websites and 18% contributed regularly to at least three
of these (OECD-CERI/ Pedró, 2009)
 Relatively new paradigm which enables contributions
and communication (Mills, 2007)
 Best practices and framework for online educators
needed in K-12 (DePietro et al., 2008)

8.  Teacher support for technology integration, time for
differentiated professional development to meet
individual stages of technology adoption
(Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1990;
Martin, Hupert, Culp, Kanaya, & Light, 2003;
O’Dwyer, Russell, & Bebell, 2004)
 Technology leaders must be engaged in not only
investigating and evaluating new technologies, but they
should keep teaching and learning at the heart of all
technology decisions (Creighton, 2011).

9.  Technology professional development should not be
short term topics, but rather a focus on components
deemed appropriate for successful implementation.
(Carlson & Gadio, 2002; Rodriguez, 2000)

10. The purpose of this study was to examine the
effectiveness of an online Educational
Technology Leadership (ETL) master’s program
to advance graduates’ leadership in the use of
online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology
professional development in PK-12 schools.

11.  Convergent mixed methods
› Quantitative and qualitative gathered separately
› Data then integrated
 Participants – 289 program graduates in pool
› Employed PK-12 settings
› Classroom staff
› Non-classroom staff (technology facilitators, librarians, and
curriculum coordinators)
 Quantitative
› Survey
› 271 Possible participants employed in K-12 settings
› 110 (41%) completed the survey
 Qualitative
› Purposeful sample of 60 graduates’ comprehensive electronic
portfolios
› Open-ended questions from survey

12. Does the online Educational Technology
Leadership master’s program advance graduates’
leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0
tools, and technology professional development in PK-12
schools?
› Assumptions were developed to analyze quantitative
research data.
 Online learning
 Web 2.0 tools
 Technology professional development
› Sub-research questions guided the qualitative data
analysis.
 Same three areas of focus.

13.  Developed a pilot survey – 5 point Likert Scale
› Cronbach’s Alpha test to assess internal consistency with Likert-style
items.
› Revised survey and conducted another pilot.
› Feedback from field experts.
 SurveyMonkey™ used to distribute and obtain anonymous survey
responses to the Likert items and open-ended responses.
 Issue-focused examination of electronic portfolios
› Effectiveness of the ETL master’s program to advance personal
leadership in the use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and technology
professional development.
› Was there evidence of transference into PK-12 schools?
› Key elements – personal leadership roles, online learning, technology
tools, professional development

14.  SurveyMonkey™ only form of survey
data collection
 Only used email addresses on file in University
database
 Participants only employed in PK-12 settings
 Limited a 2-week timeframe to collect data
 Voluntary and anonymous participation
 Unfamiliarity with online surveys
 Only program completers
 Potential researcher bias

15.  Majority of ETL graduates agreed and strongly agreed online
learning was implemented for PK-12 students in the school setting
(55.5%) and district (73.6%).
 Classroom teachers rated both the implementation of online
professional development at the school level and district level
higher than non-classroom staff at the school level and at the
district.
 Video tools consistently rated high with respect to use in PK-12
teaching and for personal learning.
 Evidence of less use of collaborative tools in PK-12
teaching by non-classroom staff than classroom
teachers.
 Web conferencing least used for PK-12 student
interactions

16.  93.6% of the respondents reported agreement or strong agreement
with supporting fellow educators in the use of Web 2.0 tools in PK-
12 school settings.
 Google tools used more frequently by graduates with PK-12
students than other Web 2.0 tools.
 Web 2.0 tools such as Blogs, wikis (collaborative software), Prezi
(presentation software), Wordle, and Animoto (video application)
were implemented with PK-12 students by more than 40% of the
respondents.
 For personal learning, Google tools topped the list
with 89.1% and close followers were Blogs (83.6%),
wikis (80.9%), and discussion forums (71.8%).

17.  ETL graduates in non-classroom staff roles tended to strongly
agree their perceived role included designing technology-
embedded professional development at the school (78.8%) and
district level (81.3%).
 Classroom teachers seemed to perceive designing technology
professional development school level (44.3%) and district level
(18.4%) as a lesser part of their role.
 A low percentage of the respondents appeared to be involved in
designing technology professional development for non-education
work settings: classroom teachers (13.2%)
and non-classroom staff (36.4%).

18.  Overall, a majority of ETL graduates (53.5%) denoted leading the
design of PK-12 school-based technology professional
development.
 Non-classroom staff rated designing district (M=4.03) technology
professional development slightly higher than school-based
offerings (M=3.69).
 Classroom teachers (54.5%) tended to rate the implementation of
technology-embedded professional development at the school level
lower than non-classroom staff (84.4%).
 Non-classroom staff (87.9%) rated implementation
of technology embedded professional development
higher than classroom teachers (36.0%) as a
perceived function of their role at the district level.

19.  >50% of the total ETL graduates reported service
on school-based technology related committees.
Classroom teachers (M=2.94) seemed to rate their
involvement slightly lower than non-classroom staff (M=
3.00).
 Non-classroom staff (M = 3.90) appeared
to rate higher agreement with serving on
district level committees than classroom
staff (M=2.48). Neither data set rated their
role serving on non-education technology
related committees as high as school or
district committees.

20.  Program graduates’ personal use and campus
implementation of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and
technology professional development very similar to the
quantitative results.
 Open-ended survey revealed 73% wanted to pursue
district, campus, or higher education positions.
 Evidence of graduates’ understanding of the need for online
learning, the use of Web 2.0 tools, and technology
professional development.
 Data inconclusive about ETL graduates’ potential
for leading initiation of online learning, Web 2.0
and tech PD in PK-12 settings, but indicated
graduates lead other educators especially with
Web 2.0 tools and tech pd.

21.  ETL online program graduates exhibited leadership in
personal use of online learning, Web 2.0 tools, and
technology professional development, three key
components of the program.
 ETL online program graduates exhibited leadership in
campus implementation of online learning, Web 2.0
tools, and technology professional development.
 Graduates expressed interest in expanded career options
in leadership roles as administrators, district
technology coordinators, and technology
professional development providers.

22.  Graduates frequently identified ways the online ETL master’s
program contributed to their personal knowledge base
through creation of individualized and small group projects
specifically using Web 2.0 tools and video. These findings
substantiated Mendenhall’s (2011) research noting the
importance of documenting graduates’ understandings and
comprehension of program content.
 Recommendation - Higher education faculty consider
implementing or expanding the use of electronic
portfolios as a documentation and assessment
process to gain better familiarity with candidate
knowledge and leadership potential.

23.  Respondents supported the use of online learning in PK-12
school and district settings.
 Classroom teachers’ personal experience with online learning
appeared to contribute to the implementation of online learning
with PK-12 students.
 Non-classroom staff (technology facilitators, librarians, and
curriculum coordinators) expressed greater confidence with
implementing district initiatives.
 Picciano and Seaman (2009) indicated a steady
increase in the use of online learning in PK-12
school settings and Christensen (2008) shared
online instruction could be a catalyst for
educational transformation.

24.  Online professional development seemed to be less likely
viewed as a focus of online learning in PK-12 settings.
 Recommendation - Higher education faculty consider
providing online professional development opportunities
for graduates related to effective online teaching
strategies and leadership to advance best practices for
teaching in PK-12 online settings. These opportunities
should include the use of web conferencing
techniques to support PK-12 collaboration.

25.  Graduates frequently identified ways the online ETL master’s
program contributed to their personal knowledge base
through creation of individualized and small group projects
specifically using Web 2.0 tools and video. These findings
substantiated Mendenhall’s (2011) research noting the
importance of documenting graduates’ understandings and
comprehension of program content.
 Recommendation - Higher education faculty should consider
implementing or expanding the use of
electronic portfolios as a documentation and
assessment process to gain better familiarity
with candidate knowledge and leadership
potential.

26.  The data provided substantial evidence that ETL graduates exhibit
leadership skills in the personal use and implementation of Web 2.0
tools, but implementation practices with students in PK-12 were
slightly lower. These results supported the work of Parker and Chao
(2007) and Tapscott and Williams (2008) which indicated Web 2.0
was a relatively new paradigm for PK-12.
 Due to filtering restrictions and the technological environment in
which PK-12 operated, ETL graduates found themselves leading the
way with updating policies and procedures.
 Recommendation - Leaders in educational
technology, higher education, and PK-12
should collaborate to share and publish
examples of effective PK-12 implementation
of Web 2.0 tools.

27.  The majority of ETL graduates noted leading the design and
implementation of PK-12 school-based technology
professional development to support teaching and
learning, especially implementation of Web 2.0 tools.
 The individuals serving in non-classroom staff roles such as
librarians, curriculum coordinators, or technology facilitators
expressed leadership experience in design and
implementation of similar technology professional
development opportunities at the district level.
 Results supported the work of Creighton (2011)
in that technology leaders should keep teaching
and learning a focus while investigating new
technologies.

28.  ETL graduates shared examples of ways to mentor and support
colleagues with various levels of technology expertise.
 Data supported Carlson and Gadio (2002) by revealing the
continued need for ongoing technology professional development
for themselves as well as their colleagues.
 Recommendation – Faculty should maintain collaboration with and
support for candidates beyond graduation to ensure transference
of program components into PK-12 environments.
 Recommendation – Faculty should consider providing
opportunities for ongoing collaboration, leadership
development, and support for ETL graduates such
as online professional development, web
conferencing, Web 2.0 interactive sites, conference
participation, presentations, and networking with
individuals employed in leadership roles.

29.  Replication study with all graduates from August 2010 –
2012. Study was limited to first four graduating classes.
 Investigate graduates’ use of e-portfolios in PK-12 to
document progression of Web 2.0 use and growth of
knowledge from beginning of program to completion.
 Follow-up study to document changes in education
positions and educational leadership roles for graduates
1 year, 2 years, 3 years after program
completion.
 A study should be conducted to plan,
implement, and evaluate higher ed
faculty PD program to implement online
content courses integrating Web 2.0.

30. Abdullahi, A. (2011). Student exam participation and
performances in a web-enhanced traditional and
hybrid allied health biology course. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 426-438. Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/abdullahi_1211.pdf
Allen, I., & Seaman, J. The Sloan Consortium, (2007). Online
nation: Five years of growth in
online learning. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/
online_nation.pdf
Allen, I., & Seaman, J. The Sloan Consortium, (2010). Learning on
demand: Online education in the United States, 2009.
Babson Survey Research Group.
Anderson, R., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An
empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-82.

31. Ballek, K., O’Rourke, A., Provenzano, J., & Bellamy, T. (2005). Keys in
cultivating principals and teacher leaders. National Staff
Development Council Journal, 26(2), 42–49.
Brown, R. (2011). Administration of technology: Teaching, learning,
and resource management. In R. Papa (Ed.), Technology
Leadership for School Improvement (pp. 45 -59). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Carlson, S. and Gadio, C.T. (2002). ―Teacher Professional
Development in the Use of Technology.‖ In Haddad, W. D. and
Draxler. A. (Eds.) Technologies for Education: Potential,
Parameters and Prospects. Paris and Washington, D.C.:
UNESCO and AED
Creighton, T. (2011). Entrepreneurial leadership for technology: An
opposable mind. In R. Papa (Ed.), Technology Leadership for
School Improvement (pp. 3-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.

32. Daugherty, R., Kelley, R., & Thornton, B. (2005). Relationships
between measures of leadership and school climate.
Education. 126, 17.
DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R., Black, E., & Preston, M. (2008). Best
practices in teaching k-12 online: Lessons learned from
michigan virtual school teachers. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 7(1), 10-35. Retrieved from
http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/7.1.2.pdf
Ledesma, P. (2006). The technology specialist’s dilemma: Computer
repair technician or instructional leader? Virginia Society for
Technology in Education Journal, 20(1), 3-8.
Martin, W., Hupert, N, Culp, K, Kanaya, T., & Light, D. (2003). Intel t
each to the future summary of evaluation findings. Center for
Children and Technology, New York.

33. Mendenhall, R. (2011). How technology can improve online learning—
and learning in general. The Chronicle of Higher Education:
Online Learning, B23-B24. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/How-Technology-Can-
Improve/129616/
Mills, L.B. (2007). The next wave now: Web 2.0. Education Digest:
Essential Readings
Condensed for Quick Review, 73(4), 4-5.Dwyer, Ringstaff, &
Sandholtz, 1990
Noel-Levitz, Inc., (2008). National online learners priorities report.
Retrieved from Noel-Levitz website:
https://www.noellevitz.com/upload/Papers_and_Research/200
8/OnlineLearners08.pdf

34. O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. J. (2004). Identifying
teacher, school, and district characteristics associated with
elementary teachers’ use of technology: A multilevel
perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48).
Retrieved April 12, 2006 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n48
OECD-CERI/ Pedró, F. (2009) New millennium learners in higher
education: Evidence and policy implications. Paris: Centre for
Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) Directorate
for Education, OECD. Retrieved from
http://static.ow.ly/docs/NML-in- Higher-Education_5n0.pdf
Parker, K.R. & Chao., 57-72. J.T. (2007) Wiki as a teaching tool.
Interdisciplinary journal of knowledge and learning objectives,
3, 57-72.

35. Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. The Sloan Consortium, (2009). K–12
online learning: A 2008 follow- up of the survey of u.s. school
district administrators. Retrieved from Sloan Consortium
website: http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/k-
12online2008
Rodriguez, G. (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional
development for effective technology use. Retrieved from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te10
00.htm
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A.D., (2008). Wikinomics: How mass
collaboration change everything. New York: Penguin Group.
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. Evergreen
Group, (2010). Keep pace with k12 online learning: An annual
review of policy and practice. Retrieved from
http://www.kpk12.com/cms/wp-
content/uploads/KeepingPaceK12_2010.pdf.

36. Diane D. Mason, Ph.D
Assistant Professor
diane.mason@lamar.edu
Sheryl R. Abshire, Ph.D
Assistant Professor
sheryl.abshire@lamar.edu
Cynthia Cummings, Ed.D.
Assistant Professor
cdcummings@lamar.edu
http://tinyurl.com/c2nrsot