School leaders, ICT competence and championing ...

Computers & Education 53 (2009) 733–741

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

School leaders, ICT competence and championing innovations Lindsay H. Stuart *, Annette M. Mills, Ulrich Remus Dept. of Accountancy and Information Systems, College of Business and Economics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 1 February 2009 Received in revised form 15 April 2009 Accepted 19 April 2009

Keywords: Elementary education Leadership ICT competence Championing Innovations

a b s t r a c t The implementation of new technology is becoming more important to schools and the success of such implementations is often due to the presence of ICT champions. This article examines ICT champions to determine whether the intention to champion ICT is determined by the ICT competence of school leaders. This article, based on responses from 64 school leaders in New Zealand, reports that professional development and ICT usage are antecedents of ICT competency and that school leaders are ICT competent and willing ICT champions. These findings are contrary to existing research which has found that school leaders have poor ICT competency. Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction Over the past 20 years, information and communications technology (ICT) has become increasingly important to organisations throughout the world. However, in many organisations new ICT often fails to meet its full potential, with the Standish Group reporting that only 35% of software projects begun in 2006 were successful (cited by Rubenstein, 2007). This is no less an issue for schools with Roberston (2003) reporting that ICT has been a minor force in education in the 21st century. With increasing investments in ICT in schools, ICT project failure is an important concern for schools (Tearle, 2003). It is this potential for failure that makes it important to examine ICT implementation in schools. It is widely accepted that the leadership behaviours of senior management plays an important role in determining the success or failure of an ICT implementation (Neufeld, Dong, & Higgins, 2007). In any organisation, there is therefore a need for strong leadership in ICT implementations. This is no less so for schools. As investments in ICT in schools increase, school leaders must address the challenges of implementing new technologies, such as student management systems (SMS), as school administration becomes increasingly computerised. Indeed, Telem (2001) documented the significant changes in the principal’s role as a result of the implementation of new student management systems. School leaders also have roles to play in championing ICT use to teachers for the benefits of increasing educational outcomes (Baek, Jung, & Kim, 2008; Gosmire & Grady, 2007; Rakes & Dawson, 2003). It is therefore important to understand the factors that impact these new technology leadership roles in schools. Of particular interest in this study is the leadership behaviour of school leaders as this relates to the championing of these new technologies (Howell & Higgins, 1990b; Neufeld et al., 2007; Rogers, 2005). We define these school leaders as individuals with leadership roles within schools such as principals, deputy principals, assistant/associate principals, and head teachers. Thus, in order to understand how school leaders come to take up the championing role, it is important to understand what encourages them to act as champions of the new technology. To perform these technology roles well, school leaders need to have a level of ICT competence so they can be effective implementers of new ICT (Slowinski, 2003). ICT competence can also help school leaders to be effective technology leaders; this is an important leadership responsibility for school principals (Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003; Schiller, 2003). Researchers have also noted that having basic technology competencies (Crouse, 1997; Isherwood, 1985; Roberts, 1997) can help these leaders to be better role models for staff (Cooley & Reitz, 1997). However, although school leaders may have formally mandated technology leadership responsibilities this can be problematic since they often do not have the training or background to feel confident in dealing with technology (Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 0 21 0597333. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.H. Stuart), [email protected] (A.M. Mills), [email protected] (U. Remus). 0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.013

734

L.H. Stuart et al. / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 733–741

Prior research suggests that ICT competence is a key factor that influences technology leadership behaviours, such as willingness to champion new ICT (Bassellier, Benbasat, & Reich, 2003). However, despite the importance of new technologies to schools and the role of school leaders in implementing such technologies, there has not been little research on the ICT competencies of school leaders and how this impacts technology leadership (Anderson & Dexter, 2005; Testerman, Flowers, & Algozzine, 2001), in particular, their willingness to champion ICT in their schools. This paper therefore reports on a study that seeks to address this gap by examining the ICT competence of school leaders and its impact on their intention to champion the implementation and use of ICT in their schools. Thus, the research question that underpins this study is: ‘‘What is the relationship between the ICT competence of school leaders and their intention to act as ICT champions in their school?” Given the paucity of research on ICT championing in schools, this study draws on prior research on innovation champions (Howell & Higgins, 1990b; Rogers, 1995) and on the impact of ICT competence on the intention to champion ICT in large firms (Bassellier et al., 2003) to develop a model of ICT championing in schools. Thong (1999) finds that CEO’s in small businesses also make most of the decisions which is akin to the role of school leaders. Thus it is important to understand how school leaders are involved in ICT championing (Telem, 2001). Prior research on the ICT competence of school leaders also informs model development (Brockmeier, Sermon, & Hope, 2005; Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003; Testerman et al., 2001). The resultant model is then tested using a survey of primary school leaders in New Zealand. This paper proceeds as follows. In the next section, the literature on innovation champions and the role of ICT competence is reviewed and summarised – this includes a review of the research on the ICT competence of school leaders and possible measures. Next, the research model and supporting hypotheses are discussed. This is followed by a description of the research design and survey. The model tests are then described and the results reported. Finally, the paper closes with a discussion of the results, limitations and implications for school leadership and future research.

2. Conceptual framework 2.1. Innovation champions The literature defines a champion as a ‘‘charismatic individual who throws his or her weight behind an innovation, thus overcoming indifference or resistance that the new idea may provoke in an organisation” (Rogers, 2003, p. 414). Champions are ‘‘the individuals who emerge to take creative ideas . . . and bring them to life” and who ‘‘actively and enthusiastically promote the innovation, building support, overcoming resistance, and ensuring that the innovation is implemented.” (Howell & Higgins, 1990b, p. 40). Confidence, persistence, energy and risk-taking are also key characteristics of champions (Howell & Higgins, 1990b). For example, Howell and Higgins (1990a), in a study of 25 matched pairs of innovation champions and non-champions, observed that champions were higher risk takers. Hence, champions often ‘‘willingly risk their position and reputation to ensure the innovation’s success” (Howell, 2005, p. 108). Champions are also an important part of the innovation process in an organisation (Howell & Higgins, 1990b; Rogers, 2003), and are especially important in the implementation of new technology. For example, Parr and Shanks (2000) found that an experienced champion was essential to the success of large ICT projects such as ERP implementation in firms. Champions therefore play key roles in advancing or supporting the introduction of new technology into organisations (Neufeld et al., 2007; Parr & Shanks, 2000; Rogers, 2003). Champions can be distinguished from non-champions because they can communicate a clear vision of the innovation, display enthusiasm for the innovation, demonstrate commitment and involve others in supporting it (Howell & Higgins, 1990b). In some cases, champions are appointed to the role (Parr & Shanks, 2000). However, champions are more often not formally responsible for promoting innovations but become technology champions because they believe in that technology (Howell, 2005). Parker and Axtell (2001) suggest that for champions to motivate and promote new technology they need to adopt multiple perspectives and work collaboratively with others. Champions therefore need to be proactive in promoting and supporting new technology in their organisation while enlisting others to aid them in this effort. Hence, the presence of an energetic and respected person is required to effectively champion new technology (Martinsons, 1993; Neufeld et al., 2007; Parr & Shanks, 2000). For this study, champions will be defined as those who take the initiative in actively promoting and building support for new technology in their organisations. Champions are also likely to have a variety of working experiences and a long tenure in the organisation to draw from (Howell & Higgins, 1990a, 1990b). This helps them to understand the potential for new technology while giving them a broad social network to help implement and support the change (Howell, 2005). Howell and Higgins (1990a) also suggest that top management needs to support champions by what they say and what they do, for them to be successful as champions. In supporting technology implementation, top management should use the technology themselves whenever possible, acting also as role models for others in the organisation. Finally, Howell and Boies (2004) suggest that champions need to understand the technology and how it fits within the broader organisational context to be effective promoters of the innovation. Champions therefore have broad general knowledge and capabilities and are able to recognise the potential benefits of new technologies for the organisation (Howell, 2005). 2.2. ICT Competence and the championing role of school leaders The role of ICT in schools has dramatically increased with the mounting importance attached to using technology in the curriculum and in the management of the school. Successful change and ICT implementation in schools depends on effective leadership, but many school leaders feel overwhelmed by the task of technology implementation as they are often without formal training or experience with ICT (Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003). School leaders should therefore have a minimum set of technology skills to support their leadership roles. For example, they may need to know how to use the technology that is available in the school and should use this technology whenever possible for their own duties (Anderson & Dexter, 2005). Without such use, ICT may remain unfamiliar to school leaders, impacting their effectiveness as technology leaders in the school. Weaknesses in ICT implementations, such as the lack of technology integration in schools, are partly attributed to low ICT competence, which in turn, may be due to inadequate professional development (Brockmeier et al., 2005). However, although teachers that have re-


735

ceived training are more likely to use technology in ways that are more effective for student learning, technology funding has often failed to provide sufficient training to support the new technology (Archer, 1998). Schiller (2003) in a study of schools in Australia investigated how principals facilitated and implemented technology in their schools. The study showed huge variations between the perceived technological competencies of the 217 principals examined. Brockmeier et al. (2005) also investigated principals’ use of technology and whether they were prepared to integrate technology into the school’s teaching and administration. They found that principals recognised the value of technology to their schools, and the need for professional development, but only 59% of the 268 participants saw themselves as technology leaders in the school. Fifty-percent of the respondents were also unwilling to hand decision-making about technology over to other teachers. Brockmeier et al. therefore suggested there is an ICT competence threshold that principals must cross before they are ready to lead the use of technology in their schools. Hu, Clark, and Ma (2003) made a similar finding with a longitudinal study of technology acceptance in public school teachers in Hong Kong. They concluded that teacher’s computer self-efficacy (i.e., the individual’s judgement in assessing their own ability to use computers) affected their willingness to adopt new technology. An effective champion is one who is knowledgeable about the innovation they are championing (Bassellier et al., 2003). For principals and other school leaders to be effective champions and hence effective technology leaders in their schools, they need to attain a certain level of ICT competence. In the next section, different approaches to assessing ICT competence are examined. 2.3. Measuring ICT competence There have been many approaches to assessing ICT competence. For example, Flowers and Algozzine (2000) developed an inventory to measure the basic technology competence (BTCEI) of school administrators. Testerman et al. (2001) used the BTCEI to find that the ICT competence of educational administrators was low. Schiller (2003) also created an inventory of ICT competencies with applications such as word processing, spreadsheets, PowerPoint and email. A key characteristic of these inventories is the focus on explicit knowledge that is, knowledge that can be taught, read or explained. They also emphasise specific know-how (e.g., knowledge of how to send email or create a PowerPoint presentation) and can therefore be long and tedious to complete. In contrast to inventories such as the BTCEI, Bassellier, Reich, and Benbasat (2001) took a broader view of knowledge examining explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. While explicit knowledge emphasises what can be taught, read or explained, tacit knowledge is gained through personal experience and is not easily transferred. Based on these two dimensions of knowledge, Bassellier et al. (2003) developed an instrument to capture what people do as well as what they know. Hence, two aspects of ICT competence were assessed – ICT knowledge (what people know) and ICT experience (what people do). This approach recognises that competence should involve a knowledge and skills component so that managers are able to transfer their competence to a variety of different tasks and situations in their daily work. Using survey data from 404 business managers in two large insurance companies, the instrument was evaluated in the context of ICT championing and found to be reliable. The research findings showed that manager’s ICT knowledge and experience influences their intention to champion ICT (Bassellier et al., 2003). The Bassellier et al. (2003) instrument was therefore used as the starting point in the current study to develop a measure of ICT competence of school leaders, as it includes both ICT knowledge and ICT experience (i.e., explicit and tacit knowledge). The study also provided a measure of intention to champion ICT which had been validated in the context of these two dimensions of ICT competence. 2.4. The Theory of Planned Behaviour and ‘‘Intention to champion” The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) provides a theoretical basis for the link between intentions and behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). The TPB is a theoretical extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Both theories have been widely tested in IS research and elsewhere (Ajzen, 1991; Sheeran, 2002; Venkatesh, Morris, & Ackerman, 2000). The TPB links a set of beliefs with a person’s intention, and intention to actual behaviour. Indeed, intention is assumed to be an immediate antecedent of behaviour which is shared by other social psychological models (Ajzen, Brown, & Carvajal, 2004). Sheeran (2002) also reported a correlation of 0.53 between intention and behaviour from a meta-analysis of past research. Likewise another metastudy by Armitrage and Conner (2001) also show support for the importance of the TPB in predicting intentions and behaviour. This justifies the use of behavioural intention as a predictor of behaviour. The TPB also provides theoretical justification for linking beliefs and intentions in the current model. Hence in this study, it is suggested that beliefs about ICT competence are linked to intention to champion ICT in schools (Ajzen, 1991; Bassellier et al., 2001; Brockmeier et al., 2005).

3. Model development Drawing on the previous discussion of innovation championing, ICT competence and measurement and the Theory of Planned Behaviour, a research model and hypotheses are developed to help investigate the research question that underpins this study (see Fig. 1). Hence, this study suggests that intention to champion ICT is linked to ICT competence, that is, ICT experience and ICT knowledge (Bassellier et al., 2003). In this study, ICT knowledge is comprised of knowledge of technologies, applications, system development, the management of ICT and access to knowledge (Bassellier et al., 2003). It is distinguished from ICT experience which measures experience by assessing participation in ICT projects and in ICT management. The link between ICT experience and knowledge, and intention to champion ICT in schools is suggested by researchers in education (Brockmeier et al., 2005; Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003; Slowinski, 2003). Furthermore, the regular use of ICT by school leaders will encourage other staff to use it and can help the school leader be a more effective champion of ICT (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Howell & Higgins, 1990b; Maurer & Davidson, 1998). IS research also showed that the greater the level of ICT competence, the greater the intention of managers to champion ICT (Bassellier et al., 2003). Based on these findings, the following hypotheses are suggested:

736


Fig. 1. Research model.

Hypothesis 1. The ICT knowledge of school leaders will positively influence their intention to champion ICT in their school. Hypothesis 2. The ICT experience of school leaders will positively influence their intention to champion ICT in their school. The next set of hypotheses concern the impact of ICT use and professional development on ICT competence. Research suggests that the regular use of ICT can help build the ICT competence of school leaders and enhance their credibility and respect, and encourage other staff to use ICT (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Maurer & Davidson, 1998). For example, Schiller (2003) found that principals favoured the hands-on use of ICT to help develop their ICT competence. Munro, Huff, Marcolin, and Compeau (1997) also found that breadth and depth of ICT competence was linked to ICT use. Hence it is suggested that: Hypothesis 3. ICT use will positively affect the ICT knowledge of school leaders. Hypothesis 4. ICT use will positively affect the ICT experience of school leaders. Professional development is also an antecedent of ICT competence. School leaders who have undertaken ICT-related professional development are more likely to use ICT in ways that are beneficial for schools (Archer, 1998; Slowinski, 2003) and which can help them increase their technology competence (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002). Thus, the extent to which leaders participate in ICT-related professional development should be positively related to their ICT competence. Hence, Hypothesis 5. ICT-related professional development will positively affect the ICT knowledge of school leaders. Hypothesis 6. ICT-related professional development will positively affect the ICT experience of school leaders.

4. Method To investigate the research question, a survey of school leaders in New Zealand was conducted. A major component of instrument development was the modification of Bassellier et al.’s (2003) 36-item ICT competence instrument to make it appropriate for assessing school leaders’ ICT competence and intention to champion. Interviews were therefore conducted with two experts in primary education to determine the types of technologies, applications and management activities that were relevant to the primary schools. The results were used to reshape the Bassellier et al. instrument to capture school leaders’ perceptions of their ICT competence. ICT use was measured in terms of frequency of use and amount of ICT use (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006); for example, respondents were asked how much time was spent using ICT each day. Intention to champion was measured using 3-items adapted from Bassellier et al. (2003). These measured the extent to which school leaders intended to create or strengthen partnerships with ICT staff in the school and the extent to which the use of ICT would be supported and promoted in the school. Professional development consists of formal courses aimed at developing skills and knowledge. Professional development was therefore measured using an indigenously developed scale that corresponded to the individuals’ perceptions’ of their past professional development activities and how these have helped improve their ICT knowledge (Foon & Brush, 2007). Finally, all items were assessed using 7-point Likert scales. The survey was distributed to 18

737


members of a postgraduate class on educational leadership. Seven responses were returned and the results were used to make final modifications to some items. The survey was then distributed using online and hand delivery methods. 118 invitations were sent out to primary school leaders through an online survey. This resulted in 42 responses. Eleven surveys were also distributed at a Principal’s day conference, and 29 surveys to a convenience sample of local schools. In total, 158 surveys were distributed and 66 surveys returned, giving an overall response rate of 42%. Of the 66 surveys returned, 64 were fully completed and used in the analysis. Of the respondents, 61% (0 = 39) were female and 39% (n = 25) male. In terms of education, most respondents had either a Bachelors Degree (n = 25) or a diploma (n = 21) while 17 respondents had higher-level qualifications such as a Postgraduate diploma (n = 9) or Masters Degree (n = 8). Respondents’ ages ranged from 20 years to over 60 years, while organisational tenure ranged from less than one year to over 10 years. The profile of respondents is shown in Table 1. 5. Data analysis and results The survey data and research models were examined using descriptive statistics (with SPSS 15.0) and the partial least squares approach (with PLS-Graph 3.0). 5.1. ICT competence and intention to champion ICT Table 2 reports the means and standard deviations of the sub-items for ICT knowledge and experience, and intention to champion ICT. These results show that school leaders are knowledgeable about various ICT applications (mean = 6.19) and technologies (mean = 5.92). School leaders are also knowledgeable about the management of ICT (mean = 5.96) but do not much practical experience with ICT projects (mean = 4.63) or in ICT management (mean = 4.75). School leaders also have relatively low levels of knowledge of system development (mean = 3.43). However, they are enthusiastic about championing ICT in their schools with strong intentions to do this (mean = 6.38). 5.2. Model testing using PLS The research model was then tested using Partial Least Squares (PLS). PLS is a form of structural equation modelling which simultaneously evaluates the measurement model (i.e., reliability and validity of variables), and the structural model. The PLS approach to structural equation modelling is particularly suitable for this study due to its minimal demands on measurement model, sample size and the normal distribution of the data (Chin, 1998). Model testing was conducted using PLS Graph 3.0 (Build 1126). In this study, all of the variables were operationalised as reflective constructs except for knowledge of Technology, Applications, System Development and Access to Knowledge which were cast as formative constructs.

Table 1 Respondent profile.

Age

Tenure

Region

20–29 years 30–39 years 40–49 years 50–59 years 60 or more years Less than 1 year 1–2 years 3–5 years 6–10 years More than 10 years Auckland Wellington Canterbury Other

Frequency

Percentage (%)

2 11 18 27 6 7 8 16 18 15 19 2 32 11

3 17 27 42 9 11 13 25 28 23 30 3 50 17

Table 2 Descriptive statistics – ICT competence and intention to champion ICT. Construct/indicators ICT knowledge of . . . Technologies (e.g., PCs, networking, imagery technology, multimedia) Applications (e.g., email, WWW, word processing, spreadsheets, learning applications, administration applications such as SMS & eAdmin) System development (e.g., outsourcing, ICT project management practices) Management of ICT (e.g., the school’s ICT budget, ICT strategy, ICT policies) Access to knowledge (knowing who to contact for ICT information, e.g., vendors, colleagues, secondary sources) ICT Experience of . . . Participation in ICT projects (e.g., initiating ICT projects, managing ICT projects) Participation in ICT management (e.g., developing ICT strategy, creating ICT policy, setting ICT budgets) Intention to champion ICT

# of Items

Mean

Standard deviation

5 5

5.92 6.19

1.10 0.94

6 8 3

3.43 5.96 5.91

1.79 1.10 0.93

5 4 3

4.63 4.75 6.38

1.91 1.88 1.01

738


Table 3 Results of confirmatory factor analysis. Construct

# of items

Composite reliability

Average variance extracted (AVE)

Intentions to champion ICT ICT knowledge ICT experience Professional development ICT use

3 29 9 2 2

0.946 0.860 0.938 0.992 0.844

0.853 0.555 0.884 0.983 0.730

Table 4 Correlation between constructs.

Intentions to champion ICT (INCT) ICT knowledge (ICTK) ICT experience (ICTE) Professional development (PD) ICT use (ICTU

INCT

ICTK

ICTE

PD

ICTU

0.924 0.797 0.570 0.363 0.425

0.745 0.737 0.341 0.553

0.940 0.507 0.496

0.991 0.463

0.854

Note: Diagonal elements are the square root of the average variance extracted for each construct.

For the measurement model, construct reliability was evaluated by assessing its composite reliability score and convergent validity evaluated by examining the average variance extracted (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). As shown in Table 3, the composite reliabilities ranged from 0.844 to 1.000 which exceeded the minimum level of 0.7 (Chin, 1998). The average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.555 to 0.983 which were above the minimum level of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This indicates that the measures have adequate reliability and convergent validity. Discriminant validity was also evaluated and is measured using the square root of AVE for each variable and comparing it with the correlations of that variable with all other variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As shown in Table 4, in all cases the square root of the AVE was greater than the correlations of the other variables which indicate that all variables meet the requirements of discriminant validity. With the measurement model demonstrating adequate reliability and validity the research hypotheses could then be tested. PLS Graph 3.0 does not allow the direct representation of first- and second-order latent constructs in the same model. So, it was necessary to assess the first-order constructs in a sub-model. The computed first-order factor scores were then used as manifest indicators of the second-order construct in a separate model (e.g., Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Yi & Davis, 2003). Therefore, two separate models are shown. The first shows the sub-model which examined the first-order factors which make up ICT experience and ICT knowledge (Fig. 2). The second model (Fig. 3) depicts the main structural model which shows the relationships between the second-order constructs (i.e., ICT knowledge and ICT experience) and the other constructs. The overall variance explained (R2) by the research model was 0.643 which implied a satisfactory and substantial model (Bassellier et al. (2003) reported an overall variance of 0.34). Four of the standardised path coefficients were significant at the 5% level. ICT knowledge was significantly linked to intention to champion ICT (0.818, p < 0.01) supporting Hypothesis 1. However, contrary to expectations, ICT experience was not significantly linked to intention to champion ICT; hence, Hypotheses 2 was not supported.

Technology

0.061

Applications

0.492***

System Development Management

-0.034

ICT Knowledge

0.492**

Access to Knowledge

0.208

Experience in Projects

0.810***

ICT Experience Experience in ICT Management

0.222

Key - * p ≤ 0.1 ** p ≤ 0.05 *** p ≤ 0.01 Fig. 2. ICT Knowledge and experience sub-model.

739


Professional Development

0.109

ICT Knowledge

0.818***

(R² = 0.315) 0.353**

Intention to Champion ICT 0.502***

(R² = 0.643)

ICT Experience (R² = 0.344)

ICT Use 0.333**

-0.023

Key - * p ≤ 0.1 ** p ≤ 0.05 *** p ≤ 0.01 Fig. 3. Final research model.

Turning to the antecedents of ICT knowledge and experience, the results showed that ICT use was significantly linked to ICT knowledge (0.502, p < 0.001) and ICT experience (0.333, p < 0.05), supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4. Professional development was also significantly linked to ICT experience (0.353, p < 0.05), supporting Hypothesis 6. However, professional development was not linked to ICT knowledge; hence Hypothesis 5 was not supported. 6. Discussion and implications The results (Table 2) showed that school leaders were ICT competent with reasonably high levels of ICT knowledge and experience. They used ICT frequently and were also likely to perceive themselves as technology leaders in their schools. The finding that school leaders have reasonably high levels ICT competence and ICT use is contrary to earlier work which found that principals had low levels of ICT competence and were poor users of technology (Testerman et al., 2001). This finding may suggest that over time the level of ICT competence and ICT use among school leaders has increased. This may be due to the heightened emphasis on ICT, technology leadership, and skill development as the importance of technology has increased (Schiller, 2003). This study also reports on individual components of ICT competence (Table 3). The findings show that school leaders have high levels of knowledge about the technology and applications, and ICT management in their school but very low levels of knowledge about system development activities (e.g., outsourcing). The latter may reflect the limited involvement that school leaders in New Zealand may have with the processes used to acquire the school’s ICT. Another key finding was that ICT knowledge was significantly related to intention to champion ICT. This finding is consistent with prior research which also showed ICT knowledge was linked to intention to champion ICT (Bassellier et al., 2003). In particular, the current study found that school leaders with knowledge of ICT technology, applications and ICT management were likely to have a stronger intention to champion ICT than those with lesser knowledge and experience. The knowledge that potential champions have of the applications in use at their schools also aids them in identifying technology gaps in the school and the technologies available to address such gaps. Contrary to expectations (Bassellier et al., 2003), the findings suggest ICT experience is not a significant antecedent of intention to champion ICT. Here, school leaders reported relatively low levels of involvement with ICT projects in their schools and with ICT management. This contrasts with their high level of knowledge about ICT management (Table 2). So, while school leaders appear knowledgeable about some aspects of ICT in their schools, they are not as involved in ICT projects and management of the school’s ICT. It is possible that these responsibilities are delegated to other staff, limiting the principal’s experience of these processes. There may also be a level of apathy towards hand-on involvement with ICT projects and ICT management. Another possible explanation is that ICT knowledge may be more important than ICT experience in the school context, for intention to champion ICT. Perhaps being knowledgeable about ICT is enough to persuade a school leader to be an ICT champion, rather than their actual experience of managing it. Nonetheless, Bassellier et al. (2003) suggests that hands-on experience with ICT projects and ICT management is critical to building ICT competence in managers. Hence, for school leaders to be more effective as leaders and champions of ICT in schools, they need to be more involved with ICT management in their schools. Research also showed that principals favoured hands-on exposure for their learning (Schiller, 2003). Active involvement with the schools ICT will therefore enhance their overall ICT competence. The results also showed ICT use was significantly linked to both ICT knowledge and ICT experience. This is an important finding and extension to Bassellier et al.’s (2003) work, which suggested that ICT use may be an antecedent of ICT competence as personal use of computers can increase an individual’s experience and reflect a greater ability to innovate with ICT. However, ICT use was not assessed in the earlier study. Given the current finding that ICT use (assessed here as frequency and amount of use) impacts ICT competence, future research may look beyond the frequency/amount of use measures to investigate other types of ICT use that may be more effective for building ICT competence. For example, the diversity of application usage is likely to affect ICT competence (Munro et al., 1997). Despite some differences between the current study and prior research, the findings confirm the expected links between ICT knowledge and intention to champion (Bassellier et al., 2003). This study also extends Bassellier et al.’s work by assessing its usefulness in the education context and including antecedents of ICT competence that had not been considered prior, that is, ICT use and professional development. The findings also extend research on education leadership. As far as we are aware, this is the first study to assess the ICT competence of school leaders in relation to their championing intention. The findings show a strong link between ICT competence and championing. Future research should examine this link further and consider whether particular knowledge and skills, or types of use have different effects on championing. The study also confirmed the importance of professional development in relation to ICT experience. School leaders who participated in professional development activities had more ICT experience than those who had not. It may be that these principals felt more confident in applying these skills and were willing to go beyond knowing to doing. The findings are also consistent with Foon and Brush (2007) while suggesting that further research is needed to clarify the relationship between professional development and ICT competence.

740


Given the importance of professional development for developing ICT competence, school leaders should be encouraged, indeed urged, to take advantage of the opportunities they have. Schiller (2003) also identified important features of effective professional development which should be considered in developing ICT courses for school leaders. For example, principals preferred short, targeted workshops, oneon-one assistance when needed and hands-on experience with computers. They also preferred professional development activities where they can participate in small groups with colleagues and peers. These types of professional development activities may help to enhance the ICT competence of school leaders. 6.1. Limitations This study was not without limitations that may constrain the generalizability of the findings. For example, the subjectivity of the responses may be a concern as there were no objective measures against which to compare the reported ICT abilities of respondents. Although this study recognises that subjective measures of ICT competence may not be as accurate as objective measures, in the context of behavioural intention, it is perception of one’s ability that is more likely to influence behaviour rather than their objective ability (Bandura, 1977). Sample size and method were also limitations. With only 64 respondents, it may be difficult to extend these findings to other schools in New Zealand and beyond. The sampling method may also have lead to over- or under-estimating the ICT competence of school leaders as staff who respond to email requests may be more inclined towards ICT than others. Another limitation concerns the focus on intention to champion rather than actual behaviour. To measure the link between intention to champion and actual behaviour would require a longitudinal study to show how intentions are manifested as actual behaviour over time. Although assessing intentions is acceptable in behavioural research and has been shown to be a useful predictor of behaviour (Sheeran, 2002; Venkatesh et al., 2000), there is an opportunity for future research to shed more light by examining actual behaviour. 7. Conclusion The successful implementation of ICT is important for schools (Tearle, 2003). This is often dependent on effective technology leadership and the presence of a champion who actively and enthusiastically promotes the new technology (Howell & Higgins, 1990a, 1990b; Parr & Shanks, 2000). Competence in the requisite domain is an important factor influencing intention to champion an innovation. So for someone to be confident enough to champion ICT in an organisation, they need to have a certain level of ICT competence. This study therefore examined the ICT competence of school leaders and its impact on their intention to champion ICT in their schools. For ICT competence, both ICT knowledge and ICT experience (e.g. participation in ICT management and ICT projects) were investigated. The results showed ICT knowledge was linked to school leaders’ intention to champion ICT in their schools. However, the results did not provide support for the link between ICT experience and intention to champion. So, although school leaders appeared knowledgeable in most of the domains that were assessed, the study showed they were not as actively involved in ICT management and ICT projects, and hence were limited in their ‘‘hands-on” experience with ICT management. Given the importance of both ICT knowledge and ICT experience for effective championing (Bassellier et al., 2003), this study suggests that school leaders need to be more practically involved in the ICT projects in their school and in ICT management. This will not only enhance their ICT competence, it will also provide opportunities to be role models to others in the use of ICT. The results also showed that professional development and the hands-on use of ICT enhances ICT competence. Thus efforts to encourage school leaders to participate in ICT-related professional development and to use the technology available in the schools will help expand their ICT competence. This in turn will encourage more effective technology leadership by increasing the willingness of school leaders to champion new technologies. The study also demonstrated the usefulness of Bassellier et al.’s (2003) instrument for assessing ICT competence and intention to champion and paves the way for future work to examine other championing or leadership roles in schools. For example, future research could modify the current instrument to focus on specific technologies and, championing or leadership roles. Other factors might also be considered such as actual championing behaviour and the influence of attitude and norms on intention to champion (Ajzen, 1991). There are also opportunities to explore other types of ICT use (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006) and how these impact ICT competence. Finally, Gallivan, Spitler, and Koufaris (2005) also suggested that individuals learn best through hands-on exploratory learning with others. Given that principals prefer hands-on experience and working with others Schiller (2003), these features may be considered in the design of professional development activities aimed at equipping school leaders in their new roles as technology leaders. Disclosure All authors agree that they have materially participated in this research. Further, all authors have approved the final version of this article which is being submitted to Computers & Education. The authors also disclose that there are no conflicts of interest which have influenced this work. References Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665–694. Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Carvajal, F. (2004). Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1108–1121. Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 49–82. Archer, J. (1998). The link to higher scores. Education Week, 18, 10–21. Armitrage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Computers & Education, 50, 224–234. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.


741

Bassellier, G., Benbasat, I., & Reich, B. H. (2003). The influence of business managers’ IT competence on championing IT. Information Systems Research, 14(4), 317–336. Bassellier, G., Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (2001). Information technology competence of business managers: A definition and research model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 159–182. Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414. Brockmeier, L. L., Sermon, J. M., & Hope, W. C. (2005). Principal’s relationship with computer technology. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 89, 45–63. Burton-Jones, A., & Straub, D. (2006). Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 228–246. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach as structural equation modelling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cooley, V. E., & Reitz, R. J. (1997). Lessons learned in creating a program. Kappa Delta Pi, 34(1), 4–9. Crouse, D. (1997). The principal rules for school technology. NASSP Bulletin, 81(589), 86–89. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading MA: Addison Wesley Longman. Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124–142. Flowers, C. P., & Algozzine, R. F. (2000). Development and validation of scores on the basic technology competencies for educators inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(3), 411–418. Foon, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology, Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 39–50. Gallivan, M. J., Spitler, V. K., & Koufaris, M. (2005). Does information technology training really matter? A social information processing analysis of coworkers’ influence on IT usage in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 153–192. Gosmire, D., & Grady, M. (2007). A bumpy road: Principal as technology leader. Principal Leadership, 7(6), 17–21. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Howell, J. M. (2005). The right stuff: identifying and developing effective champions of innovation. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2), 108–119. Howell, J. M., & Boies, K. (2004). Champions of technological innovation: The influence of contextual leadership, role orientation, idea generation, and idea promotion on champion emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 123–143. Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990a). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 317–341. Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990b). Champions of change: Identifying, understanding, and supporting champions of technological innovation. Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 4, 40–57. Hu, P. J., Clark, T. H., & Ma, W. M. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227–241. Isherwood, G. B. (1985). The principal and the pauper: Administrator training in computer technology. Education Canada, 25(4), 4–9. Martinsons, M. G. (1993). Cultivating the champions for strategic information systems. Journal of System Management, 44(8), 31–34. Maurer, M. M., & Davidson, G. S. (1998). Leadership in instructional technology. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill. Munro, M. C., Huff, S. L., Marcolin, B. L., & Compeau, D. R. (1997). Understanding and measuring user competence. Information and Management, 33, 45–57. Neufeld, D. J., Dong, L., & Higgins, C. (2007). Charismatic leadership and user acceptance of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 494–510. Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1085–1101. Parr, A., & Shanks, G. (2000). A model of ERP project implementation. Journal of Information Technology, 15(4), 289–303. Rakes, G., & Dawson, C. (2003). The influence of principals’ technology training on the integration of technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 29–49. Roberston, J. W. (2003). Stepping out of the box: Rethinking the failure of ICT to transform schools. Journal of Educational Change, 4, 323–344. Roberts, P. A. (1997). What administrators need to know about technology. Principal, 76(3), 20–22. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2005). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Rubenstein, D. (2007). Standish group report: There’s less development chaos today. SD times on the Web, Accessed 12.05.08. Schiller, J. (2003). Working with ICT: Perceptions of Australian principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 171–185. Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behaviour relations: A conceptual and empirical review. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (12). Chichester: Wiley. Slowinski, J. (2003). Becoming a technologically savvy administrator. Teacher Librarian, 30(5), 25–29. Tearle, P. (2003). ICT implementation: What makes the difference? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 567–583. Telem, M. (2001). Computerization of school administration: Impact on the principal’s role – A case study. Computers & Education, 37, 345–362. Testerman, J. C., Flowers, C. P., & Algozzine, B. (2001). Basic technological competencies of educational administrators. Contemporary Education, 72(2), 58–63. Thong, J. Y. (1999). An integrated model of information systems adoption for small business. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 187–214. Venkatesh, V., Morris, N. G., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 33–60. Yi, M. Y., & Davis, F. D. (2003). Developing and validating an observational learning model of computer software training and skill acquisition. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 146–169.