# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of this mixed-methods, research study is to determine principal self-perception and teacher perceptions of technology leadership in Pennsylvania public schools. In this mixed-methods approach, both quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered and analyzed to determine whether existing school principals have the skills to effectively integrate education technology. The findings and recommendations within may point to the need to marry core technology leadership standards with theoretical proclamations (transformational and distributed leadership) from principal preparation programs and ongoing leadership professional development endeavors.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is the role of the Secondary Principal within technology integration in school buildings?
2. What skills must a Secondary Principal possess to lead professional development for staff?
3. What impact does technology use have on promoting learning in secondary schools?
4.  What impact do Principal preparation programs have in technology leadership?

# data[].attributes.body
There are plenty valuable sources of literature that describe the positive impact that technology integration has had on student learning. There is a notable gap in the literature that focuses specifically on the role of the Principal when providing leadership within tech ed within buildings. There are limited resources describing Principal preparation programs that describe proper technology integration and professional development.

# data[].attributes.body
Blended Learning. In a March 2013 edition of Educational Leadership, an ASCD publication, Caitlin R. Tucker states: “Blended learning combines classroom learning with online learning, in which students can, in part, control the time, pace, and place of their learning (2013).

Brick and Mortar. Refers to the traditional school setting where students and teachers interact within the confines of the schoolhouse and school day (Strauss, 2015).

Digital Citizenship. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), cites nine essential elements of Digital Citizenship that center around the premise that Digital Citizenship can be defined as the norms of appropriate, responsible behavior regarding technology use (ISTE, n.d.).

Digital Divide. The Digital Divide, or the digital split, is a social issue referring to the differing amount of information between those who have access to the Internet (especially broadband access) and those who do not have access. The term became popular among concerned parties, such as scholars, policy makers, and advocacy groups, in the late 1990s (Stanford University Online, n.d.)

Digital Immigrant. Refers to an individual who was born before the widespread adoption of digital technology. The term digital immigrant may also apply to individuals who were born after the spread of digital technology and who were not exposed to it at an early age. Digital immigrants are the opposite of digital natives, who have been interacting with technology from childhood (Joy, 2012).

Digital Native. The post-millennial "digital native," a term coined by U.S. author Marc Prensky in 2001 (CNN online) refers to one born after the widespread adoption of digital technology. The term digital native doesn't refer to a particular generation. Instead, it is a catch-all category for children who have grown up using technology like the Internet, computers and mobile devices. This exposure to technology in the early years is believed to give digital natives a greater familiarity with and understanding of technology than people who were born before it was widespread (Joy, 2012).

Distributive or Distributed Leadership. “In the distributed leadership model, the principal shares authority and power; teachers take leading roles, assume responsibility, and act independently as individuals or groups,” (Giouroukakis and Natsiopoulou, 2010).

Flipped Classroom or Flipped Learning. Scott LaFee defines Flipped Learning in a March 2013 article in the School Administrator as “the idea that technology, properly exploited, can push a lot of basic learning outside schoolhouse walls, creating room and time for deeper, more personalized instruction within,” (2013).

Instructional Leadership or Shared Instructional Leadership. “Shared instructional leadership involves the active collaboration of principal and teachers on curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Within this model, the principal seeks out the ideas, insights, and expertise of teachers in these areas and works with teachers for school improvement,” (Marks and Printy, 2003).

Learning Management System (LMS). “The modern LMS is also expected to help teachers find and craft content and lessons, conduct complex analysis of so-called "big" learning data, recommend external content for each individual student, and make use of video and other multimedia,” (Herold, 2014). Learning Management system is a software application for the administration, documentation, tracking, reporting and delivery of electronic educational technology (also called e-learning) courses or training programs.

Student Information System (SIS). Follett Learning defines Student Information System (SIS) as a centralized platform for hosting and managing student data. SIS safely and securely stores data like class schedules, school events, student performance, athletic eligibility, individual health records, and much more (2016).

# data[].attributes.body
New advances in technology have begun to change the school environment in such a way that presents a new challenge to the school principal. Principal preparation programs have not adequately prepared sitting principals in leading during this type of innovation. Korach’s and Agans’ work analyzes the benefits of a Blended Online Program (BOP) as a way to better acclimate budding principals to the merits of technology integration (Koach 2011). Certainly, educational innovation has been a staple for years in American school settings. However, instructional technology has added a new level of adaptability for the principal. A typical principal has had minimally five years of teaching and has been educated herself in school environments that were devoid of modern instructional technology.

# data[].attributes.body
There is no clear definition of school principals' duties regarding their technological leadership in schools; yet, it is apparent that school principals are responsible for technological applications in schools (Sisman, 2011). This statement, which stems from a comprehensive research study conducted in Turkey, is indicative of a concern not only in American Schools, but internationally as well. Is technology outpacing the very educators charged with leading its effective implementation? For the better part of the last decade, schools have been inundated with educational technology ranging from handheld computing devices such as ipads to full implementation of 1-1 computing initiatives (1 computing device per student) complete with Learning Management Systems (LMS) where teachers and students engage in an electronic environment beyond the traditional “brick and mortar” schoolhouse. Couple that with a school leader that has limited exposure and personal use of the new technology and effective implementation could suffer. In a 2013 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) report on what makes an effective Technology Rich School, Levin and Schrum assert that administrators are the driving force behind the technology push and are responsible in providing teachers support (Levin 2013).

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of this study is to identify the perceptions of school leaders and teachers in their assessment of effective technology leadership, as well as, note the skills needed to lead technology integration in schools. Currently, most scholarly work regarding school leadership centers on personal traits and characteristics based on assertions decades ago. Relevant research and scholarly work regarding school leadership since the advent of 1-1 computing programs and electronic Learning Management Systems (LMS) are not as readily available for principals as are theoretical leadership frameworks that have guided them in previous decades. By conducting research and posing questions pointed specifically on how principals perceive their own technology leadership prowess and how that prowess is perceived by teachers will help inform and counsel education leaders in successful integration of educational technology in k-12 schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Technology integration in schools has forever changed the landscape of the teaching and learning environment in ways that were unimaginable a few decades ago. The pressures on education systems to adapt, implement and sustain education technology is tremendous and at the forefront of this changing landscape is the school principal (Richardson, et al., 2013). While schooled in theoretical leadership frameworks like the Transformational and Distributed models, current school principals have had little, if any at all, training regarding leading technology integration. Are those foundational leadership theories and practices enough to sustain current and future principals through the growing infusion of education technology? The impact of technology integration in schools is no small occurrence; in fact, it is “seismic” (2013). It has fundamentally transformed the look and feel of schools across the country and beyond. Keeping up with the changes from a school leadership perspective and leading effective implementation and integration are the primary foci of this review.