Open Journal of Leadership
2013. Vol.2, No.1, 11-20
Published Online March 2013 in SciRes (
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 11
The Relationship between the Leadership Styles of Lebanese
Public School Principals and Their Attitudes towards ICT versus
the Level of ICT Use by Their Teachers
Norma Ghamrawi
Faculty of Education, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
Received November 13th, 2012; revised D ec ember 15th, 2012; accepted January 4th, 2013
This study investigates the relationship between the leadership styles exhibited by almost 50% of the total
population of public school principals (N = 651) in Lebanon and their attitudes and the level of use of
technology for educational purposes in their schools. Data were collected by surveying school principals
via two questionnaires. Moreover, one teacher from each participant public school (N = 651) completed a
questionnaire pertaining to the level of use of technology in the school. Findings suggest the existence of
positive correlation between the autocratic leadership styles of school principals and their negative atti-
tudes towards the use of ICT for educational purposes. In addition, the results of the study accentuate an-
other positive correlation existing between principals’ attitudes towards the use of ICT for educational
purposes and the level of its use by their teachers in schools. Recommendations for further research and
implications for school leadership and training programs are provided.
Keywords: Leadership Styles; School Management; ICT; School Improvement
Within the framework of the 21st century schools, Informa-
tion and Communication Technology (ICT) has been viewed as
a tool that has the potential to empower teachers and learners,
promote change and foster the development skills needed to
face the challenges confronting schools (Ghamrawi, 2010). It is
even argued that schools may not claim that they are equipping
students with the 21st century skills unless they migrate from
traditional teaching and learning settings into settings where the
use of technology is well incorporated (Yelland, 2001). This is
parallel to Grimus (2000) and Bransford et al. (2000) who con-
sider ICT in schooling as a guarantee for the future of student
education. Moore and Kearsley (1996) and Young (2002) em-
phasized the importance of technology-facilitated educational
programs as being tools which enable learners to learn anytime
and anywhere.
However, the promotion of ICT in schools entails an active
role to be taken by the school principal according to the inter-
national literature of ICT (Ghamrawi, 2010; BECTA, 2003;
Haynes, 2007; Kearney & McGarr, 2009; Kirkland & Sutch,
2009). Although infrastructure is important, leadership is the
critical element in establishing technology as a part of school
culture (Anderson & Dexter 2000). This is further asserted by
the manifestation of the British Office for Standards in Educa-
tion (Ofsted) (2000) that considered all efforts of school im-
provement to be susceptible to failure in the absence of bold
leadership in the school. In fact, studies from several parts of
the world have stipulated a strong message pertaining to the
imperative role played by school leaders in steering change, and
hence providing vision and objectives for using ICT in schools
(Yee, 2000; Yuen, Law & Wong, 2005; Schoeny, 2002; Schi-
ller, 2002).
Despite the fact that several studies across the globe have
delved into investigating leadership matters in relation to ICT
in schools (MacDonald, 2006); none has been conducted within
the Lebanese Public School setting. This paper seeks to explore
the relationship existing between the leadership styles exhibited
by public school principals in Lebanon and their attitudes to-
wards ICT use for educational purposes and the level of use of
it by teachers in their schools. It is hoped that the findings of
this study would be beneficial for the development of training
programs, which aim at rendering public school leaders advo-
cates of ICT in schools.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship
existing between the leadership styles of school principals and
the attitudes they hold towards technology. In addition, the
study shed light on the level of use of ICT by teachers in rela-
tion to such styles and attitudes.
Though many studies have addressed the impact of leader-
ship on ICT integration in education, as well as teachers’ atti-
tudes and the level of use of technology; none of these have
addressed the trio relationship: leadership styles, attitudes of
leaders and level of use of ICT in schools (represented in Fig-
ure 1). Moreover, no earlier studies have been conducted in
Lebanese Public Schools addressing any of these i s s u e s .
The research questions addressed in this study are as follows:
1) What are the leadership styles that prevail in Lebanese
Public Schools?
2) What are the attitudes among principals towards the use of
ICT for educational purposes?
3) What is the level of ICT use for educational purposes by
Figure 1.
Scope of the study.
4) Is there a significant relationship between level of use of
ICT by teachers and principals’ attitudes towards ICT?
5) Is there a significant relationship between the leadership
styles of Lebanese Public School Principals and their attitudes
towards the use of ICT for educational purposes?
Review of Literature
Information and Communicati o n Technology (I CT )
in Education
There are opposing views to the impact ICT has on the ac-
quisition of learning by students. On one hand, ICT has been
viewed as a tool for promoting quality learning. This is sup-
ported by studies from several parts of the globe such as Gha-
mrawi (2011), Gillespie (2006), Romeo (2006), Murphy (2006),
Wong et al. (2006), Becta (2003), Yelland (2001), Oliver (2000)
and Grimus (2000).
Grimus (2000) assures that “…by teaching ICT skills in pri-
mary schools the pupils are prepared to face future develop-
ments based on proper understanding” (p. 362). This is also
manifested by Yelland (2001) who emphasizes the fact that
there is no efficient and effective schooling unless ICT is well
integrated within teaching and learning.
Oliver (2000) explains that, when employed effectively in
education, ICTs have the potential to support competency and
performance-based curricula. This is possible by virtue of the
potential of ICT to provide unlimited access to resources made
available from all over the globe. With this made available,
students’ literacy would be strongly enhanced (McCausland et
al., 1999) as they will be urged to locate the information they
are seeking and hence would get to learn how to fish for their
knowledge rather than receiving information boxed in text-
books. Thus generic student skills would expand. Reeves &
Jonassen (1996) make a similar point yet go beyond that assur-
ing that ICTs are potential tools that guarantee student-centered
learning. In other words, ICT in education could serve as a
powerful tool for constructivism whereby students learn through
actively constructing their own knowledge. Kulik’s (1994)
study showed that students who were exposed to ICTs learned
more in less time as opposed to their peers who did not. More-
over, this study has shown that students enjoyed their classes
much more than their peers who were not given to use ICT in
their learning.
Advocates of ICT in education assure that ICT in education
has the potential not only to secure rich learning environments
but go beyond that to claim that they impact student achieve-
“ICT has the potential to promote higher-order thinking
skills… It has the potential to a) engage students in au-
thentic learning contexts; b) offer for students a rich, ef-
fective and efficient learning environment which im-
proves their performance and learning; and c) impact stu-
dent achievement positively” (Ghamrawi, 2011: p. 17).
In fact, the study conducted by Kulik’s (1994) revealed that,
on average, students who used ICT-based instruction scored
higher than students who did receive ICT-based learning op-
portunities. This is in line with a study conducted by Attwell
and Battle (1999) who examined the impact of the availability
of computers at student homes versus how well they did at
school. The study that included 64,300 students assured a strong
correlation between the use of technology and student per-
Parallel to this, Sosin et al. (2004) assure that some ICT tools
do possess some impact on student achievement, yet some
other tools do not. In other words, the selectivity of the tools
that best suit a given context is a premise to ensure positive
impact on student learning (Ghamrawi, 2011). A study con-
ducted by Fuchs and Woessman (2004) using data derived from
the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
revealed strong correlation between the availability of ICT in
schools and students’ performance in general. However, this
same study alerts to the fact that other resources available in
schools could impact achievement as well.
For this reason, at the other end of the continuum, opponents
of the use of ICT in education claim that ICT has no impact on
student learning and student achievement. Leuven et al. (2004)
explain that there is a consistently negative and marginal rela-
tionship between ICT use and some student achievement meas-
ures. Coates et al. (2004) explain through his study that stu-
dents who were enrolled in face-to-face courses did signifi-
cantly better than their peers who received their learning
through on-line courses.
ICT can be misused by students where they could use it in
order to expand their spare time by decreasing the time they
often allocate to studying (Leuven et al., 2004). Glennan and
Melmed (1995) make a point in this line assuring that Tech-
nology use should be coupled with a well-knit strategic plan for
reforming education. If this is not the case, the authors argue
that Technology use will have no impact on student learning
and achievement. Students need to enjoy several skills in order
to be able to really make advantage of ICT (Kay & Honey,
2005). They need to be able to crunch, compare and choose
necessary data among the glut of data available in electronic
formats. Finally, Postman (2005) argues that ICT have strong
potential to teach both content and skills, yet it fails at teaching
values to students.
Despite the various arguments about ICT, there is no doubt
that technology is invading all life aspects including education.
Whether we are opt to use it in formal education or not, it is
evident that students are using it extensively throughout the day
where they learn informally (Ghamrawi, 2011). If used well,
“Blogs, Wikis, Face Book, Twitter, or other social networking
sites, which students use for chatting and enjoy the majority of
their time with, may be powerful tools for learning” (Ghamrawi,
2011: p. 11). At this point, it is important to shed light on the
role played by school leadership in creating the culture and
setting the vision conducive to the appropriate integration of
ICT in education.
Leadership St yl es o f School Principals
Google reports 440,000,000 hits under the title “school lead-
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
ership” as opposed to 365,000,000 hits for the title “school
management” (search being conducted on September 27, 2012).
In fact, the migration from management to leadership in schools
has been considered a decisive factor in shielding any reform
endeavors (Ofsted, 2000). Through management, principals
facilitate the work of school by ensuring that what is done is in
accord with the organization’s rules and regulations. While
through leadership, principals ensure that the work of the or-
ganization is what it needs to be. Bennis and Nanus (1985) put
it this way: “Managers are people who do things right and
leaders are people who do the right thing” (Bennis & Nanus,
1985: p. 21).
School leaders enjoy a set of characteristics that makes their
teachers work towards desired goals. Day et al. (2009) empha-
size eight characteristics presented in Figure 2.
The below characteristics suggest that school leaders need to
be instructional leaders who are knowledgeable enough about
matters that relate to teaching and learning and the overarching
curriculum; besides building and nourishing teams in schools.
Yet above all, those leaders need to be able to set the vision that
would secure stewardship overall improvement initiatives.
Principals often lead their schools in various ways; these
ways are called styles of leadership. For example, in setting the
vision, one principal may involve all teachers in the schools in
setting that vision. Through this, the school principal would be
exhibiting democratic/participative leadership. However, an-
other principal may set the vision by him/herself and then im-
pose it on the school community. This is a principal who em-
braces an autocratic/directive leadership style. A third principal
may ask teachers to sit together and set that vision without be-
ing involved at all in the process. That principal would be prac-
ticing delegative/non-directive leadership. In other words, lead-
ership style of a school principal is an expression of how that
principal manages the work flow, addresses human resources,
and the level to which they allow others to contribute to deci-
sion-making and problem solving (Goleman, 2004). It basically
refers to the distinctive behavior in which an individual leads
others. Other nomenclature for leadership styles also appears in
the literature such as “authoritative”, “laissez-faire”, “affilia-
ti ve”, “coachi ng”, “coercive”, “commanding”, “vi sionary ”, “pace-
setting” leadership styles, etc… which can fit into the above
three categories in one way or another.
Through the autocratic leadership style, principals maintain
full authority and control over all school aspects. They practice
close scrutiny and control over teachers. Teachers led by auto-
cratic principals often feel not trusted, demoralized and unmo-
tivated (Ghamrawi, 2006). While through democratic/partici-
pative leadership style, school community is allowed to partici-
Figure 2.
Day et al. (2010) 10 strong claims about effective school
leadership. Nottingham: National College for Leadership of
Schools and Children’s Services.
pate in decision-making and problem-solving. The principal
acts as a coach who takes the final decision but after checking
the views of staff members. Teachers who are led by democ-
ratic leaders enjoy the trust invested in them and hence pay it
back through cooperation and team spirit (Goleman, 2000). Fi-
nally, non-directive leaders give full freedom to staff members
with very little or no input. They do not provide any focus or
direction. Though this kind of leadership style work well with
experienced staff, still the general notion about such a leader-
ship style is that it renders school climate into an insecure one
where “survival of the fittest” mode dominates (Goleman,
Although democratic leadership styles have proven to be
mostly productive in school administration, it should be noted
that there is nothing so called “best leadership style”. Every
context and even every situation requires a specific leadership
style to be exhibited by the principal (Goleman, 2000). Within
the business domain, “leaders who have mastered four or more,
especially the authoritative, democratic, affiliative, and coach-
ing styles, have the best climate and business performance”
(Goleman, p. 11).
Leadership and ICT
A huge body of literature argues that school leaders play an
imperative role in terms of setting the stage for the effective
integration of ICT in schools (Kearney & McGarr, 2009; Kirk-
land & Sutch, 2009; Haynes, 2007; Steed et al., 2005; Jacobson
& Hunter 2004; Schiller 2003; Solwinski, 2000). Condie and
Munro (2007) who enlist a large number of barriers against the
effective integration of ICT in schools, assure that school lead-
ership tops this list. Sweeney (2005) assures that “effective
leadership is the most critical component in ensuring the suc-
cessful implementation of any program in an educational set-
ting” (p. 48).
Leadership has been considered as the basic tool for the crea-
tion of the vision that acts as a driving force for ICT integration
in schools (Otto & Albion, 2002). It has the potential to secure
teacher commitment as to the improvement of teaching and
learning practices inside the classroom using it (Hayes, 2007).
“…leaders must be able to articulate an institutional / organiza-
tional vision that assumes widespread access to information and
services via networks” (Katz, 2002: p. 52). The Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) con-
verges to this same point by assuming that “Visionary school
leadership is needed to bring about and sustain the dramatic
changes enabled by ICT, to persuade and give confidence to all
involved…” (OECD, 2001: p. 16). Moreover, school leaders
create the culture that safeguards ICT initiatives within the
school (Kirkland & Stutch, 2007). Studies show that when
school leaders are pedagogical leaders, they exhibit a greater
influence on shaping how well ICT impacts student learning
(Kearney & McGarr, 2009).
In most studies about leadership and ICT, the practical
knowledge and skills of school leaders are emphasized as
means to ensure ICT integration (Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003).
In fact, it is considered as a prime for advocating ICTs in
schools. The ability of school principals to plan effectively has
also been highlighted in the literature (Hayes, 2007). Other
leadership considerations appear in the literature include budg-
eting, staffing, resourcing and securing effective teacher train-
ing besides managing infrastructures (Anderson & Dexter,
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 13
Gaffney and Schiller (2001) and Yee (2001) each suggest a
list of characteristics essential for effective ICT leaders. Table
1 compares the two lists.
The common ethos that joins both lists is the fact school
leaders should not exhibit only managerial skills; they should
also demonstrate leadership skills. So the school principal
should be a manager who is “capable of planning and budgeting,
organizing and staffing, controlling and problem solving, and
producing a degree of predictability” (Caldwell, 2007: p. 225).
At the same time, the school principal should act as a catalyst
of change “establishing direction, aligning people, motivating
and inspiring, and achieving change” (Caldwell, 2007).
Though studies do underscore the role played by school
principals in terms of leading change towards integrating ICTs
in schools, only few studies detail leadership attributes auspi-
cious for that. Fullan (2005) considers distributed leadership as
a prime for successful ICT integration in schools. Through
distributed leadership, responsibility is shared across the school.
Spillane (2009) illustrates that a distributed leadership frame-
Table 1.
Characteristics of effective ICT scho o l le ad e rs.
Lee, Gaffney and Schiller
(2001: p. 203) Yee (2001: p. 17)
has a comprehensive
understanding of ICT
understands the value
of integration and h ow
to achieve it
operates as a
collaborative leader
appreciates the
significance of
knowledge manage-
is an outstanding
has high level
analytical skills
has excellent
interpersonal and
management skills
can effectively oversee
ICT staff
thrives on rapid change
and leads change
amalgamates the old
and the new
can operate as a senior
leader in the school
has a strong
understanding of
providing qua lity
education in a
networked world.
equitable providing-the principal as
the provider of hardware, software,
other related resources and
technical support
learning-focused envisioning-the
principal as the person who “kept”
the school ICT vision and who kept
student learning at the centre of
ICT deci s io n - making
adventuro us learning-the principal
who was al so an ICT learner and
unafraid to be experimental with
new techn ol ogies and l earning
patient teaching-the principal who
was willing to teach and to create
adaptive learning environments
and who encouraged professional
protective enabling-the principal
who created shared leadership
tasks for staff and students,
removed “red tape” and advocated
the use of ICT and the school’s
ICT vision
constant m o n itoring-the principal
who ensured th at ICT was being
used in accordance with the
school’s ICT vision
entrepreneurial networking-the
principal who was a skillfu l
“partnership builder” with
different elements of the
community and hence created a
support network
Careful cha l lenging-the principal
who was an in ventive edu cator yet
understood risk-taking.
work involved “…a cast of others, …such as assistant princi-
pals, curriculum specialists, mentor teachers, and department
chairs (p. 71). Kirkland and Stutch (2007) explain that distrib-
uted leadership secures a shared responsibility for innovation.
That is to say, with the involvement of teachers in the ICT plan-
ning process, there would be more chances for success (Kozma,
The literature assures that through transformational leader-
ship, chances for success with ICT integration are ample (Day,
2003). A transformational leader is people centered (Day, 2003);
a role model for the school community (Harris, 2003) and se-
cures a shared school vision (Dubrin et al., 2006). However, the
literature does not provide details as to the leadership styles that
best support ICT initiatives particularly in K-12 education.
Attitudes and Level of Use of ICT in Schools
Studies addressing ICT integration in the teaching and learn-
ing process have underscored also teachers’ attitudes towards
ICT (Albirini, 2006). Kluever et al. (1994) consider attitudes as
a key factor determining whether teachers would tend to accept
computers as teaching tools that they would employ in their
teaching. Harrison and Rainer (1992) assure that teachers with
weak attitudes towards ICT often display low competencies in
using computers. They would be, therefore, less likely to use
ICT in their teaching and learning.
Likewise, attitudes of school leaders also play a critical role
in determining the level of ICT integration in school (BECTA,
2007; Walsh, 2002; Pelgrum, 1993). In fact, it has been consid-
ered that “schools, whose principals have positive expectations
regarding the educational impact of computers, tend to empha-
size computer integrated learning more than schools with prin-
cipals who are less positive” (Pelgrum: p. 209). In fact, princi-
pals with positive attitudes and strong commitment to ICT
(Walsh, 2002) tend to be more able to influence teachers to use
ICT in schools (Becta, 2007).
In fact, if it is true that: “principals can develop their own
qualities in others” (Gurr et al., 2006: p.12), then the argument
that teachers’ attitudes are derivatives of school principals
should be accepted. For this reason, in this paper, attitudes of
school principals are investigated in relation to their leadership
styles assuming that both have a strong influence on teachers’
attitudes and hence the degree to which they foster the integra-
tion of ICT in their teaching.
Context and Methodology
There are 1281 schools in Lebanon (D-RASATI, 2011) man-
aged by the Lebanese Ministry of Education and Higher Educa-
tion. The overall number of public schools with trained ICT
teachers is almost 57% of all public schools (D-RASATI, 2011).
Although these figures are not quite high, they should not con-
stitute an excuse against using ICT in these schools minimally.
In the context of this study, 1261 schools were addressed (20
schools were used for piloting purposes) and only 651 schools
responded. In fact, three questionnaires were mailed to schools:
two to be filled by the school principal and a third to be filled
by one teacher from the participating school. The selection of
this teacher was left for the school principal. In fact, principals
were requested to administer the questionnaire to the teacher in
their school that they thought was mostly active in using ICT in
his/her teaching.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
School principals’ questionnaires included a Leadership Style
Survey designed by University of Exeter, UK in 2002. This
questionnaire was piloted in an earlier study in Lebanon (Ak-
oum, 2010) where 20 school principals administered this ques-
tionnaire. These principals are not part of the current study.
The second questionnaire administered to school principals
included “Attitudes towards ICT Scale’ developed by Albirini”
(2006). In this study, this survey was subjected to minor amend
ments and was piloted by 10 public school principals that are
not part of this study. Teachers’ questionnaire included Isle-
em’s (2003) “Technology Level of Use”. Both Albirini (2006)
and Isleem (2003) have been scrutinized in light of the findings
of Ghamrawi (2010) study addressing ICT in education within
the same cultural context.
Analysis of Data
Data were processed using Statistical Package for Social
Science—SPSS 17.0; and the following steps were followed to
carry out data analysis:
1) The descriptive statistics was used in summing the data
including frequency percentages, means, and standard devia-
2) Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to identify the
relationships between the level of ICT use and attitudes of
school principals towards ICT.
Question (1): What Are the Leadership Styles That
Prevail in Lebanese Public Schools?
Principals (N = 651) responded to Leadership Styles ques-
tionnaire. The instrument contains 30 statements about leader-
ship style beliefs with a Likert scale format consisting of 5
point s: 1 = almost neve r true, 2 = seldo m true, 3 = occa sionally
true, 4 = frequently true, 5 = almost always true.
The results of descriptive data analysis reveal (Figure 3) that
the autocratic style is the most prevailing leadership style in
Lebanese Public Schools with a mean M = 36.18 and a standard
deviation SD = 3.643. The second most pervasive style is the
democratic leadership style with a mean M = 25.78 and a stan-
dard deviation SD = 3.643. The least invasive style is the dele-
gative leadership style with a mean M = 17.11 and standard
deviation SD = 2.549.
Question (2 ): W ha t Ar e th e At ti tu des among
Principals towards the Use of ICT for Educational
Principals (N = 651) responded to a customized version of
“Attitude towards ICT Use’ questionnaire developed by the
Albirini (2006). The instrument contains 15 statements about
attitudes towards using ICT in education with a Likert scale
format consisting of 5 points: 1 = strongly disagree to the con-
cept, 2 = disagree to the concept, 3 = undecided to the concept,
4 = agree to the concept, and 5 = strongly favorable to the con-
cept. Results are presented in Table 2. For the analysis of the
data, all negatively worded items were reversed so that a higher
numbered response on the Likert scale would represent positive
On the positive side: 1) 72.2% of principals considered com-
puters “help them organize the work’ (mean score M = 3.76-
standard deviation SD = 1.27); 2) 65.6% of school principals
Figure 3.
Histograms representing data derived
from leadership styles questionnaire.
considered computers as effective tools for “retrieving informa-
tion” (mean score M = 3.70-standard deviation SD = 1.38); and
3) 67.8% of principals considered computers to be “time and
effort saviors” (mean score M = 3.65-standard deviation SD =
1.37). However, on the negative side: 1) 63% of school princi-
pals did not view any “advantage” for using computers in
teaching (mean score M = 3.63-standard deviation SD = 1.26);
2) 63.10% of school principals did not make see any relation-
ship between the use of computers in education and “improve-
ment of education” and (mean score M = 3.40-standard devia-
tion SD = 1.40); 3) 37.2% of principals did not view computers
as “enhancers of student learning” (mean score M = 3.70-
standard deviation SD = 1.38); 4) 39.1% of principals did not
make any connotation between “computers and increased stu-
dent interest”(mean score M = 2.79-standard deviation SD =
1.50); and 5) 41.9% of principals preferred being “manual
rather than digital” (mean score M = 2.80-standard deviation
SD = 1.48).
The overall average for the Means of principals’ attitudes
towards the use of computers was M = 3.19 with a standard de-
viation of SD = 1.43. This entails that school principals do bear
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 15
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
Table 2.
Means, STD. deviations and percentages of te a chers’ attitudes.
Percentage %
Statements SD D UN A SA M SD
Computers would help me organize my work 9.9 9.2 8.6 38.7 33.5 3.76 1.27
Using computer would make subject matter more interesting 28.6 20.9 11.4 20.4 18.7 2.79 1 .50
Computers save time and effort 12.3 11.6 8.4 33.8 34.0 3.65 1.37
Using computers is enjoyable 18.1 17.4 11.0 31.0 22.6 3.22 1.43
Computers make me much more productive 23.2 17.8 12.9 29.0 17.0 2.98 1.44
Teaching wi th computers do not offe r real advantages 9.0 11.2 16.8 32.9 30.1 3.63 1.26
Computers have proved to be effect ive learning tools 24.7 16.3 13.3 29.2 16.3 2.96 1.44
Computers can enhance student s’ learning 28.2 24.9 9.70 24.7 12.5 2.68 1.42
I would rather do things by hand than with a computer 28.0 21.3 8.80 26.0 15.9 2.80 1.48
Computers will not necessarily im p ro ve education 16.6 13.1 7.3 39.4 23.7 3.40 1.40
Computers do not sca re me at all 24.3 19.4 11.6 27.7 17.0 2.93 1.45
I do not like talking with others about computers 24.9 18.3 10.1 24.1 22.6 3.01 1 .52
I believe tha t us ing computers in teaching is useful 21.7 24.5 12.5 20.9 20.4 2.93 1 .46
Computers are a fast means of g etting information 14.0 8.8 11.6 31.4 34.2 3.70 1.38
I would like to learn m ore about computers 26.5 8.0 6.0 32.3 32.3 3.26 1.57
Overall 20.3 16.2 9.5 30.6 23.4 3.19 1.43
positive attitudes towards computers but not towards consider-
ing them as promising tools to improve teaching and learning.
Question (3): What Is the Level of ICT Use for
Educational Purposes by Teachers’?
Teachers (N = 651) responded to the “Level of Use of ICT”
questionnaire developed by Isleem (2003). The instrument
contains 13 statements about the use of ICT by teachers with a
Likert scale format consisting of 5 points: 1 = never use, 2 =
rarely use, 3 = sometimes use, 4 = often use, 5 = very often use.
Results are presented in Table 3.
On the positive side: 1) 51.8% stated that they used the in-
ternet (mean score M = 3.34-standard deviation SD = 1.34); 2)
49.9% of teachers explained that they used CDs (mean score M
= 3.14-standard deviation SD = 1.46); 3) 47.3% of teachers
used PowerPoint (mean score M = 3.12-standard deviation SD
= 1.43); and 4) 26.4% used word processing (mean score M =
2.55-standard deviation SD = 1.25).
However, the lowest percentages obtained for computer use
were given to: 1) simulations and games (46.7% with a mean
score M = 2.03 and standard deviation SD = 0.87); 2) emails
(40% with a mean score M = 2.45 and standard deviation SD =
1.14); 3) authoring (39.1% with a mean score M = 2.16 and
standard deviation SD = 1.00); and 4) spreadsheets programs
(37.6% with a mean score M = 2.09 and standard deviation SD
= 1.14).
Overall, 28.6% of the total sample of teachers reported that
they never used the ICT tools for educational purposes, and
26.3% stated that they rarely used ICT tools for the same pur-
pose, while 25.1% from the total number of teachers reported
that they often and very often used ICT for educational pur-
poses. The overall average of the Mean scores of the use of ICT
tools for educational purposes by teachers was (M = 2.52) with
a standard deviation (SD = 1.19). Thus the level of use of ICT
by teachers for educational purposes was low.
Question (4): Is There a Significant Relationship
between Level of Use of ICT and Principals’ Attitudes
towards ICT?
Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated to investi-
gate any correlation between principals’ attitudes towards ICT
use versus the level of its use by their teachers in schools. Re-
sults which are presented in Table 4 indicate that a positive
correlation does exist between the two (r = 0.50; p < .05).
Question (5): Is There a Significant Relationship
between the Leadership Styles of School Principals in
the Lebanese Public Schools and the Attitudes of
Those Principals towards the Use of ICT for
Educational Purposes?
The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was
used to determine the strength and direction of the relationship
between leadership styles and the attitudes of principals to-
wards the use of ICT for educational purposes. Results are pre-
sented in Tables 5-7 indicating that there is a positive correla-
tion between the autocratic leadership style exhibited by the
majority of school principals included in this study, as opposed
to their attitudes towards the use of ICT for educational pur-
poses (r = .701, p < .01). However, weak positive correlation
has been noted between democratic leadership style (r = .452, p
< 0.01) and delegative leadership style (r = .421, p < .01).
Summary of Findings and Discussion
This study has shown that autocratic leadership is the most
prevailing leadership style in the Lebanese Public Schools.
Within the Lebanese Educational System, school principals are
Table 3.
Means, std. deviations and percentages of level of use of ICT .
Percentage %
Statements Never Rarely SometimesOften Very Often M SD
Computer 18.5 41.1 17.0 18.5 4.9 2.50 1.13
Spreadsheet program (such a s Excel) 37.6 33.3 16.8 6.5 5.8 2.09 1.14
Drill and Practice 29.0 36.8 16.6 12.7 4.9 2.27 1.15
Graphics 26.7 3.50 20.4 13.1 4.3 2.32 1.13
Word Process (such as Word) 24.7 29.7 19.1 18.7 7 .7 2.55 1.25
Desktop pu blishing (such as Microsoft Publisher) 25.4 33.3 16.3 14.0 11.0 2.51 1 .30
Authoring (such as html) 39.1 28.6 20.4 10.3 1 .5 2.16 1.00
CD-ROM, DVD 20.9 16.3 12.9 27.5 22.4 3.14 1.46
E-Mail 40.0 20.4 18.5 15.5 5.6 2.45 1.14
Other communication 32. 3 34.0 17.8 9.5 6.5 2.23 1.18
Simulations and games 46.7 28.2 19.4 4.7 1.1 2.03 0. 87
Presentation (such a s PowerPoint) 19.1 18.1 15.5 25.6 21.7 3.12 1.43
Internet 11.8 18.1 18.3 27.1 24.7 3.34 1.34
Overall 28.6 26.3 17.6 15.7 9.4 2.52 1.19
Table 4.
Pearson correlation coefficient for the attitudes of school principals
towards ICT versus the level of use of it by their teachers in their
ICT Use by
Teachers Attitude s o f
R 1.00
ICT Use by Teachers Sig. 1.00
R .499**
Attitudes of Principals Sig. .000
Note: **p < .01.
Table 5.
Pearson correlation coefficient for the autocratic leadership style and
the attitudes of school principals towards ICT use for educational pur-
ICT Use by
Teachers Attitude s o f
R 1.00 .701**
ICT Use by Teachers Sig. .000
R .701** 1.00
Attitudes of Principals Sig. .000
Note: **p < .01.
dictated as to what they should be doing in their schools by the
General Directorate of Education at MEHE. Only superficial
and day-to-day decisions are left for them inside their schools
(Yacoub, 2000). Within that context, school principals them-
selves do not have a say in decisions pertaining to their schools.
They would be expected to practice the same thing over their
teachers; generating orders rather than inviting them to take a
share in school decisions. It seems, the same way tasks are
dictated to those principals, such principals also dictate tasks to
their staff. At t he policy level, this is quite an alarming finding.
If we wish to witness democratic practice in schools, then such
democracy need to be modeled by higher authorities as well.
Table 6.
Pearson correlation coefficient for the democratic leadership style and
the attitudes of school principals towards ICT use for educational pur-
ICT Use by
Teachers Attitudes of
R 1.00 .452**
ICT Use by Teachers Sig. .000
R .452** 1.00
Attitudes of Principals Sig. .000
Note: **p < .01.
Table 7.
Pearson correlation coefficient for the delegative leadership style and
the attitudes of school principals towards ICT use for educational pur-
ICT Use by
Teachers Attitudes of
R 1.00 .421**
ICT Use by Teachers Sig. .000
R .421** 1.00
Attitudes of Principals Sig. .000
Note: **p < .01.
At the same time, and on one hand; the study has shown that
though the principals of these schools bear positive attitudes
towards computers; they did not consider them as important
tools for the enhancement of teaching and learning. They val-
ued computers as tools for the facilitation of the management of
information in their schools and for administrative purposes
mainly. This is probably what they have been exposed to. With
training that focuses on the benefits students could earn out of
ICT use in classrooms, more advocates of educational technol-
ogy can be generated from the population of school principals.
On the other hand, the study has revealed a low level of use
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 17
of ICT by teachers in those schools. A palpable correlation
existed between the attitudes of school principals towards ICT
and the level of its use by their teachers in classrooms. This
could be attributed to several factors such as the fact that if
school principals do not appreciate ICT, then they would not
tend to encourage it in the school. When this is the case, teach-
ers who are under the authority of those school principals
would get discouraged to use it. However, future research needs
to address this particular relationship.
The literature has emphasized the critical role school leaders
played in the nourishment and enhancement of ICT use in their
schools (Kearney & McGarr, 2009; Kirkland & Sutch, 2009;
Haynes, 2007; Steed et al., 2005; Jacobson & Hunter, 2004;
Schiller, 2003; Solwinski, 2000). This study is aligned with
those findings. It has proven that there is a positive correlation
between the autocratic leadership style practiced by the major-
ity of school principals included in this study and their attitudes
towards ICT. Further qualitative research should investigate
why autocratic leaders possessed negative attitudes towards
ICT. Figure 4 summarizes the findings of this study.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This study suggests that leadership development in school
principals should not be neglected prior to any ICT reform ini-
tiative in schools. Autocratic leadership styles seem to hinder
ICT integration in teaching and learning. There has been a sta-
tistically significant relationship existing between autocratic
leadership styles and negative attitudes towards using ICT in
teaching and learning. Though further analysis is needed to
assure the positive impact of democratic leadership styles; prin-
cipals’ training should address the promotion of more devel-
opmental leadership styles, where concepts such as shared de-
cision making, distributed leadership and professional learning
would dominate. Autocratic leadership style works best when
the leaders possess all the information and skills to handle a
given issue (Goleman, 2000). Given the fact the competency of
public school principals in Lebanon is not advanced, then such
a leadership style, which dominates schools as the study sug-
gests, cannot serve the purpose of ICT integration in schools.
This study also suggests that the behavior of the leader af-
fects the motivation mechanisms of teachers which in itself
impede or catalyze ICT integration in teaching and learning. It
is important to impact the attitudes of school principals and
hence render them more positive towards ICT. This is another
element that needs to be part of training initiatives of Public
School principals in Lebanon. Impacting principals’ attitudes
positively is expected to motivate teachers to amalgamate ICTs
in their teaching and learning. Further qualitative research
should address this relationship to gain deeper understanding of
this relationship. The hypothesis is that with more democratic
leadership styles, attitudes of teachers would be more positively
enhanced and hence more chances for ICT reform initiatives
will be made available.
Finally, technology accompanies students throughout their
day except at school (Ghamrawi, 2010). With the escalation of
the use of technology by students in their daily-lives its integra-
tion in teaching and learning becomes more and more important
(Ghamrawi, 2010). Giving it a blind eye is just like solving
problems via “Ostrich Techniques”. Technology is expanding
more and more and thorough planning and training need to be
secured in that line. This study has contributed to the existing
body of research regarding the integration of ICT for educa-
tional purposes. It is of special value to Lebanese Public Educa-
tion Sector as no similar studies have been conducted. Yet it is
also valuable to al l pol icy makers and stakeholders worldwide.
As stated earlier, future qualitative studies are recommended
such as classroom observations and in-depth interviews to in-
vestigate details of the trio relationship addressed in this study.
Limitations of the Study and Future Research
The sample for the present study comprised almost 50% of
the total population of public school principals in Lebanon, yet
only 651 teachers out of the total population of teachers that
represent nothing more than 5% of that population. Therefore,
research studies with much larger sample size would be favored
to ensure appropriate generalization of the findings of the study.
Figure 4.
Summary of findings of the study.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
The construct of the research instrument has been developed by
the researcher based on findings of another study conducted by
this same researcher in the same cultural context in which the
current study was conducted. Though the instrument shows
scientific reliability and validity, it would be advisable for other
researchers to evaluate the instrument before use in other set-
The present study has relied largely on quantitative method-
ology of data collection and is therefore restrictive. A more of
qualitative methodology of data collection should be under-
taken in future to provide wider perspective to the present study.
For instance, the research design can employ case study meth-
odology or content analysis to provide a holistic picture to the
given subject.
Based on the previous discussion, future research should ap-
proach the same topic, however, qualitatively so that a deeper
empathetic understanding of the inhibiters of ICT integration in
teaching and learning can be depicted. This is besides earning
plural understanding of leadership styles play a role in that line.
In addition, analyzing results in light of demographic charac-
teristics would be also an added value to the literature as age,
gender, experience; previous training, etc. could play underes-
timated roles in this same line.
Special thanks are dedicated to the Lebanese University for
supporting this research study.
Akoum, N. (2010). Factors motivating teachers in Lebanese Public
Schools. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Beirut: Lebanese University.
Albirini, A. A. (2006). Teacher’s attitudes toward information and com-
munication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Journal
of Computers and Education, 47, 373-398.
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. L. (2000). School technology leadership:
Incidence and impact. Centre for Research on Information Technol-
ogy and Organizations. Irvine, CA: University of California.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking
charge. New York: Harper & Row.
BECTA (2007). The impact of ICT in schools: A landscape review.
Coventry: BECTA.
BECTA (2003). Primary schools: ICT and standar ds.
Bransford, J., Brown A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience and school (2nd ed.). Washington DC: Na-
tional Academy Press.
Coates, D., Humphreys, B. R. et al. (2004). No significant distance
between face-to-face and online instruction: Evidence from princi-
ples of economics. Economics of Education R e v i e w , 23, 533-546.
Condie, R., & Munro, R. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools: A land-
scape review. Strathclyde: University of Strathclyde.
Day, C. (2003). What successful leadership in schools looks like: Im-
plications for policy and practice (pp. 187-204). In B. Davies, & J.
West-Burnham (Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and man-
agement. Edinburgh G at e : P e arson Education Limited
Day et al. (2010). 10 strong claims about effective school leadership.
Nottingham: National College for Leadership of Schools and Chil-
dren’s Services.
Developing Rehabilitation Assistance to Schools and Teacher Improve-
ment (D-RASATI) (2011). Field Survey Results Report of Lebanese
Public Schools. Beirut: Lebanese Ministry of Education and Higher
Dubrin, A. J., Dalglish, C., & Miller, P. (2006). Leadership. Milton:
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fuchs, T., & Woessmann, L. (2004). Computers and Student Learning:
Bivariate and Multivariate Evidence on the Availability and Use of
Computers at Home and at School, CESifo Working Paper. No. 1321.
Munich: CESifo.
Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the
21st century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41,
124-142. doi:10.1108/09578230310464648
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in
action. California: Corwen Press and Ontario Principals’ C ouncil.
Fullan, M. (2002). Principals as leaders in a culture of change, educa-
tional leadership.
Ghamrawi, N. (2010). Teaching-learning-technology (TLT): A new
formula for school enhancement. International Journal of Excellence
in Education, 3.
Gillespie, H. (2006). Unlocking learning and teaching with ICT: Iden-
tifying and overcoming barriers. London: David Fult on.
Glennan, T. K., & Melmed, A. (1995). Fostering the use of educational
technology: Elements of a national strategy. Washington DC: RAND. MR682
Goleman, D. (2004). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review,
82, 82-91.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Re-
view, 78, 78-90.
Grimus, M. (2000). ICT and multimedia in the primary school. The
16th Conference on Educational Uses of Information and Commu-
nication Technologies, Beijing, 21-25 August.
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2006). Models of successful
principal leadership. School Leadership and Management, 26, 371-
395. doi:10.1080/13632430600886921
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership: A new orthodoxy? In B. Davies,
& J. West-Burnham (Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and
management (pp. 44-50). Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Lim-
Harrison, W., & Rainer, K. (1992). An examination of the factor struc-
tures and concurrent validates for the computer attitude scale, the
computer anxiety rating scale, and the computer self-efficacy scale.
Educational and Psyc h o l o g i ca l M e a surement, 52, 735-744.
Hayes, D. N. A. (2007). ICT and learning: Lessons from Australian
classrooms. Computers & Education, 49, 385-395.
Hsieh-Yee, I. (2000). Organizing internet resources: Teaching catalog-
ing standards and beyond. OCLC Systems & Services, 16, 130-143.
Jacobson, M., & Hunter, W. (2004) Leadership and technology in
Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using
computers as cognitive tools. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of re-
search educational on educational communications and technology
(pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.
Kay, K., & Honey, M. (2009). Beyond technology competency: A vi-
sion of ICT literacy to prepare students for the 21st century. Char-
leston, WV: Evan tia.
Katz, R. N. (2002). The ICT infrastructure: A driver of change. Edu-
cause, July-August 2002, 50-61.
Kearney, G., & McGarr, O. (2009). The role of the teaching principal in
promoting ICT use in small primary schools in Ireland. Technology,
Pedagogy and Educ a ti on , 18, 87-102.
Kluever, C., Lam, T., & Hoffman, R. (1994). The computer attitude
scale: Assessing changes in teachers’ attitudes toward computers.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 251-256.
Kirkland, K., & Sutch, D. (2009). Overcoming the barriers to educa-
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 19
tional innovation. Bristol: Futurelab.
Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation and educational change: A
global perspective. Oregon: E uge ne:
Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analysis study of findings on computer-based
instruction. In E. L. Baker, & H. F. O’neil (Eds.), Technology asses-
sment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Law, N., Chow, Y., & Yuen, H. K. (2005). Methodological approaches
to comparing pedagogical innovations using technology. Education
and Information Technologie s , 38, 7-20.
Lee, M., Gaffney, M., & Schiller, J. (2001). Integrating ICT in your
school: New opportunities for leadership. Los Angeles: Sage Publi-
Leuven, E., Lindahl, M., Oosterbeek, H., & Webbink, D. (2004). The
effect of extra funding for disadvantaged pupils on achievement. IZA
Discussion Paper. No. 1122. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.
MacDonald, R. (2006). Factors contributing to teacher information
communication technology integration. Belmont, CA: Wadswor th.
McCausland, H., Wache, D., & Berk, M. (1999). Computer literacy; its
implications and outcomes: A case study from the Flexible Learning
Centre. Adelaide: University of South Australia.
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Murphy, C. (2006). The impact of ICT on primary science. In P. War-
wick, E. Wilson, & M. Winterbottom (Eds.), Teaching and learning
primary science with ICT (pp. 13-32). Berkshire: Open University
OECD (2001). Schooling for tomorrow learning to change: ICT in
schools. Paris: OECD.
Ofsted (2000). Improving city schools. London: Office for Standards in
Oliver, R. (2000). Creating meaningful contexts for learning in web-
based settings. Proceedings of Open Learning 2000, Brisbane: Lear-
ning Network, 53-62.
Pelgrum, W. J. (1993). Attitudes of school principals and teachers to-
wards computers: Does it matter what they think? Studies in Educa-
tional Evaluation, 19, 199-212.
Postman, N. (1995) The end of education. N ew York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Romeo, G. I. (2006). Engage, empower, enable: Developing a shared
vision for technology in education. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Engaged
learning and emerging technologies. Amsterdam: Springer Science.
Schiller J. (2002). Interventions by school leaders in effective imple-
mentation of information communication technologies: Perceptions
of Australian principal. Journal of Information Technology for Tea-
cher Education, 11, 12-35. doi:10.1080/14759390200200138
Schiller, J. (2003) The elementary school principal as a change facilita-
tor in ICT integration.
Schoeny, Z. G. (2002) Leadership of information technology in educa-
tion. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 11,
Slowinski, J. (2000). Bec oming a technology savvy administrator.
Sosin, K., Blech a, B. J ., Agawal, R., Bartlett, R. I., & Daniel, J. I. (2004).
Efficiency in the use of technology in economic education: Some
preliminary results. American Economic Review, 34, 253-258.
Spillane, J. P. (2009). Managing to lead: Reframing school leadership
and management. Kappan, 37, 70-73.
Steed, Hollingsworth, & Marzek (2005). Le a d e rship and ICT.
Walsh, K. (2002). ICT’s about learning: School leadership and the ef-
fective integration of information and communications technology.
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Wong, A. F. L., Quek, C. L., Divaharan, S., Liu, W. C., Peer, J., & Wil-
liaams, M. D. (2206). Singapore students’ and teachers’ perceptions
of computer-supported project work classroom learning environments.
Journal of Research in Technolog y in Education, 38, 449-479.
Yee, D. (2001). The many faces of ICT leadership. In B. Barrell (Ed.),
Technology, teaching and learning: Issues in the integration of te-
chnology (pp. 223-2 38). Calgary, AB: Detselig.
Yelland, N. (2001). Teaching and learning with information communi-
cation technology (ICT) for numeracy in early childhood and pri-
mary years of schooling. Sydney: Department of Education, Train-
ing and Youth Affairs.
Yacoub, S. (2000). School principalship in Lebanon: Problems and
suggested solutions. Lebanese Association for Educational Studies,
1, 295-330.
Young, J. (2002). The 24-hour professor. The Chronicle of Higher Edu-
cation, 48, 31-33.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.