• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content






Dr. David E. Herrington, Invited Guest Editor, NFEAS JOURNAL, 30(3) 2013
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief (Since 1982)



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment


    • NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALVOLUME 30, NUMBER 3, 201329LEADING THE DIGITAL DISTRICTChuck Holt, Ed.D.Assistant ProfessorEducational LeadershipTexas A&M University-CommerceAmy Burkman, Ed.D.Associate ProfessorDirector of M.Ed. in Administrationand SupervisionAmerican Public University SystemABSTRACTThe purpose of this project was to develop an understanding of the issuesrelated to the operation of an urban school district utilizing digital instructionaltechnologies from the perspective of a district level technology leader. Therewere three main research questions driving the project: What are the greatestchallenges in creating a digitally enhanced district? What impact does digitalenhancement have on student achievement? How does the district maintainforward momentum with the rapid change in technologies? Through thisqualitative study researchers identified a number of effective technologyinitiatives in urban districts and also recognized impending challenges facingschool leaders in a rapidly changing digital world.Keywords: Leadership, Technology, Digital InstructionIntroductionThe purpose of this study was to investigate the behaviors andbeliefs of school leaders managing urban districts utilizing significant
    • 30NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALinstructional technology. As technology capabilities explode across thesocial, business and educational landscapes, schools still struggle toeither incorporate or even keep up with these existing tools anddevices. Zucker (2009) stated that technology in education has passedthe tipping point and digital technologies are transforming education,although slowly and not always in the school. Digital technologieshave impacted students in key areas: when and where students learn,with whom students learn, what students learn, and how studentslearn. Online courses opened learning to anytime/anywhere access,yet many schools have not embraced online learning for other thanremediation purposes (Zucker, 2009). The use of personal digitaldevices such as smart phones, tablets, and readers has providedunprecedented access to learning, yet they are often shunned or evenbanned in schools. These factors lead us into a conversation regardingleadership and the state of technology in schools.Review of LiteratureThe implementation and integration of technology inAmerica’s K - 12 classrooms is a topic of great interest amongeducators. This interest appears to be the result of the challengespresented by the rapid changes in the technological market (Ramirez,2011). This author points out that schools, especially large districtslike those studied in this project, may be experiencing widespreadintegration problems. Issues include the lack of support for training,lack of long range planning, lack of technology knowledge by schoolofficials, and internal and external organizational threats to integration.District leadership plays a vital role in integrating technologyeffectively into the classroom as is considered a complex school-widechange (Schrum, Galizio, & Ledesma, 2011).The discussion of “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001) isintriguing to educators but does not fully address the issue of teachingand learning. Youth today use technology for social and entertainmentpurposes; their familiarity with available technology does not
    • HOLT & BURKMAN31automatically make them capable of utilizing these tools for learning(Davies, 2011). While we are all aware of the power of technology intoday’s world, this awareness does not necessarily make schools,teachers, or students effective users of technology to constructlearning.No single legislative act has had more impact on educationthan No Child Left Behind (NCLB). An important focus of thislegislation is improving student academic achievement with the use oftechnology through integration initiatives, building access,accessibility and parental involvement (The No Child Left Behind Actof 2001). According to Learning Point Associates (2007), rather thanbuying the latest technology and then figuring out what to do with it,the emphasis should be on how to improve student learning. It is notabout the boxes on the desk but the information that flows throughthose boxes. The planning process should go beyond the buying oftechnology but should envision ways to connect our students to theworld beyond the school.As technology capabilities skyrocket, the issues connectingeducation and technology have evolved rapidly. While decisions aboutstaff training, platforms, networks, and other decisions remain a verylocal matter, a set of well recognized issues face almost every school.These include (a) integration of technology into the classroom toimprove instruction, (b) the availability of access to technology, (c)accessibility for all students regardless of personal means, and (d)parental involvement. While some of these issues seem closely relatedto funding - and indeed adequate funding is critical - good planningand decision making also play major roles in delivery and effectiveusage. Teacher training remains a top priority as new technologiesmake technology integration both powerful and complex.Access IssuesThe term building access when related to technology refers to
    • 32NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALthe electronic infrastructure available. This may include the local areanetwork and wide area network that enables broadband Internetconnections. According to Learning Point Associates (2007), thisstandard must be met for all students including those in geographicallyisolated areas in order to meet the standards of NCLB. While mostschools work to achieve this standard, the bar is continually raised asdevices require more bandwidth to maximize the availabletechnologies.Another term associated with technology is accessibility.NCLB stresses the importance of “providing technology integrationand technology literacy for all students, including students withdisabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, low-income students, andmigrant populations” (Learning Point Associates, 2007, p. 3). Tobridge the gaps of the current digital divide affecting these groups isessential in preparing all students to reach success in the globalcommunity (Ball, 2011).Personal and mobile technology devices are changing theworld and have the potential to change the classroom forever. Somehave dubbed this new era of wide access the “Age of Mobilism.”Norris and Soloway (2011) foresee how personal devices will helpusher in a “we learn together” pedagogy era as opposes to the age old“I teach” philosophy of the classroom. One of the newest trends inproviding technology access is the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)initiative by many schools that encourages and facilitates the use ofstudent smart phones and other devices. Bartelt (2012) posits there is agap in the conversation between our imperative to facilitate newtechnological literacy and the ways in which we actually provide thesupport necessary to achieve it. He proposes we must encouragestudents to use their own personal mobile devices in the classroom tobuild literacy and life skills. Bartelt also highlights the importance ofencouraging teachers to be innovative facilitators of learning possiblethrough those personal devices.
    • HOLT & BURKMAN33Teaching with TechnologyAs the technology learning curve becomes almost a verticalline, teacher technology competencies take on new significance. Chenand Thielemann (2008) note that as the pressure on teachers to becometechnology specialists accumulates, it is critical that teacher educators,current teachers, and pre-service teaching professionals pursue theaccumulation of knowledge on the applications of technology such asdigital graphics, desktop publishing, video technology, multimedia,and Internet applications. Many states such as Texas are creatingtechnology standards for K-12 teachers and methods to evaluateteacher technology competencies. The Texas Teacher TechnologyCompetencies Certification (TTCC) program provides a system thatmeets the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the TexasLong-range Plan for Technology (Education Service Centers of Texas,2012).The process of integrating technology into the classroom hasbecome a real focus of research in education. In a meta-analysis ofresearch studies, Guzman and Nussbaum (2009) examine in-serviceteacher training processes that strengthen this integration. Theseauthors found that technology has not been sufficiently incorporatedinto schoolwork and has yet to be properly linked with other teachingstrategies. They posit that the root of the problem lies in the initialtraining of teachers where the use of technology is an adjunct toteaching and not part of the learning process for students. Theseauthors have identified six domains in the literature and developed aset of competencies to form the bases for creating a technologyintegration training model. This detailed look at teacher developmentand competencies will be vital to bringing the powerful tools oftechnology effectively into the classroom.Teacher TrainingOf the limiting factors to integrating technology into the class-
    • 34NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALroom, digital media literacy among teachers may be at the top of thelist. The NMC Horizon Report (2012) points out that digital literacycontinues its rise in importance as a key skill in every discipline andprofession, especially teaching. Formal training in the supporting skillsand techniques is still very rare in teacher education. Staffdevelopment or informal training often offsets a lack of formaltraining for teachers. The NMC Horizon Report points out “thischallenge is exacerbated by the fact that digital literacy is less abouttools and more about thinking, and thus skills and standards based ontools and platforms are not useful in the long-term” (2012, p.9).Davies(2011) posits that “teachers as learners must become aware of theavailable technology and its basic purpose, then implement andpractice it in authentic situations if they are to reach the higher levelsof technology literacy” (p. 45).Several interesting developments in classroom instruction havearisen due to advancements in technology. Formal and informallearning are more often being blended in successful classrooms. TheNMC Horizon Report (2012) points out a new model of instructioncalled the flipped classroom that is opening the door to this blendingof learning. The report states the flipped classroom uses the abundanceof videos on the Internet to allow students to learn new concepts andmaterial outside of school, thus preserving class time for discussions,collaborations with classmates, problem solving, and experimentation(New Media Consortium, 2012).Technology ResourcesA key ingredient to incorporating these technologies into thelearning environment and creating policies to encourage thisintegration lies with the school leaders. The decision makers in publicschools establish the climate for technology integration into theeducational system. The important topics of access, bandwidth,instruction, and staff development are linked to the philosophies ofthese school leaders. Resource allocation is another important role of
    • HOLT & BURKMAN35senior leadership in a school. Nowhere is this more evident amongschool districts than in the technology resources available to teachersand staff. To complicate matters, there is little formal training foradministrators in how to integrate technology into the classroom.Schrum, Galizio, and Ledesma (2011) found little state or institutionallicensure or course requirements in how to implement technology intothe classroom. These authors found that successful leaders learned ontheir own, had a dedication to the topic, and promoted their faculty toimplement technology integration.A significant revolution in communication has occurred in justthe past few years. Miniaturization, mobilization, and personalizationof devices have changed the way the world communicates. This “post-PC” era as it is called is built upon devices designed to be mobile, verypersonal, and connected to the world. Messineo (2012) compares therevolution spurred by the likes of Ritchie, McCarthy, and Jobs to thatof Guttenberg. These men are credited with creations of softwarearchitecture, knowledge architecture, and social architecture that havehad worldwide impact. Mobile devices are now common tools insocial and political struggles around the world. Most of the newesttechnology advances we take for granted today are built from theiroriginal ideas. Messineo points us down this revolutionary’s path fromGuttenberg to Zuckerburg that serve as examples of an individual’sability to empower society. These powerful tools of change willcertainly alter learning and the classroom. The challenge foradministrators will be to keep up with the revolution.A common theme among technology decision makers isbudgeting issues. Rapidly changing platforms and newer softwarerequire regular funding. Johnson (2012) points out just how much isactually spent on education technology funding each year. Heestimates the national figure to be $56 billion per year. K-12 educationuses about 36 percent of that total or, put another way, about $400 perstudent per year. As district budgets shrink, technology departmentswill certainly be affected. Johnson points to a number of strategies tostretch the tech dollar for public schools and at the top of the list are
    • 36NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALeffective budgeting techniques. He proposes that every dollar spentdirectly or indirectly improve educational opportunities. Technologybudgets should align to district goals; be transparent; and specific.Johnson recommends zero-based budgeting for technology purposes toinsure appropriate use of funds.MethodologyThe design of this study is in the qualitative tradition ofinquiry. The method selected for this research was aphenomenological narrative inquiry. Creswell(1998) and theresearcher utilized narrative inquiry to gather the data. According toClandinin and Connelly (2000), narrative is collaboration between theresearcher and participants that occurs over time, in a specific place orplaces, and within a social interaction. They observed that narrativeinquiry is both phenomena under study and method of study.Researchers must think narratively as they enter into researchrelationships with administrators, create field texts and write storiedaccounts of educational lives. In narrative inquiry people are describedas the live embodiments of lived stories.Selection of ParticipantsThis study was centered purposefully in two suburban areas ofNorth Texas in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro area. One goal of the studywas to identify particular beliefs or behaviors of school leaders inlarge suburban districts. A dense population in a metropolitan area inTexas characterizes these locations. This provided a population tostudy that is consistent with most definitions of suburban including theU.S. Census Bureau.Participants were selected from area school districts in whichsuburban populations were represented in school districts utilizingextensive instructional technology. The school leaders selected asparticipants were school officials with primary technology decision-
    • HOLT & BURKMAN37making responsibility for the district. While one of the districts serve amajority low SES and ethnically diverse population (District A), theother (District B) represented a more affluent suburban neighborhood.The researcher located participants meeting the guidelines developedfor this research through contact and cooperation with schools in thestudy zone.Collection & Analysis of DataCreswell (1998) described the role of a qualitative researcheras the instrument itself. This places a significant burden on theresearchers to achieve a level independence from the study whilebeing very much a human part of the measurement. Following thedesign of the study, the researchers took part in the selection of aparticipant pool. The researchers also wrote the question responseprotocol (Appendix A) and made the field notes.A primary responsibility of the researchers in this study was toguide the narrative collection using personal contact with participantsand through a process of data reduction to find the essence of thephenomena. Polkinghorne (1988) observed that narrative is the basisfor a practitioners work because they are concerned with people’sstories: they work with case histories and use narrative explanations tounderstand why the people they work with behave the way they do.Narrative inquiry fits very well with the design of this study and itsparticipants. A widely used method of creating field texts is aninterview, which may be turned into written field texts through avariety of means. School officials agreeing to be participantsresponded through a personal in-depth interview.Data for this study were obtained through one unstructured in-depth personal interview and a follow up meeting with the participantto confirm the researchers’ analyses, which is the member check. Thefirst step was a face-to-face interview at a location selected by theparticipant. Field texts are the data in narrative inquiry. Eachinterview yielded notes which were turned into research texts later.
    • 38NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALParticipants were interviewed in their home districts. Creswell (1998)stated that research should be conducted in the natural setting, whichallowed the researcher to develop detail about the subject or place andto be highly involved in actual experiences of the participants.The interviews were conducted as an unstructured interviewwith the interviewer utilizing an interview response protocol(Appendix A). The researchers began the interview with a questionrelated to the topic and allowed the participant to respond. As theparticipant responded the researcher asked for further detail as needed.The interview response protocol was utilized during the interview torecord responses, environmental factors and for the researcher to makereflections during the interview. The researchers’ reflections providedanother dimension to the field texts. The iterative process ofquestionnaires and interviews occurred over a two-week period for allparticipants. A follow-up meeting to confirm the researchers’transcriptions and meaning was the final contact with the participants.The final interview allowed the participant to confirm thetranscriptions and analysis, which served as a member check toprovide trustworthiness.Moustakas states that ultimately in the qualitative tradition, theresearcher looks for the essential, invariant structure or essence ofconsciousness where experiences contain both the outward appearanceand inward consciousness based on memory, image, and meaning. Thesecond step utilized the process of horizontalization (1994). Theresearcher used response protocol notes to develop a profile ofresponses from each participant. This process was used to listsignificant statements relevant to the topic and provided them equalvalue. The third step of analysis, which is clustering, allowed theresearcher to cluster themes together allowing for the removal ofredundant and overlapping statements. In order to arrive at theseessences about the beliefs of school leaders, the data were analyzed byuse of textural description or the “what” of the experience (Moustakas,1994). The textural description permitted the researcher to refine thebeliefs and behaviors identified in the field notes.
    • HOLT & BURKMAN39Finally a structural description was created that allowed theresearcher to write a description of “how” the phenomenon of being aschool leader in this school setting manifested itself in the hearts andminds of these officials. This step looked closely at meanings, seekingdivergent perspectives and different frames of reference about thephenomenon. These steps of data analysis allowed the researchers toaccomplish the mission of a phenomenological study– to arrive at theessence of the beliefs of these participants.FindingsAlthough the districts involved in this study had differentdemographics, there were several key themes that spanned across bothareas. Alternately, there were also some issues that were specific tothe needs of the district. This is best reflected in the definitions of a“digitally enhanced district” given by each participant. Oneparticipant felt that a digitally enhanced district was one that providedstudents with the newest tools in business and industry and utilizedthose tools as teaching and learning instruments for all classes. Theother participant felts that a digitally enhanced district providedaccessibility to technology tools and enhanced the curriculum throughtechnology use while also providing teachers tools to speed up theinstruction and assessment process. Inherently these definitions aresimilar but with a few minor specifications for each environment. Thisis evident throughout the data analysis. Common themes emerged.Technology Must be Used Effectively and EfficientlyTechnology exists within the schools. Whether the technologyis cutting edge or a few years old, most schools have some type oftechnology. Both participants of the study identified the use ofexisting technology to be a challenge. Effective and efficient use oftechnology isn’t a given just because the technology exists. Teachersmust know and understand the best practices that are technology
    • 40NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALspecific and must be able to implement these practices in a supportiveenvironment.To make technology use efficient and effective administratorsmust balance expectation with the enforcement of the rules. Teachersand campus based administrators must have a clear understanding ofhow technology is to be implemented. Combining technology usewith materials access can also assist in efficiency. For example,District A requires teachers to access a majority of classroom supportmaterials through digital resources and provides student access toeReaders and digital books through the library. Teachers and studentscan access these materials outside of the school day, and outside of theschool facilities, encouraging students and teacher to use digitalmaterials. Similarly, District B has implemented digital project basedlearning (PBL) activities. In the digital PBL activities students canaccess materials digitally but they also participate in group learningactivities online. These activities encourage student use of technology.Districts also need to find effective methods of assessingtechnology competency. District B has created a task force of parentsand educators to discuss the assessment of technology competency ofstudents through the application of technology practices. Thechallenge is in separating the student’s technology competency fromthe content assessment. Assessment practices are lacking in theimplementation of technology in the classroom.The one warning given by both participants is not to give toomuch information too quickly. An over-abundance of information cando more damage to efficiency and effectiveness than no information atall. Teachers and students are overwhelmed with information daily, asare parents and community members. When implementing technologyit is important not to inundate stakeholders with too much too quicklyor they may give up completely.
    • HOLT & BURKMAN41There Must be True Integration of Technology and CurriculumUsing technology in the classroom does not guaranteeintegration with the curriculum. Teachers cannot use technology to“drill and kill” the curriculum, nor can technology be used aselectronic worksheets. Integration is necessary for studentengagement; technology cannot be an add-on to curriculum or anafterthought to curriculum development. The superintendent ofDistrict B stated that “we should move from curriculum developmentto curriculum enhancement.” The focus of districts and teachers forthe past decade has been in developing curriculum. We havecurriculum; we know what we are going to teach and we need to focuson how we are going to teach. Using Promethean boards, usingeReaders instead of books, creating magnet schools and project basedlearning teams are all useful tools when integrating technologyapplications and can be tools that enhance the curriculum. The use oftechnology in the design of meaningful lessons is more important thanmaking technology available.If technology is going to enhance curriculum, districts need toprovide digital support for classroom materials. As in the case ofDistrict A, the library media center can be a one stop shop forclassroom materials. The technology support within the district mustbe integrated with the curriculum support to model good integrationpractices. Good curriculum and instruction people will be the real“techies” of the future.Districts Must Utilize “Digital Natives” to Enhance TechnologyUseA phrase that was coined in the interview process was “digitalnative.” A digital native is a person that has grown up usingtechnology tools. New teachers tend to be digital natives and should beencouraged to be leaders in technology implementation. Digitalnatives have different professional development needs and digitalnative students have different learning needs. We need to capitalize on
    • 42NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALthe learning experiences of the teachers that are digital natives toenhance their experiences as teachers. We also need to use the rippleeffect: excitement from the digital natives will ignite other excitement.Another important factor when dealing with digital natives isto remember that technology doesn’t mean laptops. Students andteachers as digital natives are using smart phones and note pads (orother Gesture Based tools) in daily experiences and they do not needto be limited to the laptop. District A providing campus administratorswith iPads instead of laptops because they are more mobile andDistrict B allows teachers and students to use any WiFi enabled devicein the classroom. Resources are far more extensive than the basiccomputer. Digital leaders are responsible for shifting the paradigm of“old school” educators.Budget ResponsesThe biggest topic in recent school discussions has been thebudget crisis that followed the recent economic downturn. With adecrease in access to school funding, schools are faced with toughdecision-making and are frequently required to make deep cuts. At thesame time state and national requirements for technology integrationhave been increasing. No Child Left Behind addresses technologycompetence specifically.In response District A has chosen to combine funding fortechnology, books and materials into an IMA (Instructional Materialallotment). All materials purchased for the school come from thisfund, which has increase the need for campus leaders to be innovativeand for them to consider combining needs and purchase materials thatare technology based. This reduces the duplication of technologybased and paper based materials. They have also entered into an inter-local agreement between city and schools to maintain good fiber opticnetwork and they have reduced 12 full time employees (FTEs) byintegrating library and technology services into one job.
    • HOLT & BURKMAN43District B has a different set of needs due to the differentdemographics of the students. There is less of a need for the schooldistrict to purchase technology equipment because students providetheir own hardware. The district has decided not to purchase moretechnology until there is proof that current technology is being utilizedeffectively. This moratorium on purchasing ensures that materials arebeing used effectively and the superintendent includes all stakeholdersin the evaluation process on current technologies.District Specific Identified Issues and ResponsesKeeping up with technology changes. A theme that emergedfrom discussions with District A leadership is that the biggestchallenge in funding is keeping up with the changes in technology.Most districts develop educational technology plans but an educationaltechnology plan cannot be a 3-5 year plan when technology isoutdated in 18-24 months. Technology changes happen almost beforematerials can even be purchased. To combat this issue the district usesa strategic selection of materials and minimizes the purchase of newmaterials to match top 3-5 district goals. This keeps materials frombecoming outdated all at the same time.Identifying clear expectations and assessments. In dialogueswith District B, a lack of clear expectations and assessment practiceswas a major technology issue. The district created access well butdidn’t couple access with clear and defined expectations for teachersand campuses. The superintendent felt that defining best practices andcomprehensive goals is the second step in the technology integrationprocess, to come immediately after acquiring the technology tools.This district is not providing additional money for technology untilteachers/campuses implement what they have which necessitates thecreating of aligned expectations and an assessment process. The goalis engagement in learning not using technology for technology sake.
    • 44NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALDiscussion and RecommendationsDigitally enhanced districts have found unexpected boons thatcome with technology usage. For example, District A found that therewas a significant increase in student attendance when technology wasintegrated into the curriculum. There has also been an increase inattendance at magnet schools and in specialized programs that focuson technology based skills. District B has found an increase in studentperformance on district assessments and has also found increasedstudent engagement through the implementation of technology basedprojects. It is clear in these districts that the appropriate use oftechnology to enhance curriculum has a positive impact on studentsuccess. The implementation of technology provides students at bothends of the socioeconomic scale opportunity to learn life skills thatenhance future opportunities.Schools districts are finding that teachers and students that aredigital natives are pulling schools along with newer and better ideasfor implementing technology. District leadership needs to be open toallowing change to occur from the bottom up and rely less onadministrative experts to devise plans for technology integration.Recommendations for districts that plan on enhancingtechnology use are very clear:1. Create a clear, comprehensive set of expectations for teachersand students.2. Assess technology learning in addition to content assessment.3. Work with the community to enhance the access to technologyand to increase the networking capabilities of the district.4. The technology must be integrated into the curriculum andcannot become a technological worksheet device.5. Technology plans cannot be 3-5 year plans. Technologychanges quickly and the technology plan needs to be a livingdocument that is reviewed annually.
    • HOLT & BURKMAN456. Planning for technology implementation should include“digital natives,” such as teachers, students and parents that aretechnologically savvy.7. Let the stakeholders push the envelope with technology useand don’t limit them.ConclusionUsing technology is a way of life. The participants of thisstudy work in districts that embraced technology and that work tocreate a relevant learning environment. When asked about advice toother district leaders moving toward true digital enhancements, theresponses were immediate and remarkable:1. Don’t be famous, be effective! The “why” of technology useshould be the focus of your curricular plan. You should alwaysmove from why to how.2. There has to be intentional devotion to enhancing instructionand to engaging students with technology.3. Watch what other pioneers do and learn from them. Evaluatetheir initiatives and try new things after success is evidentelsewhere.These words of wisdom can guide district leaders looking to increasetechnology use and can provide a novice leader with a foundation fordecision making. Work closely with districts that are already digitallyenhanced and find mentors among the leaders of these districts.Educators are on the same team when it comes to the best use oftechnology in learning and can accomplish much by working togetherfor the better success of our students.
    • 46NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALReferencesBall, J. (2011). Addressing and overcoming the digital divide inschools. The Health Education Monograph Series 2011,28(3), 56-60. Retrieved from Eta Sigma Gamma website:http://etasigmagamma.org/MonographBartelt, J. (2012). Recommendations for personal mobile technologydevices in K-12 schools (Policy Paper #19). Retrieved fromUniversity of La Verne Educational Policy Institute ofCalifornia website: www.epiculv.orgChen, I., & Thielemann, J. (2008). Technology applicationcompetencies for K-12 teachers. Hershey, PA: IGA Global.Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (2000). Narrative inquiry:Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design:Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.Davies, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: Aframework for evaluating educational technologyintegration.TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice toImprove Learning,55(5),45-52. Retrieved from:http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/learning+%26+instruction/journal/11528Education Service Centers of Texas. (2012). Texas teachertechnology competencies certification. Retrieved fromhttp://www.texasttcc.net/Guzman, A., & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies fortechnology integration in the classroom. Journal of ComputerAssisted Learning, 25(5), 453-469. Retrieved fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00322.x/asset/j.1365-2729.2009.00322.x.pdf?v= 1&t=hd1zlz4p &s=2416a893ad8f69f5f3aba697756b27d29a0d597b
    • HOLT & BURKMAN47Johnson, D. (2011). Stretching your technology dollar. EducationalLeadership, 69(4), 30-33. Retrieved from Association ofSupervision and Curriculum Development website:http://www.ascd.orgLearning Point Associates. (2007). Quick key 3 - Understanding theNo Child Left Behind Act: Technology integration. Retrievedfrom http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/qkey3.pdfMessineo, D. (2012). Passing the torch: Lessons from past and futurerevolutionaries of our generation. CA Technology Exchange,1(5), 3-13. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ca.com/us/aboutus/Innovation/ca-council-for-technicalexcellence/~/media/Files/About%20Us/catx-post-pc-era.pdfMoustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.New Media Consortium. (2012). NMC Horizon Report 2012 K-12Edition. Retrieved from NMC website:http://www.nmc.org/publications/2012-horizon-report-k12No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (U.S.Department of Education, 2002, January 8). Retrieved from:http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdfNorris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2011). Learning and schooling in theage of mobilism. Educational Technology, 51(6), 3-12.Retrieved from http://www.bookstoread.com/etp/Polkinghorne, D.E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the humansciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On theHorizon, 9(5), 1–6. Retrieved fromhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=othRamirez, A. (2011). Technology planning, purchasing and training:How school leaders can help support the successful integrationof technology in the learning environment. Journal ofTechnology Integration in the Classroom, 3(1), 67-73.Retrieved from http://www.joti.us/
    • 48NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALSchrum, L., Galizio, L. M., & Ledesma, P. (2011). Educationalleadership and technology integration: An investigation intopreparation, experiences, and roles. Journal of SchoolLeadership, 21(2), 241-261. Retrieved fromhttps://rowman.com/page/JSLZucker, A. A. (2009, Winter). Teaching a 2.0 world: Transformingschools with technology.Independent SchoolMagazine.Retrieved from National Association Independent Schoolwebsite:http://www.nais.org/ Magazines-Newsletters /ISMagazine/ Pages/Transforming-Schools-with-Technology.aspx
    • HOLT & BURKMAN49AppendixResearch Question Protocol1. How do you define "digitally enhanced district?"2. What are challenges to creating a digitally enhanced district?3. What have been stakeholder concerns?4. How do you respond to stakeholder concerns?5. What have been your biggest concerns?6. What impact do you feel digital enhancement will have on studentachievement?7. What responses have you gotten from school district employees?8. What advice do you give other superintendents or school officialsplanning digital enhancements?9. How do you manage the rapidly changing technologies with thelimited resources available now to districts?