www.nationalforum.com - Dr. Chuck Holt and Dr. Amy Burkman - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
VOLUME 30, NUMBER 3, 2013
29
LEADING THE DIGITAL DISTRICT
Chuck Holt, Ed.D.
Assistant Professor
Educational Leadership
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Amy Burkman, Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Director of M.Ed. in Administration
and Supervision
American Public University System
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this project was to develop an understanding of the issues
related to the operation of an urban school district utilizing digital instructional
technologies from the perspective of a district level technology leader. There
were three main research questions driving the project: What are the greatest
challenges in creating a digitally enhanced district? What impact does digital
enhancement have on student achievement? How does the district maintain
forward momentum with the rapid change in technologies? Through this
qualitative study researchers identified a number of effective technology
initiatives in urban districts and also recognized impending challenges facing
school leaders in a rapidly changing digital world.
Keywords: Leadership, Technology, Digital Instruction
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate the behaviors and
beliefs of school leaders managing urban districts utilizing significant

30NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
instructional technology. As technology capabilities explode across the
social, business and educational landscapes, schools still struggle to
either incorporate or even keep up with these existing tools and
devices. Zucker (2009) stated that technology in education has passed
the tipping point and digital technologies are transforming education,
although slowly and not always in the school. Digital technologies
have impacted students in key areas: when and where students learn,
with whom students learn, what students learn, and how students
learn. Online courses opened learning to anytime/anywhere access,
yet many schools have not embraced online learning for other than
remediation purposes (Zucker, 2009). The use of personal digital
devices such as smart phones, tablets, and readers has provided
unprecedented access to learning, yet they are often shunned or even
banned in schools. These factors lead us into a conversation regarding
leadership and the state of technology in schools.
Review of Literature
The implementation and integration of technology in
America’s K - 12 classrooms is a topic of great interest among
educators. This interest appears to be the result of the challenges
presented by the rapid changes in the technological market (Ramirez,
2011). This author points out that schools, especially large districts
like those studied in this project, may be experiencing widespread
integration problems. Issues include the lack of support for training,
lack of long range planning, lack of technology knowledge by school
officials, and internal and external organizational threats to integration.
District leadership plays a vital role in integrating technology
effectively into the classroom as is considered a complex school-wide
change (Schrum, Galizio, & Ledesma, 2011).
The discussion of “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001) is
intriguing to educators but does not fully address the issue of teaching
and learning. Youth today use technology for social and entertainment
purposes; their familiarity with available technology does not

HOLT & BURKMAN31
automatically make them capable of utilizing these tools for learning
(Davies, 2011). While we are all aware of the power of technology in
today’s world, this awareness does not necessarily make schools,
teachers, or students effective users of technology to construct
learning.
No single legislative act has had more impact on education
than No Child Left Behind (NCLB). An important focus of this
legislation is improving student academic achievement with the use of
technology through integration initiatives, building access,
accessibility and parental involvement (The No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001). According to Learning Point Associates (2007), rather than
buying the latest technology and then figuring out what to do with it,
the emphasis should be on how to improve student learning. It is not
about the boxes on the desk but the information that flows through
those boxes. The planning process should go beyond the buying of
technology but should envision ways to connect our students to the
world beyond the school.
As technology capabilities skyrocket, the issues connecting
education and technology have evolved rapidly. While decisions about
staff training, platforms, networks, and other decisions remain a very
local matter, a set of well recognized issues face almost every school.
These include (a) integration of technology into the classroom to
improve 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 related
to funding - and indeed adequate funding is critical - good planning
and decision making also play major roles in delivery and effective
usage. Teacher training remains a top priority as new technologies
make technology integration both powerful and complex.
Access Issues
The term building access when related to technology refers to

the electronic infrastructure available. This may include the local area
network and wide area network that enables broadband Internet
connections. According to Learning Point Associates (2007), this
standard must be met for all students including those in geographically
isolated areas in order to meet the standards of NCLB. While most
schools work to achieve this standard, the bar is continually raised as
devices require more bandwidth to maximize the available
technologies.
Another term associated with technology is accessibility.
NCLB stresses the importance of “providing technology integration
and technology literacy for all students, including students with
disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, low-income students, and
migrant populations” (Learning Point Associates, 2007, p. 3). To
bridge the gaps of the current digital divide affecting these groups is
essential in preparing all students to reach success in the global
community (Ball, 2011).
Personal and mobile technology devices are changing the
world and have the potential to change the classroom forever. Some
have dubbed this new era of wide access the “Age of Mobilism.”
Norris and Soloway (2011) foresee how personal devices will help
usher in a “we learn together” pedagogy era as opposes to the age old
“I teach” philosophy of the classroom. One of the newest trends in
providing technology access is the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)
initiative by many schools that encourages and facilitates the use of
student smart phones and other devices. Bartelt (2012) posits there is a
gap in the conversation between our imperative to facilitate new
technological literacy and the ways in which we actually provide the
support necessary to achieve it. He proposes we must encourage
students to use their own personal mobile devices in the classroom to
build literacy and life skills. Bartelt also highlights the importance of
encouraging teachers to be innovative facilitators of learning possible
through those personal devices.

HOLT & BURKMAN33
Teaching with Technology
As the technology learning curve becomes almost a vertical
line, teacher technology competencies take on new significance. Chen
and Thielemann (2008) note that as the pressure on teachers to become
technology specialists accumulates, it is critical that teacher educators,
current teachers, and pre-service teaching professionals pursue the
accumulation of knowledge on the applications of technology such as
digital graphics, desktop publishing, video technology, multimedia,
and Internet applications. Many states such as Texas are creating
technology standards for K-12 teachers and methods to evaluate
teacher technology competencies. The Texas Teacher Technology
Competencies Certification (TTCC) program provides a system that
meets the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Texas
Long-range Plan for Technology (Education Service Centers of Texas,
2012).
The process of integrating technology into the classroom has
become a real focus of research in education. In a meta-analysis of
research studies, Guzman and Nussbaum (2009) examine in-service
teacher training processes that strengthen this integration. These
authors found that technology has not been sufficiently incorporated
into schoolwork and has yet to be properly linked with other teaching
strategies. They posit that the root of the problem lies in the initial
training of teachers where the use of technology is an adjunct to
teaching and not part of the learning process for students. These
authors have identified six domains in the literature and developed a
set of competencies to form the bases for creating a technology
integration training model. This detailed look at teacher development
and competencies will be vital to bringing the powerful tools of
technology effectively into the classroom.
Teacher Training
Of the limiting factors to integrating technology into the class-

room, digital media literacy among teachers may be at the top of the
list. The NMC Horizon Report (2012) points out that digital literacy
continues its rise in importance as a key skill in every discipline and
profession, especially teaching. Formal training in the supporting skills
and techniques is still very rare in teacher education. Staff
development or informal training often offsets a lack of formal
training for teachers. The NMC Horizon Report points out “this
challenge is exacerbated by the fact that digital literacy is less about
tools and more about thinking, and thus skills and standards based on
tools and platforms are not useful in the long-term” (2012, p.9).Davies
(2011) posits that “teachers as learners must become aware of the
available technology and its basic purpose, then implement and
practice it in authentic situations if they are to reach the higher levels
of technology literacy” (p. 45).
Several interesting developments in classroom instruction have
arisen due to advancements in technology. Formal and informal
learning are more often being blended in successful classrooms. The
NMC Horizon Report (2012) points out a new model of instruction
called the flipped classroom that is opening the door to this blending
of learning. The report states the flipped classroom uses the abundance
of videos on the Internet to allow students to learn new concepts and
material outside of school, thus preserving class time for discussions,
collaborations with classmates, problem solving, and experimentation
(New Media Consortium, 2012).
Technology Resources
A key ingredient to incorporating these technologies into the
learning environment and creating policies to encourage this
integration lies with the school leaders. The decision makers in public
schools establish the climate for technology integration into the
educational system. The important topics of access, bandwidth,
instruction, and staff development are linked to the philosophies of
these school leaders. Resource allocation is another important role of

HOLT & BURKMAN35
senior leadership in a school. Nowhere is this more evident among
school districts than in the technology resources available to teachers
and staff. To complicate matters, there is little formal training for
administrators in how to integrate technology into the classroom.
Schrum, Galizio, and Ledesma (2011) found little state or institutional
licensure or course requirements in how to implement technology into
the classroom. These authors found that successful leaders learned on
their own, had a dedication to the topic, and promoted their faculty to
implement technology integration.
A significant revolution in communication has occurred in just
the past few years. Miniaturization, mobilization, and personalization
of devices have changed the way the world communicates. This “post-
PC” era as it is called is built upon devices designed to be mobile, very
personal, and connected to the world. Messineo (2012) compares the
revolution spurred by the likes of Ritchie, McCarthy, and Jobs to that
of Guttenberg. These men are credited with creations of software
architecture, knowledge architecture, and social architecture that have
had worldwide impact. Mobile devices are now common tools in
social and political struggles around the world. Most of the newest
technology advances we take for granted today are built from their
original ideas. Messineo points us down this revolutionary’s path from
Guttenberg to Zuckerburg that serve as examples of an individual’s
ability to empower society. These powerful tools of change will
certainly alter learning and the classroom. The challenge for
administrators will be to keep up with the revolution.
A common theme among technology decision makers is
budgeting issues. Rapidly changing platforms and newer software
require regular funding. Johnson (2012) points out just how much is
actually spent on education technology funding each year. He
estimates the national figure to be $56 billion per year. K-12 education
uses about 36 percent of that total or, put another way, about $400 per
student per year. As district budgets shrink, technology departments
will certainly be affected. Johnson points to a number of strategies to
stretch the tech dollar for public schools and at the top of the list are

effective budgeting techniques. He proposes that every dollar spent
directly or indirectly improve educational opportunities. Technology
budgets should align to district goals; be transparent; and specific.
Johnson recommends zero-based budgeting for technology purposes to
insure appropriate use of funds.
Methodology
The design of this study is in the qualitative tradition of
inquiry. The method selected for this research was a
phenomenological narrative inquiry. Creswell(1998) and the
researcher utilized narrative inquiry to gather the data. According to
Clandinin and Connelly (2000), narrative is collaboration between the
researcher and participants that occurs over time, in a specific place or
places, and within a social interaction. They observed that narrative
inquiry is both phenomena under study and method of study.
Researchers must think narratively as they enter into research
relationships with administrators, create field texts and write storied
accounts of educational lives. In narrative inquiry people are described
as the live embodiments of lived stories.
Selection of Participants
This study was centered purposefully in two suburban areas of
North Texas in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro area. One goal of the study
was to identify particular beliefs or behaviors of school leaders in
large suburban districts. A dense population in a metropolitan area in
Texas characterizes these locations. This provided a population to
study that is consistent with most definitions of suburban including the
U.S. Census Bureau.
Participants were selected from area school districts in which
suburban populations were represented in school districts utilizing
extensive instructional technology. The school leaders selected as
participants were school officials with primary technology decision-

HOLT & BURKMAN37
making responsibility for the district. While one of the districts serve a
majority low SES and ethnically diverse population (District A), the
other (District B) represented a more affluent suburban neighborhood.
The researcher located participants meeting the guidelines developed
for this research through contact and cooperation with schools in the
study zone.
Collection & Analysis of Data
Creswell (1998) described the role of a qualitative researcher
as the instrument itself. This places a significant burden on the
researchers to achieve a level independence from the study while
being very much a human part of the measurement. Following the
design of the study, the researchers took part in the selection of a
participant pool. The researchers also wrote the question response
protocol (Appendix A) and made the field notes.
A primary responsibility of the researchers in this study was to
guide the narrative collection using personal contact with participants
and through a process of data reduction to find the essence of the
phenomena. Polkinghorne (1988) observed that narrative is the basis
for a practitioners work because they are concerned with people’s
stories: they work with case histories and use narrative explanations to
understand why the people they work with behave the way they do.
Narrative inquiry fits very well with the design of this study and its
participants. A widely used method of creating field texts is an
interview, which may be turned into written field texts through a
variety of means. School officials agreeing to be participants
responded 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 participant
to confirm the researchers’ analyses, which is the member check. The
first step was a face-to-face interview at a location selected by the
participant. Field texts are the data in narrative inquiry. Each
interview yielded notes which were turned into research texts later.

Participants were interviewed in their home districts. Creswell (1998)
stated that research should be conducted in the natural setting, which
allowed the researcher to develop detail about the subject or place and
to be highly involved in actual experiences of the participants.
The interviews were conducted as an unstructured interview
with the interviewer utilizing an interview response protocol
(Appendix A). The researchers began the interview with a question
related to the topic and allowed the participant to respond. As the
participant responded the researcher asked for further detail as needed.
The interview response protocol was utilized during the interview to
record responses, environmental factors and for the researcher to make
reflections during the interview. The researchers’ reflections provided
another dimension to the field texts. The iterative process of
questionnaires and interviews occurred over a two-week period for all
participants. 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 the
transcriptions and analysis, which served as a member check to
provide trustworthiness.
Moustakas states that ultimately in the qualitative tradition, the
researcher looks for the essential, invariant structure or essence of
consciousness where experiences contain both the outward appearance
and inward consciousness based on memory, image, and meaning. The
second step utilized the process of horizontalization (1994). The
researcher used response protocol notes to develop a profile of
responses from each participant. This process was used to list
significant statements relevant to the topic and provided them equal
value. The third step of analysis, which is clustering, allowed the
researcher to cluster themes together allowing for the removal of
redundant and overlapping statements. In order to arrive at these
essences about the beliefs of school leaders, the data were analyzed by
use of textural description or the “what” of the experience (Moustakas,
1994). The textural description permitted the researcher to refine the
beliefs and behaviors identified in the field notes.

HOLT & BURKMAN39
Finally a structural description was created that allowed the
researcher to write a description of “how” the phenomenon of being a
school leader in this school setting manifested itself in the hearts and
minds of these officials. This step looked closely at meanings, seeking
divergent perspectives and different frames of reference about the
phenomenon. These steps of data analysis allowed the researchers to
accomplish the mission of a phenomenological study– to arrive at the
essence of the beliefs of these participants.
Findings
Although the districts involved in this study had different
demographics, there were several key themes that spanned across both
areas. Alternately, there were also some issues that were specific to
the needs of the district. This is best reflected in the definitions of a
“digitally enhanced district” given by each participant. One
participant felt that a digitally enhanced district was one that provided
students with the newest tools in business and industry and utilized
those tools as teaching and learning instruments for all classes. The
other participant felts that a digitally enhanced district provided
accessibility to technology tools and enhanced the curriculum through
technology use while also providing teachers tools to speed up the
instruction and assessment process. Inherently these definitions are
similar but with a few minor specifications for each environment. This
is evident throughout the data analysis. Common themes emerged.
Technology Must be Used Effectively and Efficiently
Technology exists within the schools. Whether the technology
is cutting edge or a few years old, most schools have some type of
technology. Both participants of the study identified the use of
existing technology to be a challenge. Effective and efficient use of
technology isn’t a given just because the technology exists. Teachers
must know and understand the best practices that are technology

specific and must be able to implement these practices in a supportive
environment.
To make technology use efficient and effective administrators
must balance expectation with the enforcement of the rules. Teachers
and campus based administrators must have a clear understanding of
how technology is to be implemented. Combining technology use
with materials access can also assist in efficiency. For example,
District A requires teachers to access a majority of classroom support
materials through digital resources and provides student access to
eReaders and digital books through the library. Teachers and students
can access these materials outside of the school day, and outside of the
school facilities, encouraging students and teacher to use digital
materials. Similarly, District B has implemented digital project based
learning (PBL) activities. In the digital PBL activities students can
access materials digitally but they also participate in group learning
activities online. These activities encourage student use of technology.
Districts also need to find effective methods of assessing
technology competency. District B has created a task force of parents
and educators to discuss the assessment of technology competency of
students through the application of technology practices. The
challenge is in separating the student’s technology competency from
the content assessment. Assessment practices are lacking in the
implementation of technology in the classroom.
The one warning given by both participants is not to give too
much information too quickly. An over-abundance of information can
do more damage to efficiency and effectiveness than no information at
all. Teachers and students are overwhelmed with information daily, as
are parents and community members. When implementing technology
it is important not to inundate stakeholders with too much too quickly
or they may give up completely.

HOLT & BURKMAN41
There Must be True Integration of Technology and Curriculum
Using technology in the classroom does not guarantee
integration with the curriculum. Teachers cannot use technology to
“drill and kill” the curriculum, nor can technology be used as
electronic worksheets. Integration is necessary for student
engagement; technology cannot be an add-on to curriculum or an
afterthought to curriculum development. The superintendent of
District B stated that “we should move from curriculum development
to curriculum enhancement.” The focus of districts and teachers for
the past decade has been in developing curriculum. We have
curriculum; we know what we are going to teach and we need to focus
on how we are going to teach. Using Promethean boards, using
eReaders instead of books, creating magnet schools and project based
learning teams are all useful tools when integrating technology
applications and can be tools that enhance the curriculum. The use of
technology in the design of meaningful lessons is more important than
making technology available.
If technology is going to enhance curriculum, districts need to
provide digital support for classroom materials. As in the case of
District A, the library media center can be a one stop shop for
classroom materials. The technology support within the district must
be integrated with the curriculum support to model good integration
practices. Good curriculum and instruction people will be the real
“techies” of the future.
Districts Must Utilize “Digital Natives” to Enhance Technology
Use
A phrase that was coined in the interview process was “digital
native.” A digital native is a person that has grown up using
technology tools. New teachers tend to be digital natives and should be
encouraged to be leaders in technology implementation. Digital
natives have different professional development needs and digital
native students have different learning needs. We need to capitalize on

the learning experiences of the teachers that are digital natives to
enhance their experiences as teachers. We also need to use the ripple
effect: excitement from the digital natives will ignite other excitement.
Another important factor when dealing with digital natives is
to remember that technology doesn’t mean laptops. Students and
teachers as digital natives are using smart phones and note pads (or
other Gesture Based tools) in daily experiences and they do not need
to be limited to the laptop. District A providing campus administrators
with iPads instead of laptops because they are more mobile and
District B allows teachers and students to use any WiFi enabled device
in the classroom. Resources are far more extensive than the basic
computer. Digital leaders are responsible for shifting the paradigm of
“old school” educators.
Budget Responses
The biggest topic in recent school discussions has been the
budget crisis that followed the recent economic downturn. With a
decrease in access to school funding, schools are faced with tough
decision-making and are frequently required to make deep cuts. At the
same time state and national requirements for technology integration
have been increasing. No Child Left Behind addresses technology
competence specifically.
In response District A has chosen to combine funding for
technology, books and materials into an IMA (Instructional Material
allotment). All materials purchased for the school come from this
fund, which has increase the need for campus leaders to be innovative
and for them to consider combining needs and purchase materials that
are technology based. This reduces the duplication of technology
based and paper based materials. They have also entered into an inter-
local agreement between city and schools to maintain good fiber optic
network and they have reduced 12 full time employees (FTEs) by
integrating library and technology services into one job.

HOLT & BURKMAN43
District B has a different set of needs due to the different
demographics of the students. There is less of a need for the school
district to purchase technology equipment because students provide
their own hardware. The district has decided not to purchase more
technology until there is proof that current technology is being utilized
effectively. This moratorium on purchasing ensures that materials are
being used effectively and the superintendent includes all stakeholders
in the evaluation process on current technologies.
District Specific Identified Issues and Responses
Keeping up with technology changes. A theme that emerged
from discussions with District A leadership is that the biggest
challenge in funding is keeping up with the changes in technology.
Most districts develop educational technology plans but an educational
technology plan cannot be a 3-5 year plan when technology is
outdated in 18-24 months. Technology changes happen almost before
materials can even be purchased. To combat this issue the district uses
a strategic selection of materials and minimizes the purchase of new
materials to match top 3-5 district goals. This keeps materials from
becoming outdated all at the same time.
Identifying clear expectations and assessments. In dialogues
with District B, a lack of clear expectations and assessment practices
was a major technology issue. The district created access well but
didn’t couple access with clear and defined expectations for teachers
and campuses. The superintendent felt that defining best practices and
comprehensive goals is the second step in the technology integration
process, to come immediately after acquiring the technology tools.
This district is not providing additional money for technology until
teachers/campuses implement what they have which necessitates the
creating of aligned expectations and an assessment process. The goal
is engagement in learning not using technology for technology sake.

Discussion and Recommendations
Digitally enhanced districts have found unexpected boons that
come with technology usage. For example, District A found that there
was a significant increase in student attendance when technology was
integrated into the curriculum. There has also been an increase in
attendance at magnet schools and in specialized programs that focus
on technology based skills. District B has found an increase in student
performance on district assessments and has also found increased
student engagement through the implementation of technology based
projects. It is clear in these districts that the appropriate use of
technology to enhance curriculum has a positive impact on student
success. The implementation of technology provides students at both
ends of the socioeconomic scale opportunity to learn life skills that
enhance future opportunities.
Schools districts are finding that teachers and students that are
digital natives are pulling schools along with newer and better ideas
for implementing technology. District leadership needs to be open to
allowing change to occur from the bottom up and rely less on
administrative experts to devise plans for technology integration.
Recommendations for districts that plan on enhancing
technology use are very clear:
1. Create a clear, comprehensive set of expectations for teachers
and students.
2. Assess technology learning in addition to content assessment.
3. Work with the community to enhance the access to technology
and to increase the networking capabilities of the district.
4. The technology must be integrated into the curriculum and
cannot become a technological worksheet device.
5. Technology plans cannot be 3-5 year plans. Technology
changes quickly and the technology plan needs to be a living
document that is reviewed annually.

HOLT & BURKMAN45
6. Planning for technology implementation should include
“digital natives,” such as teachers, students and parents that are
technologically savvy.
7. Let the stakeholders push the envelope with technology use
and don’t limit them.
Conclusion
Using technology is a way of life. The participants of this
study work in districts that embraced technology and that work to
create a relevant learning environment. When asked about advice to
other district leaders moving toward true digital enhancements, the
responses were immediate and remarkable:
1. Don’t be famous, be effective! The “why” of technology use
should be the focus of your curricular plan. You should always
move from why to how.
2. There has to be intentional devotion to enhancing instruction
and to engaging students with technology.
3. Watch what other pioneers do and learn from them. Evaluate
their initiatives and try new things after success is evident
elsewhere.
These words of wisdom can guide district leaders looking to increase
technology use and can provide a novice leader with a foundation for
decision making. Work closely with districts that are already digitally
enhanced and find mentors among the leaders of these districts.
Educators are on the same team when it comes to the best use of
technology in learning and can accomplish much by working together
for the better success of our students.

References
Ball, J. (2011). Addressing and overcoming the digital divide in
schools. The Health Education Monograph Series 2011,
28(3), 56-60. Retrieved from Eta Sigma Gamma website:
http://etasigmagamma.org/Monograph
Bartelt, J. (2012). Recommendations for personal mobile technology
devices in K-12 schools (Policy Paper #19). Retrieved from
University of La Verne Educational Policy Institute of
California website: www.epiculv.org
Chen, I., & Thielemann, J. (2008). Technology application
competencies 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: Sage
Publications.
Davies, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A
framework for evaluating educational technology
integration.TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to
Improve Learning,55(5),45-52. Retrieved from:
http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/learning+
%26+instruction/journal/11528
Education Service Centers of Texas. (2012). Texas teacher
technology competencies certification. Retrieved from
http://www.texasttcc.net/
Guzman, A., & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies for
technology integration in the classroom. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 25(5), 453-469. Retrieved from
http://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 & BURKMAN47
Johnson, D. (2011). Stretching your technology dollar. Educational
Leadership, 69(4), 30-33. Retrieved from Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development website:
http://www.ascd.org
Learning Point Associates. (2007). Quick key 3 - Understanding the
No Child Left Behind Act: Technology integration. Retrieved
from http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/qkey3.pdf
Messineo, D. (2012). Passing the torch: Lessons from past and future
revolutionaries of our generation. CA Technology Exchange,
1(5), 3-13. Retrieved from
http://www.ca.com/us/aboutus/Innovation/ca-council-for-
technicalexcellence/~/media/Files/About%20Us/catx-post-pc-
era.pdf
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
New Media Consortium. (2012). NMC Horizon Report 2012 K-12
Edition. Retrieved from NMC website:
http://www.nmc.org/publications/2012-horizon-report-k12
No 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.pdf
Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2011). Learning and schooling in the
age of mobilism. Educational Technology, 51(6), 3-12.
Retrieved from http://www.bookstoread.com/etp/
Polkinghorne, D.E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human
sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the
Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm
?id=oth
Ramirez, A. (2011). Technology planning, purchasing and training:
How school leaders can help support the successful integration
of technology in the learning environment. Journal of
Technology Integration in the Classroom, 3(1), 67-73.
Retrieved from http://www.joti.us/

Schrum, L., Galizio, L. M., & Ledesma, P. (2011). Educational
leadership and technology integration: An investigation into
preparation, experiences, and roles. Journal of School
Leadership, 21(2), 241-261. Retrieved from
https://rowman.com/page/JSL
Zucker, A. A. (2009, Winter). Teaching a 2.0 world: Transforming
schools with technology.Independent SchoolMagazine.
Retrieved from National Association Independent School
website:http://www.nais.org/ Magazines-Newsletters /
ISMagazine/ Pages/Transforming-Schools-with-
Technology.aspx

HOLT & BURKMAN49
Appendix
Research Question Protocol
1. 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 student
achievement?
7. What responses have you gotten from school district employees?
8. What advice do you give other superintendents or school officials
planning digital enhancements?
9. How do you manage the rapidly changing technologies with the
limited resources available now to districts?

www.nationalforum.com - Dr. Chuck Holt and Dr. Amy Burkman - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to www.nationalforum.com - Dr. Chuck Holt and Dr. Amy Burkman - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief

Recently uploaded

www.nationalforum.com - Dr. Chuck Holt and Dr. Amy Burkman - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief