University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

(USC Thesis Other)

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 1

A CASE STUDY OF PROMISING PRACTICES
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS

By

Stephen C. Choi

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2018

Copyright 2018 Stephen C. Choi

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 2

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the California Educational Technology Professionals
Association and the inspiring individuals who make the CTO Mentor Program better every year.

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to acknowledge everyone who helped me complete my doctorate. Dr. Eugenia
Mora-Flores, who served as my dissertation chair, was always available to provide feedback and
support. I also thank Dr. Anthony Maddox and Dr. Frederick Freking for their guidance and for
serving on my dissertation committee. I also wish to thank my instructors and fellow students of
the USC OCL program who made this innovative learning experience meaningful for me.
I also want to acknowledge my colleagues who helped me through the rigor of
completing a doctorate. I thank Gary and Alex who encouraged me to pursue my doctorate. I
also want to thank Erick, Kris, Rolland, and Manny for giving me their time and advice on
numerous assignments.
Most importantly, I want to thank my loving wife Ann, who supported me through the
entire program. I would not have been able to complete this doctorate without her.

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 4

ABSTRACT
This study examined the promising practices of a mentor-based professional development
program for K-12 chief technology officers. The study focused on the Steering Committee of the
Chief Technology Officer (CTO) Mentor Program sponsored by the California Educational
Technology Professionals Association (CETPA). The Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis
framework was applied to validate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of
this promising practice. The purpose of the study was to examine the knowledge and motivation
of the Steering Committee with regard to the interaction between organizational culture and
context. Interviews and document analysis were used for data collection. The data gathered was
also used to validate the knowledge, motivational, and organizational assets found in the
literature. The study found that the Steering Committee members were motivated to develop a
unique and relevant curriculum based on broad stakeholder input while combining adult learning
practices. The study also revealed that the Steering Committee members’ motivation to give
back contributed to the organization’s culture and fostered networking relationships. Finally, the
study validated four key principles (member commitment, interagency collaboration, vendor
neutrality, and continuous improvement) that may apply to other organizations seeking to
implement similar programs. As a promising practice, the CTO Mentor Program should
continue to monitor mentor role expectations and explore how competition may impact the
program. Included is a recommended implementation and evaluation plan based on the New
World Kirkpatrick Model.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 3
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 5
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 8
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction to Problem of Practice .............................................................................................. 10
Organizational Context and Mission ............................................................................................ 10
Importance of Addressing the Problem ........................................................................................ 11
Purpose of the Project and Questions ........................................................................................... 12
Organizational Performance Goal................................................................................................. 13
Stakeholder Group of Focus ......................................................................................................... 13
Review of the Literature ............................................................................................................... 14
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) .................................................................................... 14
Role of Technology in CCSS Implementation ......................................................................... 15
Role of the K-12 Chief Technology Officer Technology Leadership in K-12 ......................... 16
Importance of the Cabinet-Level CTO ..................................................................................... 16
Professional Development of K-12 Chief Technology Officers ............................................... 17
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ............................................................... 18
Knowledge Influences .............................................................................................................. 18
Motivation Influences ............................................................................................................... 20
Organizational Influences ......................................................................................................... 22
Interactive Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 25
Data Collection and Instrumentation ............................................................................................ 26
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 6

Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 27
Documents and Artifacts........................................................................................................... 28
Findings......................................................................................................................................... 29
CTO Mentor Program Created Unique Curriculum ................................................................. 30
Broad Stakeholder Feedback Contributes to a Highly Relevant Curriculum ........................... 31
Persistent Use of Adult Learning and Reflection Practices ...................................................... 32
Steering Committee is Motivated to Give Back ....................................................................... 34
Not for the Money ..................................................................................................................... 35
Make a Difference for Students and Education ........................................................................ 35
Reciprocal Learning Relationships ........................................................................................... 36
Committed Members ................................................................................................................ 38
Interagency Collaboration ......................................................................................................... 39
Vendor Neutrality ..................................................................................................................... 40
Continuous Improvement.......................................................................................................... 41
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 42
Solutions and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 45
Knowledge ................................................................................................................................ 45
Motivation ................................................................................................................................. 51
Organizational ........................................................................................................................... 56
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 62
References ..................................................................................................................................... 64
APPENDIX A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Interview ....................... 74
APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol ............................................................................................... 77
APPENDIX C: Credibility and Trustworthiness .......................................................................... 81
APPENDIX D: Validity and Reliability ....................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX E: Ethics ................................................................................................................... 84
APPENDIX F: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan .................................................. 86
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 7

APPENDIX G: Survey Immediately Following Training ............................................................ 96
APPENDIX H: Observational Checklist During Training ........................................................... 97
APPENDIX I: Mid-Year Survey .................................................................................................. 98

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 8

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ................................................ 24
Table 2 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ........................................... 46
Table 3 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ............................................ 51
Table 4 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ........................................ 56
Table F1 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Internal and External Outcomes ....................... 87
Table F2 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation .............................. 88
Table F3 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors .......................................................... 89
Table F4 Components of Learning for the Program ................................................................... 92
Table F5 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ..................................................... 93

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 9

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for the study. ............................................................................ 26
Figure F1. Visual Dashboard ........................................................................................................ 95

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 10

Introduction to Problem of Practice
Addressing relevant skills and maintaining adequate support systems is problematic for
organizations that train and certify K-12 chief technology officers. The implementation of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the concomitant influx of technology now require K-
12 school technology leaders to use new skill sets to advance their organizations. Between 2012
and 2014, California K-12 schools spent $577 million on technology, which constituted 45% of
total CCSS funding (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2016). To appropriately manage technology
implementations of this magnitude, a successful K-12 Chief Technology Officer (CTO) must
discern complex perspectives and embrace relationships among educational departments and all
stakeholders (Weng & Tang, 2014). However, K-12 technology leaders are often one-
dimensional and discount collaboration with peers and organizational stakeholders (Culp, Honey
& Mandinach, 2005). Training and certification programs that seek to ameliorate the shortage of
qualified K-12 CTOs struggle to address the hidden components of helping K-12 CTOs achieve
a good support system (Andrade, 2016; Molnar, 2013). This dissertation examines the promising
practices of the California Education Technology Professionals Association (CETPA)
organization and its CTO Mentor Program, which uses three key learning strands and a mentor-
based approach to produce and support certified K-12 school district CTOs.
Organizational Context and Mission
Since 1960, the non-profit organization CETPA sought to improve administrative
information processing in public education. Later, CETPA expanded its organizational purpose
when it began to serve as a conduit of information between the State Department of Education
and local agencies. The current mission of CETPA is to foster student success by leading,
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 11

developing, and supporting, educational technologists and their organizations. CETPA is
governed by a 12-member Board of Directors with an Executive Director, Director of Education
and Events, and an Office and Membership Coordinator who handles the day-to-day operations,
events, partnerships, and programs. CETPA provides support to its 1,200 members via the
organization’s website, an active statewide listserv, a quarterly journal publication, geographic
regional groups, strategic partnerships with other agencies, and an annual conference.
In 2004, CETPA’s Executive Board became aware of a statewide shortage of qualified
CTOs to fill the available positions in K-12 school districts. In response, CETPA created the
CTO Mentor Program, an eight-month professional development program designed to empower
effective K-12 educational technology leaders. The CTO Mentor Program was modeled after a
mentor-based leadership training program for chief business school officials, which provides
classroom training by experienced instructors, as well as one-on-one mentorship. The operating
expense for the CTO Mentor Program is funded in part by CETPA’s general budget, and in part
by tuition payments of $2,200 per participant. The CTO Mentor Program also receives
administrative and professional support from other education-related agencies within the State.
Each year, the CTO Mentor Program Steering Committee selects twenty participants from the
pool of applicants. At the successful completion of the eight-month program, the participants
attain the Certified Chief Technology Officer (CCTO) certification. Since its inception in 2005,
the CTO Mentor Program has certified over two hundred CCTOs.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to examine CETPA’s performance in relation to its stated goal of training
K-12 CTOs through one-on-one mentoring as a promising practice. The need for qualified K-12
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 12

CTOs will continue to increase in coming years, just as the role of CTOs will continue to expand
in K-12 schools (Consortium for School Networking, 2017; McCrea, 2015). Programs across the
nation have either already created, or are in the process of creating, training programs for K-12
CTOs that address the requisite new skill sets. However, many of these programs struggle to
sustain the community of support necessary for long term professional development.
CETPA’s CTO Mentor Program uses a unique mentoring model in the context of
technology leadership training. The failure to study CETPA’s CTO Mentor Program as a
promising practice would be a missed opportunity for organizations seeking to model or enhance
a successful training program for K-12 educational technologists. An examination of the CTO
Mentor Program as a promising practice will also benefit the CETPA stakeholders in evaluating
whether the program still supports its CCTOs, members, and local educational agencies, in
furthering K-12 student achievement.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to study the organization’s performance related to a larger
problem of practice. The analysis will focus on the assets in the areas of knowledge and skill,
motivation, and organizational resources. While a complete study would look at all stakeholders,
for practical purposes, this analysis concentrates on the CETPA CTO Mentor Program Steering
Committee members. As such, the questions that guide this promising practice study are as
follows:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of the Steering Committee to provide professional
development for K-12 chief technology officers using a mentor-based approach?
2. What interaction is there between organizational culture and context, and the Steering
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 13

Committee’s knowledge and motivation?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources, may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at another
organization?
Organizational Performance Goal
Since 2005, CETPA’s goal has been to train 100% of CTO Mentor Program participants
through relevant curriculum and one-to-one mentorship. The standard of success for this goal
was the creation of the eight-month CTO Mentor Program and the production of 20 CCTOs each
year. The CETPA executive director established this goal in 2004, after forming the CTO
Mentor Program Steering Committee and obtaining approval from CETPA’s Board of Directors.
To continuously track this goal, the CETPA Executive Director meets monthly with the CTO
Mentor Program Steering Committee to discuss program status, issues, and concerns. Currently,
CETPA’s CTO Mentor Program is operating at 100% by aligning the three key learning strands
of technology, education and leadership, and by pairing each participant with an experienced
mentor. CETPA’s CTO Mentor Program constitutes a promising practice based on a recent
doctoral dissertation study that evaluated the program in 2015. Judd (2015) studied the learning
objectives of the CTO Mentor Program in relation to candidate job performance and found that
the CTO Mentor Program was relevant professional development for K-12 technology leaders,
met the needs of adult learners, and provided a return on investment for the learner, the learner’s
organization, and CETPA as the sponsoring organization.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
Although all stakeholders must work together to achieve the overall goal of offering a
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 14

relevant curriculum and one-to-one mentorship, it is important to understand the promising
practices and strategies utilized by CETPA’s CTO Mentor Program Steering Committee
members in implementing the program. The Steering Committee stakeholder group, which
includes CETPA’s Executive Director, developed the policies and procedures of the CTO
Mentor Program over a dozen years ago. Today, the Steering Committee members retain the
ability to implement change and influence the future direction of the CTO Mentor Program.
Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this promising practice study will be the CTO Mentor
Program Steering Committee members. The next section highlights several key themes from the
literature that influence the Program Steering Committee.
Review of the Literature
This literature review examines the etiology of gaps in the professional development of
K-12 educational technology leaders. The discussion begins with general research on the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in K-12 education. Both technology and leadership are
critical factors towards the implementation of the CCSS (California Department of Education,
2016; Eilers and D’Amico, 2012). Next, the review provides an in-depth discussion of the role
of the K-12 CTO. Finally, the literature review concludes by delving into the professional
development of the K-12 CTO to identify peer-based mentoring as a promising method for
leadership training (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Solansky, 2010, Wolf & Ober, 2017).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
Implementation of the CCSS is a priority for many K-12 schools. The CCSS is a set of
high-quality academic standards that implicates every aspect of teaching, learning, and
assessment (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014). Because the CCSS is more rigorous than
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 15

previous standards, implementation has been slower than initially anticipated (Kober & Rentner,
2012). The literature emphasizes three essential leadership elements necessary to implement the
CCSS (Eilers and D’Amico, 2012). First, school leaders must responsibly guide the
implementation of curricular changes. Second, school leadership requires a clear purpose,
priorities, alignment, professional discourse, risk taking, and feedback. Finally, school leaders
must purposefully embed technology use into all curricular areas to successfully implement the
CCSS.
Role of Technology in CCSS Implementation
Technology plays a significant part in the implementation of the CCSS. The State of
California specifically mandated the integration of technology when it adopted the CCSS in 2010
(California Department of Education, 2016). The role of technology goes beyond assessment, as
it integrates with teaching and learning to provide students with educational and occupational
experiences (California Department of Education, 2016). When the California Legislative
Analyst’s Office reviewed how California schools spent CCSS implementation funding, they
found that most school districts used allocated state funds to procure computers, build
infrastructure, and increase bandwidth (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2016). These studies
suggest that the role of technology in implementing the CCSS focused primarily on
infrastructure and access.
However, the role of technology in the implementation of the CCSS must go beyond
infrastructure and access. Vockley (2007) emphasized that technology use in schools should be
comprehensive, in order to develop proficiency in 21st century skills, and to adequately prepare
students in a global economy. Davies and West (2014) opined that schools should focus on
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 16

providing students and teachers with training in pedagogically sound best practices, including
more advanced approaches for technology-based assessment and adaptive instruction.
Therefore, implementation of the CCSS requires going beyond the provision of basic technology
access.
Role of the K-12 Chief Technology Officer Technology Leadership in K-12
The responsibilities of technology leaders in schools now expand beyond the technical
aspects of the organization’s operations. Traditionally, K-12 technology leaders rose through the
ranks, and concentrated their efforts on infrastructure, dedicating most of their time to hardware
installation (Anderson & Dexter, 2005; Lesisko, 2005). However, current K-12 technology
leaders must integrate technology with curriculum in order to advance student outcomes (Roth &
Price, 2016; Summers, 2015; Wu, Yang, Shi & Zhu, 2015). The 21st century K-12 technology
leader must draw from three distinct skill sets to meet the increased expectations: education,
technology, and leadership (Fletcher, 2010; Whitehead, Jensen & Boschee, 2013). At this time,
it is technology leadership, not the underlying technology, that is the most significant factor in
the successful implementation of technology in K-12 schools.
Importance of the Cabinet-Level CTO
CTOs that serve in a senior management capacity gain a more comprehensive
understanding of the organization, such that they are better able to successfully implement
technology to benefit the entire organization. One barrier to the implementation of large-scale
technology projects in K-12 organizations is the lack of technology representation in senior
management (Lai & Pratt, 2004). Most school technology leaders have a limited perspective on
the overall organization (Culp, Honey & Mandinach, 2005; Sugar & Holloman, 2009). K-12
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 17

technology leaders are most effective when they serve on the superintendent’s cabinet (Fletcher,
2010; Michael, 1998). Therefore, K-12 CTOs who serve within the Superintendent's cabinet are
more effectively positioned to help the organization use technology to achieve its goals.
Professional Development of K-12 Chief Technology Officers
Varied Professional Development Opportunities for the K-12 CTO. K-12 technology
leaders do not receive sufficient training. K-12 technology leaders receive inconsistent training
to perform their jobs (Yu & Prince, 2016). The significant variation in the definition of
educational technology leadership results in leader dissonance when seeking professional
development opportunities (Davies, 2010). As a result, many K-12 technology leaders resort to
self-directed and informal networks for professional development (Johnson, Levine, Smith, &
Haywood, 2010; Krutka & Carpenter, 2017; Mao, 2017; Trust, Carpenter & Krutka, 2017).
Move Beyond Technical Skills. K-12 CTOs generally have sufficient technical
expertise, but many lack adequate training in education and leadership (Fletcher, 2010). In order
to be educational leaders, K-12 CTOs must understand the classroom structure and educational
arena on a fundamental level (Judd, 2015). K-12 CTOs should also understand the
underpinnings of the entire organization, including finance, governance, politics, and
communications (Schrum, Galizio, and Ledesma, 2011). The literature emphasizes that K-12
CTOs should continue to seek professional development opportunities that focus on leadership
skills.
Mentoring for Leadership Training. The literature identifies mentoring as a promising
strategy for leadership training. Mentorship is effective professional development for
educational leaders because it is social, customizable, and reflective (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth,
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 18

2004; Cowin, Gates & Luckett, 2016; Laverick, 2016; Miner, 2016). Mentor-based leadership
training programs are often based on coaching and foster the development of relationships that
go beyond the duration of the training program (Solansky, 2010; Wolf & Ober, 2017).
Mentorship also creates a collaborative paradigm that facilitates learning relationships
(Southwick, Martini, Charney & Southwick, 2017; Strohschen, 2012; Zachary, 2000).
Ultimately, mentoring enables learning through collaboration, and supports peer relationships
that reinforce leadership qualities.
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis offers a conceptual framework designed to
examine the performance of stakeholders and organizations. Specifically, the gap analysis
process identifies the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, that impact
stakeholders. This section discusses how the Steering Committee’s knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences, contribute towards CETPA’s CTO Mentor Program as a promising
practice.
Knowledge Influences
The Framework of Essential Skills of the K-12 CTO. The first knowledge influence
that contributes to the CTO Mentor Program as a promising practice is the Framework of
Essential Skills of the K-12 CTO. This framework is a conceptual knowledge type and is
relevant to the Steering Committee because it allows committee members to understand the
general purpose of a CTO in the K-12 context. The Framework of Essential Skills of the K-12
CTO identifies the three key knowledge areas necessary for the K-12 CTO: leadership,
education, and technology. (Consortium of School Networking, 2017). The knowledge of
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 19

collaborative leadership concepts is paramount to achieving sustainable change across an
organization (Davis, 2008; Fletcher, 2010; Smith, 2003). Therefore, this study selectively
examines those knowledge-related skills that focus on leadership and vision, strategic planning,
team building and staffing, and stakeholder focus.
Within the Framework of Essential Skills of the K-12 CTO are the Core Values and
Skills practiced by successful CTOs (Consortium of School Networking, 2017). The core values
and skills represent key personal skills and behaviors necessary for achieving all the other
competencies identified in the Framework. The core values and skills include being an effective
communicator and innovator, exhibiting courage, and being flexible, adaptable and results-
oriented (Consortium of School Networking, 2017). The core values and skills constitute a
procedural knowledge type required of K-12 CTOs. Steering Committee members need this
procedural knowledge type, because they are responsible for setting the curriculum and
designing learning activities focused on actual procedures K-12 CTOs perform. In this regard,
Maas (2010) validated that the core values and skills elements of the Framework of Essential
Skills of the K-12 CTO are critical procedural knowledge competencies that must be mastered by
K-12 technology leaders.
Adult Learning Skills and Mentoring Strategies. In addition to the core values and
skills, the Steering Committee’s use of adult learning and mentoring strategies illustrates the
CTO Mentor Program as a promising practice. Knowles proposed the concept of andragogy as
the art and science of helping adults learn (Merriam, 2001). Five assumptions underlie
andragogy to describe an adult learner who can direct their own learning, accumulate rich life
experiences, has learning needs related to changing social roles, is problem-centered and
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 20

interested in applying knowledge, and is motivated to learn by internal factors (Merriam, 2001).
The CTO Mentor Program is a professional training and certification program that pairs adult
participants with skilled mentors. Judd (2015) evaluated the CETPA CTO Mentor Program and
validated that one of the key strengths of the program was the mentoring component. The
program mentors, along with the program instructors, applied relevant adult learning or
andragogical strategies, to facilitate knowledge transfer and to support application of newly
gained knowledge and skills in the participants’ respective work environments.
Collaboration Meetings for Reflection. The Steering Committee meets monthly to
collaborate, reflect, and assess, student outcomes. The Steering Committee also adjusts the
program to ensure that participants maximize the transfer of knowledge. These monthly
collaborative meetings provide the opportunity for the Steering Committee members to reflect
and engage in metacognitive processes. Metacognition, through reflection, is relevant to the
Steering Committee because the objective of the program is to prepare K-12 CTOs to
competently serve their organizations. Grossman and Salas (2011) found that although
organizations spend billions of dollars in training each year, many training programs fall short in
developing characteristics that transfer to the workplace. Martin (2010) acknowledged the
challenges inherent in training programs but found that collaboration and peer support were key
factors in supporting the knowledge transfer process. Ultimately, the Steering Committee must
use metacognitive knowledge to reflect in collaborative meetings in order to identify and solve
novel problems.
Motivation Influences
Self-Efficacy Theory. Bandura (2005) defined the term “self-efficacy” (also referred to
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 21

as personal efficacy) as the belief in one’s ability to successfully accomplish a task or reach a
situation-specific goal. Pajares (2006) found that self-efficacy beliefs serve as the foundation for
human motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment. Pajares also found that self-
efficacy is a critical determinant of self-regulation, in which individuals self-correct their actions
and cognition.
Individuals form their self-efficacy beliefs primarily from four sources: mastery
experience, vicarious experience, social persuasions, and physiological reactions (Pajares, 2006).
Of these four sources, mastery experience is the most influential, and refers to the interpreted
result of one’s performance. Vicarious experience stems from observing others perform tasks.
Self-efficacy beliefs also come from the intentional or accidental social persuasions by others
that can encourage extra effort and persistence to succeed. Finally, physiological reactions refer
to positive moods that enhance self-efficacy.
Individuals who have higher self-efficacy have a greater belief in their own competence,
and therefore have higher expectancies for positive outcomes. Such individuals will be more
motivated to engage, persist, and work hard, to accomplish a goal.
Expectancy Value Theory. Task value refers to the importance one attaches to the task
(Rueda, 2011). Eccles elaborated on a comprehensive model linking achievement-related
choices to two beliefs: the individual’s expectations for success, and the value the individual
attaches to the perceived available options (Eccles, 2006). Eccles identified four constructs of
task value: intrinsic interest, attainment value, utility value, and cost value. Task value serves as
a motivational construct for the Steering Committee stakeholder group in overseeing the CTO
Mentor Program as it relates to the achievement of their organizational goals in this promising
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 22

practice.
Steering Committee Needs to See the Utility Value of Mentoring. Eccles (2006)
emphasized that utility value is how well a task fits into an individual’s goals or plans. Parise
and Forret (2008) posited that formal mentoring programs exhibited significant motivational
influences such as utility value, cost belief, and intrinsic value. Mavrinac (2005) also discovered
that peer-mentoring created a values-based learning process that results in transformed
leadership. Judd (2015) revealed that the CTO Mentor Program Steering Committee regarded
the program with high utility value, because they believed their tasks achieved some greater
future goal. This sentiment is common in mentor-based programs, as mentors often place high
utility value in the mentoring work they perform.
Organizational Influences
Collaborative Culture. There is a culture of collaboration among the Steering
Committee to work together, despite the competing demands on each member by their respective
full-time job responsibilities for different organizations throughout the State. This factor is a
cultural model influence and is relevant to the CTO Mentor Program and the CETPA
organization as a whole because collaboration among the Steering Committee members creates
formal and informal modes of learning. Berbarry and Malinchak (2011) stated that informal
modes of training such as mentoring, knowledge sharing, and coaching, help employees feel
more engaged. Open communication and demonstrating concern for employees are two ways to
build trust (Korsgaard, Brodt, & Whitener, 2002). Collaboration within the organization is a key
influence contributing to this promising practice.
Positive Attitude Towards Change. The Steering Committee members intrinsically
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 23

possess helpful and hopeful attitudes to embrace change initiatives. This factor is a cultural
model influence pertinent to the success of the Steering Committee, because members need to
adapt policies and processes associated with the CTO Mentor Program. Additionally, the
program also serves K-12 professionals who are leaders responsible for implementing change
initiatives for their organizations.
Lack of Competition. There is no competition among the Steering Committee members.
This factor contributes towards a cultural setting where members are very committed to the
program and organization. Schneider et al. (1996) found that people in organizations need trust,
support, and cooperation, in order to function, and that win-lose competition is destructive.
Table 1 shows the organizational mission and goal, and summarizes the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences, affecting the Steering Committee.

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 24

Table 1
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences

Organizational Mission
The mission of CETPA is to lead, develop and support educational technologists and
organizations to foster student success.
Organizational Global Goal
Through the eight-month CTO Mentor Program, CETPA develops the professional capacity of
its CTO Mentor Program Certified Professionals using a one-to-one mentor-based approach.
Knowledge Influences of the CTO Mentor Program Steering Committee
● Steering committee members should be familiar with the Framework of Essential Skills
of the K-12 CTO (Conceptual)
● Steering committee members should be able to implement adult learning skills and
mentoring strategies (Procedural)
● Steering committee members should know how to reflect in collaborative meetings
(Metacognitive)
Motivation Influences of the CTO Mentor Program Steering Committee
● Steering committee members should be confident in their abilities (Self-Efficacy)
● Steering committee members should see the utility value of mentoring (Expectancy
Value)
Organization Influences of CETPA
● Steering committee members should work within a collaborative culture (Cultural
Model)
● Steering committee members should possess a positive attitude towards change (Cultural
Model)
● Steering committee members should be committed to the organization and lack
competition (Cultural Setting)

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 25

Interactive Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) posited that knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influencing factors do not operate in isolation. Those responsible for overseeing K-12 CTO
professional development programs, including CETPA’s Steering Committee for the K-12 CTO
Mentor Program, are influenced by specific knowledge and motivational factors. Furthermore,
sponsoring organizations, including CETPA, are influenced by collaborative culture, positive
attitudes toward change, and non-competitive settings. Figure 1 displays the conceptual
framework for this study, and illustrates the interaction between the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that influence the Steering Committee.

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 26

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for the study.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The researcher for this qualitative study received permission to collect data from the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) and CETPA. The researcher
conducted interviews and performed document analysis to validate knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors identified in this study’s conceptual framework. Informational interviews
constituted the primary method of data collection regarding motivational and organizational
influences. In designing the study, the researcher acknowledged that interview data might not
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 27

adequately demonstrate the impact of knowledge-related influences. Therefore, the researcher
anticipated that a secondary method of data collection would involve the review of documents
and artifacts to study knowledge-related factors. Triangulation of the data collected through both
methods of data collection corroborated the trustworthiness of the data. Also, the researcher's
use of two different yet complementary data collections allowed for deeper insight into the
interaction of the organizational culture of the Steering Committee and the knowledge and
motivation of its members.
Interviews
Interviews provide access to people’s interior experiences and perceptions, and their
interpretation of their perceptions (Weiss, 1994). In this study, the interviews of the members of
the Steering Committee provided rich data about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors, that contribute to the promising practice. Furthermore, the researcher developed detailed
descriptions, integrated multiple perspectives, and described processes, of the Steering
Committee members that otherwise would not be shared due to the small number of individuals
on the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is comprised of thirteen members with
varying levels of experience. Steering Committee members work in different educational
agencies and serve multiple roles for the CTO Mentor Program. The interviewed participants
included the executive director and board members of the Program’s sponsoring organization.
Interviewing six out of the thirteen committee members provided a strong sampling of the entire
Steering Committee. The interview participant sampling criterion is included in Appendix A.
The interview protocol for this study correlated the assumed causes of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors, as identified in the conceptual framework. The
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 28

researcher individually interviewed six members of the CTO Mentor Program Steering
Committee by phone. Although they were offered the option to be interviewed in-person, each
of the six members interviewed preferred to participate by phone. Upon request, the researcher
provided interview questions to one of the six participants in advance of the actual interview.
The researcher conducted each interview in English using a semi-structured protocol with
prepared follow-up probes. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) found that probing lets the subject into
the study, while treating the participant as an expert, and affirms that the interviewer wants to
learn and respects the participant’s ideas and opinions. This approach encouraged the
participants to focus and expand their perceptions of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors, and enabled the interviewer to probe for further elaboration. The researcher recorded
each interview with the consent of the participants and transcribed each interview in its entirety.
The interview protocol is included in Appendix B.
Documents and Artifacts
Merriam and Tisdale (2016) stated that documents and artifacts are reliable means of data
collection that can reveal emerging patterns. In this study, the research analyzed Steering
Committee meeting agendas and minutes provided by the Executive Director of the organization.
The meeting agendas and minutes offered insight into the work of the Steering Committee with
regard to discussion topics and feedback. Specifically, the Steering Committee meeting agendas
and minutes reflected several components of this study’s conceptual framework including
patterns of the Steering Committee’s knowledge-related influences. Also, the incorporation of
document and artifact analysis as a second source of data collection addressed any concerns with
relying solely on interviews to gather knowledge-related data. Due to the confidential nature of
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 29

the Steering Committee meeting agendas and minutes, the researcher took great care to safeguard
the anonymity of the Steering Committee members. In this regard, the researcher coded the
Steering Committee meeting agendas and minutes documents to prevent specific identification of
the study’s participants. The examination of the Steering Committee meeting agendas and
minutes enabled a deeper understanding of which knowledge influences worked with regard to
the interaction of the various factors.
Findings
Three themes emerged from the study relating to the Steering Committee’s knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources. First, the study found that the Program’s curriculum
and knowledge-based resources are unique and broad for adult learners, as these were created
through an iterative process among key stakeholders, not bound by any particular curriculum or
framework. Second, the study validated that the Steering Committee members are motivated by
an intrinsic desire to give back to a program that they felt had personally helped them in the past.
Lastly, the study affirmed that the CTO Mentor Program governance supports member
commitment, interagency collaboration, vendor neutrality, and continuous improvement.
The CTO Mentor Program Steering Committee Created a Unique, Broad and Relevant
Curriculum for Adult Learners
Research Question 1: What is the knowledge and motivation of the Steering Committee to
provide professional development for K-12 chief technology officers using a mentor-based
approach?
Finding/Theme: Steering Committee members are motivated to develop a unique and relevant
curriculum based on broad stakeholder input, combined with adult learning practices, to train K-
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 30

12 chief technology officers. (Knowledge and Motivation)
CTO Mentor Program Created Unique Curriculum
The first finding is that the CETPA CTO Mentor Program curriculum is unique and was
not modeled from any pre-existing framework as initially assumed. The CTO Mentor Program
curriculum shares a focus with The Framework of Essential Skills of the K-12 CTO emphasizing
three strands: education, technology, and leadership. However, that is where the similarity ends.
When asked if the Steering Committee was committed to a particular curriculum, Interview
Participant #4 stated that the curriculum is “not aligned or mapped to a particular program... The
curriculum is truly a product of the CTO Mentor Program. It is created by the CTO Mentor
Program.” All Steering Committee members affirmed that the curriculum was created by the
CTO Mentor Program. Also, Interview Participant #6 was part of the original Steering
Committee when the Program was created in 2006 and disclosed that the curriculum was
originally developed “for a typical networking person who had been in the organization for a
number of years and now had an opportunity to move up but didn’t have the breadth of
knowledge that they would need to be successful.” Interview Participant #6 explained that a few
years after that initial modeling, the curriculum evolved to “make people more of a well-rounded
individual.” In the 2018 CTO Mentor Program schedule (Document #10), the curriculum
included fifteen unique courses covering Leadership & Strategic Planning, Professional
Learning, Educational Technology, Cybersecurity, Organizational Management, Fiscal
Management, Staff and Student-Centered Aspects, Personnel Management, Technology
Infrastructure & Data Systems, Project Management, Assessment & Accountability, Technology
Policy, Standards, & Plans, and Technology Leadership. Thus, despite the similar focus on the
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 31

three key strands, the study found that the Steering Committee is not committed to any pre-
existing curriculum, and that it has in fact updated the curriculum since the inception of the
program.
Broad Stakeholder Feedback Contributes to a Highly Relevant Curriculum
The study also found that the Steering Committee members relied on broad stakeholder
feedback to keep the curriculum relevant. When asked about how the curriculum was developed,
Interview Participant #3 responded that “the instructors shape the curriculum,” and advised that
the Steering Committee takes feedback from each cohort, combines it with the knowledge of the
CETPA Board, and then decide what needs to be included in the curriculum. Interview
Participant #3 added that “the program may morph to spend a little more time on that depending
on what’s trending now, so it’s evergreen... it’s based on what’s trending and what questions are
being asked.” Finally, Interview Participant # 2 described the curriculum as “designed to be
broad but not deep,” because program participants will “go on with their mentor or personal
learning to deepen something they are exposed to or need to learn more about.” It turns out that
while the Steering Committee members design the curriculum, the curriculum is also shaped by
the instructors, participants, and the organization’s Board. Furthermore, the 2018 Program
Schedule (Document #10) showed Cybersecurity was expanded in the curriculum by featuring
two Cybersecurity courses (Part 1 and Part 2) whereas it was only one course in 2017 (Document
#11). Also, the Fiscal Management course was reduced from a two-day course to a one full-day
course in 2018. Both changes reflect how the curriculum evolves where a particular topic, such
as cybersecurity, is emphasized and additional course time is required to deliver that curriculum.
Interview Participant # 5 commented in regard to how the curriculum changes, “I've seen in the
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 32

past three years where it changes, it adapts to the current trend. It adapts to what are priorities in
education at that time.” In fact, all of the Steering Committee members interviewed in the study
affirmed that the curriculum evolves based on broad stakeholder input and feedback, which
ensures that the curriculum stays current and relevant for CTO Mentor Program participants.
Persistent Use of Adult Learning and Reflection Practices
Another key finding from the study validated that the CTO Mentor Program and Steering
Committee persistently applied adult learning strategies and reflective practices in various
knowledge areas, including the curriculum, to propose changes and to identify learning
outcomes. When Steering Committee members were asked about the provision of knowledge,
four out of the six interview participants cited several adult learning or andragogical strategies to
help participants learn. First, Interview Participant #5 stated that the curriculum offers concepts
that the learner can take back and apply to their jobs, characterizing it as “real life learning of
what is going on.” The Steering Committee, as well as the Program’s participants, apply the
knowledge they gain from the program and apply it directly in their own work environment.
Also, Interview Participant #1 commented that reflective writing “solidifies... learning [by]
allowing people to reflect what they learn [which] makes them understand how much they
actually learned, and grow...” Thus, the Steering Committee assigns Program Participants to
engage in reflective writing activities for the duration of the Program. The reflective writing
activities also facilitate Participants to learn through their own internal motivational factors.
Interview Participant #3 discussed the use of adult learning theory-based practices and stated the
importance of “letting the learner construct their own plans.” Therefore, the Steering Committee
not only practices reflection, but has incorporated adult learning activities to help Program
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 33

participants direct their own learning and identify what changes are needed to support learning
beyond the end of the program.
There was also documentary evidence of the use of reflection by the Steering Committee.
Document #9, the minutes of a Steering Committee meeting, documented that two hours of the
meeting were set aside for members to reflect on “Current Status - Where We Are.” During this
meeting, the Steering Committee reviewed their vision statement, gathered and studied program
outcome statistics, and performed a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT)
analysis. These statistics looked at the post-program career movement of certified CTOs,
comparing those who remained in the same position with those who promoted. Later in that
same meeting, the Steering Committee spent more time reflecting on the Program’s needs, goals,
and objectives. The post-SWOT analysis involved leading questions, such as, “what adjustments
need to be made to the program (if any).” Interview Participant #3 commented that the SWOT
analysis process as “messy, creative, [and] loud, but effective.” She also affirmed the program’s
commitment to practicing adult learning strategies, as the CTO Mentor Program provides annual
training to Program mentors and instructors. The Steering Committee and the Program
persistently applies adult learning practices not only to evaluate its curriculum, but also to
improve on its governance, application review, assignments, and evaluation processes.
The findings for research question one support a theme that the CTO Mentor Program
Steering Committee is knowledgeable and motivated to provide a professional development
program for K-12 chief technology officers using a mentor-based approach. This study validated
that the knowledge and motivational factors involved using broad stakeholder input to develop a
unique and relevant curriculum. Furthermore, the Steering Committee is motivated to
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 34

incorporate adult learning or andragogical strategies to direct and support learning for itself and
the Program’s participants. Next, it is important to discuss the findings that motivate the CTO
Mentor Program Steering Committee and how they interact with the CETPA organization.
The CTO Mentor Program Steering Committee’s Motivation to Give Back Benefits
Organizational Culture and Sustainability
Research Question 2: What interaction is there between organizational culture and context, and
the Steering Committee’s knowledge and motivation?
Finding/Theme: Steering Committee members’ motivation to give back to the program
contributes to the organization’s culture and its ability to continue fostering professional
networking relationships. (Motivation)
Steering Committee is Motivated to Give Back
The second finding that emerged from the study was that the Steering Committee is
highly motivated to give back. When asked about their motives in serving as Steering
Committee members, 100% of the interviewed participants affirmed that they serve in order to
give back to the CTO Mentor Program. Interview Participant #5 discussed her motivation and
desire to “give back because someone helped [her] before.” Also, Interview Participant #1 noted
that “others come on to the committee after having gone through the program so that they want
to give back to the program.” Interview Participant #6, who has served on the Steering
Committee since the inception of the Program, stated, “I think everybody serving on the
committee does it pretty much for the same reason… that is, the sense of giving back.” The
interviewed Steering Committee members consistently stated that giving back was their primary
motivation for serving on the Steering Committee. This motivation to give back significantly
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 35

contributes to the sustainability of the Program and the culture of the organization.
Not for the Money
This study found that Steering Committee members, including some of the mentors,
participate in the CTO Mentor Program without compensation. Steering Committee members
are not paid by the CTO Mentor Program nor the CETPA organization. Some Steering
Committee members serve as representatives for other organizations. Interview Participant #5
stated that she was motivated to “represent the State County Offices of Education” and “be a
model CTO.” Steering Committee members are also motivated to develop and contribute
towards the professional capacity of the State. Interview Participant #3 was “intrinsically
motivated” and believed “so strongly and passionately about leadership development.”
Interview Participant #2 added, “we’re building a fabulous pool of applicants.” Interview
Participant #1 affirmed that Steering Committee members are “a volunteer seat, so they feel that
they have a voice and have a seat to help things get developed.” It is important to note that while
Program Mentors are eligible for a $1,000 annual stipend, the Steering Committee emphasized
that mentors were motivated to serve for similar reasons and not likely for the money. For
example, Participant #1 revealed that “some mentors never submit their [requests for]
reimbursements.” The commitment of individuals who are willing to forego remuneration while
contributing their time and expertise, benefits the Program as a whole, and supports the overall
mission of the non-profit organization.
Make a Difference for Students and Education
The Steering Committee believes that their efforts make a difference in the lives of
students. All Steering Committee members interviewed shared that the reason why they serve is
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 36

to benefit student achievement. Interview Participant #1 described the Steering Committee’s
overall motivation as their desire to “see the continued growth and success of the program” and
“for the good of the education community.” Interview Participant #3 commented, “I am very
passionate about education. I am very passionate about growth mindset and learning... and being
given this opportunity to help develop a program that is systematically changing education is
powerful stuff.” Also, Interview Participant #2 shared that the CTO Mentor Program “builds the
capacity of all technology leaders in the State so that we can really make a difference in the lives
of students and education in the State… the big goal of student success… and that is motivation
in itself.” This finding aligns with the Organization’s vision statement, as expressed in
Document #1, which specifically states that the CETPA organization aims “to improve the public
education system” and “strives to better the public education system with ongoing support to
members…” As such, the Steering Committee is motivated, not just to give back to the CTO
Mentor Program or CETPA, but to the educational community at large.
Reciprocal Learning Relationships
The study also found that the Steering Committee supports reciprocal learning
relationships. Five of the six Steering Committee members interviewed had previously served as
mentors in the CTO Mentor Program. Interview Participant #4 described how mentors also learn
from their participants, and recounted that she had candidly told her paired mentee participant
that “it’s kinda like I’m not helping you, you’re helping me.” Also, Interview Participant #3
stated that “mentoring is reciprocal… [that] effective mentors learn as much as they share and
teach.” Interview Participant #5 shared that her mentor-participant pairings resulted in
friendships, that “at the very end of the day, we become friends... it’s just an awesome
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 37

experience, there’s nothing like it.” Finally, Interview Participant #1 commented that the mentor
and participant pairings have often developed into “life-long relationships.” Thus, the reciprocal
learning leads to lasting relationships, while it further reinforces the sustainability of the CTO
Mentor Program at the same time.
The findings discussed in regard to research question two support the theme that the
Steering Committee is motivated to give back. The Steering Committee members are not paid to
serve but are rather motivated to make a difference for the educational community and to
develop relationships that contribute to the organization and overall sustainability of the CTO
Mentor Program. Next, it is important to discuss the key principles of the CTO Mentor Program
governance, which may help solve the problem of practice at other organizations looking to
provide professional development for K-12 chief technology officers using a mentor-based
approach.
The CTO Mentor Program Governance Supports Member Commitment, Interagency
Collaboration, Vendor Neutrality, and Continuous Improvement
Research Question 3: What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources, may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at another
organization?
Finding/Theme: The program is governed by the Steering Committee, a dedicated and diverse
group of individuals representing multiple agencies vested in CETPA and California K-12, is
sponsored by a non-profit organization whose sole mission is to support educational
technologists and organizations to foster student success. (Organizational)
A third theme that emerged from the study found that the governance of the CTO Mentor
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 38

Program, for which the Steering Committee is responsible, is supported by four key principles:
member commitment, interagency collaboration, vendor neutrality, and continuous
improvement. These four principles may be applied to other organizations seeking to provide
mentor-based professional development of the K-12 CTO. This study discusses each of the four
principles that the Steering Committee uses in the governance of the CTO Mentor Program.
Committed Members
First, this study found that the Steering Committee is comprised of individuals who are
highly dedicated and committed to the CTO Mentor Program. Two of the six Steering
Committee members interviewed have continuously served on the Steering Committee since the
inception of the CTO Mentor Program in 2005. Also, each of the Steering Committee members
interviewed have served either as a mentor or instructor. The structure of the Steering
Committee was found in the minutes of a Steering Committee meeting (Document #6). The
Steering Committee consists of thirteen members which includes three members representing
CETPA (two current CETPA Board of Director members and the Executive Director), two
members representing FCMAT (Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team), two members
representing CCSESA (California County Superintendents Educational Services Association),
one member representing CDE (California Department of Education), three graduates of the
CTO Mentor Program including one that rotates annually with a graduate from the previous year,
and two at large members representing the vendor or independent consultant communities that
relate to the education community. When asked about the commitment of the Steering
Committee, Interview Participant #4 stated that “the culture is one of commitment… Steering
Committee members expect members to be at the meeting to participate, actively contribute,
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 39

whether it is ideas, suggestions, or perspectives.” The Steering Committee members commit
both time and effort to govern the CTO Mentor Program. Interview Participant #1 commented
on the governance structure to “involve the same people that you are trying to improve or the
same people who you are offering the resources to because you want to make sure that
everybody has a purpose and wants to see the program succeed.” Moreover, for the first twelve
years of the CTO Mentor Program, the executive director of CETPA served as the Program
Manager, attending each and every Program session. In 2017, the organization’s membership
and programs expanded such that the CETPA Board recognized the need to support the
Executive Director. In response, the CETPA Board authorized the hiring of a Director of
Education and Events to take over as the Program Manager for the CTO Mentor Program and to
directly support the Steering Committee. The Director of Education and Events now oversees
and monitors the CTO Mentor Program.
Interagency Collaboration
Second, the study affirmed that one of the key strengths of the CTO Mentor Program
was that the Steering Committee was designed to leverage collaboration between various K-12
agencies in the State. CETPA’s vision statement, as found in Document #1, states that “CETPA
values interagency collaboration that helps make the program prestigious and successful.” This
emphasis on interagency collaboration is also found in Document #6, a Steering Committee
meeting agenda documenting agency representation from CETPA, FCMAT, CCSESA, CDE, as
well as “Members at Large”, defined as “individuals recognized for applicable expertise, interest
and demonstrated dedication to California public education.” Three of the four agencies were
represented in the pool of participants interviewed in this study. Interview Participant #6
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 40

commented that “there are people who are from [a] large and diverse background. We always
make sure there is a student on-board from a previous year…. so I think [we] have a good
balance of people.” Interview Participant #2 referred to the CTO Mentor Program as “the rising
harbor that lifts all boats” to highlight the professionalism of K-12 CTOs and the
interconnectedness among K-12 educational agencies. She emphasized the need to replace
retiring CTOs with ones that are familiar with the various agencies sponsoring the CTO Mentor
Program. For the Steering Committee, collaboration with other agencies that serve K-12
education serves to strengthen the CTO Mentor Program.
Vendor Neutrality
The Steering Committee avoids any program sponsorships from industry vendors. The
study found that the tuition collected from Program Participants only covers a small portion of
the Program’s operating expense. All interviewed Participants confirmed that the CETPA
organization financially supports the CTO Mentor Program. Interview Participant #3 shared that
the Program “operates at a loss if you just look at the revenue stream versus the expense stream.”
However, she described the Program as “fiscally responsible”, and stated that “we are constantly
looking at program expenses to keep them at a reasonable amount.” Thus, the Steering
Committee is challenged to keep operational costs low while ensuring a high-quality program.
Furthermore, when asked if the other collaborating agencies had a role in covering costs,
Interview Participant #2 shared that “CETPA is the only part of the triad that puts any money
into it.” Interview Participant #3 revealed that the organization’s executive director created
sponsorship categories for the organization’s Annual Conference which in turn has increased
revenue for the CETPA organization. She added, “the Board of CETPA has approved the
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 41

budgeting for the [CTO Mentor] program and approximately half of the costs are brought in by
the tuition. The other half is covered by the operational budget of CETPA because it is the right
thing to do.” Interview Participant #6 explained that “when the program started, there was a real
concern about being able to afford it…. there was never any disagreement about the need for the
program. The key is that CEPTA does not take donations towards the program.” Finally,
Interview Participant #3 concluded, “we don’t want vendors driving the curriculum.” Despite
offers from various vendors to sponsor the CTO Mentor Program, the Steering Committee does
not accept sponsorships for the Program in order to keep the curriculum vendor-neutral.
Continuous Improvement
The study also found that while the Steering Committee members feel confident that the
CTO Mentor Program was meeting the training needs of K-12 CTOs, they are also committed to
continuously improve the Program. Interview Participant #4 stated, “No one on the Steering
Committee ever feels we totally arrived. Every year is approached: where what did we do well
and what can we improve on for the next cohort.” Interview Participant #6 added, “We don’t
always agree with each other, but we are always respectful in how we go about this. We know
that it’s working… there’s always room for improvement, the people who are serving on the
Steering Committee do so primarily out of their own wanting to help and wanting to make a
better program for the State.” Documents #4 and #5, constituting Steering Committee meeting
minutes, show that the Steering Committee is engaged in ongoing rubric reviews. These meeting
minutes show that a team of three Steering Committee members reviewed all the rubrics for each
Program session. Finally, 100% of the Steering Committee members interviewed discussed the
importance of monitoring the program. Interview Participant #6 described the process as a “loop
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 42

of constant evaluation and refinement of what you need to do each year.” When asked how other
organizations can learn from the Steering Committee, Interview Participant #4 said, “look at
what we’ve done.” Thus, it appears that the Steering Committee is confident in its efforts and
affirmed the desire to continuously improve with every cohort of CTO Mentor Program
participants.
The findings for research question three identified four key principles that govern the
CTO Mentor Program. The Steering Committee comprises of highly dedicated and committed
individuals, is supported by a collaboration of multiple agencies working together to serve K-12
education, is vendor-neutral, and is driven by continuous improvement.
Discussion
The study’s findings validated many knowledge, motivation, and organization-related
influences of a Steering Committee governing a promising mentor-based professional
development program for K-12 CTOs. The study revealed two additional remarkable
characteristics of the Steering Committee that are worthy of discussion. First, all of the Steering
Committee members who were interviewed demonstrated a high degree of consistency and
similarity throughout the interviews. This consistency and similarity amongst the interviews
validate the reliability of the learning practices and the findings gleaned through the study. As
the primary investigator and sole interviewer for the study, it was fascinating to discover how
each Steering Committee member is actively engaged in governing and improving the program.
It appeared that each of the interviewees were candid and forthright in answering all of the
interview questions. Despite disparity in the number of years served between the Steering
Committee members interviewed, there seemed to be an equal and fair playing field among the
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 43

Steering Committee. As a result, Steering Committee members, whether new or experienced,
exhibited a level of trust and familiarity such that they appeared to function as a unified team.
The second remarkable characteristic the Steering Committee revealed was their openness to
share. Each Steering Committee member interviewed was very open in the study in regard to the
curriculum, the processes involved in pairing mentors with program participants, as well as the
operations and funding of the program. Of course, this may be in part explained by the primary
investigator’s past and current service as a mentor for the program. However, it is important to
note that the Steering Committee also viewed themselves as educators collaborating to improve
student achievement. One meaningful way of collaboration is to share with others so that others
can learn from one’s experience. Clearly, the Steering Committee demonstrated the spirit of
collaboration through their openness for sharing.
Two areas of additional research may enhance the CTO Mentor Program. One potential
area of study would be the role and professional development of the program mentors. During
the course of the study, the Steering Committee members highlighted that many of the program’s
mentors were fairly new due to recent retirement and attrition. Also, several interview
participants highlighted that mentor expectations have evolved since the program started. Some
Steering Committee members believed the mentor’s role is to be a guide for participants through
conversation. However, there were some Steering Committee members that believed that the
mentor role should be focused on keeping participants on track with the program and to ensure
participants complete and refine their assignments. It would be important to gauge the input of
program mentors, including mentors that have retired from the program, and also survey the
Steering Committee to identify program mentor expectations. Identifying mentor expectations
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 44

would likely benefit future program participants and help enhance mentor professional
development. Another area to explore is to understand how competition may impact the
program and possibly the sponsoring organization CETPA. In the past year, additional training
opportunities, including certification programs, have emerged for K-12 technology leaders.
Some of the professional development or certification programs are sponsored by vendors. It
would be beneficial to learn from the Steering Committee and the CETPA Board of Directors
how the CTO Mentor Program may adjust the program, and if so, how can the CTO Mentor
Program co-exist with competing programs that may have greater funding and resources. Thus,
additional research into these two areas may be of interest to both the CETPA organization and
to others looking to develop a similar program to support K-12 CTOs.
CETPA should leverage the success of the CTO Mentor Program to further enhance its
sustainability. The CTO Mentor Program is currently scaled to certify twenty individuals each
year, which limits its ability to impact K-12 education and student success. CETPA could
promote the model of its mentor-based professional development program to similarly focused
non-profit organizations serving K-12 education systems outside of California. While the
CETPA organization may not currently have the resources for national growth, CETPA has the
institutional knowledge to develop and adapt its CTO Mentor Program curriculum. CETPA
could expand the reach of the CTO Mentor Program to make a significant impact on education
and student achievement nationwide. Also, with advancements in distance learning technology,
CETPA could expand the use of its learning management system to incorporate high-quality
asynchronous learning videos and learning modules to deliver a consistent learning experience to
a much larger community of K-12 CTOs. An expansion in the scale of the CTO Mentor
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 45

Program would not only reach more educational technologists and their organizations, but it
could also significantly increase CETPA’s revenue streams.
One of the most critical aspects of the CETPA CTO Mentor Program is its focus on
prioritizing the role of education in K-12 technology. Unfortunately, not all K-12 CTO
professional development programs have the same focus. Maintaining a self-sufficient program
that is not sponsored by any specific vendor has contributed towards a vendor-neutral
curriculum. However, in order to compete with the non-profit organizations that utilize vendor
sponsorships, it is vital for CETPA to consider strategic partnerships in a manner that will protect
the integrity of the curriculum, yet leverage the resources offered by industry
vendors. Educators, not technology vendors, must drive the technology used in schools.
The study’s findings validated many knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
that influence the CTO Mentor Program. Coincidentally, as continuous improvement was
determined to be one of the key contributing factors for the Steering Committee, the next section
presents recommendations on how the CTO Mentor Program can improve.
Solutions and Recommendations
This section discusses solutions and recommendations in regard to knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences, based on the findings of the study. An integrated
implementation and evaluation plan is presented in Appendix F, and the surveys and checklists
used in the evaluation plan are also included in Appendices G, H, and I.
Knowledge
Introduction. The knowledge influences in Table 2 represents all assumed knowledge
influences and their probability of being validated. The knowledge influences used by the CTO
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 46

Mentor Program Steering Committee achieved a mentor-based professional development
program for K-12 chief technology officers that is considered a promising practice. The
knowledge influences were validated based on the most frequently mentioned declarative,
conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge influences during semi-structured
interviews of Steering Committee members, document analysis of Steering Committee meeting
agendas, and supported by the literature review. Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis served as
the framework for this study. The knowledge influences include conceptual knowledge
addressing the what, procedural knowledge addressing the how, and metacognitive knowledge
addressing the self (Krathwohl, 2002). As indicated in Table 2, these influences were validated
and were found to help the Steering Committee implement a promising practice. Table 2 also
shows the recommendations for these valid influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 2
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes or No
(Y, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Steering Committee
members know and
have mastery of three
key learning strands:
leadership, education,
and technology. (D)
Y Y To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply
what they have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

The CTO Mentor
Program will
continue to
conceptually align
sessions and adjust
the Program’s
curriculum within
the context of
leadership,
education, and
technology.
Steering Committee
members know how to
Y Y Procedural knowledge
refers to knowing how
The CTO Mentor
Program will
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 47

incorporate adult
learning theory and
mentoring strategies for
effective learning. (P)
to do something
(Krathwohl, 2002).

Increasing germane
cognitive load by
engaging the learner in
meaningful learning
and schema
construction facilitates
effective learning
(Kirschner et al.,
2006).
continue to provide
small group-based
training to mentors
during the
Program’s Annual
Kickoff event to
reinforce and
model procedures
that incorporate
adult learning
theories and
mentoring
strategies.
Steering Committee
members know how to
assess candidates’
strengths and
weaknesses and pair
them with mentors that
would complement
their areas of
professional growth.
(P)
Y Y Job aids are used to
provide self-help
information to
individuals who need
“how to” information
without guided
practice (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
The CTO Mentor
Program Steering
Committee will
continue to use and
enhance a job aid
in the form of a
table chart to
connect
complementary
candidates and
mentors by
comparing their
backgrounds,
gender,
geographical
location, and goals.
Having a chart
similar to a rubric
would help them
achieve improved
pairings since it
would
systematically
assess all the key
facets of a
candidate
(background,
location, goals).
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 48

Steering Committee
members collaborate
and meet monthly to
reflect on the program
outcomes, social
environment, student
artifacts and reflections
to make adjustments
for future cohorts. (M)
Y Y Social interaction,
cooperative learning,
and cognitive
apprenticeships (such
as reciprocal teaching)
facilitate construction
of new knowledge
(Scott & Palincsar,
2006).

Metacognitive
knowledge is a type of
knowledge that allows
one to think about
thinking (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001).
The CTO Mentor
Program Steering
Committee will
continue to meet
monthly, provide
information, and
reflect on Program
outcomes, student
work, and track
overall progress of
the Program’s
Certified Chief
Technology
Officers.

The Steering
Committee will
continue to meet
monthly to think
about thinking and
engage in social
interaction,
cooperative
learning, as well as,
teach one another.
*Indicate knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: (D)eclarative =
(C)onceptual & (F)actual; (P)rocedural; (M)etacognitive

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Steering
Committee members need to know and have mastery of the Program’s three key learning
strands: Leadership, Education, and Technology (D). Schraw and McCrudden (2006) found that
to develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating the skills,
and know when to apply what they have learned. Each of the Program’s learning strands
represents such component skills and must be integrated and applied. The recommendation then
for Steering Committee members is to continue to conceptually know and align the Program's
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 49

sessions, as well as, adjust the curriculum as necessary within the context of leadership,
education, and technology.
Schraw and McCrudden (2006) discussed information processing system theory and
suggested that providing experiences that help people make sense of the material rather than
focus on memorization will increase knowledge. Clark and Estes (2008) added that links
between new and familiar knowledge impact how much is remembered and how the knowledge
can be used to solve problems. Fletcher (2010) posited that the three key knowledge and skill
areas of K-12 chief technology officers are leadership, education, and technology. From a
theoretical perspective, the Steering Committee members should continue to share information,
align sessions, and adjust the Program’s curriculum in the context of leadership, education, and
technology.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Among the
procedural knowledge-based influences identified, it is most important for Steering Committee
members to know how to incorporate adult learning theory and mentoring strategies for effective
learning (P). Krathwohl (2002) posited that procedural knowledge refers to knowing how to do
something. Kirschner et al. (2006) found that increasing germane cognitive load by engaging the
learner in meaningful learning and schema construction facilitates effective learning. Therefore,
it is recommended that the Steering Committee members, as a promising practice, continue to
support and participate in the annual group-based kickoff training, along with mentors and
instructors, to reinforce and model procedures that incorporate adult learning theories and
mentoring strategies.
Mayer (2011) observed that instruction occurs when a learner’s environment is
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 50

manipulated by the instructor so as to create an experience for the learner. Individual and team
training are an effective method for improving one’s knowledge and skills (Aguinis & Kraiger,
2009). Fletcher (2007) concluded that professional training programs that incorporate adult
learning theory and mentoring positively impacts self-directed learning. From a theoretical
perspective, the Steering Committee members should continue to provide small group-based
training to Program mentors and instructors annually to reinforce and model procedures that
incorporate adult learning theories and mentoring strategies.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Steering
Committee members collaborate and meet monthly to reflect on the program outcomes, social
environment, student artifacts and reflections to make adjustments for future cohorts (M).
Metacognitive knowledge is a type of knowledge that allows one to think about thinking
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Scott and Palincsar (2013) found that social interaction,
cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships, such as reciprocal teaching, facilitate
construction of new knowledge. Therefore, it is recommended that the Steering Committee
continue to meet monthly to think about thinking and engage in social interaction, cooperative
learning, as well as, teach one another.
Baker (2006) discussed strategies to promote metacognition and suggested that providing
opportunities for learners to debrief the thinking process upon completion of learning tasks can
facilitate learning. Martin (2010) found that collaboration and peer support are key factors that
support knowledge transfer. Also, Pajares (2006) found that credible and similar models can
foster positive values. From a theoretical perspective it would suggest that continuing the
Steering Committee’s monthly meetings will provide them with opportunities to think about their
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 51

thinking, as well as, participate in social interaction, cooperative learning, and reciprocal
teaching.
Motivation
Introduction. The motivation influences in Table 3 represents all assumed motivation
influences and if they were validated. The motivation influences used by the CTO Mentor
Program Steering Committee achieved a mentor-based professional development program for K-
12 chief technology officers that is considered a promising practice. The motivation influences
were validated during semi-structured interviews of Steering Committee members, document
analysis of Steering Committee meeting agendas, and those supported by the literature review.
The key dimensions that characterize motivation include; self-efficacy and competence beliefs;
attributions and control beliefs; value; and goals (Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes
(2008) summarized that the three types of motivational processes - active choice, persistence,
and mental effort, can provide opportunities to improve performance. As indicated in Table 3,
three motivation influences were validated for contributing towards this promising practice.
Table 3 also shows context-specific recommendations for each validated motivation influence.
Table 3
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Steering Committee
members feel confident
and see themselves
successful in applying
the three learning
Y Y Self-efficacy is
increased as
individuals succeed in
a task (Bandura, 2000).

Steering
Committee
members will
gather feedback,
highlight, and
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 52

strands (leadership,
education, and
technology) to improve
learning for Program
participants (Self-
efficacy).
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for
success (Pajares,
2006).

point out the
positive
development of
skills and
confidence from
Program
participants, and
see for themselves
being successful in
applying the three
learning strands.
Steering Committee
members see the value
of mentoring to guide
program candidates
(Value).
Y Y Rationales that include
a discussion of the
importance and utility
of the work or learning
can help learners
develop positive values
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2003).
Steering
Committee
members will
continue to
encourage
Program
participants and
mentors to build
supportive
relationships after
the program ends
by supporting a
dedicated email
list serve for
certified chief
technology
officers, mentors,
instructors, and
Steering
Committee
members.
Steering Committee
members personally
feel good “giving back”
to the Program by
serving on the
committee and helping
individuals (and their
respective
organizations) enhance
the education of
students through the
Y Y Activating and building
upon personal interest
can increase learning
and motivation
(Schraw & Lehman,
2009).
Communicate
success stories of
Program
participants who
have enhanced
student
achievement
through the use of
technology.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 53

use of technology
(Mood).

Self-Efficacy. Steering Committee members need to feel confident and see themselves
successful in applying the three learning strands (leadership, education, and technology) to
improve learning for Program participants. Bandura (2005) defined self-efficacy as one’s belief
in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations to accomplish a task or goal. Bandura (2000)
added that individuals with high self-efficacy can contribute towards team effectiveness in which
he coined the term “collective self-efficacy.” Pajares (2006) found that individuals that master a
task also increase their self-efficacy. This suggests that providing Steering Committee members
with feedback and tasks to develop skills integrating the three learning strands would increase
their self-efficacy. Therefore, it is recommended that the Steering Committee members continue
to gather feedback and highlight the positive development and skills from Program participants
and see for themselves being successful in applying the three learning strands.
Clark and Estes (2008) found that as individual confidence increases, commitment to
performance goals also increases. Pajares (2006) posited that feedback and modeling increases
self-efficacy. Borgogni et al. (2011) added that it is important to balance strengths and
challenges when providing feedback. Furthermore, the feedback should be immediate for simple
tasks and delayed for more complex tasks (Borgogni et al., 2011). Finally, providing timely
feedback with the use of learning strategies will result in improved performance (Shute, 2008).
From a theoretical perspective it would appear that gathering timely feedback and highlighting
the positive development of Program participants, Steering Committee members would increase
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 54

beliefs about their own ability to apply the three learning strands of leadership, education, and
technology.
Value. Steering Committee members see the value of mentoring to guide program
candidates. Eccles (2006) emphasized that utility value is how well a task fits into an
individual’s goals or plans. Furthermore, learners can develop positive values when the
importance and utility value of the task is discussed (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Based on
these principles, this would suggest that Steering Committee members should continue to
encourage Program participants and mentors to build supportive relationships, even after the
program ends. One recommendation is to continue supporting a dedicated email list server for
certified chief technology officers, mentors, instructors, and Steering Committee members for
supporting each other.
Judd (2015) studied the CTO Mentor Program and highlighted the strength and value of
relationships among the key stakeholders, including Steering Committee members. In a sample
of fifty-two respondents who completed an online survey, the study revealed that participants
who completed the CTO Mentor program derived value in the form of learning-transfer and
organizational impact. Specifically, Certified Chief Technology Officers shared that what was
learned in the program is actually being used on the job (Judd, 2015). Furthermore, respondents
provided specific examples of how their organizations were impacted due to their participation in
the CTO Mentor Program, including increased customer satisfaction for both internal and
external customers, improved business processes, and decreased costs (Judd, 2015). From an
empirical perspective it would appear that the value Steering Committee members derive from
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 55

the CTO Mentor Program, it is recommended that the value be sustained through the continued
use of an email list server to support each other.
Mood. The Steering Committee members personally feel good “giving back” to the CTO
Mentor Program by serving on the committee and helping individuals (and their respective
organizations) enhance the education of students. Schraw and Lehman (2009) found that
activating and building upon personal interest can increase learning and motivation. Also,
personal interest can be supported by providing choice and control (Schraw & Lehman, 2009).
Finally, combining prior knowledge and integrated personal interests will increase learning
motivation (Schraw & Lehman, 2009). These social cognitive principles suggest that by
communicating success stories of Program participants who have enhanced student achievement
through the use of technology will be reciprocal and increase motivation and learning.
Therefore, it is recommended that by communicating success stories would motivate Steering
Committee members to continue serving on the committee.
Clark and Estes (2008) discussed enhancing positive emotions, and removing negative
emotions, enhances learning and motivation. Pekrun et al. (2002) developed a hierarchical
taxonomy that categorized emotions between positive or negative and activating or deactivating.
Denler et al. (2014) found that demonstration and modeling can help learners acquire new
behaviors. Enhancing positive emotions and reducing negative emotions enhances learning and
motivation (Pekrun et al., 2002; Rueda, 2011). From a theoretical perspective, it would appear
that sharing success stories that reflect positive emotions combined with reinforcement of desired
behaviors will be reciprocal towards building personal interest and motivate Steering Committee
members to acquire new behaviors such as “giving back.”
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 56

Organizational
Introduction. The organizational influences in Table 4 include all assumed
organizational influences and whether or not they were validated. The organizational influences
used as promising practices by the CTO Mentor Program Steering Committee were validated
during semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and review of the literature. Clark and
Estes (2008) described the need for efficient organizational work processes and resources.
Furthermore, organizational culture impacts work and change processes (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Rueda (2011) added that organizational structure, policies, practices, and cultural settings and
models can influence an organization’s ability to perform and meet its’ goals. As indicated in
Table 4, these influences were validated as a contributing factor towards this promising practice.
Table 4 also shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 4
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Organization
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
Program Mentors and
Candidates utilize
various file formats and
inconsistent methods of
capturing feedback
when submitting
assignments. (Policies /
Cultural Settings)
Y Y Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has
the resources
(equipment, personnel,
time, etc.) needed to do
their job,
and that if there are
resource shortages, then
resources are aligned
with organizational
priorities (Clark and
Estes, 2008).

Steering
Committee
members will
continue to
monitor and
maintain the
program’s
learning
management
system as a
resource and
adhere to
established
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 57

Insuring staff’s resource
needs are being met is
correlated with
increased student
learning outcomes
(Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).
policies and
protocols for
submitting
assignments and
capturing mentor
and candidate
feedback.
Cultural Setting
Influence 2: Steering
Committee members,
along with mentors and
instructors, need time
to communicate and
provide rationale for
key changes at the
Program Year’s
Kickoff event.
(Processes/Cultural
Settings)
Y Y Effective change efforts
insure that all key
stakeholders’
perspectives inform the
design and decision-
making process leading
to the change.

Participants engaging in
reflective work need to
have complete and
accurate information
about the topic for
discussion, be free from
bias, and meet in an
environment of
acceptance, empathy,
and trust (Mezirow,
1997, 2000).

Effective leaders are
aware of various types
of communication, non-
verbal communication,
storytelling, person-
centered
communication, and
how these
communication
modalities influence
change and the
environment within the
organization (Denning,
2005; Lewis, 2011;
Conger, 1991).
The Steering
Committee will
continue its’
commitment to
sponsoring (and
funding) an in-
person / face-to-
face Kickoff
meeting among
Steering
Committee
members, mentors
and instructors to
communicate
Program changes.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 58

Cultural Setting
Influence 3: Changes
and their impact to the
Candidates are
evaluated and tracked
after each Program
session and shared with
the Steering
Committee. (Processes)
Y Y Top management must
be continually involved
in the improvement
process (Clark & Estes,
2008).

Effective change efforts
are communicated
regularly and frequently
to all key stakeholders.

Communicate constantly
and candidly to those
involved about plans
and progress (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
A dedicated
officer of the
organization
(Executive
Director and/or
Director of
Education) will
continue to
participate and
monitor every
session to evaluate
and monitor
change.

Steering
Committee
decisions will
continue to be
made and
communicated to
all mentors,
instructors and
candidates in a
quarterly basis
throughout the
program year.
Cultural Settings
Influence 4: Program
Candidates should
provide timely
feedback at the end of
each session as each
session is different (ie.
taught by different
instructors, different
themes). (Processes)
Y Y Effective changes
efforts utilize feedback
to determine when/if
improvement is
happening.

Have a clear vision,
goals, and ways to
measure progress (Clark
& Estes, 2008).

Clark and Estes (2008)
also found that
organizational
effectiveness increases
when leaders monitor
and evaluate the
Steering
Committee
members will
implement interim
surveys to capture
feedback from
Candidates at the
end of every
session.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 59

effectiveness of all
aspects of their
organization and use
valid and reliable data to
drive decision-making.

Monitoring performance
of all staff and students
is correlated with higher
learning outcomes
(Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).

Learning, motivation
and performance will be
enhanced if participants
have clear, current and
challenging goals. For
feedback to be effective,
it should be timely,
concrete (task focused)
and goal-focused
(Kluger & DeNisi,
1996).
Cultural Model
Influence 1: Steering
Committee members,
belong and trust the
sponsoring
organization to give
back and provide the
best training program
for K-12 chief
technology officers
(Cultural Models).
Y Y Organizations with high
levels of cultural trust
tend to produce high
quality products and
services at less cost
because they can recruit
and retain highly
motivated employees.
These employees enjoy
their work, do their
work correctly, make
decisions, take risks,
innovate, embrace the
organization’s mission
and values, and display
organizational
citizenship behavior
(Colquitt, Scott &
LePine, 2007 as cited in
Continue to
encourage and
recognize Steering
Committee
members who give
back by
performing their
work, make
decisions, take
risks, and innovate
the program.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 60

Starnes, Truhon &
McCarthy, 2010, p.6).

“The two greatest
yearnings in the human
experience are to be
included and to have a
sense of agency,
(Kegan’s 1994 research
as cited by Mezirow,
2000, p. 11).

Organizational culture is
created through shared
experience, shared
learning and stability of
membership. It is
something that has been
learned. It cannot be
imposed (Schein, 2004).
Cultural Model
Influence 2: Steering
Committee members
serve to make a
difference in the lives
of K-12 students
through the use of
technology (Cultural
Models).
Y Y Employee attitudes,
particularly feeling as
though they matter, and
their work makes a
difference, are
correlated with
numerous organizational
outputs (Buckingham
and Coffman, 1999;
Harter, Schmidt,
Killham & Asplund,
2006; Schlossberg,
1989).
K-12
organizational
leaders, such as
superintendents
will continue to
affirm and
acknowledge the
Steering
Committee’s
efforts in making a
difference across
the State.

Cultural settings. Several assumed influences affect the organization; however, the
most important cultural setting influence is that program candidates should provide timely
feedback at the end of each session as every session is different when they are taught by different
instructors. The Steering Committee needs to implement survey tools that capture feedback for
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 61

every session. Clark and Estes (2008) posited that organizations must have a clear vision, goals,
and ways to measure progress. Clark and Estes (2008) also found that organizational
effectiveness increases when leaders monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of all aspects of their
organization and use valid and reliable data to drive decision-making. This suggests that the
Steering Committee should implement the use of interim surveys to capture feedback from
program candidates at the end of every session.
Effective change efforts utilize feedback to determine if improvement is happening.
Waters, Marzano and McNulty (2003) found that monitoring performance of all staff and
students is correlated with higher learning outcomes. Hays et. al (2010) studied the costs and
benefits of feedback in learning and found that when learners have control over the feedback,
and skip unnecessary feedback, learning is enhanced. From a theoretical perspective, it would
appear that by having the Program Manager capture feedback at the end of every session and
organize the feedback by session and if the feedback was positive or negative would help the
Steering Committee determine if improvement is happening to meet the program’s vision and
goals.
Cultural models. This influence was validated because every Steering Committee
member interviewed discussed that giving back to the Program was the main reason for why they
serve as a Steering Committee member. Colquitt, Scott and LePine (2007) found that
organizations with high levels of cultural trust tend to produce high quality products and services
at less cost because they can recruit and retain highly motivated employees. Steering Committee
members enjoyed serving to support a high-quality mentor-based training program for K-12
chief technology officers while keeping overall costs low. This suggests that Steering
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 62

Committee members should be encouraged to continue giving back to the program by
performing their work, make decisions, take risks, and innovate the program.
Colquitt et al. (2007) found that employees who function in organizations with a high
level of trust enjoy their work, do their work correctly, make decisions, take risks, innovate,
embrace the organization’s mission and values, and display organizational citizenship behavior.
Schein (2004) discussed that organizational culture is created through shared experience, shared
learning and stability of membership. Kegan (1994) found that individuals yearn to be included
and have a sense of agency. Thus, from a theoretical perspective, it would suggest that the CTO
Mentor Program Steering Committee members continue to perform their work, make decisions,
take risks, and innovate the program.
The CTO Mentor Program Steering Committee is in a position of power to implement the
study’s recommendations. In fact, with the recent hiring of the new Program Manager, some of
the recommendations may have already been set forth. The Program Manager will serve a
critical role in the implementation and evaluation of program changes and provide ongoing
monitoring for the Steering Committee. Refer to Appendix F for the integrated implementation
and evaluation plan.
Conclusion
This study examined the Steering Committee of CETPA’s CTO Mentor Program, a
mentor-based professional development program for K-12 chief technology officers. Using
Clark and Estes’ Gap Analysis, the study validated knowledge, motivation, and organization
influences for this promising practice. The study’s findings affirmed many practices of the
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 63

Steering Committee for the CTO Mentor Program, which may be useful for other organizations
looking to implement similar programs.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 64

References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual review of psychology, 60, 451-474.
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation
of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-82.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., ... &
Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of
Bloom’s taxonomy. New York. Longman Publishing. Artz, AF, & Armour-Thomas,
E.(1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of
mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137-175.
Andrade, David. (2016). What to look for in your K-12 technology leadership. EdTech Focus On
K-12. Retrieved from: https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2016/02/what-look-your-
k-12-technology-leadership.
Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. A&C Black.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berbarry, D., & Malinchak, A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. The Public Manager, Fall, 55–59.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). In Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 65

Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role
socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational
administration quarterly, 40(4), 468-494.
Buckingham, M. A. R. C. U. S., & Coffman, C. (1999). Break all the rules. London: Simon &
Shuster.
California Department of Education (2016). Common core state standards (CCSS) answers to
frequently asked questions (FAQs). Retrieved from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/ccssfaqs.asp.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity:
a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.
Journal of applied psychology, 92(4), 909.
Conger, J. A. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. The executive, 5(1), 31-45.
Consortium of School Networking (2017). 4th Annual CoSN K-12 IT leadership survey.
Retrieved from http://cosn.org/sites/default/files/CoSNLeadership_2016.pdf.
Cowin, K. M., Gates, G. S., & Luckett, K. (2016). The relevance and promise of relational
mentoring for school leadership: a conversation. International Journal of Mentoring and
Coaching in Education, 5(3), 187-202.
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education
technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-307.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 66

Davies, P. M. (2010). On school educational technology leadership. Management in education,
24(2), 55-61.
Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in schools. In Handbook of research
on educational communications and technology (pp. 841-853). Springer New York.
Davis, G. (2008). The development and field test of the Education Technology Leadership
Assessment survey. ProQuest.
Denning, S. (2005). The leader's guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of
business narrative (Vol. 269). John Wiley & Sons.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Eilers, L. H., & D’Amico, M. (2012). Essential leadership elements in implementing common
core state standards. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(4), 46-50.
Fletcher, G. H. (2010). Building a Better CTO: CoSN Creates a New Framework of Skills That
Draws a Greater Range of Responsibility for the 21st Century Technology Leader. THE
Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 37(1), 17.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J. W. (2006). Q 12 Meta-Analysis.
Hays, M. J., Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). The costs and benefits of providing feedback
during learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(6), 797-801.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 67

http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.3758/PBR.17.6.797 Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/845395987?accountid=14749
Johnson, L. F., Levine, A., Smith, R. S., & Haywood, K. (2010). Key emerging technologies for
elementary and secondary education. The Education Digest, 76(1), 36.
Judd, J. D. (2015). CTO Mentor Program: Examining the effectiveness of the CTO Mentor
Program and its impact on the K-12 technology leader's career. Pepperdine University.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological bulletin, 119(2), 254.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2012). Year Two of Implementing the Common Core State
Standards: States' Progress and Challenges. Center on Education Policy.
Korsgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312–319.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 68

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). In Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2017). Enriching professional learning networks: A framework
for identification, reflection, and intention. TechTrends, 61(3), 246-252.
Lai, K. W., & Pratt, K. (2004). Information and communication technology (ICT) in secondary
schools: the role of the computer coordinator. British journal of educational technology,
35(4), 461-475.
Laverick, D. M. (2016). The Mentoring Process. In Mentoring Processes in Higher Education
(pp. 1-14). Springer International Publishing.
Legislative Analyst’s Office (2016). How Did California Schools Spend Common Core
Implementation Funding? Retrieved from:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3483.
Lesisko, L. J. (2005). The K-12 Technology Coordinator. Online Submission.
Lewis, L. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). John Wiley & Sons.
Maas, D. R. (2010). Essential leadership and technical skills of the Chief Information Officer in
public K--12 education. UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO.
Mao, J. (2017). New Technologies and Old Professional Development: A Reflection on
Emerging Approaches. In New Ecology for Education —Communication X Learning (pp.
67-77). Springer, Singapore.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 69

Martin, H. J. (2010). Workplace climate and peer support as determinants of training transfer.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 87–104.
Mavrinac, M. A. (2005). Transformational leadership: Peer mentoring as a values-based learning
process. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(3), 391-404. - Mentoring is a values based
learning process.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning to multimedia instruction. In Psychology
of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 77-108). Academic Press.
McCrea, B. (2015). What Can Ed Tech Certification Do for You? A Variety of Programs Can
Help K-12 Technology Professionals Boost Their Knowledge and Prepare Themselves
for the Expanding Demands of Their Jobs. THE Journal (Technological Horizons In
Education), 41(12), 24.
McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., & Carrasco, I. H. (2014). Implementing Common Core State
Standards in California: A Report from the Field. Policy Analysis for California
Education, PACE.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self ‐directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory.
New directions for adult and continuing education, 2001(89), 3-14.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. Learning as transformation: Critical
perspectives on a theory in progress, 3-33.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 70

Michael, S. O. (1998). Best practices in information technology (IT) management: Insights from
K-12 schools' technology audits. International Journal of Educational Management,
12(6), 277-288.
Miner, R. L. (2016). Obtaining and sustaining district leaders: Mentoring and support for novice
superintendents (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University).
Molnar, M. (2013). Talented Chief Tech Officers Hard to Find for K-12. Education Week.
Retrieved from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/10/02/06el-cto-side.h33.html.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Parise, M. R., & Forret, M. L. (2008). Formal mentoring programs: The relationship of program
design and support to mentors’ perceptions of benefits and costs. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 72(2), 225-240.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 339-348 ONLY). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-
regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research.
Educational psychologist, 37(2), 91-105.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Probst, B., & Berenson, L. (2014). The double arrow: How qualitative social work researchers
use reflexivity. Qualitative Social Work, 13(6), 813-827.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 71

Roth, M. A., & Price, J. K. (2016). The Critical Role of Leadership for Education
Transformation with Successful Technology Implementation. In ICT in Education in
Global Context (pp. 195-213). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. Education.com.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership (Jossey-Bass business &
management series). Jossey Bass Incorporated.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Improving higher education environments for adults: Responsive
programs and services from entry to departure. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350
Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94104-1310.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing- theory/.
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).
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 72

Smith, R. D. (2003). The chief technology officer: Strategic responsibilities and relationships.
Research-Technology Management, 46(4), 28-36.
Solansky, S. T. (2010). The evaluation of two key leadership development program components:
Leadership skills assessment and leadership mentoring. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4),
675-681.
Southwick, F. S., Martini, B. L., Charney, D. S., & Southwick, S. M. (2017). Leadership and
Resilience. In Leadership Today (pp. 315-333). Springer International Publishing.
Strohschen, G. (2012). Zachary, LJ (2000). the Mentor's Guide: Facilitating Effective Learning
Relationships. Adult Learning, 23(2), 95.
Sugar, W., & Holloman, H. (2009). Acknowledging the Leadership Role of a Technology
Coordinator. TechTrends, 53(6), 67.
Summers, R. A. (2015). The Superintendent as Transformational Leader: A Case Study Analysis
of the Strategies, Initiatives and Processes used by Superintendents of Exemplar 21 st
Century School Districts to Implement District-Wide Change for the 21st Century
(Doctoral dissertation, Brandman University).
Tremblay, P. F., & Rodger, S. (2003). The effects of a peer mentoring program on academic
success among first year university students. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education,
33(3), 1.
Trust, T., Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2017). Moving beyond silos: professional learning
networks in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 35, 1-11.
Vockley, M. (2007). Maximizing the Impact: The Pivotal Role of Technology in a 21st Century
Education System. Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 73

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of
Research Tells Us about the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. A Working
Paper.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 3: Preparation for interviewing, Chapter 4: Interviewing, and
Chapter 5: Issues in interviewing. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies (pp. 51-59, 61-81, and 141-150). New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Weng, C. H., & Tang, Y. (2014). The relationship between technology leadership strategies and
effectiveness of school administration: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 76,
91-107.
Whitehead, B. M., Jensen, D. F., & Boschee, F. (2013). Planning for technology: A guide for
school administrators, technology coordinators, and curriculum leaders. Corwin Press.
Wolf, D. G., & Ober, D. K. (2017). Turning Managers into Leaders: The Art of Mentoring. In
Encyclopedia of Strategic Leadership and Management (pp. 1163-1178). IGI Global.
Wu, A., Yang, H. H., Shi, Y., & Zhu, S. (2015, July). Development of School Technology
Leadership: Cases in the United Kingdom and United States. In Educational Technology
(ISET), 2015 International Symposium on (pp. 25-29). IEEE.
Yu, C., & Prince, D. L. (2016). Aspiring School Administrators' Perceived Ability to Meet
Technology Standards and Technological Needs for Professional Development. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 48(4), 239-257.
Zachary, L. J. (2002). The role of teacher as mentor. New directions for adult and continuing
education, 2002(93), 27-38.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 74

APPENDIX A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Interview
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) emphasized the importance of selection criteria to
accomplish purposeful sampling. This study aimed to understand complex knowledge,
motivational, and organizational factors that influence the Steering Committee stakeholder
group. This study’s research questions were best addressed through purposeful sampling and
conducting in-depth individual interviews with three key criteria.
Criterion 1. The first criterion for the sampling of individual interviews is that the
Steering Committee member must have personally completed the program. Steering Committee
members who complete the program have benefitted from the program. These Steering
Committee members can identify personal factors and offer more in-depth knowledge about their
experience in the CTO Mentor Program. Furthermore, these individuals who have completed the
program and who then choose to remain involved with the program as Steering Committee
members also provide valuable insight into their motivation.
Criterion 2. The second criterion that is required of Steering Committee member
individual interviews is that the member has served as a mentor. This requirement is important
because one of the key strengths and differentiators of this program are the mentorship aspects.
A Steering Committee member who has served in the role of a mentor has tremendous insight on
factors that positively motivate mentors and can provide valuable insight into an area where the
literature currently lacks, which is how mentorship develops and is sustained by individuals.
This unique perspective would also provide insight into the organizational influences that can
facilitate and impede the professional development of K-12 CTOs.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 75

Criterion 3. Finally, the third criterion requires a minimum of three individuals with
three different years of Steering Committee membership to participate in the study. Specifically,
this study will include one Steering Committee member with at least five years of participation,
one member with two to five years, and one member with one year or less. The rationale for this
third criterion is that this would help generate a representative sample of the entire Steering
Committee. The most senior member would be able to provide valuable institutional insight that
may highlight cultural factors. The two to five-year member would have experienced periods of
change when the CTO Mentor Program implemented programmatic changes in response to the
State’s adoption of the Common Core. The Steering Committee member with one year or less
would provide insight into how members, especially newer members, feel about their ability to
recommend or influence change for a program that is considered a promising practice.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The individual interviews employ a purposeful sampling strategy. Krueger and Casey
(2009) advocated homogeneity for interviews. Since there are thirteen Steering Committee
members in total, seeking participants that satisfy the three criteria would provide data that is
representative of such a small stakeholder group. Therefore, a recruitment approach that is
targeted and personalized is appropriate for this study.
The recruitment strategy is as follows. Initially, the Executive Director for the CETPA
organization will be contacted for permission to conduct such a study. After permission is
granted, Steering Committee members will be identified. The CTO Mentor Program annually
produces a CTO Mentor Program Class Book that includes a roster of Steering Committee
members along with individual biographies and contact information, including their name, title,
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 76

email address, phone, and photo. Each Steering Committee member would be screened against
the criteria identified. The proposed sample would be shared with the Executive Director as
participants in the study. A formal request for participation in the study would be shared with
the Executive Director to distribute to the invited participants. The formal request would be in
the form of an email that introduces the purpose of the study and include information about the
anticipated duration of the interview (minimum of 30 minutes and maximum of 90 minutes),
location (optional if desired), biographical information about the interviewer, and the
interviewer’s contact information. Within that email, instructions on how to confirm
participation by a specific date and time will be provided. Once the participant accepts the
invitation, the interviewer will contact the participants to schedule the interviews. Overall, the
strategy of gaining the support of the Executive Director and making the interviews as
convenient as possible will increase the likelihood of participation and completion.

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 77

APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is Stephen Choi, and I am a
doctoral student at USC. I am conducting a study on the CETPA CTO Mentor Program. I am
interested in examining the factors that affect professional development for K-12 chief
technology officers using a mentor-based approach. More specifically, I am interested in your
perspectives as a member of the CTO Mentor Program Steering Committee. I hope that I will be
able to use what I learn from this study to help organizations, including CETPA, to deliver
effective training programs for K-12 CTOs.
Anything you share with me will be confidential. I will not attribute anything you share
with your name or title. You may skip any question and can end the interview at any time for
any reason.
The total time should take no more than 90 minutes. I would also like to record this
interview to help me transcribe and gather data so that I don’t lose any valuable information you
share with me. You also have the option to review my interview transcription notes to ensure I
have accurately captured your responses. I will delete the audio recording once my dissertation
is complete.
Do you allow me to record? (YES or NO).
I want to thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. My first question is…
Interview Questions
1. What is your role or roles in the CTO Mentor Program? (Open-ended,
Rapport/Background)
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 78

2. What has been your experience with the CTO Mentor Program? (Background,
Knowledge - Procedural)
a. What are some of the key values and skills of the program?
b. What are some of the strategies used by instructors or mentors within the CTO
Mentor Program?
i. Are those based on adult learning strategies?
ii. Are those based on mentoring strategies?
c. How do you feel about the program being administered by CETPA / non-profit
organization?
3. How do you feel about the culture of the CTO Mentor Program? (Organizational -
Cultural Models and Settings)
a. Describe the collaboration among the Steering Committee.
b. What might be some of the attitudes of those that serve within the Steering
Committee?
c. How do you feel about the CTO Mentor Program being one of the few programs
available that apply mentorship?
4. What is the role of the Mentor in the CTO Mentor Program? (Knowledge -
Procedural/Declarative)
a. How do mentors promote the objectives of the program?
b. How do mentors incorporate adult learning strategies?
c. Share some examples of how mentoring helped you.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 79

5. What type of knowledge is emphasized or provided to candidates in the CTO Mentor
Program? (Knowledge - Declarative/Conceptual)
a. How is the curriculum developed?
b. How is the curriculum aligned to other standards or frameworks (i.e., CoSN’s
Essential Skills for the K-12 CTO)?
6. What is the process that occurs between a Mentor and a Candidate during the CTO
Mentor Program? (Knowledge - Procedural, Metacognitive)
a. Can you provide some examples?
7. How are candidates motivated to complete the CTO Mentor Program? (Motivational -
Expectancy Value)
a. As a Steering Committee member, what do you believe motivates the Candidates
in the program?
b. Have those been implemented?
c. What recommendations do you have to help motivate candidates, mentors,
instructors, or even steering committee members?
8. How are mentors motivated in the CTO Mentor Program? (Motivational - Self-efficacy)
a. As a Steering Committee member, what do you believe motivates Mentors in the
program?
b. Have those been implemented?
9. How are mentor skills developed in the CTO Mentor Program? (Knowledge -
Metacognitive)
a. Describe some activities that mentors have done.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 80

b. Assumed Knowledge Influence (Metacognitive): I understand the Steering
Committee members collaborate and meet monthly to reflect on the program
outcomes, social environment, student artifacts and reflections to adjust for future
cohorts. Can you tell me more about how the Committee engages in reflection?
10. What type of budget is the CTO Mentor Program supported with? (Organizational -
Limited Resources)
a. How has the budget impacted the program?
b. Are there enough resources?
c. How can the program improve if budget was not an issue?
11. What do you use to evaluate the efforts of the CTO Mentor Program? (Knowledge -
Metacognitive)
a. How do those efforts facilitate the program?
12. What advice or recommendations would you offer to other organizations considering
developing a mentor-based professional development program for K-12 CTOs?
(Organizational, Knowledge, Motivation)
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 81

APPENDIX C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility is the extent to which research findings match reality (Merriam & Tisdale,
2016). Interviews were overtly conducted to improve the credibility of the study. Triangulation
from multiple sources of data collected through interviews and document analysis served as a
strategy for comparison and cross-checking of data. Another strategy that increased the study’s
credibility involved adequate engagement of participants by offering to conduct the interviews in
person at the participant’s preferred location and time. Furthermore, Probst & Berenson (2014)
highlighted that the researcher’s position or reflexivity could affect the research process.
Maxwell (2013) advised the investigator’s preconceptions should be fully disclosed to address
reflexivity. Therefore, to address researcher bias and improve credibility for this study, the
primary investigator of the study maintained a researcher journal to reflect on biases during the
data collection and early analysis phases. Furthermore, the informed consent instructions
provided full disclosure of the researcher’s experience as both a participant and mentor in the
program and explicitly affirms that the information they provide will be coded to protect their
confidentiality. Finally, in collaboration with the researcher's dissertation committee, peer
review and peer examination were used to improve credibility.
Trustworthiness is largely dependent on the ethics of the investigator (Merriam &
Tisdale, 2016). Permission from the organization was formally requested and granted so that the
Executive Director and the Steering Committee was aware of the study. Regarding the study’s
design, trustworthiness was improved by ensuring confidentiality to the research participants.
Participant involvement in the study was entirely voluntary, and participants knew they could
withdraw from the study at any time. Concerning data collection, building rapport created a
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 82

welcoming environment for the participants. The literature found that establishing a
collaborative relationship (Weiss, 1994) and building rapport (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) during
interviews and observations leads to more purposeful data. Also, knowing that memory gets less
trustworthy over time, researcher journal notes collected after interviews and document review
were recorded on a laptop computer and reviewed as soon as possible on the same day to
improve accuracy and minimize the exposure of outside influence. Similarly, interviews were
audio-recorded, transcribed, and reviewed immediately after conducting the interview. Finally,
the documents examined during analysis were coded to improve confidentiality of any
individuals named in the documents.

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 83

APPENDIX D: Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are concerns that can be addressed through careful attention to a
study’s conceptualization and the way in which data is collected, analyzed, interpreted, and how
findings are presented (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this qualitative study, triangulation
between interviews and document analysis enabled the researcher to compare and cross-check
data to increase reliability. Member checks were also conducted by offering interview
participants an opportunity to review their own responses after the researcher transcribed the
audio recordings and prepared the interview notes. Furthermore, the researcher established
adequate engagement with the participants prior to the actual data collection by providing
advanced knowledge of the study’s purpose and sharing the research questions with the
executive director of the organization. The researcher’s position or reflexivity was also
addressed using reflection as the researcher logged any assumptions and biases during data
collection and prior to data analysis. Finally, the researcher employed peer review of the
interview protocol and questions with two other doctoral students conducting qualitative research
to improve validity of the instrument.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 84

APPENDIX E: Ethics
A qualitative researcher is the study's primary research instrument and is responsible for
using multiple strategies to implement validity, reliability, and ethics (Merriam and Tisdell,
2016). Ensuring the study’s participants have informed consent is one of the most effective
strategies to empower research participants (Glesne, 2011). Providing informed consent also
stipulates that participants are aware of any risks and are not forced to participate in the study
(Rubin & Rubin, 2012). To satisfy human subjects committees, such as institutional review
boards, providing informed consent will meet the necessary standard of protecting human
subjects (Krueger & Casey, 2009). In this study, informed consent was provided to all
participants prior to the scheduling of the interview and again at the start of the interview. The
informed consent information was clearly stated, and asked all participants to acknowledge, that
their participation is voluntary, their responses are to be kept confidential, and that they can
withdraw from the study at any time during or even after the interview for any reason without
penalty. Before starting the interview, I obtained permission to audio record the conversation
and offered to provide them transcripts to ensure their words were recorded correctly. The audio
recording files were stored in a secure digital format only accessible to me and my dissertation
committee up until the study was complete. Once the study was completed, the audio recordings
were destroyed to ensure confidentiality. At the end of the interview, I thanked the participants
for their time and offered to keep them informed of my dissertation.
Despite having an existing relationship with the CETPA organization, I used several
strategies to clarify my role as a researcher for this study. There were no power dynamics
involved between the researcher and the Steering Committee members. I fully disclosed to study
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 85

participants that I completed the CTO Mentor Program and became a Certified Chief
Technology Officer in 2011. I later served as a mentor starting in 2014. To further ensure my
role as an investigator, I focused our conversation and asked questions that pertain to the study’s
research questions. As a responsible researcher, I will do no harm to the participants and not
reveal any information they would consider embarrassing and never reveal their identities (Rubin
& Rubin, 2012).
Given my relationship and experiences with the CTO Mentor Program, I did my best to
eliminate assumptions and biases as I engaged in data collection, analysis, and reporting.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) posited that questions about experience and behavior are most useful
in collecting interview data. I combine both the general interview guide approach and
standardized open-ended interview approach to keep the interview conversational yet guard
against variation by keeping interactions focused on the study’s framework and purpose (Patton,
2002). Finally, I maintained a researcher’s journal to reflect and use triangulation data analysis
techniques between multiple participants to eliminate assumptions and biases (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 86

APPENDIX F: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model served as the framework for this study’s integrated
implementation and evaluation plan (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model evolved from
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s original four level model of evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2006). The new model takes the original four levels of evaluation and reverses them to examine
results first, then behavior, then learning, and then reaction. This new approach in starting with
level four helps align training efforts to an organization’s goals and track targeted outcomes
using leading indicators (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). At level three, the organization
examines how individuals transfer learning when they are back on the job. Level three focuses
on key behaviors that must be observable and identifies required drivers to either monitor,
reinforce, encourage, or reward critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). After
evaluating level three, examining the degree of knowledge and skills and the reaction of
participants will be followed in levels two and one, respectively (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Ultimately, the New World Kirkpatrick model starts with the end and thereby enhances
creating solutions that are well-aligned with an organization’s change initiative (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
CETPA’s goal is to continue training 100% of the CTO Mentor Program’s participants
by combining a relevant curriculum and pair participants one-on-one with an experienced
mentor. The Steering Committee plays a significant role in developing the curriculum and the
pairing process. The Steering Committee is also the authoritative group that oversees the
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 87

program and is in a position of power to implement change. This study examined the knowledge
and skill, motivational, and organizational factors that contribute to the Steering Committee’s
promising practices. The solution proposed in this section provides a comprehensive program
that would continuously improve the program’s goal of delivering a relevant curriculum and
enhance pairing outcomes in future years.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Leading indicators are used to track critical behaviors and desired, as well as, undesired
outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table F1 shows the recommended internal and
external outcomes, metrics, and methods. As a promising practice, tracking and achieving the
internal outcomes for the Steering Committee will contribute to the organization’s external
outcomes.
Table F1
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Internal and External Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
1. Increased Steering
Committee knowledge about
the curriculum, especially in
regard to changes and
connections between sessions.
1. The number of learning objectives. 1. Comparison of the number of
learning objectives desired for the
entire certification program relative to
the previous year.
2. Increased Steering
Committee understanding of
creating a diverse and rich pool
of Certified Chief Technology
Officers.
2. The number of Program participants
from small/medium/large and/or
low/medium/high performing districts
accepted into a cohort each year.
2. Comparison of the diversity of
districts represented in each cohort
year and compare relative to previous
years.
3. Increased Steering
Committee use of a learning
management system and
longitudinal performance
tracking of participant progress.
3. Learning Management System
profile accounts of in progress and
graduated participants.
3. Track profile data of current and
graduated Program participants and
use the data to compare and
demonstrate key performance
indicators (position, organization type,
salary).
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 88

External Outcomes
1. Improved curriculum for
future Program participants.
1. Positive/negative feedback from
Program participants.
1. Gather feedback from Program
participants at the end of each session.
2. Improved future mentor and
participant pairings.
2. Positive/negative feedback from
Mentors and Participants.
2. Gather feedback from Mentors and
Program Participants every month.
Develop Mentor feedback and
preferences to develop a mentor
profile reference for the Steering
Committee to improve future pairings.
3. Sustained and enhanced
post-graduation support and
monitoring of certified chief
technology officers.
3. The number of post graduate
support requests from certified chief
technology officers.
3. Create a system that tracks post
completion support inquiries and track
the type of requests (job search,
knowledge transfer,
networking/relationship building).

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The Steering Committee is the stakeholder of focus for this
promising practice. The first critical behavior is that the Steering Committee must continue to
actively participate in the Steering Committee meetings. The second critical behavior is that the
Steering Committee must continue to review participant feedback after each session. The third
critical behavior is that the Steering Committee must empower the Program Manager to review
and organize the gathered feedback for completeness, identify gaps, and follow up with
participants who do not complete the surveys or request for follow up. The specific metrics,
methods, and timing for each of the recommended outcome behaviors appear in Table F2.
Table F2
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation

Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Steering Committee
members continue to
actively participate in
regularly scheduled
Steering Committee
meetings.
The number of Steering
Committee members
attending a Steering
Committee meeting.
The Program Manager will
continue to take a roll call
and track the number of
Steering Committee
members participating in
During the first half of
the program - quarterly.

Thereafter - quarterly,
so long as previously
successful.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 89

Steering Committee
meetings.
2. Steering Committee
member must continue to
review participant
feedback after each
session.
Percentage and number of
completed Participant
surveys after a session.
The Program Manager will
provide a report after each
session to the Steering
Committee and the
Instructor.
After each session -
monthly during the
program.
3. Steering Committee
will empower the Program
Manager to review and
organize the feedback for
completeness, identify
gaps, and follow up with
participants who do not
complete the survey or
request for follow up.
Time and completeness of
surveys by participants.

The number of follow ups
requested through the
surveys.
The Program Manager will
review the completion rate,
organize the feedback
content, and summarize the
follow up requests from
participants.
After each session,
monthly during the
program.

Required drivers. The Steering Committee requires the support of both the sponsoring
organization’s Board of Directors and the Program Manager to reinforce what they practice.
Rewards should be established for the achievement of performance goals to enhance the
organizational support of new Steering Committee members. Table F3 shows the recommended
drivers to support critical behaviors of new Steering Committee members.
Table F3
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Program Manager presents a
follow-up summary of survey
analysis and feedback.
Monthly 1,2,3
Program Manager will
provide Steering Committee
examples of successful
mentor-based professional
training programs drawn from
other communities of practice.
On-going 1,3
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 90

Steering Committee members
will participate in small
group-based training during
the Annual Kick-off training
to reinforce knowledge-
related adult learning theories
and mentoring strategies.
Annually 1,2,3
Encouraging
Steering Committee members
receive a progress report of
the current cohort and their
progress in achieving the
program’s learning objectives.
Quarterly 1,2,3
The Program Manager will
continue to provide feedback
and coaching to Steering
Committee members to
encourage new practices and
ideas.
Quarterly 1,2,3
Program Manager will
highlight motivational
examples of candidates
expressing the value of
mentorship received through
their assigned mentor or
through the program.
Annually 3
Rewarding
Continue to publicly
acknowledge and recognize
the contributions of the
Steering Committee at Annual
Conference and on the
Organization’s website.
Annually 1,2,3
Monitoring
The Program Manager will
continue to lead the Steering
Committee in a SWOT
(Internal Strengths and
Weaknesses, External
Opportunities and Threats)
Analysis of the Program.
Annually 1,2,3
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 91

Board of Directors will sit in
with the Steering Committee
during a meeting to observe.
On-going 1,2,3
The Program Manager will
create and share a monitoring
report summarizing the key
progress of critical behaviors
met or not met for the
organization.
Quarterly 1,2,3

Organizational support. To monitor that the required drivers are implemented, the
organization will support the following. First, the Program Manager will create a document that
summarizes the critical behaviors and required drivers necessary to successfully implement the
changes. Furthermore, time would be set aside for the Steering Committee to review the
Program Manager’s report. Finally, the Steering Committee will report to the organization’s
board of directors and provide monthly updates.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the completion of the recommended solution, the Steering
Committee members will be able to:
1. Recognize adult learning strategies for instructors to apply in each of the program
sessions. (D)
2. Recognize the mentoring strategies for mentors to apply with their participants. (D)
3. Apply the learning and mentoring strategies with a peer during the training. (P)
4. Gather feedback and reflect that learners can apply strategies independently throughout
the year. (Confidence)
5. Plan and monitor the application of learning and mentoring strategies after the training,
through the year, during the Steering Committee quarterly meetings. (P,M)
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 92

6. Value the application, planning and monitoring of the training. (Value)

Program. The learning goals listed above will be achieved with a training program
designed for the Steering Committee that explores in-depth mentoring practices applicable for
adult learners. The learners, Steering Committee members, will study a range of topics
pertaining to mentoring, coaching, and questioning. The program is on-site and once a year,
scheduled prior to the Program’s annual kickoff meeting. The total time for completion is 360
minutes (3 hours).
During the training session, learners will be provided an overview and job aid of key
mentoring and learning terms and references pertaining to adult learners from a mentorship
expert. Following the introduction, learners will participate in a demonstration to observe
mentoring and learning strategies. Next, the learners will actively participate in an activity to
practice the new skills and receive feedback from the trainer.
Components of learning. Both declarative and procedural knowledge will be taught so
it is important to evaluate learning for both. Furthermore, the learners must acquire mastery and
feel confident in applying their knowledge on the job. Thus, Table F4 lists the evaluation
methods and timing for the learning.
Table F4
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using fill in the blanks on a
worksheet of mentoring and adult learning
terms.
During the training, following the introduction
presentation.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 93

Knowledge checks through paired activities
and discussions with other training participants
and the expert trainer.
Periodically during the training session.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During the peer to peer activity, learners will
demonstrate their ability to perform the skill/s.
During the training.
Feedback received from peer during the peer to
peer activity.
During the training.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussions between peer learners. During the training.
Discussions between entire Steering
Committee.
After the training.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the training.
Post training and reflection. After the training.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the training.
Check ins during Steering Committee quarterly
meetings.
After the training.

Level 1: Reaction
Level 1, or reaction, is the degree to which training participants find the Annual Kickoff
training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their job. Table F5 lists the methods or tools used
to measure reaction in regard to engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction.
Table F5
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Supervisor and Peer ratings During and immediately after the training
Training Session Evaluation Two weeks after training session
Relevance
Check in and feedback via discussion After each paired activity.
Training Session Evaluation Two weeks after training session
Customer Satisfaction
Satisfaction survey At the end of the training session.
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 94

Training Session Evaluation Two weeks after training session

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Following the training event, the
Steering Committee members will complete a survey (see Appendix G for the survey questions).
During the training session, the Program Manager will complete a checklist (see Appendix H for
the checklist). The survey results will indicate relevance of the methods and activities,
participant satisfaction, commitment, attitude, and confidence in applying what has been learned.
For Level 1 and Level 2, during the observations, the Program Manager will complete a
checklist that rates the effectiveness of the trainer in several areas and then provide feedback.
During the training session, the instructor will perform pulse checks by asking participants if the
content is relevant to their work. The instructor will ask about the training environment and
determine if it is creating any barriers to participant learning. Level 2 will include checks for
understanding as well. Level 2 will use group activities, discussions, and share outs to report
participant understanding.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Mid-year, or four months
after the annual kickoff training event, the CTO Mentor Program will administer a survey (see
Appendix I for survey questions) containing open and scaled items to measure the Steering
Committee member’s perspective, satisfaction, and relevance of the training to the Steering
Committee member’s ability to provide data on perceived barriers to recommending or
developing strategies to support mentors and participants (Level 1), knowledge, skills,
confidence, attitude, commitment and value of applying their training (Level 2), application of
MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 95

the learning event to the Steering Committee member’s ability to assess participant needs and
their ability to build relationships with mentors (Level 3), and the extent to which they are able to
provide developmental mentoring on a regular basis (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of the Steering Committee to improve the curriculum and future
mentor-participant pairings is measured by the number of positive feedback and number of
certified chief technology officers. Each month, the Program Manager will track the number of
participant surveys completed at the end of each session. Annually, the Program Manager will
track the certification rates to see if there is an increase in the satisfaction of certified chief
technology officers. For example, the visual dashboard below (Figure F1) will report the data on
these feedback measures as a monitoring and accountability tool. Similar dashboards will be
created to monitor levels 1, 2, and 3.

Figure F1. Visual Dashboard

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 96

APPENDIX G: Survey Immediately Following Training
For each of the questions below, circle the response that best characterized how you feel about
the statement.

Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
1. The training held my interest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. During the training, we discussed how to apply what was learned.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I will recommend this training to other Steering Committee members.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I believe it will be worthwhile to build relationships with other Steering
Committee members after the training.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. The feedback has given me the confidence to apply what I learned in
future cohorts of the program.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. I am committed to applying what I learned during my group activities
and discussions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I found the feedback during the peer activities valuable for empowering
Steering Committee members.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. I was satisfied with the training on empowering instructors and
mentors.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please provide feedback for the following questions:

1. What part of the training did you find irrelevant for your Steering Committee
membership needs?

2. What were the major concepts you learned today?

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 97

APPENDIX H: Observational Checklist During Training
Context: This is a checklist that the Program Manager and/or Executive Director will use when
observing advisors during the Annual Kickoff training for Steering Committee members,
instructors, and mentors to rate the instructor’s skills and ability to connect with participants.
Rating Scale
1 = Effective use of targeted behavior
2 = Moderately effective use of targeted behavior
3 = Ineffective use of targeted behavior
Feedback comments may include observations that support the rating and feedback to help the
Program Manager be more effective when assessing Steering Committee learning needs,
strategies, and interests and connecting with Program instructors and mentors.
Target Behavior Rating Feedback Comments
Steering Committee members are engaged during the
session instructor’s introduction.

Steering Committee members are actively
participating during peer activities and discussions.

The Program Manager is leading a SWOT analysis of
the program and Steering Committee members are
actively participating.

The session instructor is performing pulse checks
with the Steering Committee members for confidence
and validation throughout the training.

The session instructor worked collaboratively with
the Steering Committee to resolve any member’s
issues.

The Session instructor was able to resolve the
Steering Committee members’ questions.

MENTORING K-12 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS 98

APPENDIX I: Mid-Year Survey
For each of the questions below, circle the response that best characterized how you feel about
the statement.

Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
1. I had opportunities to use what I learned. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I believe the training was a good use of my time.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I successfully applied what I learned.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. The Program Manager supported me to apply what I learned.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I see positive results from the training.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. The training has positively impacted the Steering Committee’s
interactions with the program instructors.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. The training has positively impacted the Steering Committee’s
interactions with the program mentors.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. The training has positively impacted the Steering Committee’s
interactions with the program participants.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please provide feedback for the following questions:

1. Describe any challenges you are facing in implementing what you learned and share any
possible or applicable solutions to overcome those challenges.

2. Reflecting on the training, how could it have improved?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the promising practices of a mentor-based professional development program for K-12 chief technology officers. The study focused on the Steering Committee of the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) Mentor Program sponsored by the California Educational Technology Professionals Association (CETPA). The Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis framework was applied to validate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of this promising practice. The purpose of the study was to examine the knowledge and motivation of the Steering Committee with regard to the interaction between organizational culture and context. Interviews and document analysis were used for data collection. The data gathered was also used to validate the knowledge, motivational, and organizational assets found in the literature. The study found that the Steering Committee members were motivated to develop a unique and relevant curriculum based on broad stakeholder input while combining adult learning practices. The study also revealed that the Steering Committee members’ motivation to give back contributed to the organization’s culture and fostered networking relationships. Finally, the study validated four key principles (member commitment, interagency collaboration, vendor neutrality, and continuous improvement) that may apply to other organizations seeking to implement similar programs. As a promising practice, the CTO Mentor Program should continue to monitor mentor role expectations and explore how competition may impact the program. Included is a recommended implementation and evaluation plan based on the New World Kirkpatrick Model.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Transforming hardships into hope for juvenile justice-involved youth: a promising practice case study

PDF

Educator professional development for technology in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Child welfare turnover: an evaluation study of work-life balance practices

PDF

Impact of technology on teaching and learning practices at high‐technology use K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

PDF

An examination using the gap analysis framework of employees’ perceptions of promising practices supporting teamwork in a federal agency

PDF

Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

A multi-case study on teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry in 1:1 classrooms

PDF

Supporting administrators in successful online co-curriculum development: a promising practices study of contributing factors

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

Improving foundational reading skills growth in middle school: a promising practices study

PDF

Developing a student athlete mentoring program to improve college readiness at a rural Hawaii public high school

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

An evaluation study of effectiveness of continuous professional development in Ethiopia

PDF

The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Choi, Stephen C. (author)

Core Title A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/09/2018

Defense Date 05/09/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag California Educational Technology Professionals Association,CETPA,continuous improvement, promising practice,interagency collaboration,K-12 chief technology officer,member commitment,mentoring,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,vendor neutrality

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Freking, Frederick (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member)

Creator Email choisc@usc.edu,schoi@ucla.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-509884

Unique identifier UC11266692

Identifier etd-ChoiStephe-6381.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-509884 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChoiStephe-6381.pdf

Dmrecord 509884

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Choi, Stephen C.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA