University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Eliminating the technology equity gap for students through parent support at home: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Eliminating the technology equity gap for students through parent support at home: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

1

ELIMINATING THE TECHNOLOGY EQUITY GAP FOR STUDENTS THROUGH
PARENT SUPPORT AT HOME: AN EVALUATION STUDY

by

Susan C. Salcido

___________________________________________________________________________

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

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Susan C. Salcido

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

2
DEDICATION
To my husband, Bard, the love of my life. Thank you for every second of support you
provided since we started this journey.
To my children, Samantha and Nicholas, you were as much a part of helping me through
this as you were the reason for doing this. I love you.
To Mary Jane Salcido, the Changs, the Tajimas, dear friends, family and colleagues, I
thank you for the kindness, grace, and gifts of time you provided throughout this process. You
made all the difference.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you, Dr. Monique Datta, my dissertation chair, for your Aloha spirit,
encouragement, leadership and guidance. The high standard you set for yourself and your
students is one of the qualities that helped me most on days that required an extra nudge of
energy. However, your zeal for experiencing the beauty of the world is what inspired me most
— to have you as a chair, a person of great intellect, inspiration, and appreciation for children
and humanity — that is what will remain with me forever. To the dissertation committee, Dr.
Lawrence Picus and Dr. Melora Sundt, I am deeply thankful for your support. To have you three
leaders, who are pillars of the University and program, and who have made a significant
difference and contribution to our educational system, guide me through the work of this
dissertation is a singular honor.
I am honored to have gone through this doctoral process with some of the most generous,
selfless, humorous, collaborative, compassionate leaders I will ever know. Thank you Mary
Beth Kropp, LisaRae Jones, Joelle Hood, Laurence Akiyoshi, Bob Nelson, Regan Patrick, and
Carlos Montoya. You have elevated and influenced my life and work in significant,
immeasurable ways.
This dissertation could not have been completed without the support and participation of
the organization studied herein, nor without its staff, board members, and participating district
leaders, staff, and parents. Thank you for your support.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter 1: Introduction 9
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 9
Context of the Problem 9
Importance of the Problem 12
Organizational Context and Mission 15
Organizational Goal 18
Description of Stakeholder Groups 18
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 19
Stakeholder Group for the Study 20
Purpose of the Project and Questions 20
Conceptual and Methodological Approach 21
Definitions 23
Organization of the Dissertation 24
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 25
Review of the Literature 25
The Changing Landscape of Technology 25
The Evolution of the Definition of “Digital Divide” 26
How Access to Computers Affects Academic Outcomes for Students 31
Factors Supporting Parent Engagement in Programs Aimed to Address 33
Student Equity Gaps
Summary of General Literature 35
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 36
Conclusion 49
Chapter 3: Methodology 51
Purpose of the Study 51
Conceptual Framework 51
Assessment of Performance Influences 53
Participating Stakeholders and Sampling 62
Methodology 63
Instrumentation 65
Data Collection 66
Validity and Reliability 68
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

5
Credibility and Trustworthiness 68
The Role of the Investigator 69
Ethics 70
Chapter 4: Results and Findings 71
Definition of Validation 72
Known Demographics of Respondents 72
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 74
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 77
Results and Findings for Organization Causes 80
Summary 85
Chapter 5: Recommendations 87
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 87
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 88
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 93
Chapter Summary 105
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 105
Limitations and Delimitations 106
Future Research 107
Conclusion 108
References 110
Appendices 122
Appendix A: Survey Request Email — English 122
Appendix B: Survey Request Email — Spanish 123
Appendix C: Survey Request Hard Copy — English 124
Appendix D: Survey Request Hard Copy — Spanish 125
Appendix E: Survey Items — English 126
Appendix F: Survey Items — Spanish 129
Appendix G: Interview Protocol Email — English 133
Appendix H: Interview Protocol Email — Spanish 134
Appendix I: Interview Introduction 135
Appendix J: Interview Protocol 136
Appendix K: Computers at Home Observation Protocol 138
Appendix L: Other Documents for Review 139
Appendix M: Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research 140
Appendix N: Sample Post-Training Survey Items Measuring Kirkpatrick 142
Levels 1 and 2
Appendix O: Sample Delayed Blended Evaluation Survey Measuring 143
Kirkpatrick Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder 19
Performance Goals
Table 2. Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Parents and 40
Related Literature
Table 3. Summary of Assumed Motivational Influences and Related Literature 45
Table 4. Assumed Organizational Influences and Related Literature 49
Table 5. Summary of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization 54
Influences on Parents
Table 6. Summary of Knowledge Influences on Parents’ Support of Their 56
Children
Table 7. Summary of Motivational Influences on Parents’ Support of Their 58
Children
Table 8. Summary of Organizational Influences on Parents’ Support of Their 61
Children
Table 9. Validated Influences Table 86
Table 10. Validated Knowledge and Organizational Gaps 89
Table 11. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 90
Table 12. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 92
Table 13. Metrics and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 95
Table 14. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Parents 97
Table 15. Required Drivers to Support Parents' Critical Behaviors 98
Table 16. Components of Learning for the Program 101
Table 17. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 102

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Household computer and Internet use from the 1984, 2000, and 10
2013 U.S. Census Bureau Reports
Figure 2. Gap analysis process 22
Figure 3. SAMR and the new Bloom's taxonomy as frameworks for instruction 30
Figure 4. Conceptual framework of the CAH program, the stakeholders, and the 53
stakeholder goal
Figure 5. Survey responses related to Computers at Home 73
Figure 6. Self-efficacy survey responses 78
Figure 7. Sample figures for survey responses on blended evaluation instruments 104
after the recommended training

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

8
ABSTRACT
The problem with the first-level digital divide in U.S. schools has been well-documented for over
thirty years. However, it is not only important to acknowledge that a divide exists, but it is
important to understand why it matters, how it affects students and their futures, and what
influences contribute to bridging the divide. This study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) conceptual
framework to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps related to parents
supporting their children on computers at home. Through a study that included a general
literature review and the administration of surveys and interviews, influences on parents were
analyzed. Parents who participated in this study demonstrated self-efficacy in using computers
and saw value in using computers to support students’ academic goals. Parents also knew about
safety issues related to student online access, and how to access computer literacy support.
Recommendations for the organization were provided in this study related to ways in which
validated influences could be closed through parent training and feedback.
Keywords: Digital Divide, Parent Engagement, Computers at Home, Parent Support,
Technology, Conditions of Access, First-level Digital Divide, Second-level Digital Divide

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

9
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This study addresses the problem of the digital divide and its effect on academic equity
for students in the public educational system in United States. The term “digital divide” has
been defined as the gap between those students who have access to digital technology at home
and those who do not (Mason & Dodds, 2005, p. 25). Limited access to technological resources,
including hardware and Internet connectivity, has contributed to equity gaps between higher and
lower income families, and among white, black, and Hispanic families (Katz & Levine, 2015).
A 2012 study on the digital divide revealed that 100,000,000 U.S. households lack broadband
access, 46% of the poorest households do not own a computer, and 72% of white families have
Internet at home as compared to 57% of Hispanic and 55% of black families (Alexander, A.,
2012). This evidence highlights the disparity in access to technology, an issue that Katz and
Levine (2015) point to as an issue of equity for many groups of students in schools today.
Context of the Problem
Access to computers and the Internet has increased rapidly over the past thirty years in
the U.S. According to a special study conducted by the United States Census Bureau in 2013,
83.8% of the households surveyed reported computer ownership, with 78.5% having a computer
or desktop, and 63.6 % having a handheld computer (File & Ryan, 2014). In the same study,
74.4% reported Internet use, with 73.4% reporting high-speed connectivity. This 2013 study is
the most recent one to date by the U.S. Census Bureau; however, the U.S. Census Bureau first
studied computer ownership in 1984. The information gathered in 1984 was used in the 2000
U.S. Census Bureau report, the first year that Internet use was added to this periodic study by the
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

10
Bureau. In 2000, computer ownership increased over five times to 51%, and Internet use was
accessed by 42% of U.S. households (Newburger, 2001). This information shows the rapid
increase of computer ownership and Internet access by households across the United States (see
Figure 1).

Figure 1. Household computer and Internet use from the 1984, 2000, and 2013 U.S. Census
Bureau Reports. Note: the 1984 U.S. Census Bureau study did not include “Internet Use at
Home.”

1984 2000 2013
Computer in household
Internet use at home
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

11
The U.S. Census Bureau study also reported computer and Internet growth by state. In
2013, the survey revealed that within each state, even those with higher levels of computer and
Internet use than average, there were large clusters of cities that had lower rates of access than
the rest. Younger households, whites and Asians had the highest computer and Internet usage,
while older households and low-income households had the lowest computer and Internet usage.
Finally, a category of information emerged in 2013 as a result of technology that was invented
since its prior study in 2000: hand-held devices. Many households who reported they had a
computer and connectivity at home, actually only had a hand-held device at home. These
households were typically low-income, black, or Hispanic.
While research has revealed that more households in the U.S. have access to computers
and the Internet, research also shows that, as new technologies emerge, new and wider equity
gaps emerge as well (Katz & Levine, 2015). The increased percentages of computer and Internet
access in households can mask other specific gaps in access. Often, lower-income households
hold on to older and slower devices, whereas higher-income households tend to own faster,
newer devices (Katz & Levine, 2015). The age of the device can impact the speed of
connectivity and amount of available computer memory, which is a factor in accessing
information on the Internet to aid with school-related computer programs and Internet searches
(Rideout & Katz, 2016). In many cases, reporting access to a computer means only having
access to a smart phone which, for use as a tool for schoolwork and homework, is not the same
as having access to a computer with a keyboard, or a tablet with a larger screen than a phone
(Rideout & Katz, 2016). Additionally, reports of computers in the household mask the actual
number of students who might benefit from his or her own computer. Therefore, low-income
households more often share computers, whereas higher income households often provide one
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

12
computer per user (Araque et al., 2013). Finally, with more than half of U.S. teachers assigning
homework that requires access to the Internet, the need for computer and Internet access at home
has become more prominent, and the divide between those who have newer and faster
technology and those with older slower technology has evolved and has widened over time
(Lynch, 2017).
The federal government has recognized the technology gaps as issues of equity. In 2015,
President Obama announced a broadband initiative to “accelerate the adoption and use of
broadband technology by children and families living in HUD-assisted [United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development] housing” (“Obama announces”, 2015, p. 3).
Called ConnectHome, this initiative partners private funders with HUD to provide digital literacy
training and low-cost broadband Internet connectivity. According to the website
(everyoneon.org/connecthome), 28 communities throughout the U.S., including Los Angeles and
Fresno in California, have piloted the program.
There are several organizations across the U.S. that provide computers to low-income
families. Many of these organizations also arrange for low-cost Internet connectivity for families
as well. One of these organizations is the focus of this study. Called “Computers at Home”
(pseudonym; CAH), this non-profit program refurbishes donated, used computers and provides
them for free to families with students in fourth grade. Along with free computers, CAH has
partnered with two Internet providers for families to connect to the Internet at reduced costs.
This program is provided to three school districts located in southern California.
Importance of the Problem
The problem of the digital divide and its effect on societal and academic equity for
students in the public educational system in this southern California region is important to
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

13
address for several reasons. First, this problem is important to the South Coast County
Education Office (pseudonym; SCCEO), which administers the Computers at Home program.
CAH has expressed the desire to analyze the program strengths and areas for growth as the role
of technology changes in schools, and this study will influence the direction of the program.
Second, this is important to the K–12 public educational system. As curriculum, assessment,
hardware, connectivity, policies, and procedures take on new roles in education, problems with
the digital divide will become more prevalent (Katz & Levine, 2015; Vigdor & Ladd, 2010).
Research suggests that within the next six years, school districts will be providing most
textbooks and core instructional materials in electronic format on mobile devices (Bowser &
Zabala, 2012). Bowser and Zabala warned of a “danger with a shift” (2012, p. 1), since the
infusion of curricular materials through technology could create new barriers to access,
participation, and achievement.
As the role of technology evolves in schools, there will be an increased need to focus on
how policies and decisions impact the societal and academic equity amongst students. For
example, the Williams Settlement (California Department of Education [CDE], 2015) ensured all
students receive adequate textbooks and other curricular materials at school and home. In the
future, policies may need to be in place to ensure students will receive necessary hardware and
connectivity for learning at school and home. Another example of a decision that could impact
students and access involves one-to-one laptop programs: some schools adopt laptop programs
for particular grade levels, while others implement these programs schoolwide. Furthermore,
some schools purchase inexpensive hardware for these programs while others purchase highly
sophisticated technology (Warschauer, Zheng, Niiya, Cotten, & Farkas, 2014). These types of
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

14
schoolwide decisions create disparities from one school to another, even from within the same
district.
While the results of this study will impact the evolution of the CAH program, and while
the need to evaluate programs like CAH is critical as policies and practices change, the most
important reason to address this problem is because it impacts students’ abilities to perform in
school and prepare for future careers. Access to high quality technology, including computers
and Internet connectivity, positively impacts students’ academic outcomes (Sun & Metros,
2011). Experience with technology can also help prepare students for futures in the workforce
(Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). The Occupational Outlook Handbook study by the U.S.
Department of Labor revealed that the fastest growing occupations in the U.S. included those
that feature computer skills, analysis, and engineering experience (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2007). This information about future career needs leads to the quality and quantity of
technological preparation students receive in schools. Studies have shown that there are
substantive differences with technology access between schools with high to low socio-economic
levels (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) reported that
schools with a majority of low-income families often did not allocate funds for technology staff,
replacement computers, or reliable connectivity. Thus, teachers in low-income schools tended
not to plan on using technology in their lessons, while high-income schools tended to invest
more in professional development, technology staff, and robust digital networks. The
assignments within and outside of class were less technologically dependent if students attended
low-income schools, thus the students received less practice and lower expectations of
technology use than those from higher-income schools.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

15
Access to technology is an issue of equity, and if not addressed, could exacerbate the gap
that is present in schools and homes today. The gaps are not merely with physical access to
hardware, software, and connectivity. The gaps exist with experience, expectations, and
application to current practice and future opportunities that depend on a technologically savvy
workforce. With the current and evolving trends in technology, including what, how, and where
it is implemented and distributed, inequitable access to technology is a concern of the present
and the future.
Organizational Context and Mission
Computers at Home is administered by the South Coast County Education Office to four
school districts in the southern region of the county. CAH provides free, refurbished desktop
and laptop computers to qualified students in fourth grade. CAH selected the fourth grade when
it first began in 1996, after asking teachers and parents for input about which grade level needed
to begin to have access to computers while in school. Families qualify for CAH by self-
identifying that their fourth-grade child does not have a dedicated computer for him or herself at
home; families can also qualify for reduced-cost Internet connectivity through a local Internet
provider when signing up for the Free and Reduced Lunch Program at his or her school (criteria
set at the federal level).
South Coast County (SCC) is one of 58 counties in California (ccsesa.org). The county
has the fourth highest percentage of English Learners in CA, the highest percentage of homeless
students in CA (as defined by the federal government, and includes families doubled up in living
areas), and 59.9% of students within the county qualify for free and reduced lunch (ed-data.org).
SCC also has a population that includes 68% Latino students, 8th highest as compared to other
counties in CA, and higher than the statewide percentage of 54% (Buenrostro, 2016). Within the
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

16
county, there are 20 school districts. The four CAH districts are in the southern region of South
Coast County, and were selected primarily due to the proximity to the county office. The four
CAH districts are within a 30-mile radius from the SCCEO. The proximity to the county office
is important because computers are refurbished at the office, and then delivered to school sites
and distributed to families all in one evening. Families can bring inoperable computers back to
CAH at any time, which is another reason CAH selected the districts nearest the office.
CAH’s mission is to “bridge the digital divide.” After undergoing a major endowment
campaign in 1996 to sustain the costs of staff to run the program, CAH raised nearly $4 million
dollars from the community and has used the interest on the funds to help sustain the program.
Businesses donate used computers, one staff member leads the refurbishment program, students
at the county office’s residential boys’ school for adjudicated youth help refurbish computers and
deliver them to computer distribution events. Since its inception, over 12,000 computers have
been provided to families, averaging approximately 600 computer placements annually.
The administration, staffing, and structure of CAH have shifted over time, but shifted
most significantly in 2016. When the program began, it employed one full-time director and one
full-time refurbishment technician. In its earliest years, directors changed frequently, but from
2005 to 2016, one director ran the program and one staff member ran the refurbishment; there
was consistent leadership and support in the program for 11 years. In 2016, the director retired.
At the same time, SCCEO recognized that there were several years of data trends showing that
there were insufficient funds from the interest earned by the endowment, whereupon SCCEO’s
general fund paid the balance of funds needed to pay for its two CAH staff. With annual interest
on the endowment decreasing, and the cost of staff salaries and benefits increasing, the need for a
structural shift emerged.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

17
The structural shift was addressed with the support of a non-profit organization called
Partnering for Education (PFE; pseudonym). When CAH was first created, it was launched by
PFE, which is administered by SCCEO. At that time, the oversight of CAH was bifurcated:
program direction and input came from PFE board and members, while the funding and staff
oversight ran through the technology department at SCCEO.
With the departure of the retiring CAH director, and the hiring of a new director of PFE,
SCCEO transitioned the entire operation of CAH under PFE in 2016. With this new structure,
the PFE director would oversee the administration, PFE staff would support events and activities
of CAH, and the CAH refurbishment technician would be promoted to do more coordination,
refurbishment and delivery. Essentially, SCCEO administered PFE, and PFE ran the CAH
program. The structure is important to note because while CAH is a long-standing program, it
had a new and smaller organizational structure which was an important element of this study.
The key component of CAH’s program delivery is the CAH Computer Distribution
Night. The CAH computer distribution night is typically held once per week at different
elementary schools. These events are held at different elementary schools so families can attend
a venue that is familiar and accessible to them. These events are coordinated by CAH, the
school principal, and the CAH teacher liaison for that particular school. Staffed by CAH and
PFE, and supported by select boys from SCCEO’s court school (escorted by Probation Officers),
these events are the only time that parents are required to interact with CAH. At this Distribution
Night, families from the elementary school arrive at the designated area (i.e., multipurpose room
or cafeteria), receive training on how to connect their computers at home, use computers safely,
and sign up for low-cost Internet. Immediately following this training, families then receive a
refurbished desktop or laptop computer. It is at this distribution night that parents learn that if
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

18
they have technical difficulties with their computers, they can contact CAH, and CAH will issue
parents a new computer or provide technical support as long as the student is attending school.
After this event, contact with CAH staff is optional, and often only occurs if families contact
CAH for technical support or to exchange their computers.
Organizational Goal
CAH’s overall mission is to close the digital divide by providing 100% of fourth-grade
students attending one of the CAH districts, who do not have access to computers at home, a
free, refurbished computer. While specific, measurable, organizational goals have not been
published for CAH by either the program staff or the PFE board, CAH’s global goal is to close
the digital divide by ensuring every fourth-grade student and family increases their access to
school through the use of technology by 2018.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are several groups of stakeholders involved in the CAH program. First, the
recipients of the computers: students and parents. Although the primary target audience is
fourth-grade students, families as a whole are often the beneficiaries of having a computer at
home. For example, parents can access email and correspond with teachers, while students can
complete assignments, take online assessments, and access information from school. A second
stakeholder group is the CAH staff. Currently, there is one staff member who organizes the
refurbishment of the computers and helps to run the CAH distribution nights. This staff member
works with volunteers who help refurbish the computers and pick up or deliver donations. Staff
from Partnering For Education helps to support CAH events by coordinating, attending, and
supporting families at the distribution nights. Another stakeholder group consists of the CAH
board members who support the work of CAH by providing direction, insight, and advice
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

19
regarding the work of the CAH staff. Finally, school-based teacher-liaisons help connect the
CAH program to families who need computers by disseminating information about the program
at their schools. These teacher-liaisons help CAH staff schedule CAH distribution nights at their
respective schools. Parents are informed about CAH distribution nights through these teacher-
liaisons.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
Computers at Home’s mission is to bridge the digital divide by providing 100% of fourth-
grade students in CAH’s four service districts, who do not have access to computers at home, a
free, refurbished computer.
Organizational Performance Goal
CAH’s organizational performance goal is to provide 100% of fourth-grade students a free
computer to use at home, and access to low-cost Internet connectivity, to increase students’
access to school through the use of technology by 2018.
Stakeholder 1 Goal Stakeholder 2 Goal Stakeholder 3 Goal
Parents
By May 2018, CAH parents will
engage in 100% of the practices
recommended by the CAH
parent training to support
students’ academic goals through
the use of computers at home.
CAH Staff
100% of the design and
delivery of the CAH parent
training will be based on
practices included in
research and input from
stakeholders by August
2019.
Teacher Liaisons
By August 2019, CAH
teacher liaisons will increase
communication about CAH
to all fourth-grade parents in
their schools by 25%.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

20
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal to ensure that every fourth-grade student and family increases their access to
school through the use of technology, it is important to evaluate the extent to which the CAH
computers are being utilized. Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study will be parents
who receive refurbished computers from CAH. The stakeholders’ goal is that by May 2018,
100% of CAH parents will utilize CAH computers to support their child’s academic goals at
school. It is important for this stakeholder group to achieve its performance goal because it will
support students in completing their schoolwork and homework using computers and the Internet
in a safe way. Bridging the digital divide through CAH can only happen if parents attend the
CAH events, which makes this stakeholder group an essential part of achieving the
organizational mission.
The mere existence of a computer and Internet connectivity at home has not increased
academic achievement for students (Hall, 2006). Having a computer at home, combined with
students’ and parents’ understanding of how to use the computer to best support learning is one
way that having digital access can be helpful (Grant, 2011; Taningco & Pachon, 2008).
Therefore, the focus on the parents as a stakeholder group will provide critical data that can
contribute to an overall picture of support for students, and to determine next steps for the
organization.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which the organization was
meeting its stakeholder goal for parents. Since its inception in 1996, CAH provided more than
12,000 computers for families; however, no formal evaluations had been conducted as to
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

21
whether or not CAH has closed the digital divide, the expressed mission of the program. This
analysis focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving
the stakeholder goals. While a complete performance evaluation would have focused on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder focus in this analysis were the parents who
received the CAH computers.
The questions that guided the evaluation study that addressed knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational influences for the stakeholders were:
1. To what extent are parents utilizing and connecting CAH computers once parents take
them home?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to parents
engaging in practices recommended by the CAH parent training to support students’
academic goals through the use of computers at home?
3. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions that can help
parents meet their goal?
Conceptual and Methodological Approach
Evaluating the issue of digital equity among students has been complex. The more
complex the issue, the more important it was to identify a strategy to focus the research and
analysis on the areas which had the most impact on goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). For this study,
Clark and Estes’ (2008) conceptual framework for a gap analysis was used when collecting and
analyzing data in order to identify needs for attaining the goal of digital equity. This gap
analysis provided the structure and framework needed to clearly identify gaps in distinct areas,
each of which can be leveraged to support change and growth towards identified goals.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

22

Figure 2. Gap analysis process. Adapted from Clark and Estes (2008)

The three distinct areas of Clark and Estes’ gap analysis are: knowledge and skills (K);
motivation (M); and, organizational barriers (O). This KMO analysis allows us to evaluate the
extent to which each is aligned in order to attain the stated goals. Analyzing the knowledge and
skills gap means conducting research around whether or not a stakeholder knows what the goals
are and how to reach them. To determine the motivational gap, research must be conducted to
ascertain the extent to which the stakeholder is internally invested in choosing, persisting, and/or
completing the goals. Finally, analyzing organizational barriers determines the organizational
structures, policies, culture, and climate that support or inhibit productive strides towards goals.
Goals&
Current&
Achievement&
Gaps& Causes&
Evaluate& Implement& Solu7ons& Root&Causes&
Knowledge& Mo7va7on&
Organiza7onal&
Barriers&
Gap&Analysis&Process&
Figure'2:''Gap&analysis&process&adapted&from&Clark&and&Estes&(2008)&
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

23
The stakeholders’ goal is that by May 2018, 100% of parents will utilize CAH computers
to support academic goals at school. Indicators of progress towards proficiency will be
measured through interviews, surveys, and observations. It is important for this stakeholder
group to achieve its performance goal because it will help to close the gap between those
students who have and do not have access to computers to support their academic goals.
Ultimately, having access to computers will not only help with students’ schoolwork, but will
also help in attaining important computer skills that may be required in future careers
(Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).
Definitions
The following list includes key terms for this study based on reviewed literature:
Conditions of access: How, where, and what type of Internet can be accessed by students
or families (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).
First-level digital divide: The difference between those who have computers and Internet
access at home and those who do not (Gonzales, 2016; Harris, 2010).
Internet access: Access to the Internet varies in speed, size and quality. Internet at home
(versus a school or business) is typically provided through: (1) Analog, or Dial-Up Internet
access, which is known to be both economical and slow; (2) Broadband, which uses telephone,
cable connections or wireless radio frequency bands, is faster and more expensive; and (3)
Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL), which uses copper wires to provide direct lines to the consumer.
Broadband and DSL are often compared to one another for their fast service and ability to
transfer large electronic files (Beal, 2014).
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

24
Second-level digital divide: The difference in effectiveness of how computers are used to
advance student achievement based on home and school expectations (Dolan, 2016; Gonzales,
2016; Harris, 2010; Jenkins, 2006; Lopez, Gonzalez-Barrera, & Patten, 2013).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The chapters, taken as a whole, are
intended to provide the reader with broad information about research and literature previously
studied in the area of the digital divide. This study also considers new research surrounding a
specific organization, program implementation, and stakeholder involvement in order to add to
the research base and provide recommendations for future practice. Taken separately, Chapter 1
provides the reader with a wide view of the problem of practice and the organization that has
been studied in this dissertation study. The problem of practice involves the issues surrounding
the digital divide, and the impact it has on students regarding academic progress at school.
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature available on this scope of study. Topics include the
evolution of the digital divide, first and second level divides, how access to computers affects
academic outcomes for students, and factors that support parents in programs aimed to support
their children in school. Chapter 2 also includes a thorough explanation of the framework for
this study developed by Clark and Estes (2008), which addresses the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences needed and examined for the parent stakeholder group addressed in this
study. Chapter 3 includes the conceptual framework, methodology, rationale, tools, and analysis
used in the data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 provides the data, results, and analysis of the
finding. Chapter 5 provides recommended solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the
perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the
solutions.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

25
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Review of the Literature
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature that highlights significant factors and
influences that impact parents as they support their children with schoolwork and homework
through the utilization of computers at home. The first section of this chapter addresses the
history of the digital divide, and the constructs and factors that contribute to the digital divide for
students in U.S. public schools. The second section explores research related to how access to
technology affects academic outcomes for students. The third part of the general literature
review includes research that explores factors which support parents as they, in turn, support
their children with school-related goals. Following the general literature review, the final section
of this chapter will focus on the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework (2008) and explore
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on parents as they support their
children with schoolwork and homework through the use of computers while at home.
The Changing Landscape of Technology
The assertion that the digital divide is an issue of equity has widely been accepted by
scholars and researchers (Araque et al., 2013; Dolan, 2016; Du, Havard, Sansing, & Yu, 2004;
File & Ryan, 2014; Gonzales, 2016; Huang & Russell, 2006; Katz & Levine, 2015; Warschauer
et al., 2014). However, the landscape of available technology has expanded drastically, and
therefore has influenced the original meaning of the digital divide. For example, when
computers were first available for consumers at home, they were available in the form of a
desktop computer and the Internet was available through dial-up modems (File & Ryan, 2014).
Devices, connectivity, and choices have evolved rapidly. Today, consumers can purchase
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

26
devices in the form of a desktop, laptop, tablet, and mobile phone; and connectivity can be
accessed by dial-up modem and broadband connections, which provide for faster and increased
data transmission. These choices are often a matter of financial means that are divided by socio-
economic levels, race and ethnicity, and educational experience (Amiel, 2006; Katz & Levine,
2015). While the gaps are closing between those who have and do not have access to devices
and the Internet, the evolution of the available technologies has contributed to the widening gap
among different groups of individuals who can access more, faster and the most efficient
technology.
The type of gap described above, related to devices and connectivity, is referred to by
scholars as the “first level gap” (Gonzales, 2016; Harris, 2010). However, researchers have
identified a “second level gap,” which addresses the difference in how technology is utilized.
This gap differs based on users’ knowledge and abilities, and for students is influenced by socio-
economic levels at home and school, their teachers’ comfort and ability with using technology in
classes, and parent support at home (Gonzales, 2016; Reinhart, Thomas & Toriskie, 2011). The
impact of computers on student academic achievement is both a first level and second level issue
and will be explored further in the next sections within this chapter.
The Evolution of the Definition of “Digital Divide”
The phrase “digital divide” first emerged after the 1991 passage of the federal High
Performance Computer Act (HPCA), which provided funding for what would eventually become
the Internet (Rappaport, 2009). After the HPCA and the development of the Internet, the Clinton
Administration published “Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the ‘Have Nots’ in Rural and
Urban America” (National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA], 1995).
The people attributed to writing the report were Albert Hammond, a White House aide, and
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

27
Larry Irving, former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce. Irving was reported to
have coined the term “digital divide” to describe the discrepancy between those who have access
to computers and the Internet and those who do not (Rappaport, 2009). Newsweek Magazine, in
1996, named Irving the “Conscience of the Internet” and from that point forward, the phrase
digital divide was used widely in reports and speeches (Newsweek, 2018; Rappaport, 2009).
According to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(Economics and Statistics Administration and NTIA, 2010), which has studied access to the
Internet almost every year since 1995, educational attainment and socio-economic income are
the two most influential categories behind the digital divide, as originally defined. However,
researchers caution that overgeneralized data about who does and does not have computer and
Internet access does not sufficiently tell the story about the inequities throughout the country
(Katz & Levine, 2015; Skaletsky, 2013; Warschauer et al., 2014; Warschauer & Matuchniak,
2010). One of the reasons for the caution is that it could mistakenly signal that if computers and
Internet access were provided or attained, that the problems would be solved (Hall, 2006). In
fact, research shows increasing numbers of households do have access to computers and the
Internet, yet, as available technologies evolve, it accelerates and deepens the digital divide
(Amiel, 2006; File & Ryan, 2014; Hall, 2006; Harris, 2010; Katz & Levine, 2015).
Conditions of Access
Some of the reasons for this accelerated and deepened divide involve the conditions of
access to computers and the Internet. Conditions include where the Internet can be accessed,
what type of Internet is available, and person-to-computer ratios (Warschauer & Matuchniak,
2010). Research shows that, of households who have Internet access, 82.3% have access to
broadband and 17.7% have dial-up connectivity. Broadband access is faster and can download
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

28
information at a higher speed than dial-up connectivity. When analyzing the difference in
households who have broadband and those who have dial-up connectivity, those whose heads-of-
household have an elementary school education make up 13.1% of those have broadband access,
compared to 74.2% whose heads-of-household have a bachelor’s degree; 18.4% of households
with annual incomes below $10,000 have broadband access, while 90.3% of families with
incomes above $150,000 have broadband access (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).
Furthermore, those who have access to broadband Internet use the Internet differently
than those who have the slower dial-up Internet (Clark & Gorski, 2002; Harris, 2010;
Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Broadband Internet searches equated to more in-depth
investigations, while those with limited access to high-speed Internet used computers less
frequently and for less rigorous tasks (Harris, 2010). However, in schools, even when
infrastructure was in place, teachers in high-poverty schools tended to assign students to
complete skills and drills, versus using the technology to create engaging assignments (Clark &
Gorski, 2002).
Finally, the number of household members per home computer for students in California
showed significant differences between Hispanics and Whites. In this study by Warschauer and
Matuchniak (2010), Hispanics shared one computer for four household members, while Whites
had one computer for each household member. Additionally, Whites tended to have newer
computers, while Latinos and African American families had older ones. These disparities
illuminate the importance of understanding the many perspectives and layers beyond the
generalized data.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

29
First and Second Level Gaps
Conditions of access, described above, provide one approach to look at the more complex
areas of inequities in the digital divide. Another approach is to consider how computers are used
to leverage academic outcomes. Recently, researchers have begun using the term “first level
gap” to explain the differences in the use of computers and Internet access at home, and “second
level gap” to describe the differences in how computers are used at home to leverage academic
outcomes (Gonzales, 2016; Harris, 2010).
Many scholars have linked gaps in the second level digital divide to social and cultural
differences (Jenkins, 2006; Lopez et al., 2013). According to several studies, computer use
varied based on household and schools’ socioeconomic status, and the ways in which their
teachers used and expected technology to be used by their students (Dolan, 2016; Valadez &
Duran, 2007; Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004; Wood & Howley, 2012). In Warschauer et
al.’s (2004) study, for example, students from high socioeconomic schools were asked to conduct
active, engaging tasks using technology, while students in low socioeconomic schools often were
tasked with low-level, basic programs.
Research has shown that teachers’ instructional design of technology lessons and
students’ implementation of technology impacts student learning (Dolan, 2016; Puentedura,
2010). Dolan (2016) categorized student use into two types: producing and consuming.
Producing is an active use of technology, found to be used and expected from households and
schools where socio-economic levels are high, whereas passive acts of consuming technology is
a strategy most often used in low socioeconomic households and schools (Dolan, 2016).
Puentedura (2010) explained that teachers should use technology as an instructional tool for
students to deepen their learning, and to categorize their technology instruction into four areas:
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

30
substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (SAMR). The research showed that
after teachers designed lesson instructions from each category and after students performed a
wide variety of tasks, students maximized their learning from the use of technology. The SAMR
model has often been compared to the new Bloom’s Taxonomy, which categorizes levels of
critical thinking and provides a framework for teachers to focus on multi-levels of thinking skills
(see Figure 3).

Figure 3. SAMR and the new Bloom’s taxonomy as frameworks for instruction (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001; Puentedura, 2010)

Create&
Evaluate&
Understand&
Apply&
Remember&
Analyze&
Redefini8on&
Technology&allows&for&the&crea8on&of&
new&tasks&&
Modifica8on&
Technology&allows&for&significant&task&
redesign&
Augmenta8on&
Technology&acts&as&a&tool&subs8tute,&
with&func8onal&improvement&&
&
&
Subs8tu8on&
Technology&acts&as&a&tool&subs8tute,&no&
func8onal&change&
&
&
S&
A&
M
R&
Figure'3:''SAMR&Model&( Puentedura,&2010)&and&Revised&Bloom’s&Taxonomy&(Anderson&&&
Krathwohl,&2001) '
SAMR Model: Enhancing to Transforming Instruction Using Technology
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

31
Rather than focusing on remediation and basic skill reinforcement that teachers from
economically disadvantaged schools tend to assign to students (Becker, 2000; Warschauer et al.,
2004), teachers could apply the concepts of SAMR and Bloom’s Taxonomy to provide
opportunities for students beyond basic-level tasks. Puentedura (2010) suggested that
schoolwork and homework could then be designed to be more meaningful for students, thus
impacting the level of critical thinking utilized to support student success.
How Access to Computers Affects Academic Outcomes for Students
While there is a vast amount of research on the first level digital divide, there is less
common, generalizable research around the effects on the digital divide as it pertains to student
academic outcomes. The research that exists tends to analyze specific programs (i.e., one-to-one
laptop programs), student groups (i.e., high and low socio-economic students), or specific
subjects in school (i.e., math or reading), but there is little corroboration amongst the research
that points to general and similar findings. One recent study by Zheng, Warschauer, Lin and
Chang (2016) was based on a meta-analysis of 65 journal articles, 31 doctoral dissertations from
2001 to 2015, and was specific to one-to-one laptop programs in schools. The schools included
in the study provided one laptop per student in a school, and some of the schools allowed
students to take laptops home. The results of the meta-analysis showed a variety of findings;
however, one of the applicable findings for this research study was that it was not clear whether
laptop programs could reduce educational gaps in academic achievement. Zheng et al. (2016)
reported seven examples of one-to-one laptop programs that reduced the achievement gap for
low-income students; however, at least six other one-to-one programs studied showed increases
in achievement for high SES students, and neutral to lower achievement for low SES students.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

32
Unlike the one-to-one laptop program study, where students primarily accessed their
laptops at school, Vigdor and Ladd (2010) studied the effects of home computers on student
achievement. Here, the researchers cited the limited reliable research designs on the home
computer to student achievement correlations. They did, however, note that while they did not
find evidence to substantiate whether home computer access increased or improved math and
reading scores, they recognized that computer use at home likely improved other skills otherwise
not measured by a math or reading assessment. Some of the other reasons for the unreliability of
the research were based on the different computer devices at home, variability in Internet
connectivity, the factors surrounding why the computers were purchased for the home, and the
age of students who accessed the computers.
Other research studies show results specific to particular student groups, school subjects,
or assessments. For example, Tate, Warschauer and Abedi (2016) found that school-based
computer usage helped increase scores on the writing portion of the computer-based National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), while home-based computer use did little to
increase the scores. Another study showed that well-designed online discussion could result in
increased literacy and language for English Language Learners (Zheng & Warschauer, 2015);
however, the researchers cautioned that the study was small and therefore not widely applicable.
Finally, several studies showed no correlation between computer use and academic progress
(Fairlie, 2008; Fairlie & Robinson, 2013) or inconsistent or unreliable data after conducting
research (Casey, Layte, Lyons, & Silles, 2012; Du et al., 2004; Jackson et al., 2006).
Most of the literature does not dispute the need for computer availability at home and
school, but rather, points to the need to find better ways to correlate computer use with academic
progress. Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) summed it up this way:
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

33
Though technology-related access, use and outcomes are difficult to measure, all
available evidence suggests they are critically important factors in shaping social futures.
As we rethink how to measure evidence of equitable resources, conditions, and outcomes
of student learning, continued close attention to the role of technology in both school and
out-of-school environments is urgently needed. (p. 219)
Factors Supporting Parent Engagement in Programs Aimed to Address
Student Equity Gaps
According to numerous studies from the past forty years, parental engagement is one of
the strongest predictors of students’ success (Castro et al., 2015; CDE, 2015; Weiss, Bouffard,
Bridglall, & Gordon, 2009). Over time, studies have shown effective processes and
considerations to deeply engage parents in school-related activities (Behnke & Kelly, 2011; Katz
& Levine, 2015; Rideout & Katz, 2016). Parent engagement includes involvement with school-
based activities like volunteering in a classroom or attending parent-teacher conferences, and
home-based activities like homework support (Georgis, Gokiert, Ford, & Ali, 2014), and
managing children’s time and enforcement of rules related to homework (Lee & Bowen, 2006).
Many lower-income families and families who speak limited English are often under-represented
in school-related activities (Garcia, Frunzi, Dean, Flores, & Miller, 2016). Studies show that this
under-representation is not because of a lack of desire, interest or willingness, but rather because
of cultural barriers that often prohibit full participation by parents (Garcia et al., 2016). For this
section of this general literature review, the research will focus primarily on the factors that
support parents from low socio-economic backgrounds, parents from Latino backgrounds, and
those who may have cultural or language barriers in the way of full access to school programs.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

34
Family Engagement
Several studies indicated that one way to involve parents in school-related programs was
to invite the whole family to the event. Behnke and Kelly (2011) found that inviting families,
including children, to program events encouraged more parents to attend and become engaged in
program activities. Many programs have provided meals and childcare at evening events to
support schedules and overcome financial barriers that might otherwise prohibit participation
(CDE, 2015). Furthermore, beyond attaining better attendance, Rideout and Katz (2016) found
that when families attended events together, family members often were resources for one
another during trainings. For instance, children often interpreted for parents and facilitated
interactions with school personnel who staffed the events. Conversely, parents contributed to the
discussions with their children about experiences and interpretations. It was found that children
and parents, helping each other, was a strong tool in supporting mutual skill- and confidence-
building amongst participants (Berdik, 2015; Rideout & Katz, 2016).
Culturally Inclusive Communication and Practices
Parent engagement largely depends on trusting relationships (Gorinski & Fraser, 2006).
Part of establishing these relationships is through developing deep understandings of cultural
backgrounds and strengths, communicating using practices that are sensitive to language and
cultural backgrounds, and by asking parents for input and feedback at various stages of program
implementation (Garcia et al., 2016). Reports have indicated that parents from low-income or
limited English-speaking backgrounds have felt stigmatized, were made to feel guilty, and were
perceived to be inadequate as parents (Mytton, Ingram, Manns, & Thomas, 2014). These same
reports showed that those parents who needed the most support with student achievement were
often the least likely to engage. Mytton et al. (2014) found that the most important aspects of
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

35
programs related to parent engagement in school activities were to (1) teach new skills in a
positive group setting, (2) use facilitators who were trusted, non-judgmental and were
empathetic, (3) use the group setting to exchange ideas, encourage others and receive support,
and (4) participate in focused, tailored sessions (rather than open-ended, generalized sessions).
These inclusive activities provided parents with meaningful and respectful ways to learn specific
aspects about the schools and their programs.
Specifically related to programs in which parents have participated in receiving free or
refurbished computers, Katz and Levine (2015) reported that parents and children often
sacrificed other necessities in order to access computers and pay for monthly Internet plans. The
research also showed the need to be sensitive to signing parents up for the program at a school or
governmental agency in geographic areas where government policies around immigrant status
was threatened. Finally, Katz and Levine emphasized the need for culturally responsive
approaches to providing services, ensuring that trainings and materials were interpreted and
translated into parents’ home languages. Understanding these important aspects of working with
parents from low-income or limited-English speaking background helped programs
communicate with parents, and for parents to build trust in school and program staff (Katz &
Levine, 2015).
Summary of General Literature
In less than thirty years, the digital divide has undergone major shifts in the United
States. From being introduced in the mid-1990s to being addressed by individual programs and
federal initiatives, the divide has at the same time narrowed with regard to one definition,
widened in regard to another (Rappaport, 2009). The complexities of the evolving digital divide
have been found to be correlated to many factors, one of which is the fact that new technologies
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

36
continue to be invented at a faster rate than the former technologies can be researched (Amiel,
2006; File & Ryan, 2014; Hall, 2006; Harris, 2010; Katz & Levine, 2015).
Research has shown the significant strides that have been made in closing the first level
divide, but second level gaps continue to emerge and widen due to conditions of access and how
technology is used as a tool to instruct students (Gonzales, 2016; Reinhart et al., 2011). While
often used as a means to complete assignments, technology can and should be used to deepen
learning, create new experiences, and shift basic technology tasks into meaningful lessons
(Dolan, 2016; Puentedura, 2010). Parents, who play critical roles in supporting their children
academically, need to be engaged in culturally respectful ways as they support their children
with computers at home (Behnke & Kelly, 2011; Katz & Levine, 2015). The next section of this
chapter will focus on the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that influence how
parents can support students’ use of computers at home to engage and improve their academic
achievement.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Evaluating the issue of digital equity among students is complex. The more complex the
issue, the more important it is to identify a strategy to focus the research and analysis on the
areas which have the most impact on goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). For this study, Clark and
Estes’ (2008) conceptual framework has been used to identify the gaps between actual
performance and the performance goal. This model provides the structure and framework
needed to clearly identify gaps in order to support parents in reaching their performance goal.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework identified three causes for performance gaps, each of
which need to be examined thoroughly to identify the extent to which changes need to be made
to reach the performance goals. The three areas examined in the following section include
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

37
parents’ knowledge and skills related to their performance goal, their motivation to achieve the
goal, and organizational barriers that impact parents from achieving their goal.
Knowledge and Skills
Literature reviewed in this section will focus on particular aspects of knowledge and
skills that influence CAH parents in attaining their goal of supporting their children academically
through the use of computers at home.
Knowledge influences. Accomplishing a goal requires that certain knowledge and skills
are acquired in order to do so. According to Krathwohl (2002), there are four knowledge types
that are important to distinguish when evaluating any knowledge gap. The four knowledge types
are factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). Factual and
conceptual knowledge address what needs to be understood, procedural knowledge addresses
how to implement the knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge addresses how one can impact
one’s own learning through self-reflection and deeper understanding (Rueda, 2011). This study
will analyze how all four types of knowledge can best facilitate the accomplishment of
stakeholders’ goals. The research-based assumed knowledge influences are presented in the next
section.
Assumed declarative conceptual knowledge influence.
Parents need to know the performance goal specific to the CAH program. Making
progress towards accomplishing a goal largely depends on articulating clear, measureable goals
for individuals and organizations (Latham & Locke, 2007). Rueda (2011) pointed out that if
individuals do not know what their goals are, they will not know if they reach them, and they
may work towards a target that is not aligned with the goal.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

38
Studies have shown that when parents had clarity on a program-related goal, and the
related terms that support the understanding of the goal, parents were better positioned and able
to support their children in school (Aceves, 2014; Tamzarian, Menzies, & Ricci, 2012). The
overwhelming majority of parents want to help their children succeed in school (Rideout & Katz,
2016), but absent a goal for supporting their students specifically for a program, parents may not
necessarily know where to begin, how long they should assist, and why their actions can make a
positive impact on their children.
Assumed procedural knowledge influences.
Parents need to know how to monitor computer use for safety when their children use a
computer. Research shows that computers are used at home more often and for longer periods of
time than at school (Straker, Pollock, & Maslen, 2009). At elementary grade levels, computer
usage at school is consistently monitored (Kerawalla & Crook, 2002); however, computer usage
by children at home is less frequently monitored, if monitored at all (Kerawalla & Crook, 2002).
With growing concerns about Internet safety and inappropriate online content, there is more
evidence that suggests the need for family guidelines and principles for using computers at home
(Straker et al., 2009). Children who are frequently unmonitored during computer time tend to
unintentionally participate with online predators (Alexander, R. T., 2012). This points to the
type of procedural knowledge needed for parents to know how to physically set up their
computers at home in open spaces, and how to provide continued support for young students so
they do not become victims of inappropriate or dangerous Internet use.
Parents need to know how to access ongoing computer literacy support. In 2013, a study
was conducted on a program that provided refurbished desktop computers to low-income
families to support students at home (Araque et al., 2013). This study revealed that parents faced
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

39
significant challenges related to problems with computer literacy and connecting to the Internet
once they brought their computers home. Computer literacy is defined as being able to use basic
functions on the computer, fix basic problems related to the computer, search on websites, and
use computer programs (James, 2012). The researchers concluded that because of the variation
of computer literacy found among participants, ongoing trainings in computer literacy support
would be necessary to ensure that parents could continue to use their computers effectively.
Parents may know how to use computers when they are working properly. However,
when a technical problem arises, parents need to know how to apply working knowledge, persist
through the issues, and continue to use their computers to support student learning. When
computers have been used and refurbished, they often require more attention than new
computers. Therefore, this procedural knowledge of knowing how to access literacy support
may be even more important when using refurbished computers. While parents need to know
basic computer facts, they need to be able to apply the facts when faced with computer problems
at home.
Assumed metacognitive knowledge influences.
Parents need to evaluate their awareness of their role in supporting their children with
computers at home. One important consideration for CAH parents is the fact that the computer
they receive may be the first one they have had in the home. The reason this is important is set
in the context of the information processing theory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). The
information processing theory states that, depending on how new information is presented, some
information will quickly be forgotten, and some information will be retained as a part of long-
term memory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). One way new information can more reliably
become part of long-term memory is if that information is tied to prior knowledge or experience
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

40
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Because prior knowledge may not be accessed for some parents,
another approach to learning and long-term impact is self-reflection and metacognitive thinking
(Mayer, 2011). Self-reflection, which is thinking about one’s own process of learning and how
that learning has improved outcomes, is a strategy an individual can use to further improve one’s
learning (Mayer, 2011). In the absence of prior knowledge, this strategy of evaluating parents’
awareness of their role in supporting their children with computers at home could be the key to
making the learning become part of long-term processing and have a better chance of being
retained.

Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Parents and Related Literature
Knowledge
Type
Assumed Knowledge Influences on
Parents Related Literature
Declarative Parents need to know their performance
goal specific to the CAH program.
Aceves (2014), Krathwohl (2002),
Latham and Locke (2007), Rideout
and Katz (2016), Tamzarian et al.
(2012)
Procedural Parents need to know how to monitor
computer use for safety when their
children use a computer.
Kerawalla and Crook (2002),
Alexander, R. T. (2012), Straker et
al. (2009)
Procedural Parents need to know how to access
ongoing computer literacy support.
Araque et al. (2013), James (2012)
Meta-
Cognitive
Parents need to evaluate their awareness
of their role in supporting their children
with computers at home.
Mayer (2011), Schraw and
McCrudden (2006)

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

41
Motivation
Whether or not parents successfully reach their CAH goal depends largely upon how
motivated they are to be involved. Motivation is a key factor to the success of the stakeholder’s
goal because it points to the beliefs that a person develops for themselves as learners and
achievers (Rueda, 2011). Furthermore, motivation impacts whether or not a person starts,
continues, and finishes a task (Rueda, 2011). In CAH, it is not only important for a family to
sign up for a computer, it is important that they attend a distribution night to receive a computer,
and subsequently, use the computers at home to support student academic development.
Motivation can be impacted by multiple factors. For CAH, two specific factors are
critical to the success of parents in attaining their goal. First, parents need to feel confident in
their ability to use computers to support their children’s academic goals. This feeling of
confidence is described in Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1991), where he describes self-
efficacy. Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief that he has the ability to successfully complete
the task at hand (Bandura, 1991). Second, parents need to see the value in using computers to
support students’ academic goals. Eccles’ expectancy value motivational theory explains that
when individuals place high value in the goal, they are most likely to be involved and
successfully complete it (2006).
This literature review will focus on self-efficacy and value that impact the parents’
motivation to use computers to support students’ academic goals.
Self-efficacy theory. Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1991) expresses the fact that
self-efficacy is the key to positive outcomes and behaviors that support the successful attainment
of a goal. According to Bandura (1991), self-efficacy is a foundational component of
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

42
motivation, which means that unless individuals believe they are capable of an action, they have
little motivation to start, engage in, or finish the action.
While self-efficacy is an integral part of motivation, outcome expectancy is important as
well. Outcome expectancy is an individual’s judgment of what the results of completing a task
will yield (Bandura, 1991). Self-efficacy affects expected outcomes of a task depending upon
each individual (Bandura, 1991). Individuals with high self-efficacy tend to expect that what
they engage in will have a successful outcome. However, while the outcome expectation is
usually high for individuals with self-efficacy, it is typically low for individuals with low self-
confidence.
Several factors can influence self-efficacy. One of those factors is an individual’s
positive experience throughout a performance, which is called mastery experience (Bandura,
1991). If an individual believes that the performance went well, that experience raises self-
efficacy. If the experience was not successful, it lowers self-efficacy. Another factor is the
feedback one receives. Feedback is categorized under social persuasions, which, if positive,
raise self-efficacy (Bandura, 1991). Finally, if an individual observes another person, who is
similar in ability, models or shows that he can accomplish the task, that modeling increases self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1991). In other words, this vicarious experience shows that the task can be
done and the outcome can be positive.
Assumed self-efficacy influence.
Parents need to feel confident in their ability to use computers. Self-efficacy plays a
major role for parents in the CAH program. Research shows the positive effect self-efficacy has
on lowering computer anxiety (Conrad & Munro, 2008; Cooper-Gaiter, 2015; Davidson &
Ritchie, 1994), engaging in short and long-term computer use (Ceyhan & Ceyhan, 2008), and
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

43
expecting successful outcomes (Antoine, 2011). Fostering the self-efficacy of parents in the
CAH program will allow them to feel confident in their ability to use computers to support their
children’s academic goals.
When parents receive a computer from CAH, they attend a distribution event whereupon
they receive instructions for how to use the computer and how to set up a safe and public
computer environment at home. This experience may evoke feelings of anxiety, especially if
parents are novice computer users. An abundance of research shows that providing ways to
increase self-efficacy in parents will help to assuage feelings of anxiety about using the
computers (Conrad & Munro, 2008; Cooper-Gaiter, 2015; Davidson & Ritchie, 1994). For
example, providing learning opportunities for parents and using easy-to-understand language and
tools during the trainings help to reduce anxiety and support the increase of self-efficacy
(Cooper-Gaiter, 2015). Also, providing information about how to access technical support after
parents take computers home lowers anxiety and increases confidence in their self-efficacy to
successfully use their computers upon taking them home (Davidson & Ritchie, 1994).
A study by Eastin and LaRose (2000) reported that self-efficacy was a critical factor in
closing the digital divide that separates novice computer users from experienced ones. This
study, conducted specifically around self-efficacy and its effect on computer usage, showed that
“Internet self-efficacy was positively correlated to Internet usage, prior Internet experience, and
outcome expectancies . . . and negatively correlated with measures . . . such as Internet stress and
self-disparagement” (p. 8). Tying this back to CAH, self-efficacy will support novice computer
parents to be more confident in using their computers, allow parents to access computer
programs and the Internet, lower anxiety, and have a positive outcome expectancy. Self-efficacy
in using computers is critical to the success of this program at home.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

44
Expectancy value theory. Expectancy value theory is linked to self-efficacy in that they
both contribute to the motivation of individuals to begin, persist, and complete a goal (Eccles,
2006). In fact, Eccles’ (2006) research supports that an individual’s self-efficacy added to the
value he places in a goal strongly influences the successful attainment of the activity or
performance. Expectancy value can be defined as the extent to which an individual believes the
goal will enhance the person’s personal or professional life (Eccles, 2006). More specifically,
Eccles (2006) explains there are several ways in which an individual might find value in a task:
(1) intrinsic value, which is how positive an individual expects to feel when engaged in the task;
(2) attainment value, which is based on an individual’s image of who they are or who they want
to be; (3) utility value, which is determined by how well a task might satisfy a goal or plan; and
(4) cost value, which relates to the relative cost (e.g., time, energy, emotion) that this task might
take.
Given the research on how value affects the accomplishment of a goal, it is a major
component for the success of CAH that parents see the value in using computers to support
students’ academic goals. Parents seeing value in using computers, combined with self-efficacy,
will influence the motivation of the parents to utilize CAH computers to support their children in
school.
Assumed expectancy value influence.
Parents need to see the value in using computers. Huang and Russell’s (2006) study on
“The Digital Divide and Academic Achievement” compared fifth-grade classrooms at several
schools. They found that the key to using computers for academic success was not merely
access to computers at home, but included the attitudes, expectations, and the value placed by
parents, teachers, and students in using computers to support students’ academic goals.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

45
One way that researchers have found to improve academic progress with the use of
computers is by explicitly explaining to parents the personal, professional, and academic ways
that using the computer can add value to a student’s life or career (Fraughton, Sansone, Butner,
& Zachary, 2011). In fact, Fraughton et al.’s study (2011) showed that pointing out the utility
value in computers significantly increased parents’ understanding of the value, and directly
impacted student academic success. Moreover, the same study showed that seeing the value in
using computers compensated for the lack of prior experience or knowledge with using
computers.
One important distinction the literature has made about value is the difference between
parents’ aspirations or desires that computers support academic development and parents’ beliefs
of how the computer can add value to the student in supporting academic development
(Kerawalla & Crook, 2002). If a parent simply has hope that the computer will support students,
research has found that the parent is less motivated to stay involved than if the parent
understands the distinct value in using a computer in attaining the student’s goals.

Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivational Influences and Related Literature
Motivation
Type or Theory Assumed Motivational Influences Related Literature
Self-Efficacy Parents need to feel confident in their
ability to use computers to support
their children’s academic goals.
Bandura (1991), Conrad and Munro
(2008), Cooper-Gaiter (2015),
Davidson and Ritchie (1994)
Expectancy
Value Theory
Parents need to see the value in using
computers to support students’
academic goals.
Eastin and LaRose (2000), Eccles
(2006), Fraughton et al. (2011),
Huang and Russell (2006),
Kerawalla and Crook (2002)

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

46
Organizational Influences
The previous sections of this chapter have provided a literature review of the knowledge
and motivation influences that impact the effectiveness of parents as they support students on
their computers at home. While knowledge and motivation significantly impact the success of
the stakeholders, it is critical to analyze the organizational influences as well. Because the
culture of an organization is so strongly aligned to the success of an organization, it is important
to evaluate the organizational culture to assess whether the setting or models are impacting the
ability for the organization to be successful (Schein, 2004; Tellis, 2013). According to Clark and
Estes (2008), organizational features, such as structures and sufficiency of resources, are as
critical to evaluate as knowledge and motivation.
Cultural settings and cultural models. Organizational culture is best analyzed if split
into two ideas: cultural settings and cultural models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural
settings have been described as the visible structure of the organizational environment, where
events take place (Tharpe & Gallimore, 1988). The cultural models are the shared values and
ideals, traditions and practices that are enacted in the organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). Cultural model influences may not necessarily be seen, but are felt throughout the
organization. Examples of cultural models include how the organization approaches solving
problems, resolving conflict, recognizing staff, and how it accounts for success or failure. Put
together, the cultural settings and models are what define an organizational culture and will be
analyzed further in the literature review below.
Assumed cultural settings.
Organizations regularly review their operational systems and processes to ensure they
have alignment between resources (i.e., adequate staff, time and money) and their goals. As
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

47
Schwandt and Marquardt (1999) reflected, it is important for an organization to determine
whether the organization is operating effectively, and to see if it has adequate resources to meet
the needs of the program. Although resources are often allocated depending on the beliefs of the
leader (i.e., decentralized authority, administration-heavy, minimizing interdependence), the
structural systems and procedures of checks and balances need to be in place no matter what
belief system is followed (Schein, 2010). Schein (2010) noted that these systems and procedures
formalize the process of “paying attention” (p. 253), and help all staff to be reminded of the
goals.
Dixon (2000) found that one of the strongest predictors of effective organizations going
through a change process was the alignment of structures and process of the organization with
goals. The report stated that many documented failures of organizations pointed to the failure to
ensure alignment between resources and goals. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that if anything
changed in a goal, then structures and processes would need to be changed as well.
Organizations provide training and feedback on performance to their stakeholders.
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that it is easy to provide effective feedback on training when it is
part of a carefully designed improvement system. As part of the system, feedback should be
timely, informational, and correctional to help stakeholders adjust their approaches to their goals
as needed (Clark & Estes, 2008). When trying out new strategies, as parents may be doing in
school-related programs, feedback about how one is doing, as well as having the opportunity to
make mistakes, is an essential part of learning (Schein, 2010).
Schein (2010) warned that societal norms often prohibit organizational leaders from
providing feedback because they want to avoid hurting a person’s feelings. Additionally, people
from under-represented cultural backgrounds may also react to feedback and input in a variety of
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

48
ways that could signal negativity or fearfulness due to perceptions of power, influence, and
authority (Schein, 2010). In light of these issues, organizations need to find ways to provide
feedback to learners that are informative and corrective, but that are about process and strategies
and not about the person. Opportunities to test out learning, make mistakes, and learn from
feedback are important parts of the learning process, and will help stakeholders accomplish their
goals.
Assumed cultural model.
Organizations communicate with cultural responsiveness, providing stakeholders of all
backgrounds with open access to each aspect of the program. As reviewed in the general
literature section of this chapter, organizations need to communicate with stakeholders to
develop trust, using practices that are sensitive to language and cultural backgrounds (Garcia et
al., 2016). CAH is a program that serves a community that is primarily low-income and
Spanish-speaking. Serving a community that is diverse and often under-represented requires
cultural responsiveness, which is defined as the ability to learn from and relate respectfully with
people of one’s own culture as well as those from other cultures (National Center for Culturally
Responsive Educational Systems [NCCRESt], 2016).
Practices such as inviting the family to trainings, versus inviting parents-only, translating
written materials, and interpreting English in real-time into Spanish help to support a feeling of
inclusivity (Katz & Levine, 2015). CAH’s global goal of providing fourth-grade students with
computers can only happen if parents participate. Parents will participate in school-related
programs more readily if there is trust, consistency, and respectful approaches to embracing
cultural diversity and the strengths that parents and families bring to the program. Clark and
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

49
Estes (2008) reported that clear, constant, and candid communication engenders trust, which
increases the commitment to goals at every level.

Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences and Related Literature
Cultural Setting
or Cultural Model Assumed Organizational Influences Related Literature
Cultural Setting Organizations review their operational
systems and processes to ensure they have
adequate staff, time and money to
accomplish their goals.
Clark and Estes (2008),
Dixon (2000), Schwandt
and Marquardt (1999),
Schein (2010)
Cultural Setting Organizations provide training and
feedback on performance to their
stakeholders.
Clark and Estes (2008),
Schein (2010)
Cultural Model Organizations communicate with parents
using cultural responsiveness, providing
parents of all backgrounds with open access
to each aspect of the program.
Clark and Estes (2008),
Garcia et al. (2016), Katz
and Levine (2015),
NCCRESt (2016)

Conclusion
This chapter has examined general literature regarding the digital divide, as well as
related literature that helped to define influences on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
behaviors that seek to improve parent performance on their CAH goal. Parents’ support of
students using computers at home is a critical component that addresses the larger issue of the
first and second level digital divides. By using Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework, the literature
and research pointed to particular areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that will be explored further in the next chapter. Chapter 3 will explain the methodology for
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

50
validating these influences through the use of data and measurement. Because the effectiveness
of the program will depend on the level of implementation of each of the influences, it will be
important to measure the extent to which CAH is successfully reaching its stated goals, and to
what extent other recommendations may be needed to close the digital divide at first and second
levels.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

51
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors needed for parents to support their children academically while they use
their computers at home. Chapter 3 begins with the description of the conceptual framework
used for this study. Then, the chapter outlines the methodology used to conduct the study,
including the types of instruments used for data collection, sampling criteria, addressing
credibility and reliability, ethics, and limitations of the study.
The three research questions that guide this study were:
1. To what extent are parents utilizing and connecting CAH computers once parents take
them home?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to parents
engaging in practices recommended by the CAH parent training to support students’
academic goals through the use of computers at home?
3. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions that can help
parents meet their goal?
Conceptual Framework
Chapter 2 described important stakeholder influences that impact the extent to which
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps exist in attaining stakeholder goals. While the
previous sections in Chapter 2 detailed each influence separately, this section explains how each
influence interacts with one another. The way in which these influences interact can be
described through what is called a conceptual framework.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

52
According to Maxwell (2013), a conceptual framework is a model of what the research
study looks like, how different components interact, and presents the “actual ideas and beliefs”
(p. 39) about the study. The conceptual framework is a theoretical structure that can include
ideas, thoughts and other theories to frame the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The purpose of
defining the conceptual framework is to provide the structure upon which to develop research
questions, research designs, and conclusions; it is an essential part of the study that validates the
process and results (Maxwell, 2013).
For this particular study, the organization is Computers at Home, which provides a
service to stakeholders, who are parents who receive computers so that their children can have a
computer at home. How well CAH serves the stakeholders, and how successfully the
stakeholders utilize the training and support from CAH impacts the extent to which the
stakeholders can successfully achieve their goal. Therefore, the relational, reciprocal aspect of
the organization and stakeholders is a primary component of the conceptual framework of the
study. Another important relationship is that of Computers at Home to the organization that
administers CAH: Partnering for Education, a 501c3 under the umbrella of the South Coast
County Education Office. This relationship influences how CAH is structured and delivered,
and therefore is another important component of the conceptual framework pictured in Figure 4.
The primary function of Computers at Home is to provide local fourth-grade
students/families a free, refurbished computer to have and use at home. The computers are
donated by local businesses, refurbished by CAH staff and volunteers, and provided to any
family who signs up at their school, and who has identified themselves as not having a computer
at home. The stakeholders in this study are the parents who receive the CAH computers. The
stakeholders’ knowledge and motivation directly impact the extent to which they will utilize
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

53
these computers when they take them home, and how much they will be used to support
schoolwork and academic achievement.

Figure 4. Conceptual framework of the CAH program, the stakeholders, and the stakeholder goal

Assessment of Performance Influences
This section reviews the approach used in this study to assess the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences that affect parents’ abilities to support their children as they use
computers at home. Table 5 provides a summary of each area and influence. Tables 6, 7, and 8
align knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences with survey and interview items. In
this study, the researcher-designed survey and interview protocols for each of the knowledge
Parents(
Knowledge
!Know&their&performance&goal&specific&to&the&CAH&program&(declarative)
!Know&how&to&monitor&computer&use&and&to&distinguish&academic&activities&and&“play”&
when&their&children&use&a&computer.&(procedural)
!Know&how&to&access&ongoing&computer&literacy&support.&(procedural)
Evaluate&their&awareness&of&their&role&in&supporting&their&children&at&home&
(metacognitive)
Motivation
!Feel&confident&in&their&ability&to&use&computers&(self!efficacy)
!Value&using&computers&to&support&students’&academic&goals&(value)
Partnering&for&Education&(501c3):&&
Computers&At&Home&Program
Cultural1Settings1and1Cultural1Models
!Reviews&their&operational&systems&and&processes&to&ensure&they&have&adequate&
staff,&time&and&money&to&accomplish&their&goals&
!Provides&training&and&feedback&on&performance&to&its&stakeholders&
!Communicates&with&parents&using&cultural&responsiveness,&providing&parents&of&
all&backgrounds&with&open&access&to&each&aspect&of&the&program
By&May,&2018,&100%&of&parents&who&receive&a&computer&from&CAH&
will&utilize&the&computers&to&support&academic&goals&of&their&student(s).
Figure&4:&&
Conceptual+Framework+of+the+CAH+Program,+the+Stakeholders,+and+the+Stakeholder+Goal
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

54
influences (two declarative, two procedural, and one meta-cognitive), motivational influences
(one self-efficacy and one expectancy-value), and organizational influences (two cultural settings
and two cultural models). The survey and interview items were used to determine which KMO
factors influenced the key stakeholder goal of ensuring by May 2018 that all parents who receive
a computer from CAH will utilize the computers to support academic goals of their children.

Table 5
Summary of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences on Parents
Knowledge
Parents need to know their performance goal specific to the CAH program. (D)
Parents need to know how to monitor computer use for safety when their children use a
computer. (P)
Parents need to know how to access ongoing computer literacy support. (P)
Parents need to evaluate their awareness of their role in supporting their children with
computers at home. (M)
Motivation
Parents need to feel confident in their ability to use computers to support their children’s
academic goals. (Self-Efficacy)
Parents need to see the value in using computers to support students’ academic goals.
(Expectancy Value)
Organization
Organizations review their operational systems and processes to ensure they have adequate
staff, time and money to accomplish their goals. (Cultural Setting)
Organizations provide training and feedback on performance to their stakeholders. (Cultural
Setting)
Organizations communicate with parents using cultural responsiveness, providing parents of
all backgrounds with open access to each aspect of the program. (Cultural Model)

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

55
Knowledge Assessment
As previously reported in the literature review, students need computers as tools for
learning (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). However, having a computer at home is just one
part of the equation. Families need multiple layers of knowledge to support their children,
including how to access ongoing technical support (Araque et al., 2013; Ceyhan & Ceyhan,
2008; Davidson & Ritchie, 1994; Fraughton et al., 2011; Herrick, 2014; Jackson et al., 2006;
James, 2012; Klein, Nir-Gal, & Darom, 2000), use the computers to support academic
development (Araque et al., 2013; Ceyhan & Ceyhan, 2008; Huang & Russell, 2006; Jackson et
al., 2006, James, 2012; Straker et al., 2009), and understand how to navigate online safely
(Araque et al., 2013; Ceyhan & Ceyhan, 2008; Davidson & Ritchie, 1994; Fraughton et al.,
2011; Herrick, 2014; Jackson et al., 2006; James, 2012; Klein et al., 2000). As stakeholders,
parents need to have this knowledge in order to transition from having a computer at home to
utilizing a computer at home to support their children in school.
Through the use of interviews, the researcher asked parents about their declarative,
procedural and metacognitive knowledge. Parents were asked to identify, share, and list
responses to the questions in an effort to assess their knowledge. According to Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), interviews are an effective way to assess experiences and stakeholder knowledge.
Table 6 provides the knowledge assessment items as related to each assumed knowledge
influence.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

56
Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences on Parents’ Support of Their Children
Assumed Knowledge
Influence Knowledge Influence Assessment
Declarative Conceptual Knowledge
Parents need to know their
performance goal specific
to the CAH program.
Interview:
What goals did CAH provide for you to work towards once you
took your computers home?
What are some of the elements needed to attain those goals?
How do you know if you are achieving those goals?
Procedural Knowledge
Parents need to know how
to monitor computer use
for safety when their
children use a computer.
Interview:
Describe what occurred once you brought your CAH computer
home (i.e., describe where your computer is set up in your living
environment).
Describe ways that you monitor computer use at home.
Parents need to know how
to access ongoing computer
literacy support.
Interview:
What would happen something broke on the computer? What
would you do? Who might you call?
Have there been any issues on your computer?
If any, please describe some of those experiences with me.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Parents need to evaluate
their awareness of their
role in supporting their
children with computers at
home.
Interview:
In what ways has your involvement with CAH impacted the
family or student progress?
How do you know you are on the right track as you help your
child on their computer?

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

57
Motivation Assessment
Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO model revealed that the knowledge needed for
implementation of a goal is essential, but motivation is also critical. Stakeholders need to be
motivated enough to sustain the utilization of computers. Research shows that families need to
feel confident in their ability to use computers (Antoine, 2011; Bandura, 1991; Ceyhan &
Ceyhan, 2008; Conrad & Munro, 2008; Cooper-Gaiter, 2015; Eastin & LaRose, 2000), see the
value in using computers and believe that computers are part of the academic and social
expectations in school today (Antoine, 2011; Bandura, 1991; Ceyhan & Ceyhan, 2008; Conrad &
Munro, 2008; Herrick, 2014; Klein et al., 2000). Having these motivational factors in place will
support families as they work with their students at home on their computers. Through survey
items and open-ended, semi-structured interviews, the researcher asked questions about self-
efficacy and the value parents see in using computers as shown in Table 7.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

58
Table 7
Summary of Motivational Influences on Parents’ Support of Their Children
Assumed Motivation
Influence Motivation Influence Assessment
Self-Efficacy
Parents need to feel
confident in their ability
to use computers to
support their children’s
academic goals.
Survey:
I feel confident about using a computer.
I feel confident about using the Internet on the computer.
I feel confident about how to help my child with academic work,
using the computer.
I feel I can help my child on the computer if he or she gets stuck.
I am able to clearly state the Computers for Families’ goals for
parents.
I know what Computers for Families expects of me as a parent.
I monitor what my child does on the computer at home.
I know different ways to support my student on the computer as it
relates to schoolwork.
After bringing my computer home, we have had no problems using
it.
I contacted Computers for Families, after taking my computer
home.
I think about how to help my child with their computers.
Interview:
When it comes to using a computer, can you share with me ways
you feel confident in using one?
When it comes to helping your child on the computer, can you
share with me ways you feel confident about helping?
What are some ways that would help you be more effective using or
helping your child use the computer?
What obstacles have you encountered by having a computer at
home?
How do you overcome those obstacles, if any?

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

59

Table 7, continued
Assumed Motivation
Influence Motivation Influence Assessment
Expectancy Value
Parents need to see the
value in using
computers to support
students’ academic
goals.
Survey:
Using the computer from Computers for Families has helped my
child in school.
The computer from Computers for Families has helped me connect
to my child’s school.
The computer from Computers for Families is an important part of
my child’s success at school.
My child relies on the computer from Computers for Families to
complete school requirements.
I believe having a computer at home helps my child with his/her
schoolwork.
I believe having a computer at home helps my child achieve
academically.
I believe having a computer at home is critical part of being a
successful student.
My child is required to use a computer to complete assignments at
home.
My child uses the computer from Computers for Families to
complete assignments at home.
Interview:
How does your child use the computer at home?
What are ways you would like to see your computer being used at
home?
How useful is having a computer and Internet connectivity at home
for your child and school?

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

60
Organizational Assessment
Computers at Home is a program offered by Partnering for Education, a 501c3 non-profit
organization administered by the South Coast County Education Office (SCCEO). In 2016,
Computers at Home moved within the organizational structure of SCCEO. Before the move, it
employed two dedicated staff members who supported the majority of the program operations.
After the move and after one staff member’s retirement, CAH employed one dedicated staff
member and had the additional support of the staff in Partnering for Education. In addition to the
CAH move, Partnering for Education also moved within the organization structure of SCCEO. It
was previously supervised by one division of SCCEO but moved under the umbrella of a
different division within the office. In summary, Partnering for Education moved under the
Superintendent, and then CAH moved under Partnering for Education. These organizational
changes impacted the organizational setting within CAH by shifting staff size and changing
elements of how CAH was designed and managed.
The structural changes described above impacted the organizational model within CAH.
With new leadership and shifted structures comes the need to ensure that the organization has
what it needs to run an efficient and effective program. Thus, the program needs to review its
operational systems and processes to ensure they have adequate staff, time and money to
accomplish their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Dixon, 2000; Schwandt & Marquardt, 1999;
Schein, 2010). Organizations also need to provide training and feedback on performance to their
stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2010), and communicate with parents using cultural
responsiveness (Clark & Estes, 2008; Garcia et al., 2016; Katz & Levine, 2015; NCCRESt,
2016). In order to assess the extent to which organizational factors are in place at CAH, the
researcher asked specific organizational questions during one-to-one interviews and on surveys.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

61
Table 8
Summary of Organizational Influences on Parents’ Support of Their Children
Assumed Organizational
Influence Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Settings
Organizations review
their operational systems
and processes to ensure
they have adequate staff,
time and money to
accomplish their goals.
Survey:
I feel Computers for Families staff are available to me when I need
them.
When I received my computer at the Computers for Families
distribution night, I received steps or directions on ways to help my
student on his/her computer.
Interview:
To what extent was the CAH staff able to assist you when needed?
What, if anything, would you suggest CAH do for parents in regard
to their staff, time and money?
Organizations provide
training and feedback on
performance to its
stakeholders.
Survey:
Computers for Families contacted me after I took my computer
home.
It would be helpful if Computers for Families contacted me after I
took my computer home.
Interview:
What training did you receive at CAH?
What feedback did you receive at CAH?
Cultural Models
Organizations
communicate with
parents using cultural
responsiveness,
providing parents of all
backgrounds with open
access to each aspect of
the program.
Interview:
Please describe the CAH program communication that you have
received, either written or verbal.
In what ways could communication or support be improved?
Describe interactions with the CAH program or staff at any time
during your involvement with CAH.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

62
Participating Stakeholders and Sampling
In order to evaluate the extent to which parents were meeting the performance goal of
100% use of CAH computers to support their child at home with academic goals (research
question 1), it was important to survey and interview parents who recently participated in the
CAH program. Parents for this research study participated in CAH during the 2015–2016 and
2016–2017 school years and were able to speak to the organization and the extent to which it
supported parents in helping their children use computers at home. These parents received CAH
computers when their children were in fourth grade (now in fifth or sixth grade), thus the
students generally attended the same school they were in when they started with CAH. Because
the districts in the CAH service area serve kindergarten through sixth grade, it was helpful to
keep the parents within the same grade span since the structures in their school experiences were
similar to past years (i.e., elementary school-only versus elementary and junior high school).
Also, interview and survey items relating to school systems were limited to one school district
system. This group of parents provided information about how the CAH computer was used to
support student work, and were asked about knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
that might influence them with their children at home.
For this study, all parents whose email addresses were available and valid, and who met
the survey and interview criteria, were invited to participate. During the 2015–2016 and 2016–
2017 school years, 156 parents provided emails to CAH during the computer distribution events.
Of these 156 parents, 130 met the survey and interview criteria, which are detailed below. In
addition, 40 parents who met the criteria, but did not provide CAH with emails, were provided
hard-copy surveys at one specific school site with the permission of the school
superintendent/principal. This school site delivered surveys in students’ “Friday Folders” which
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

63
were sent home to families on a Friday, and were returned on the subsequent Monday. The total
survey sample size was 170.
Methodology
This study used a convergent parallel mixed methodology to evaluate the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that support parents with their students on
computers at home. This mixed methods approach was used because it allowed the researcher to
analyze the quantitative data and qualitative data separately, then compare and contrast the
results (Creswell, 2014). In this study, surveys, interviews, observations and artifacts were used
to validate knowledge, motivation, and organization influences. Research-based solutions were
recommended and evaluated based on this approach.
Surveys
Surveys provide a quantitative description of trends, opinions and perspectives (Creswell,
2014). An electronic survey was provided to all parents who met the research criteria. In one
district, paper copies were requested and provided for its qualified parents.
Survey sampling criteria. The following criteria were used to determine eligibility for
survey participants:
Criterion 1. Parents who received a computer from CAH in school years 2015–2016 or
2016–2017.
Criterion 2. Parents whose child/student was in fourth grade in 2015–2016 or fourth or
fifth grade in 2016–2017.
Criterion 3. Parents who observe their children using computers at home for
schoolwork.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

64
Interviews
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained that interviewing stakeholders using open-ended,
semi-structured questions is an effective approach for researchers to use to gain insight about
experiences. Eight interviews were conducted with nine parents who participated in CAH during
the 2015–2016 or 2016–2017 school years. Through open-ended, semi-structured questions, the
researcher was able to ask questions that clarified and expanded upon responses to surveys
related to knowledge, motivation and the organization.
Interview sampling criteria. The following criteria were used to determine eligibility
for interview participants:
Criterion 1. Parents who received a computer from CAH in school years 2015–2016 or
2016–2017.
Criterion 2. Parents whose child/student was in fourth grade in 2015–2016 or fourth or
fifth grade in 2016–2017.
Criterion 3. Parents who observe their children using computers at home for
schoolwork.
Observation
Observations help fill in the qualitative and quantitative picture that the interviews and
intake survey cannot provide (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher attended one distribution event in
2017–2018 to gain a deeper understanding about what typically occurs during distribution events
and to observe CAH staff, volunteer, parent, and student interactions.
Observation sampling criteria. The following criteria were used to determine
eligibility for observation participants:
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

65
Criterion 1. Parents whose fourth-grade child did not have his or her own computer at
home.
Criterion 2. Parents who completed the CAH parent training at the distribution event.
Criterion 3. Parents who received a computer at the end of the training.
Instrumentation
Surveys
The 28-item survey was developed by the researcher and correlated to the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences from the literature review. This survey included a
cover letter that provided background about the researcher, asked for consent of the survey
participant, and discussed the voluntary nature of the survey, including opportunities to skip
items and/or stop participating at any time. The majority of the survey items used scaled scores
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The survey was designed to take less than 10 minutes
to complete. A copy of the survey and survey protocols may be found in Appendices A, B, C, D,
E, and F.
Interviews
Each interview followed an open-ended, semi-structured format, and was scheduled to be
less than one hour. Questions were based on the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences that emerged from the literature review. All interviews were offered in a natural
setting (Creswell, 2014): any place of the parent’s choosing, including their child’s school. One
interview was conducted in-person at a school site, two interviews were conducted at
individuals’ homes, and five interviews were conducted by phone, at the request of the
interviewees. In all cases, the interview protocol was followed, copies of which may be located
in Appendices G, H, I, and J.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

66
Observation
As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest, a checklist of observable factors was created by
the researcher, and included the physical setting, the participants, activities and interactions, and
conversations. The observation protocol is located in Appendix K.
Data Collection
Surveys
One hundred and thirty parents whose emails were in the CAH database were sent an
introductory email, in English and Spanish, which included information about the purpose of the
research project as well as a link to the electronic survey. The introductory email stated that the
survey was intended to take 10 minutes or less, and asked participants to participate within one
week (exact date was provided). The title page of the survey explained that the survey was
voluntary, confidential, and that items could be skipped at any time. These parents were emailed
two additional times, and the deadline was delayed and published to allow for more parents to
take the survey. In addition to the electronic surveys, one school asked specifically for hard-
copy surveys. As a result, 170 surveys were administered, and 42 surveys (25%) were returned.
Of the 42 surveys, 27 were completed in English and 15 were completed in Spanish.
Interviews
One hundred and thirty parents whose emails were in the CAH database were sent an
introductory email, in English and Spanish, about the purpose of the research project and brief
background about the researcher. In this initial contact, the researcher asked parents to respond
if they wanted to participate in an interview, which would be voluntary, confidential, and
intended to be one hour or less. All interviews were offered to be conducted in English or
Spanish. Parents were notified that they would receive a $25 gift card to Office Max, Staples or
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

67
Amazon.com for participating in the interview. This interview request was sent three times over
two weeks, and as parents responded, their emails were excluded so they would not receive
repeat requests.
As a result of the interview request emails, eight interviews were scheduled. Three
interviews were conducted face-to-face, of which one was conducted with both parents (versus
only one parent), and five interviews were conducted by phone. During interviews, the
researcher took some notes, but all interviews were recorded with permission of the interviewee.
All interviewees received $25 gift cards after interviews were completed.
Observation
The researcher attended one CAH distribution event in October 2017, which included the
participation of 60 families. The researcher observed the physical room, interactions amongst
people (staff, volunteers, and families), the CAH training and computer distribution. According
to the CAH staff, all CAH distribution events are identical in nature, following the same course
of events. Therefore, the observation was completed to understand the representative events that
occur during a distribution event.
Documents and Artifacts
Collecting and analyzing documents and artifacts can add depth to the comprehensive
approach of data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Documents and artifacts “illuminate” the
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 181), and often support the evidence found. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) caution, however, that most documents and artifacts are not typically produced for
the purpose of a research study, and therefore need to be considered carefully before using. The
researcher has reviewed CAH program materials provided at distribution events, and
organizational materials collected by the organization over time. Although the materials might
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

68
provide insights into organization, only information related to this research study has been used.
All requested documents and artifacts may be found in Appendix L.
Validity and Reliability
Quantitative research methods need to be rigorously designed and analyzed. The goal is
to test what needs to be tested, in the right way, and with results that are valid and reliable
(Salkind, 2017). A threat to the validity and reliability could be found if there were biases in the
survey questions or instruments. Processes need to be implemented to avoid validity threats, and
to yield results that are both valid and reliable.
The survey items for this study were created to align with the research questions, and
were approved by committee, and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University
of Southern California. All survey questions were provided in English and Spanish to all parents
involved in this study. The surveys were generated in Qualtrics, a computer-based program.
Results from the English and Spanish version, plus the hard-copy version were analyzed by the
researcher by inputting results in Excel.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
When conducting a research study using qualitative methods, it is imperative that the
study is conducted in ways that point to outcomes that are credible and trustworthy (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative data should match reality as closely as possible (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Although reality itself cannot be recreated, credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative
studies can be achieved through a variety of methods that span across the research design, data
collection, data analysis and findings. Using the natural setting, and observing for long-enough
periods of time, are two aspects that Merriam and Tisdell (2016) report to help build credibility
and trustworthiness when collecting data.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

69
For this study’s research design, multiple measures were conducted to triangulate data.
Surveys, interviews, the observation, and the document analysis were used to ensure that
outcomes closely aligned with reality, and that each supported the findings. Interviews were
conducted at times and settings selected by the parents, and were recorded to capture the most
descriptive data as possible. Notes taken during the observation followed observation protocols
to provide opportunity for rich, detailed descriptions.
Another important aspect of reporting qualitative findings is to ensure that the researcher
discloses biases, dispositions and assumptions about the study (Maxwell, 2013). This study fully
explores ethics, biases and assumption in the next section of this dissertation. Disclosing this
information helps with transparency, and supports the assertion that the researcher is an
influential part of the study.
Qualitative and quantitative methods provide a comprehensive look at research studies.
However, having credible, trustworthy, valid and reliable qualitative and quantitative methods is
necessary to make the research applicable to other studies and to provide insight into similar
problems of practice (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The Role of the Investigator
The researcher is a current superintendent, with 22 years of experience in education, of
which 18 years have been spent in education administration (e.g., principal, assistant
superintendent, superintendent). This experience has enabled the researcher to be highly
involved in oversight of staff and operations for programs and services in schools, districts, and
countywide. While the researcher directly supervises the program manager of the PFE program
(which oversees the CAH program), she does not oversee the operations of the CAH program.
This evaluation study was meant to support CAH by providing it with future actions they could
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

70
take to close any knowledge, motivation and organization gaps to support parent performance
towards their goals. This study has not and will not be used to evaluate staff or performance in
any way.
Ethics
When research involves any individual or group of people, it is important, and in fact
mandated by law, that the participants are protected from any harm that may result from the
research study (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Not harming human subjects can be defined as not
exploiting them, or not publishing information that might cause embarrassment, loss of status or
material possessions (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). This research study follows all ethical procedures
and laws in order to protect individuals studied. These procedures, outlined by Krueger and
Casey (2009), include ensuring that all participants sign an informed consent form, clearly
stating that the study is voluntary and confidential, that participants can withdraw from the study
at any time and without penalty, and data will be stored without names or identifying labels.
The CAH program provides free, refurbished computers to families, which, by nature of
the program, means that many families who participate in the program come from low-income
backgrounds. Sensitivity to income and language differences with the CAH is extremely
important. Therefore, prior to beginning any research, participants were provided with
information about the intent of the study, and the process used to analyze data. The University
of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this study, which ensured
all participants would not be harmed in the study. All IRB rules and policies were followed.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

71
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influences that impede or facilitate parent
support of their children on computers at home. In CAH, the program analyzed for this study,
computers were refurbished and donated to families who self-reported that they did not have a
computer at home for their fourth-grade child. The data collected for this study sought to
determine the gap for parents in reaching their goal, which was to utilize CAH computers to
support their students’ academic achievements. The broader context of the problem of practice
stemmed from the fact that the digital divide of those who have physical computers and access to
the Internet has been closing, while the second level divide of access to fast, efficient, and
readily-accessible information and high-quality instruction is widening (Gonzales, 2016;
Reinhart et al., 2011).
Multiple sources of quantitative and qualitative data were collected to triangulate and
validate the assumed influences outlined in Chapter 3. First, surveys were administered to
parents who participated in the CAH program within the past two years. Next, interviews were
conducted to gain qualitative data and insight from parents. One observation of a CAH
distribution event was conducted, and CAH materials, provided to parents at the CAH
distribution event, were collected as part of this analysis.
Results and findings from the data collection have been organized by assumed influence:
knowledge, motivation, and organization. Within each assumed influence section, survey results
and then interview results have been provided, following the order of the data collection.
Observation and information provided by the review of CAH materials have been added to
sections where relevant.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

72
Definition of Validation
Each assumed influence has been validated, not validated, partially validated, or has been
determined to be unable to be validated. A validated gap is one where 50% or more of the
responses agreed that there was a need for change related to the specific influence, or where 50%
or more identified there was an issue in this area, and was confirmed by all instruments used to
determine the gap. An influence was partially validated when the instruments used to determine
the gap resulted in conflicting information. For instance, if one source of data showed 50% or
more agreement of the gap, and another source of data showed less than 50% agreement, this
finding was partially validated. An influence was not validated when the instrument, or all
instruments used, determined by a rate of 50% or more, showed there was no need for change.
An influence was not able to be validated in circumstances where there was insufficient data to
determine if a gap was present.
Known Demographics of Respondents
Of the 170 individuals who were provided with a link to participate in the survey, 42
responses (25%) were returned and used as part of this analysis. Of the 42 responses, 95% (n =
40) currently have a computer from CAH in their home. Seventy-nine percent responded they
had computers at home that were in working condition and connected to the internet. Seventy-
nine percent of respondents also marked their children regularly use their CAH computers to
work on their schoolwork.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

73

Figure 5. Survey responses related to Computers at Home

Eight interviews were completed, comprising seven individuals, and one couple, making
a total of nine individuals interviewed. For the purpose of reporting data, the couple was
considered as one interview. All eight interviewees had at least one student in fourth grade
during the past two years. One interviewee had triplets in the same age/grade, and all
interviewees had more than one child in the household, which factored into interview responses.
In the following sections, direct quotes are attributed to interviewees using pseudonyms
(interview numbers), rather than actual names. The pseudonyms range from “Interviewee-1”
through “Interviewee-8,” and use the abbreviations “Int-1” through “Int-8.”
95%
79% 79% 79%
5%
21% 21% 21%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Survey Responses Related to CAH Computers at Home
Y N
My computer from My computer from
CAH is currently
connected to the
Internet.
My child(ren) regularly
use the CAH computer
to work on their
schoolwork
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

74
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Through the use of interviews, the assumed declarative, procedural, and conceptual
knowledge gaps were assessed. In the following knowledge section, two influence gaps were
found to be validated and two influence gaps were not validated, in which case participants
concluded aspects were working well.
Knowledge Influence 1: Parents Need to Know Their Performance Goal Specific to the
CAH Program
This influence gap was validated. The interviews revealed that 100% of interviewees
could not express or recall a specific goal that CAH had for them as parents, but each parent was
able to share personal goals they had in mind for their children. Int-1 stated:
I remember them [CAH] teaching us about the computer, and what to be using them for,
but I’m not 100% sure if I remember a goal for parents. I just want him to be able to type
and do his homework and do well in school.
Int-8 stated:
I honestly don’t think I heard a goal, but for me, I had my daughter with me and had her
cousins living with me as well. My goal was to get them each a computer so they didn’t
have to share to do their schoolwork. I needed my computer to do my own work.
All parents articulated differing personal goals they had for their children related to computer use
at home, but no parent was able to articulate a goal for parents presented by CAH.
Knowledge Influence 2: Parents Need to Know How to Monitor Computer Use for Safety
When Their Children Use a Computer
This influence was not validated. Interview results showed that 100% parents considered
a variety of places and rationale to set up their computers and to monitor their children. Safety
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

75
issues, including children playing on-line games with strangers, too much sedentary time on the
computer, and arguing over how their children were managing time emerged as strong concerns
for parents. Two parents said they set additional parent controls on the computers to provide
extra assurances that their children would be safe online. Int-7 stated that:
My husband is pretty computer-savvy, and he put parental controls that he was
comfortable with on it. You know, the computer wreaks havoc on their self-esteem
because people have gotten to this point where they need people to click ‘like’ on their
Facebook.
Int-7 went on to say that the computer is set up in a common room because her children, now 11
and 13, are not “mature enough to handle the computers in their own rooms.”
Int-5 said that because of her career in child social work, she knew about online safety.
However, she said that other parents often talk about their children on computers. Int-5 stated:
They’re like, ‘Oh, she’s always on the computer.’ Most of the arguments are because of
electronics. Because they are spending too much time using it. Kids don’t want to do
anything else. They don’t want to do their chores, they end up finding stuff that they’re
not supposed to be watching and then there’s arguments about that.
Int-4, conducted in the interviewee’s home, had the CAH computer set up in the common
living area, along with the other family computers. Int-4 stated:
Then she started playing games. She convinced [her grandmother] to buy her a
subscription, and then she gave out the password. Then we had a little bit of situation
where I found out that she was trying to call some people she met through [the online
game], and I said, ‘That’s it.’
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

76
One hundred percent of interviewees described or showed where they set up each
computer. Two stated that they did not set up the computers in common living areas, even
though they wanted to, because several families lived together. Instead, these two families set up
the computers in the child/children’s bedrooms. Int-1 stated that the computer cord was an issue
because she had toddlers who would trip or pull out the cords. She said, “. . . so to be constantly
attached to an outlet is a little hard for him, especially with little ones who are trying to grab the
cord.”
All interviewees expressed an understanding of safe online practices for children.
However, not all were able to follow through on monitoring these practices because of limited
space to set up computers in common living areas, children’s abilities to “sneak” usage when
parents were not watching, and the ability of strangers to infiltrate children’s online games.
Knowledge Influence 3: Parents Need to Know How to Access Ongoing Computer Literacy
Support
This influence gap was not validated. Seven out of the eight interviewees stated they
knew they could contact CAH if they had any computer issues, including problems with
hardware, software or Internet. The one parent who did not know who to contact said she “no
longer had the paperwork” provided at the CAH distribution night. Four of the eight
interviewees mentioned CAH’s computer technician by name, describing the extent of his
support and knowledge. Int-1 said, “Yeah, [he] even came and dropped it off for me because
we’re pretty far out there, but he actually met me on the porch. He was wonderful.”
One hundred percent of the interviewees noted that either they or their spouse were
proficient on computers because they used computers for their own jobs, and were able to
provide ongoing computer support for their children. Int-4 stated that sometimes they had
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

77
“Internet connectivity problems and I end up troubleshooting. I look up the Internet protocol and
IP addresses and we were seeing that data was being sent and received.” Int-4 continued, stating
that computer literacy was not an issue, but what would help would be to know what programs
were being expected at school. Int-7 responded similarly, not having issues with computer
literacy, but having difficulty keeping up with different teachers using different programs, now
that one of her children is in junior high. She said, “Each teacher uses different grading
programs, different places they post assignments. I have a hard time keeping up. I don’t know
how families who don’t have computers could ever keep up.”
Knowledge Influence 4: Parents Need to Evaluate Their Awareness of Their Role in
Supporting Their Children with Computers at Home
This influence was validated. All interviews revealed that parents support their children
in a variety of ways on their computers, but do not necessarily think about how that help impacts
their students academically. When asked about how parents’ involvement impacts their children
at school, responses discussed the acquisition of the computers, the knowledge needed to better
understand what is occurring at school, and the understanding that computers are important for
children, but parents did not communicate a link between their support and children’s academic
progress.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Motivational influences were assessed through the same survey and interviews used to
assess gaps in knowledge. The survey and interview questions, related to motivation, focused on
parents’ self-efficacy and expectancy value. These were the two factors identified in literature as
critical influences for parents to support their children on computers at home. Both influence
gaps were not validated by either the survey or interviews, as discussed in detail below. Survey
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

78
questions related to parent confidence levels asked respondents to select from the following
choices: not confident, somewhat confident, confident, or extremely confident.
Motivation Influence 1: Parents Need to Feel Confident in Their Ability to Use Computers
to Support Their Children’s Academic Goals
The survey asked parents about confidence levels in multiple ways: using a computer,
using the Internet, and helping children with academic work using computers. The survey results
showed that 92% of parents felt extremely confident or confident in using computers and helping
children with academic work, and 97% confidence in using the Internet, as displayed in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Self-efficacy survey responses

I feel confident about
using a computer
I feel confident about
using the Internet
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

79
The survey also asked parents about their confidence in stating CAH goals for parents,
expectations, monitoring their children, and acquiring additional help should they need it. When
asked on the survey if parents “could state CAH’s goal for parents,” 93% of parents agreed or
strongly agreed that they could. When asked on the survey if parents knew what CAH expected
of them as a parent, 92% agreed or strongly agreed. Survey results showed that 87% agreed or
strongly agreed that they monitored their children on their computers. Eighty-four percent knew
they could contact CAH if they had computer issues, and 19 survey respondents had contacted
CAH for Internet, hardware, or software issues.
Interview results aligned with survey results. The one interview that was attended by
both parents revealed that while one parent was not confident with computers, the other parent
was extremely confident. The interviewee said, “On computers, I’m a dinosaur. But I make sure
to get the kids outside, getting exercise, and reading books. I am the balance. [My husband]
helps with computer issues. He can help the kids with anything computer-related.” All other
interviewees expressed that either they or their partner/spouse were confident in their ability to
use and support their children. Int-7 stated, “My husband is very computer savvy. He helps with
computer issues, and I help with homework.” Int-8 expressed that she is confident in her current
understanding of computer usage, but is concerned about more advanced support that she may
need to provide for her child:
I can do PowerPoint and Word, but I’m a little worried about Excel and Google Sheets.
I’m like, ‘What is this?’ I usually get a book and organize my stuff in a book, but
nowadays everybody’s like ‘no, Excel will do it for you.’ I find that very complicated.
Will my kids need to know Excel?
Due to the results from the survey and interview, this influence was not validated.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

80
Motivation Influence 2: Parents Need to See the Value in Using Computers to Support
Students’ Academic Goals
According to the survey results, 97% of parents believed that having a computer at home
helps their child with his/her schoolwork. The same percentage believed that having a computer
at home helps their child achieve academically. Eighty-eight percent of respondents stated that
their child relied on the computer from CAH to complete school requirement.
Interview statements aligned with survey results. Int-3 stated that “Computers are
required. The same way we had notepads and pencils, they have their computers.” Int-4
projected the current need into the future, stating:
[B]ecause our society is going so much technology and headed that direction, a computer
benefits them for the long-term future, for having jobs and progressing and for going off
to college. There is a big plus for them to be able to have that experience going into their
working careers.
Int-8 stated that she saw the value for her child, but also for her extended family:
I feel like it’s critical for my daughter, but also, earlier today my father asked me to help
him fill out a job application and if we didn’t have the computer or online [access], it
would have been very difficult because it was online.
Survey results and the interview statements indicated that this influence was not
validated; there was little to no gap for parents in terms of expectancy value.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
The same survey and interview tools were used to ascertain organizational influences that
impede or support parents in working with their children at home. One organizational influence
was found to be validated because survey and interview responses showed similar results, one
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

81
influence was not validated, and one was unable to be validated because of insufficient
information gathered to validate a gap.
Organization Influence 1: Organizations Review Their Operational Systems and Processes
to Ensure They Have Adequate Staff, Time and Money to Accomplish Their Goals
As described in Chapter 1, CAH changed leadership, decreased staff, and decreased in
operational funds within the past two years. While results of the survey and interviews showed
that parents felt there was adequate staff, time and resources to deliver computers to them, they
also indicated that more could have been done or provided to support them. The data from both
surveys and interviews were not necessarily enough to validate or invalidate the influence
because the data received addressed a part of the influence, but did not entirely address this
influence. Therefore, this influence is unable to be validated.
Survey results show that 86% of parents agreed that CAH staff were available whenever
they were needed; however, when asked if it would have been helpful if CAH staff contacted
them after the CAH distribution, 78% agreed that it would have been helpful. In terms of
materials and information, 88% of parents stated they received steps or directions from CAH on
ways to set up their computers safely at home.
Interviews aligned with survey results. Int-3 stated that more staff support, trainings or
follow-up calls were not needed because “everything seems to work.” However, Int-8 stated that
it would have been helpful if the program contacted her after the distribution night because:
[W]hen my computer broke and all that, I didn’t have any way to contact them. So, it
would be great because then it would give you an opportunity to contact them again or
speak to them again regarding any issues or any good things that you have going on.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

82
Int-6 provided specific feedback for ways that parents could be supported by CAH:
I think it would be helpful for CAH to contact us six months later to check in and make
sure the computer is working. Maybe if I could have brought it in, I would have. It takes
time, but it helps.
Int-6 also stated that the informational pamphlet CAH handed out on the night of the training
helped, but it would be “helpful if they sent that information to us in an email so we wouldn’t
lose it.”
Parents provided their input on whether or not staff, time and money seemed adequate for
them to receive support on computers, however, there was not sufficient evidence to ascertain
whether the organizational itself reviews or has reviewed its operational staff, time and money to
come to a conclusion. Therefore, this influence was not able to be validated.
Organization Influence 2: Organizations Provide Training and Feedback on Performance
to Their Stakeholders
One hundred percent of parents attended a training as a condition of receiving computers
from the CAH program. However, interview results showed that while all parents received
training, there was no recollection of feedback provided to parents during the training. During
the observation of the training, it was noted that feedback was provided to each parent. The
feedback will be discussed in this section. This influence was validated and shows a gap
specifically related to feedback.
Each interviewee recalled training. Int-5 called the training “basic, but necessary” to
receive her computer. Int-2 recalled the training was helpful. She said, “I went in there
expecting maybe I was going to have a lot more questions than I did. When they walked us into
the classroom to answer question and stuff, they covered pretty much everything.” When asked
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

83
about feedback on the training, 100% of interviewees were unable to recall feedback. Int-4
stated she did not recall feedback, “I remember the training, but I don’t remember us having to
do anything to get feedback on. We mainly just listened.”
An observation of one CAH training provided more details about the training and
feedback. Parents were asked to complete a checklist of items using a computer in the room;
once they filled out the checklist, parent turned them in, and waited for the training. The training
included parents watching a video on setting up a computer, listening to the facilitator about safe
computer practices and where to set up the computer at home, information about who to contact
should the computer break or need service, and information about Internet connectivity. Parents
were provided a pamphlet with information from the training in English and Spanish. Parents
were given an opportunity to ask questions, and were invited to ask questions after computers
were distributed.
Organization Influence 3: Organizations Communicate with Parents Using Cultural
Responsiveness, Providing Parents of All Backgrounds with Open Access to Each Aspect of
the Program
This influence was not validated. Four of the interview participants reflected about their
experience, feeling welcomed by the program, while one interviewee noted how she felt seeing
other parents there with their children.
Int-5 stated that she felt welcomed into the program. She was not sure if there was a low-
income threshold because she “never qualifies for anything” (i.e., does not have a low enough
income to qualify for free/reduced lunch). But when she learned that the program was open to
anyone who did not have a computer for their child, she was “ecstatic.” She stated that the “fact
that the program was open to all, any income or any language, was incredible.” She said she did
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

84
not have enough money to buy a computer, but knew that many families were living in situations
with “five families to a home and they need this program.” Int-3 also stated that she was
relieved to know that the program did not have a low-income qualification. She had three
children living in their home and only one computer. The program was “so easy and so helpful.”
Int-7 stated that she felt it was good that the computers provided were similar to one another so
that any one parent did not get a better or worse computer than the next parent. She said, “the
computers were basically all the same, which was kind of nice because then you didn’t have
everybody running for like what seemed like the better computer.” Int-4 stated that she felt
comfortable going to the distribution event because it was as her child’s school and she could ask
her child’s teacher for more information.
Int-6 stated that she was impressed by seeing children helping parents on their computers
during the training. She stated:
I noticed some parents, they had a hard time figuring it out ‘cause they didn’t how to use
a computer but they had the instruction and with their child they were doing it together,
which was nice to see. You know, some community parents that are not really, you
know, they don’t have the opportunity to be with their kids all the time, and it was nice to
see.
Notes from the CAH distribution event observation details that families were greeted by
either staff or volunteers who spoke English and Spanish. Fourteen children, of varying ages and
grade levels, attended along with their parents. All materials were translated and verbal
instructions were interpreted in Spanish. Volunteers and staff circulated the room while parents
and children filled out their forms, checklist, and while the facilitator provided the training. At
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

85
the end of the 75-minute session, parents and children were invited to pick up their computers in
the adjacent room, where monitors, keyboards and CPUs were organized on tables.
Summary
Chapter 4 presented data collected from surveys, interviews, one observation, and a
document review and was organized by knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. Two knowledge influences were validated, and two were not
validated. For the motivational influences, both were not validated. For the organizational
influences, one was validated, one not validated, and one not able to be validated. Using the
validated and partially validated influences, the next chapter provides recommendations for CAH
to close the gap for parents as they work with their children at home.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

86
Table 9
Validated Influences Table
Assumed Influences
Validated, Partially
Validated, Not Validated,
Unable to be Validated
Knowledge Influences
Declarative
Parents need to know their performance goal specific to the CAH program.
Validated
Procedural
Parents need to know how to monitor computer use for safety when their
children use a computer.
Not Validated
Procedural
Parents need to know how to access ongoing computer literacy support.
Not Validated
Metacognitive
Parents need to evaluate their awareness of their role in supporting their
children with computers at home.
Validated
Motivation Influences
Self-efficacy
Parents need to feel confident in their ability to use computers to support
their children’s academic goals.
Not Validated
Expectancy Value
Parents need to see the value in using computers to support students’
academic goals.
Not Validated
Organization Influences
Cultural Setting
Organizations review their operational systems and processes to ensure
they have adequate staff, time and money to accomplish their goals.
Unable to be Validated
Cultural Setting
Organizations provide training and feedback on performance to their
stakeholders.
Validated
Cultural Model
Organizations communicate with parents using cultural responsiveness,
providing parents of all backgrounds with open access to each aspect of the
program.
Not Validated

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

87
CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 1 of this dissertation discussed a significant problem of practice in the United
States related to the digital divide. Information in Chapter 1 included background and data about
who does and does not have access to computers and the Internet, and importantly, what happens
to students when they do not have access to technology at home. Chapter 2 provided general
literature about the digital divide, including details about the first and second level digital
divides, the impact on instructional practices, and considered equitable practices for students and
their learning. Chapter 2 also discussed Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO model and outlined the
literature related to knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on parents, the
stakeholder group related to this study. Chapter 3 provided an explanation of the design and
methodology used in this mixed-methods study. It included specific details about how the
surveys and interviews were conducted, including how questions from both aligned with the
influences detailed in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 presented an analysis of the data gathered through
the survey and interviews, organized by knowledge, motivation and organizational influence.
The data showed two partially validated knowledge influences, and one validated organizational
influence. In Chapter 5, these three influences, organized by knowledge and organization, are
used to provide recommendations for CAH, which may be used as they support parents as they
work with their children on computers at home.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
To review, the purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which CAH was
meeting its stakeholder goal for parents. The goal was for parents to utilize CAH computers to
support their students’ academic goals at home. CAH has provided more than 12,000 free,
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

88
refurbished computers for families in the specific school districts it serves; however, no
evaluations had been conducted to assess the extent to which it was meeting its goals of closing
the digital divide, or whether parents were meeting their goals. This analysis focused on
knowledge, motivation and organization influences related to achieving parent goals, and was
guided by three research questions:
1. To what extent are parents utilizing and connecting CAH computers once parents take
them home?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to parents
engaging in practices recommended by the CAH parent training to support students’
academic goals through the use of computers at home?
3. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions that can help
parents meet their goal?
The next section addresses the third research question, which is to provide solutions that
can help parents meet their CAH goal.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The knowledge and organizational gaps listed in Table 10 shows the influences that were
validated through the analysis of data analyzed in Chapter 4. Context-specific recommendations
follow Table 10 and are organized by knowledge and organizational influences. Motivational
influences were omitted because the influences were not validated. Following the
recommendations is an integrated implementation and evaluation plan.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

89
Table 10
Validated Knowledge and Organizational Gaps
Knowledge Influences
Declarative
Parents need to know their performance goal specific to the CAH program.
Validated
Metacognitive
Parents need to evaluate their awareness of their role in supporting their children
with computers at home.
Validated
Organization Influences
Cultural Setting
Organizations provide training and feedback on performance to its stakeholders.
Validated

Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge influences in Table 11 reflect the gaps that were validated by the data
review, and supported by the literature review. According to Krathwohl (2002), there are four
types of knowledge that are important to distinguish when evaluating any knowledge gap. The
four knowledge types are declarative, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive (Krathwohl,
2002). For CAH parents, knowing all four types of information facilitates the accomplishment
of their goal. Declarative and conceptual knowledge address what needs to be understood,
procedural knowledge addresses how to implement the knowledge, and metacognitive
knowledge addresses how one can impact one’s own learning through self-reflection and deeper
understanding (Rueda, 2011). As such, as indicated in Table 11, one declarative knowledge
influence and one metacognitive knowledge influence were validated. Table 11 also shows the
context-specific recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles and local
context.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

90
Table 11
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence
Knowledge
Type Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Parents need to know the
goal that has been set out
for them so they can
understand the objective,
and work toward
achieving it.
Declarative Learning and performance
are best fostered when
participants engage in
practice that focuses on a
specific goal or learning
objectives (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001).
Provide parents with
specific goals related
to supporting their
children at home on
their computers.
Parents need to evaluate
their awareness of their
role in supporting their
children with computers
at home.
Metacognitive A key component of
learning and long-term
impact is self-reflection
and metacognitive
thinking (Mayer, 2011).
Provide
opportunities for
parents to reflect on
their roles in
supporting their
children at home.

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Learning and
performance are best fostered when participants engage in practice that focuses on a specific goal
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). This means that knowing one’s goal significantly increases the
likelihood of achieving that goal. For CAH parents, knowing their goal of supporting their
children’s learning at home is a foundational part of being able to accomplish their goals.
Therefore, the recommendation is for the organization to provide a tool, or handout, with clearly
articulated goals written down for parents. Referring to this tool, CAH staff would clearly
articulate the goals for parents during the CAH distribution events, providing the goals verbally
and in writing.
Rueda (2011) asserts that people cannot achieve their goals unless they know what the
goals are. What often occurs is that people tend to automate their actions without having clarity
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

91
around the goals they are achieving (Feldon, 2007). Being explicit about the goals will provide a
clear aim for parents.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Metacognitive
learning can be described as learning about learning: how one thinks, learns and remembers
information (Mayer, 2011). A key component of learning and long-term impact is self-reflection
and metacognitive thinking (Mayer, 2011). In CAH, parents need to think about their role in
supporting their children with computers at home, thereby reflecting on their effectiveness. A
recommendation that aligns with these theories is to allot time for parents to reflect on their roles
in support of their children at home during the CAH distribution event and training.
Motivation Recommendations
No motivation recommendations were validated; therefore, no recommendations were
made under this section.
Organization Recommendations
The organizational influences in Table 12 represent the validated gap based on the
analyzed data from this study. This influence was supported by the literature review and the
review of theory. Because the culture of an organization is so strongly aligned to the success of
an organization, it is important to evaluate the organizational culture to assess whether the setting
or models impact the ability for the organization to be successful (Schein, 2004; Tellis, 2013).
According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational features, such as structures and sufficiency
of resources, are as critical to evaluate as knowledge and motivation. Organizational culture is
best analyzed if split into two realms: cultural settings and cultural models (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings have been described as the visible structure of the
organizational environment, where events take place (Tharpe & Gallimore, 1988). The cultural
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

92
models are the shared values and ideals, traditions and practices that are enacted in the
organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural model influences may not necessarily be
seen, but are felt throughout the organization. Table 12 shows the context-specific
recommendations for the organization based on reviewed theory and literature.

Table 12
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization Influence
Cultural Setting or
Cultural Model Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Organizations provide
training and feedback on
performance to its
stakeholders.
Cultural Setting For feedback to be
effective it should be
timely, concrete (task
focused) and goal-
focused (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996).
Provide timely
coaching and
feedback on
computer skills to
parents.

Cultural settings. Clark and Estes (2008) state that it is easy to provide effective
feedback on training when it is part of a carefully designed improvement system. As part of the
system, feedback should be timely, informational, and correctional to help stakeholders adjust
their approaches to their goals as needed (Clark & Estes, 2008). When trying out new strategies,
as parents may be doing in school-related programs, feedback about how one is doing, as well as
having the opportunity to make mistakes, is an essential part of learning (Schein, 2010).
Schein (2010) warned that societal norms often prohibit organizational leaders from
providing feedback because they want to avoid hurting a person’s feelings. Additionally, people
from under-represented cultural backgrounds may also react to feedback and input in a variety of
ways that could signal negativity or fearfulness due to perceptions of power, influence, and
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

93
authority (Schein, 2010). In light of these issues, it is recommended that CAH find ways to
provide feedback to learners that are informative and corrective, but that are about process and
strategies (versus about individuals and abilities). Opportunities to test out learning, make
mistakes, and learn from feedback are important parts of the learning process, and will help
stakeholders accomplish their goals.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the
original Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006), was
used in creating an integrated implementation and evaluation plan for this study. There are four
levels of evaluation, and Kirkpatrick advised that the most effective plans started with Level 4,
the results, defined as “the degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training
and the support and accountability package” (p. 12). Level 3 focuses on behavior, which
measures the degree to which participants apply what they have learned to work towards the
results (Level 4). Level 2 focuses on learning, and measures the degree to which participants
acquire the knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment. Finally, Level 1 describes
the reaction, or the “customer satisfaction” (p. 17) measurement of the training, that includes
relevance, engagement, and satisfaction of trainees. These four levels are strategic, intentional,
and help in designing an implementation and evaluation plan that connects immediate solutions
to larger goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The purpose of CAH is to provide computers to families for free so that all students in
fourth grade and higher can effectively use computers at home to support their school and
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

94
homework. This study examined the knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational
barriers that prevent parents from supporting their children on computers at home. The proposed
solution, a parent training program at the CAH distribution event, is recommended in order to
produce the desired outcome, which is to increase parents’ utilization of CAH computers to
support students as they work towards achieving their academic goals.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 13 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics, and methods for both external and internal outcomes for CAH. External
outcomes are supported by the internal outcomes. In other words, if the internal outcomes are
met as expected as a result of the training and organizational support for parents, then the
external outcomes should also be realized.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

95
Table 13
Metrics and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. All families with fourth
grade children have computers
and Internet connectivity at
home.
Parents report that they are able to
provide their children with
computers and connectivity.
Survey parents with fourth
grade children each year.
2. Students have access to a
computer at any time they
need one while at home.
2a. Parents report that students are
able to access computers at home
at any time.
Survey parents after a CAH
computer distribution event.
2b. Teachers report that students
are able to complete schoolwork at
home.
Survey teachers after the CAH
computer distribution event.
3. Students use the computer
and Internet as a tool to
support academic progress.
Parents report that student use of
the computers are contributing to
the positive academic progress of
their students.
Survey parents with fourth
grade children each year.
4. School districts promote the
CAH program because they
believe it can supplement and
support their 1:1 device
initiatives.
The number of schools that
participate in CAH distribution
nights.
4a. CAH staff meets with
principals and school liaisons
during the school year.
4b. Schools promote the CAH
events to parents.
Internal Outcomes
4. Parents who do not have a
computer at home for their 4th
grade child attends a CAH
distribution event to receive a
free computer to take home.
Parents report that they are able to
provide their children with
computers and connectivity.
Survey parents with fourth
grade children each year.
5. Parents know ways in which
they can support children on
their computers with school-
related work.
Parents provide examples of ways
they support their children on their
computers.
Survey parents within 6 months
after computer distribution
nights.
6. Parents confidently monitor
and provide boundaries for
their children when they are
using the computer.
Parents provide examples of ways
they monitor and provide
boundaries for their children when
they are using their computers.
Survey parents within 6 months
after computer distribution
nights.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

96
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the parents completing the parent
training facilitated by CAH. The first critical behavior is that parents sign up and attend CAH
distribution nights to receive a computer. The second critical behavior is that they must help
their children use computers as a tool to support academic progress. The third critical behavior
is that parents ensure their computers and Internet are working, and persist in finding ways to
ensure continuity with service. The fourth critical behavior is that parents provide rules for
computer usage for their children, and monitor students’ usage regularly. The specific metrics,
methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appears in Table 14.
Required drivers. As learners of new training, parents need drivers to support critical
behaviors. Reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring are all critical components for
achieving performance goals. Table 15 shows the recommended drivers to support critical
behaviors of new reviewers.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

97

Table 14
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Parents
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Parents sign up and
attend CAH distribution
nights to receive a
computer.
The number of
parents/families who
register and attend
CAH distribution
nights.
Collect parent
registration data at
the CAH distribution
night.
Every Thursday in
August, Sept,
October.
2. Parents help their
children use computers
as a tool to support
academic progress.
Increase level of
support by parents.
Report on post-
distribution surveys.
Within six months
after distribution.
3. Parents ensure their
computers and Internet
are working, and persist
in finding ways to
ensure continuity with
service.
3a. CAH computer
trade-ins for
computers or parts
that are not working.
Calls or emails to
CAH.
Continual
monitoring, after
distribution night.
3b. Parents’ reports
on computer and
Internet functionality
and service.
Report on post-
distribution surveys.
6 months after
distribution.
4. Parents provide rules
for computer usage for
their children, and
monitor students’ usage
regularly.
Parents report on
rules and ways they
are monitoring
children’s usage.
Report on post-
distribution surveys.
6 months after
distribution.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

98
Table 15
Required Drivers to Support Parents’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 etc.
Reinforcing
Information sheet articulating parent goals in the CAH
program. (D)
With distribution info
materials.
And at distribution
night.
1, 2, 3, 4
Information sheet explaining effective ways parents can
support students to use the computer to support academic
skills or progress. (P)
At each distribution
night training.
2, 4
Provide brochure on where to contact CAH staff in case
technical support or literacy support is needed. (P)
At each distribution
night training.
2, 3, 4
Ask each parent to consider and then write down possible
a) rules for usage and b) ways they will monitor usage.
Then have a group discussion. (M)
At each distribution
night training.
2, 3, 4
Encouraging
Send out parent emails, thanking them for attending, and
asking them to contact CAH if they need technical
support or literacy support.
Twice after the
distribution night.
1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Parents who sign up, attend and complete a parent
training are provided with a certificate of completion
when done.
At the end of each
distribution event.
4
Monitoring
Email each parent, and ask each parent to email back, to
confirm that parents know how to email back, and has
Internet connectivity to email back.
After each
distribution night.
2, 3
Supervisor reports on phone calls to CAH, Internet
connectivity, and post-distribution phone calls at CAH
committee meetings.
Monthly. 1, 2, 3, 4
Post-distribution surveys to parents. Within one year after
distribution.
1, 2, 3, 4

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

99
Organizational support. The CAH organization will play a major role in supporting
parents to achieve their goal. First, CAH will create a new training event to include elements
stated in this chapter. CAH will provide immediate feedback during the training, using culturally
responsive approaches to supporting parents. They will be inclusive of parents and families at
the training, supporting the learning as they go through the event. CAH, by explicitly stating
goals for parents, providing materials and information, and by facilitating an effective parent
training, will support parents in achieving their goals of support children at home.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, the stakeholders
will be able to:
1. Clearly state the goals for parents, as delineated by the CAH program (D)
2. Describe ways in which parents are able to support their children on their computers
(D)
3. Apply steps to connect their computers at home (P)
4. Apply steps to connect their computers to the Internet (P)
5. Respond to the CAH email with a return email (P)
6. Monitor students’ computer usage (P)
7. Identify safe ways for students to use computers (D)
8. Indicate that they know what to do in case the student has problems using the
computer (Confidence)
9. Express the value of using computers to help with their students’ school progress
(Value)
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

100
10. Express the value of their importance in supporting their children as they use their
computers (Value).
Program. Parents will attend one CAH distribution night, where they will receive a
parent computer training prior to receiving their computer. The learning goals listed in the
previous section will be achieved with this training event. Parents will complete the training in
90 minutes, with options to return for additional, free trainings.
When parents and their families arrive to the training event, they will register and begin
asynchronous modules on their computers. Job aids and materials will be provided to each
parent and their family, and they will be able to complete tasks together. As families continue to
register, CAH will stop participants and then begin the in-person training, which will be
conducted in English and Spanish, simultaneously. Following the demonstrations, the learners
will be provided the opportunity to practice using the job aids and receive feedback from the
facilitator and volunteers. The demonstrations, practice, and feedback approach will also be used
throughout the evening, to demonstrate several components of the learning goals listed above.
Parents will be required to complete the tasks in the asynchronous module before
receiving their computers. The asynchronous tasks will include completing a survey, locating
information in job aides, restating facts, and demonstrating knowledge about Internet searches
and connecting to email.
Components of learning. Knowing how to do something is often best assessed by
demonstration. Learners can demonstrate declarative and procedural knowledge, and also show
confidence, commitment, and a positive attitude about their learning. It is also important that
learners value the training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned knowledge and skills at
home. Table 16 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

101
Table 16
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using a survey: fill in the blank, multiple
choice.
During the intake portion of the
computer distribution night.
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair, think, share” and
other individual/group activities.
Periodically during the in-person
training at the computer distribution
night.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Complete the in-person training modules which require turning
computers on, off, locating programs, and completing a survey
on the computers.
During the in-person training at the
computer distribution night.
Demonstrate individually using the job aids to successfully
perform the skills.
During the workshops.
Quality of the feedback from instructors and other parents
during group sharing.
During the workshops.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor’s observation of participants’ statements and actions
demonstrating that they see the benefit of what they are being
asked to do.
During the workshop.
Discussions of the value of why computer are useful, and how
their support can help.
During the workshop.
Confidence “I think I can do it when I’m at home.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop.
Commitment “I will do it when I am home.”
Discussions at trainings about what parents will do when they
take computers home.
During the workshop.
Agree to emailing CAH after they get home. During the workshop before and
after the workshop.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

102
Level 1: Reaction
Table 17 indicates the methods or tools and timing used to evaluate reactions to the
training. Parents’ engagement, satisfaction, and the relevance of the training will be evaluated to
determine what changes in future trainings need to occur, and to continue to improve the training
and evaluation plan.

Table 17
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observation by facilitator During the workshop
Attendance at workshop During the workshop
Training evaluation At the end of the workshop
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with participants via discussion (ongoing) During the workshop
Training evaluation At the end of the workshop
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with participants via discussion (ongoing) During the workshop
Training evaluation At the end of the workshop

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

103
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Following the in-person
training, participants will complete a brief post-training evaluation. The evaluation will contain
items that require a scaled score response, as well as open-ended responses for participants to fill
in. For Level 1, participants will respond to questions regarding engagement, relevance, and
customer satisfaction. The evaluation will also measure Level 2 learning by asking for responses
regarding declarative knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment.
Appendix N shows the post training evaluation instrument that the facilitator will provide to
participants at the end of the training.
During the in-person workshop, the instructor will check attendance, observe
participants, and conduct periodic brief pulse-checks by asking the participants about the
relevance of the content to their work and the organization, delivery, and learning environment.
Level 2 will include checks for declarative knowledge, practicing procedural skills, and
responding to questions and scenarios drawn from the participants.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately 90 days after
the training, program staff will administer a survey. The survey will ask about the parents’
satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level 1) from the participant’s perspective,
confidence, and value of applying their training (Level 2), application of the training for
supporting their children at home on their computers (Level 3), and the extent to which their
training has positively impacted results (Level 4). Appendix O is the Blended Evaluation
instrument based on Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

104
Data Analysis and Reporting
CAH will receive the results from both surveys as feedback of its parent training, and the
extent to which learning was received and applied. The survey results will be shown as raw data,
questions and answers, but then also displayed on a dashboard so that the program staff can
quickly assess responses.
CAH will see the number of surveys sent, received, and their responses in charts like
those in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Sample figures for survey responses on blended evaluation instruments after the
recommended training

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

105
Chapter Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provided a
structured framework for developing an ongoing evaluation plan for trainings in the CAH
program. This framework for CAH started by analyzing the desired results, moving to critical
behaviors to obtain those results, understanding what participants would need to perform those
behaviors, then creating a training that zeroed-in on participant actions and reactions.
Kirkpatrick’s Model for evaluation aligned with the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model, in that
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and recommendations were at the part
of the first step of the framework, which was analyzing desired results. This framework allows
the CAH organization to trace desired outcomes with actions and results, supporting the
organization in changing and adapting its practices to best serve its families.
As the organization moves forward, it may use this framework to continually improve,
address problematic areas, and ensure that each component is correctly directed at the desired
results by asking, “Does this meet expectations?” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 126).
Using this framework of systematic analysis and response will increase the success of the
program, provide tools for future projects and initiatives, and continue to drive improvement and
change over time (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis model was used as the framework for ascertaining
and analyzing the knowledge, motivation and organization gaps that helped or hindered
stakeholders from performing their goals. This model provided structure, organization, and a
road map to carefully analyze gaps for this evaluation study. One strength in using this approach
was its systematic and thorough process for targeting the influences from critical angles.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

106
Another strength was the alignment of goals to influences to recommendations for improvement.
One might consider it to be confining to have the process completely defined; however, this
report allows for additional thoughts and considerations to be included in Chapter 5 of the study.
The New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provided the guidance for
“next steps” of the study, including recommendations for creating an implementation and
evaluation plan for the organization. The strength in this approach is that it started at the
overarching goal and worked backwards, scaffolding steps so there was alignment from training
to the evaluation to the goals. One difficulty of this approach is rooted in its strength, in that it is
systematic, defined, detail-oriented, and is often skipped-over in organizations, thus requiring
practice and explanation. However, both models provided the necessary maps to create a
comprehensive, research-based analysis and plan for this problem of practice.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study is intended to contribute to the current body of research surrounding the
identified problem of practice by analyzing the knowledge, motivational and organizational
influences related to parents supporting their children at home on their computers. However, like
any other research initiative, there are limitations to this study that are important to convey.
All survey items and interview and observation protocols were generated specifically for
this research study. While vetted and approved, the instruments and protocols were not field
tested or piloted in other contexts. All survey and interview responses were self-reported, and
therefore were subject to biases related to participants’ opinions, memories, and experiences.
Another limitation of this study was the lack of access to parents from each of the four
CAH districts. While the CAH had many email addresses, some of the addresses were no longer
valid, and many addresses were not collected at the time the parents participated in CAH, which
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

107
was one or two years ago. Due to the time and resources available for this study, requests for
participation in surveys and interviews were conducted via email, which excluded parents who
did not have email addresses, or did not know how to use email to communicate.
All invitations for participation in surveys and interviews were provided in English and
Spanish. While some surveys were completed in Spanish, no interviews were requested to be
conducted to be in Spanish, which suggests that interview responses were limited to those who
were more comfortable conversing in English.
There are other factors that are important to delineate as limitations as well. First, this
study did not include school and district technology initiatives (e.g., One-to-One iPads) and how
they factored into parents’ support of computers at home. Second, many comprehensive
research studies were non-conclusive regarding the direct correlation of computers at home on
specific academic subjects; this study focused on parents and their opinion of how computers
affect academic progress, but did not review student grades or other factors to correlate if parent-
reported academic progress actually manifested in externally-reported academic progress.
Future Research
The organization studied for this dissertation provided refurbished computers to families.
A future study that would help organizations like this one would be to analyze the cost
effectiveness of refurbishing computers versus purchasing new, low-cost computers for families.
The cost analysis would need to include a comparison of the benefit of community contributions
and donations, plus the benefit of volunteer time used towards refurbishing computers, against
the potential cost-savings of purchasing low-cost new computers.
Another future research project that could benefit many families would be to determine
the most effective device types (e.g., laptop, tablet, phone) and connectivity relative to costs and
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

108
academic progress. Recommendations could then be used to inform families, schools, and
programs like CAH about future technology purchases.
One stakeholder group that was not part of this study, but would be beneficial to study in
the future, are teachers. Studying teacher technology training, teacher-assigned tasks for
students, and other elements of knowledge, motivation and organization influences related to
teachers and technology would contribute to the growing body of research around technology
and student achievement. The results of a study on teacher influences combined with the results
of studies on parent influences would provide insightful ways to support students using
technology at school and at home.
Conclusion
The problem with the digital divide in schools has been well-documented for over thirty
years (File & Ryan, 2014; Katz & Levine, 2015; Newburger, 2001). However, it is not only
important to acknowledge the divide exists, but it is important to understand why it matters, how
it affects students and their futures, and what influences contribute to bridging the divide.
The organization selected for this study has, for twenty years, been working hard to close
the digital divide. Many stakeholders were part of the work, including CAH staff, teacher
liaisons, and volunteers. But the stakeholders that were charged with getting the computers in
the hands of students, and who were the focus of this study, were parents. The research
questions that drove this study revolved around the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors that influenced parents to support their children on their computers to effectively close
the digital divide.
The parents who participated in this study were motivated to support their children, and
needed no convincing regarding the value of the computers, the need for technology to help with
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

109
school and future careers, and appreciation for the CAH program and its staff. What was made
clear, however, was that in order to make a connection for parents in doing all they could to close
the digital divide, they needed clarity of organizational and stakeholder goals, specific training
and feedback, and an intentional workshop design that included culturally proficient ways of
supporting parents and their families who attended CAH distribution events.
There is little argument against the fact that utilizing technology at home is an integral
part of how successful students operate. However, what devices are used, how they are delivered
and connected, and how parents are trained to support their students at home, make a significant
impact for students. Parents are an integral and critical piece of supporting students, and this
study can assist organizations as they support parents in providing the right opportunities for
students to bridge the digital divide. Eliminating the technology divide has moved past devices
and connectivity alone, and now importantly includes parent training, types of student use, and
the need for intentionally-designed teaching and learning for all students to access technology
meaningfully.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

110
REFERENCES
Aceves, T. C. (2014). Supporting Latino families in special education through community
agency-school partnerships. Multicultural Education, 21(3), 45–50.
Alexander, A. (2012, February 6). 2012 digital divide statistics [infographic]. Retrieved from
http://ansonalex.com/infographics/2012-digital-divide-statistice-infographic/
Alexander, R. T. (2012). How to protect children from Internet predators (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.
Amiel, T. (2006). Mistaking computers for technology: Technology literacy and the digital
divide. AACE Journal, 14(3), 235–256.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY:
Longman.
Antoine, M. V. (2011). Sources of computer self-efficacy: The relationship to outcome
expectations, computer anxiety, and intention to use computers (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Baton
Rouge, LA.
Araque, J. C., Maiden, R. P., Bravo, N., Estrada, I., Evans, R., Hubchik, K., . . . Reddy, M.
(2013). Computer usage and access in low-income urban communities. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29, 1393–1401.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287.
Beal, V. (2014). Types of Internet connections. Retrieved from
http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/internet_connection_types.asp
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

111
Behnke, A. O., & Kelly, C. (2011). Creating programs to help Latino youth thrive at school: The
influence of Latino parent involvement programs. Journal of Extension, 49(1), 1–11.
Berdik, C. (2015, July 23). The best screen time. Slate. Retrieved from
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/07/tech_goes_home_progra
m_teaches_computer_basics_to_low_income_parents_and.html
Bowser, G., & Zabala, J. S. (2012). AIM for digital equity. Learning & Leading with
Technology, 39(7), 16–19.
Buenrostro, M. (2016, October). Latino students in California’s K–12 public schools.
Sacramento, CA: California School Boards Association. Retrieved from
https://www.csba.org/~/media/A451224C1BAE4C659884268EFD2B3089.ashx
California Department of Education. (2015). The Williams Case — An explanation. Sacramento,
CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/wmslawsuit.asp
Casey, A., Layte, R., Lyons, S., & Silles, M. (2012). Home computer use and academic
performance of 9-year-olds. Oxford Review of Education, 38(5), 617–634.
Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E., &
Gaviria, A. J. L. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33–46.
Ceyhan, A. A., & Ceyhan, E. (2008). Loneliness, depression, and computer self-efficacy as
predictors of problematic Internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 699–701.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0255
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

112
Clark, C., & Gorski, P. (2002). Multicultural education and the digital divide: Focus on
socioeconomic class background. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(3), 25–36.
doi:10.1207/S15327892MCP0403_6
Conrad, A. M., & Munro, D. (2008). Relationships between computer self-efficacy, technology,
attitudes and anxiety: Development of the Computer Technology Use Scale (CTUS).
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 51–73. doi:10.2190/EC.39.1.d
Cooper-Gaiter, E. (2015). Computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy of older adults
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davidson, G. V., & Ritchie, S. D. (1994). Attitudes toward integrating computers into the
classroom: What parents, teachers and students report. Journal of Computing in
Childhood Education, 5(1), 3–27.
Dixon, N. M. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Dolan, J. (2016). Splicing the divide: A review of research on the evolving digital divide among
K–12 students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(1), 16–37.
Du, J., Havard, B., Sansing, W., & Yu, C. (2004). The impact of technology use on low-income
and minority students’ academic achievements: Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002.
Paper presented at the 27th Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications
and Technology, Chicago, IL, October 19-23, 2004.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

113
Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital
divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1), JCMC611.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00110.x
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Economics and Statistics Administration and National Telecommunications and Information
Administration. (2010, November). Exploring the digital nation: Home broadband
Internet adoption in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Fairlie, R. (2008, November). The educational consequences of the digital divide. Annual
Lecture on Science, Technology & Society at the Center for Human Potential and Public
Policy, Chicago, IL.
Fairlie, R., & Robinson, J. (2013). Experimental evidence on the effects of home computers on
academic achievement among schoolchildren (Working Paper). Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Feldon, D. F. (2007). Implications of research on expertise for curriculum and pedagogy.
Educational Psychology Review, 19, 91–110.
File, T., & Ryan, C. (2014). Computer and Internet use in the United States: 2013. Washington,
D.C.: United States Department of Commerce and United States Census Bureau.
Fraughton, T. B., Sansone, C., Butner, J., & Zachary, J. (2011). Interest and performance when
learning online: Providing utility value information can be important for both novice and
experienced students. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and
Learning, 1(2), 1–15. doi:10.4018/ijcbpl.2011040101
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

114
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Garcia, M. E., Frunzi, K., Dean, C. B., Flores, N., & Miller, K. (2016). Toolkit of resources for
engaging families and the community as partners in education: Part 3: Building trusting
relationships with families and the community through effective communication (REL
2016-152). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Pacific.
Georgis, R., Gokiert, R. J., Ford, D. M., & Ali, M. (2014). Creating inclusive parent engagement
practices: Lessons learned from a school community collaborative supporting newcomer
refugee families. Multicultural Education, 21(3), 23–27.
Gonzales, A. (2016). The contemporary US digital divide: From initial access to technology
maintenance. Information, Communication & Society, 19(2), 234-248.
doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1050438
Gorinski, R., & Fraser, C. (2006). Literature review on the effective engagement of Pasifika
parents & communities in education. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry
of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/pasifika/5907
Grant, L. (2011). I’m a completely different person at home: Using digital technologies to
connect learning between home and school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
27(4), 292–302.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

115
Hall, D. (2006). Bridging the gap: Strategies for creating equitable learning opportunities.
Learning & Leading with Technology, 33(7), 15–18.
Harris, M. J. (2010). Impactful student learning outcomes of one-to-one student laptop programs
in low socioeconomic schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). San Francisco, CA:
San Francisco State University.
Herrick, M. J. (2014). Children & computers: Perspectives on school and home use from one
third grade class (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Honolulu, HI.
Huang, J., & Russell, S. (2006). The digital divide and academic achievement. The Electronic
Library, 24(2), 160–173. doi:10.1108/02640470610660350
Jackson, L. A., von Eye, A., Biocca, F. A., Barbatsis, G., Zhao, Y., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (2006).
Does home Internet use influence the academic performance of low-income children?
Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 429–435. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.429
James, J. (2012, February 6). 10 things you have to know to be computer literate. TechRepublic.
Retreived from http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/10-things-you-have-to-
know-to-be-computer-literate/
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY:
New York University Press.
Katz, V. S., & Levine, M. H. (2015). Connecting to learn: Promoting digital equity for
America’s Hispanic families. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame
Workshop.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

116
Kerawalla, L., & Crook, C. (2002). Children’s computer use at home and school: Context and
continuity. British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 751–771.
doi:10.1080/0141192022000019044
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Klein, P. S., Nir-Gal, O., & Darom, E. (2000). The use of computers in kindergarten, with or
without adult mediation; effects on children’s cognitive performance and behavior.
Computers in Human Behavior, 16(6), 591–608.
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), 254–284.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Latham, G., & Locke, E. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal-setting research.
European Psychologist, 12(4), 290–300. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.12.4.290
Lee, J., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap
among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193–
218. doi:10.3102/00028312043002193
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

117
Lopez, M. H., Gonzalez-Barrera, A., & Patten, E. (2013, March 7). Closing the digital divide:
Latinos and technology adoption. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved
from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/03/07/closing-the-digital-divide-latinos-and-
technology-adoption/
Lynch, M. (2017, March 31). The absence of Internet at home is a problem for some students.
The Edvocate. Retrieved from http://www.theedadvocate.org/the-absence-of-internet-at-
home-is-a-problem-for-some-students/
Mason, C. Y., & Dodds, R. (2005). Bridge the digital divide for educational equity. Educational
Digest, 70(9), 25–27.
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. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mytton, J., Ingram, J., Manns, S., & Thomas, J. (2014). Facilitators and barriers to engagement
in parenting programs: A qualitative systematic review. Health Education & Behavior,
41(2), 127–137. doi:10.1177/1090198113485755
National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. (2016). The key aspects of
culturally responsive pedagogy. Retrieved from http://www.nccrest.org/the-key-aspects-
of-culturally-responsive-pedagogy.html
National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1995). Falling through the Net:
A survey of the ‘have nots’ in rural and urban America. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

118
Newburger, E. (2001). Home computers and Internet use in the United States: August 2000.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Commerce and United States Census
Bureau.
Newsweek. (2018). Issue archives. New York, NY: Newsweek. Retrieved from
http://www.newsweek.com/archive
Obama announces broadband initiative to narrow digital divide. (2015). Journal of Housing and
Community Development, 72(4), 3.
Puentedura, R. R. (2010). Rethinking data visualization: From dynamic illustration to analytic
narrative. Williamstown, MA: Hippasus. Retrieved from
http://hippasus.com/resources/swarthmore2010/1_RethinkingVisualization.pdf
Rappaport, R. (2009). A short history of the digital divide. Edutopia.
https://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-divide-connectivity
Reinhart, J. M., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. M. (2011). K–12 teachers: Technology use and the
second level digital divide. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3), 181–193.
Rideout, V., & Katz, V. S. (2016). Opportunity for all? Technology and learning in lower-
income families. New York, NY: Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

119
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schwandt, D. R., & Marquardt, M. J. (1999). Organizational learning: From world-class
theories to global best practices. New York, NY: St. Lucie Press.
Skaletsky, M. (2013). Essays on the digital divide — explorations through global, national and
individual lenses (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bentley University, Waltham, MA.
Straker, L., Pollock, C., & Maslen, B. (2009). Principles for the wise use of computers by
children. Ergonomics, 52(11), 1386–1401. doi:10.1080/00140130903067789
Sun, J., & Metros, S. (2011). The digital divide and its impact on academic performance. US-
China Education Review, A(2), 153–161.
Tamzarian, A., Menzies, H., & Ricci, L. (2012). Barriers to full participation in the
individualized education program for culturally and linguistically diverse parents.
Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(2), 1.
Taningco, M., & Pachon, H. (2008). Computer use, parental expectations, & Latino academic
achievement. Los Angeles, CA: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute, School of Policy,
Planning, and Development, University of Southern California.
Tate, T. P., Warschauer, M., & Abedi, J. (2016). The effects of prior computer use on computer-
based writing: The 2011 NAEP writing assessment. Computers & Education, 101, 115–
131. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.001
Tellis, G. (2013). Unrelenting innovation: How to create a culture for market dominance. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

120
Tharpe, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in
social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Occupational outlook handbook summary. Washington,
D.C.: Author. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ooh.toc.htm
Valadez, J., & Duran, R. (2007). Redefining the digital divide: Beyond access to computer and
the Internet. High School Journal, 90(3), 31–44.
Vigdor, J., & Ladd, H. (2010). Scaling the digital divide: Home computer technology and student
achievement (Working Paper 48). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Analysis of
Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling:
Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562–588.
doi:10.1177/0895904804266469
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing
evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1),
179–225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791
Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the one-to-one
equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs. Equity & Excellence in Education,
47(1), 46–62. doi:10.1080/10665684.2014.866871
Weiss, H., Bouffard, S., Bridglall, B., & Gordon, E. (2009). Reframing family involvement in
education: Supporting families to support educational equity. New York, NY: Columbia
University, Campaign for Educational Equity.
Wood, L., & Howley, A. (2012). Dividing at an early age: The hidden digital divide in Ohio
elementary schools. Learning, Media & Technology, 37(1), 20–39.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

121
Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Participation, interaction, and academic achievement in an
online discussion environment. Computers & Education, 84, 78–89.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.008
Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop
environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
86(4), 1052–1084. doi:10.3102/0034654316628645

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

122
APPENDIX A
SURVEY REQUEST EMAIL — ENGLISH
Dear Computers at Home Parent,

Thank you for participating in the Computers for Families program over the past two years. As a
program whose mission is to connect families with computers, we hope you have been satisfied
with the program!

We invite you to participate in an important survey of all parents who received Computers
for Families computers during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 school years.

Please complete the survey by _____________.

(English): https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8jGqcQ82W9TEV8N
(Spanish): https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1MGHhEVwlv8b5ZP

The survey is confidential and voluntary, and should take less than 10 minutes to complete.

Susan Salcido, a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California (USC), is currently
conducting research about our program. After research is conducted, results will be shared with
Computers for Families. We look forward to the results, and look forward to continuing to serve
your family through Computers for Families.

Should have you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Susan Salcido,
scsalcid@usc.edu

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

123
APPENDIX B
SURVEY REQUEST EMAIL — SPANISH
Estimados padres de CAH,

Les agradezco su participación en el programa “Computadoras para Familias” durante los dos
últimos años. Esperamos que estén satisfechos con este programa cuya misión es conectar a
familias con computadoras.

Lo invitamos a participar en una encuesta importante de todos los padres que recibieron una
computadora durante los años escolares 2015-2016 o 2016-2017.

Por favor complete la encuesta antes del _________________.

(Español): https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1MGHhEVwlv8b5ZP
(Inglés): https://usceducation.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8jGqcQ82W9TEV8N

La encuesta es confidencial y voluntaria, y debe tomar menos de 10 minutos en completarse.

Susan Salcido, una candidata a doctorado en la Universidad del Sur de California (USC), está
realizando actualmente investigaciones sobre nuestro programa. Al concluir la investigación los
resultados serán compartidos con el Programa “Computadoras para Familias” y estamos ansiosos
de estudiar y analizar los hallazgos. Seguiremos nuestra labor de ayudar a su familia por medio
del programa “Computadoras para Familias”.

Si tiene alguna pregunta o inquietud, póngase en contacto con scsalcid@usc.edu.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

124
APPENDIX C
SURVEY REQUEST HARD COPY — ENGLISH
Dear Parent,

The attached survey has been designed take less than 10 minutes to complete.

Please return the completed survey in your child’s packet. Thank you very much!

All parents who received Computers for Families computers during the 2015-2016 and 2016-
2017 school years have been invited to take this survey.

My name is Susan Salcido, and I am a current doctoral student at the University of Southern
California (USC). I am conducting research on the ways Computers for Families supports
parents who receive computers from its program. Under the direction of Dr. Monique Datta
from the Rossier School of Education at USC, the research study has been designed to provide
Computers for Families with recommendations for ways to continue to serve parents who
participate in the program.

Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary, and your responses are confidential;
the questions on the survey will not ask for your name or any personally identifying information.
You may skip any question.

Should have you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly at
scsalcid@usc.edu at the University of Southern California.

Thank you for reviewing the information above, and for participating in the survey. Your time
and input is valuable, and I thank you for your participation.

Sincerely,

Susan C. Salcido

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

125
APPENDIX D
SURVEY REQUEST HARD COPY — SPANISH
Estimados padres:

La encuesta no debería tomar más de 10 minutos para completarla.

Por favor devuelva la encuesta completada en el paquete de su hijo. ¡Muchas gracias!

Uds. han sido invitados para participar en esta breve encuesta para todos los padres que han
recibido computadoras por medio del Programa “Computadoras para Familias” durante los años
escolares 2015-2016 y 2016-2017.

Mi nombre es Susan Salcido y actualmente soy estudiante de doctorado en la Universidad del
Sur de California (USC). Estoy realizando una investigación de cómo los padres interactúan con
sus hijos mientras usan sus computadoras del Programa “Computadoras para Familias”. Bajo la
dirección de la Dra. Monique Datta del Departamento de Educación en USC, el estudio de la
investigación ha sido designado para proveer a “Computadoras para Familias” con
recomendaciones de cómo seguir apoyando a los padres que participan en este programa.

Su participación en esta encuesta es totalmente voluntaria y sus respuestas con confidenciales.
Las preguntas en esta encuesta no le piden su nombre ni ninguna otra información personal. Uds.
pueden saltar cualquier pregunta y se pueden retirar la de la encuesta en cualquier momento.

Si tuvieran cualquier pregunta o inquietud, por favor no hesiten en tomar contacto directo
conmigo: scsalcido@usc.edu en la Universidad del Sur de California.

Muchas gracias por el tiempo que se han tomado en analizar la información indicada arriba y por
participar en la encuesta. Su tiempo y su contribución son muy importantes y de antemano les
agradezco su participación.

Sinceramente,

Susan C. Salcido

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

126
APPENDIX E
SURVEY ITEMS — ENGLISH

Yes No
I’m not
sure
1. My family currently has a computer from Computers for Families at
home.

2. My computer from Computers for Families is in working condition.
3. My computer from Computers for Families is currently connected
to the Internet.

4. My child(ren) regularly use the Computers for Families computer to
work on their schoolwork.

Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
5. I am able to clearly state the Computers for
Families’ goals for parents.

6. I know what Computers for Families expects of
me as a parent.

7. I know different ways to support my student on
the computer as it relates to schoolwork.

8. When I received my computer at the Computers
for Families distribution night, I received steps
or directions on ways to help my student on
his/her computer.

9. Using the computer from Computers for
Families has helped my child in school.

10. The computer from Computers for Families has
helped me connect to my child’s school.

11. The computer from Computers for Families is an
important part of my child’s success at school.

12. My child relies on the computer from Computers
for Families to complete school requirements.

13. I monitor what my child does on the computer.
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

127
14. I feel I can help my child on the computer if he
or she gets stuck.

15. After bringing my computer home, we have had
no problems using it.

16. I believe having a computer at home helps my
child with his/her schoolwork.

17. I believe having a computer at home helps my
child achieve academically.

18. I believe having a computer at home is critical
part of being a successful student.

19. My child is required to use a computer to
complete assignments at home.

20. My child uses the computer from Computers for
Families to complete assignments at home.

21. I feel CFF staff are available to me when I need
them.

22. CFF contacted me after I took my computer
home.

23. It would helpful if CFF contacted me after I took
my computer home.

Never 1 time 2 times
3 or more
times
24. I contacted Computers for Families, after taking
my computer home.

Internet
needs
Computer/hardware
needs (i.e., keyboard,
monitor, mouse)
Computer/software
needs (i.e., Word,
PowerPoint) Other:
25. The reason I contacted
Computers for Families is:
(check 1 or more)

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

128

Extremely
confident
Somewhat
confident
Slightly
confident
Not
confident
26. I feel confident about using a
computer.

27. I feel confident about using the
Internet on the computer.

28. I feel confident about how to help my
child with academic work, using the
computer.

29. Additional comments about Computers for Families:

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey!

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

129
APPENDIX F
SURVEY ITEMS — SPANISH

Si No
No estoy
seguro/a
1. En la actualidad mi familia tiene una computadora del Programa
“Computadoras para Familias.”

2. Mi computadora del Programa “Computadoras para Familias” está
en buenas condiciones de funcionamiento.

3. Mi computadora del programa “Computadoras para familias” está
conectada al internet.

4. Mi(s) hijo(s) regularmente usan la computadora del Programa
“Computadoras para Familias” para hacer sus tareas escolares.

En completo
desacuerdo
En
desacuerdo
De
acuerdo
Completamente
de acuerdo
1. Estoy en condiciones de indicar
con exactitud las metas del
programa “Computadoras para
Familias.”

2. Estoy al tanto de lo que el
programa “Computadoras para
Familias” espera de mí como
padre/madre.

3. Conozco diferentes formas cómo
puedo apoyar a mi estudiante en
sus trabajos escolares en la
computadora.

4. Cuando me entregaron mi
computadora del Programa
“Computadoras para Familias,”
recibí instrucciones en cómo
ayudar mi estudiante en el uso de
su computadora.

5. La computadora del Programa
“Computadoras para Familias” ha
ayudado a mi hijo/a en la escuela.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

130
6. La computadora del Programa
“Computadoras para Familias”
me ha ayudado a conectarme a la
escuela de mi hijo/a.

7. La computadora del Programa
“Computadora para Familias”
constituye un elemento
importante del éxito escolar de mi
hijo/a.

8. Mi hijo/a depende de la
computadora del Programa
“Computadoras para Familias”
para completar tareas/trabajos
escolares.

9. Yo monitoreo lo que mi hijo/a
hace en la computadora.

10. Estimo que puedo ayudar a mi
hijo/a en la computadora si se
traba/tiene dificultades.

11. Desde que instalamos la
computadora en la casa no hemos
tenido ningún problema.

12. Estimo que tener una
computadora en la casa ayuda a
mi hijo/a con sus tareas escolares.

13. Estimo que tener una
computadora en la casa ayuda a
mi hijo/a con su logro académico.

14. Estimo que tener una
computadora en la casa constituye
una parte vital de ser un
estudiante exitoso.

15. A mi hijo/a se le requiere usar una
computadora para completar sus
tareas/trabajos escolares en la
casa.

16. Mi hijo/a usa la computadora del
Programa “Computadoras para
Familias” para completar sus
tareas escolares en la casa.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

131
17. Estimo que el personal de CFF
está disponible cuando es
necesario.

18. El personal de CFF se puso en
contacto conmigo después que
recibí la computadora.

19. Sería útil que el personal de CFF
me contacte después de
entregarme la computadora.

Nunca
1
vez
2
veces
3 ó más
veces
20. Después de recibir mi computadora tomé contacto con
“Computadoras para Familias.”

Necesidades
de internet
Necesidades de la
computadora/
hardware (teclado,
monitor, “mouse”)
Necesidades de la
computadora/
software (Word,
PowerPoint) Otro
21. La razón por la cual
contacté “Computadoras
para Familias es: (indique 1
ó más).

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

132

Extremamente
seguro/a
Algo
seguro/a
Ligeramente
seguro/a
No muy
seguro/a
22. Me siento seguro/a usando una
computadora.

23. Me siento seguro/a usando el
internet en la computadora.

24. Me siento seguro/a cómo ayudar a
mi hijo/a con sus tareas académicas
usando la computadora.

25. Comentarios adicionales sobre el programa “Computadoras para Familias.”

¡Muchas gracias por tomarse el tiempo en completar esta encuesta!

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

133
APPENDIX G
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL EMAIL — ENGLISH
Subject line: Computers at Home Interview - $25 Thank You/ “Computadoras para Familias”
Entrevista -$25 Gracias

Dear Computers at Home Parent,

Thank you for participating in the Computers at Home program over the past two years.

My name is Susan Salcido, and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern
California (USC). I am currently conducting research about the Computers at Home program,
and I’d like to request a 1-hour interview with you. The interview is confidential and voluntary
and can be conducted on the phone, online, or at your child’s school in English or in Spanish. In
an effort to thank you for your time, I will provide you with a $25 gift card to your choice of
either Staples, Office Max, or Amazon.com at the conclusion of the interview.

Please let me know if you are interested, and I would be glad to contact you further about an
interview.

Thank you for your consideration,

Susan Salcido

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

134
APPENDIX H
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL EMAIL — SPANISH
Estimados padres:

Les agradezco su participación en el Programa “Computadoras para Familias” en el transcurso
de los últimos dos años.

Mi nombre es Susan Salcido y soy estudiante de doctorado en la Universidad del Sur California
(USC). En la actualidad estoy participando en una investigación sobre el programa
“Computadoras para Familias” y deseo pedirles que me permitan llevar a cabo una entrevista de
una hora con Uds. La entrevista es confidencial y voluntaria y podría tener lugar en la escuela de
su hijo/a ya sea en inglés o español, o en el teléfono. Al final de la entrevista y para agradecerles
su colaboración, desearía ofrecerles un certificado de regalo de $25.00 para Staples, Office Max
o Amazon.com.

Les ruego tengan a bien indicarme si estarían disponibles.

Atentamente,

Susan Salcido

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

135
APPENDIX I
INTERVIEW INTRODUCTION
To the parents:

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. I am a doctoral student at the University
of Southern California and am interested in how parents interact with their children while they
use their Computers at Home computers. I am also interested in providing CAH with
recommendations, based on the results of this research, that would help to continue to serve
parents who participate in the program.

All of the information gathered in this interview will be confidential. I will not connect your
name or any other personal information with your interview. I will be taking notes throughout
this interview, but since I want to primarily focus on your responses, I would like your
permission to record this dialogue as well. This will allow me to go back and write your answers
down exactly as you have said them. The recording will be deleted after this research is
conducted.

This interview is scheduled to take about 1 hour. To think you for your time, at the end of the
interview, I will provide you with a $25 gift card to your choice of either Staples, Office Max, or
Amazon.com.

Before I begin, do you have any questions for me? If at any time you should have a question,
please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

136
APPENDIX J
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Knowledge Questions
Declarative
1. You are a parent who attended a Computers at Home distribution event. Given that
context, what are your goals as a parent with a CAH computer at home?
2. What are some of the elements needed to attain those goals?
3. How do you know if you are achieving those goals?

Procedural
1. Describe what occurred once your brought your CAH computer home.
a. Describe where your computer is set up in your living environment.
2. Describe ways that you monitor computer use at home.
3. Describe interactions with the CAH program or staff at any time during your involvement
with CAH.
4. Describe interactions with Internet providers at any time during your involvement with
CAH.
5. What would happen if and when something breaks on the computer- what would you do?
6. Have there been any issues on your computer? Can you share some of those experiences
with me?

Metacognitive
1. Has having a computer at home impacted your family? If so, how?
2. Has having a computer at home impacted your child’s performance at school? If so,
how?
3. In what was has your involvement with CAH impacted the family or school?
4. How do you know you are on the right track as you help your child on their computer?

Motivation Questions
Self-Efficacy
1. When it comes to using a computer, can you share with me ways you feel confident in
using one?
2. When it comes to helping your child on the computer, can you share with me ways you
feel confident about helping?
3. What are some ways that would help you be more effective using or helping your child
use the computer?
4. What obstacles have you encountered by having a computer at home?
5. How do you overcome those obstacles?
ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

137
Value-Theory
1. How does your child use the computer at home?
2. What are ways you would like to see your computer being used at home?
3. How useful is a computer having a computer and Internet connectivity at home for your
child and school?

Organizational Questions
Cultural Model
1. To what extent has CAH shared with you their goals for parents?
2. What information could CAH share with you that would help you with your goal?
3. What training did you receive at CAH?
4. What feedback did you receive at CAH?

Cultural Setting
1. Please describe the CAH program communication that you have received, either written
or verbal.
2. In what ways could communication or support be improved?
3. To what extent was the CAH staff able to assist you when needed?
4. What, if anything, would you suggest CAH do for parents in regard to their staff, time,
and money?

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

138
APPENDIX K
COMPUTERS AT HOME OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Dear Parent,

My name is Susan Salcido, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California.
I am conducting a research study about how parents interact with their children while they use
their Computers at Home computers. I will be observing and taking notes at today’s Computer
Distribution Event. At no times will names be used, and all observations will remain anonymous
and confidential. All notes will be destroyed after the research has been completed.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know, as I will be
here for the duration of tonight’s distribution event.

Thank you for your time,

Susan Salcido

Computer Distribution Event Observation Protocol
Meeting Location ____________________________
Date _______________________
Event Start Time _______________________
Event End Time _________________
1. ROOM ARRANGEMENT
Describe the room and other spaces used. Draw a map. Note the registration table, seating
arrangement of participants, movement patterns.

2. PARTICIPANTS
Number of families represented total ________
Number of parents/adults _______
Number of children ______
Describe what participants do when they come into the event. What is the sequence, who do
they talk to, what are they doing?

3. ORGANIZATION/STAFF
Number of staff ______
Roles of staff _____
Describe what the organizational staff do when the event begins. What is the sequence, who do
they talk to, what are they doing?

4. Other people in the room
Who else is represented at the event? What are they doing?

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

139
APPENDIX L
OTHER DOCUMENTS FOR REVIEW
• Materials provided at the CAH Distribution Events
• CAH-collected data, current and past, including:
o Annual distribution events
o Annual distribution numbers
o Past surveys administered by CAH

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

140
APPENDIX M
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Interviews

The Digital Divide and Equity: What Access to Technology Means for Education
An Evaluation Study

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Susan Salcido, M. Ed., principal
investigator under the advisement of Dr. Monique Datta, Faculty Advisor, at the University of
Southern California. Your participation is voluntary. This document explains information about
this study. Please ask questions about anything that you do not understand before deciding
whether or not to participate. Take as much time as you need to read through this consent form.
If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form and will receive a copy.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to understand the extent to which Computers at Home helps parents
support their children in school through the use of the computers from the program. The results
of the surveys, observations, and interviews will support Computers at Home as they seek to
continually improve their program. The data and recommendations will be used in an effort to
support the program to best serve its families.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to take part in an interview, which
is anticipated to take 60 minutes. In an effort to capture the conversation, the responses to
questions will be handwritten, and an audio recording will be used as well. Participation will be
anonymous.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION

Volunteers who participate in the interview will receive a $25 gift card to Staples, Office Max, or
Amazon.com for your time. Participants will receive the gift card at the conclusion of the
interview; participants may skip any question they would like.

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

141
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION

Participation is voluntary; participants do not have to participate in the study. All CAH
computer and technical services will be provided to parents regardless of their participation in
this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY

No identifying information obtained in connection with the CAH program will be used for this
study.

Audio recordings will be deleted and destroyed once they have been transcribed.

The data will be stored securely on the researcher’s password protected computer. The computer
will be stored in a locked facility when not in use. If you are a participant in an interview, you
will have the right to review a copy of the interview transcription. Personal interviews will
remain anonymous and will be coded with a number to distinguish between interviewees.
Personal names or information will never be connected with the interviews or transcriptions.

The University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access
the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of
research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Principal Investigator
Susan Salcido, M. Ed
Tel: 805-698-5043
Email: scsalcid@usc.edu

Faculty Advisor
Dr. Monique Datta
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Tel: 808-721-8621
Email: mdatta@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB)
3720 South Flower Street #301
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702
Tel: (213) 821-5272
Email: upirb@usc.edu

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

142
APPENDIX N
SAMPLE POST-TRAINING SURVEY ITEMS MEASURING KIRKPATRICK
LEVELS 1 AND 2
Instructions: Please complete the following survey to the best of your ability. The survey will
provide the training facilitator and the CAH program with important data to analyze the
effectiveness of the training and the areas that can be improved. Your feedback is valuable to
make sure the workshop is reaching its intended goals. Thank you.

Questions 1–6 utilize a scale. Please indicate by marking if you Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Agree, or Strongly Agree. Questions 7 and 8 are open-ended, and can be answered by short
answers. (note for Susan from 11/18: learner-focused not focused)

Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. The training workshop held my interest.
(L1 Engagement)

2. What I learned from the training is something I
can apply with my child.
(L1 Relevance)

3. I would recommend this training to other
parents.
(L1 Customer satisfaction)

4. I know what CAH’s goal for parents is.
(L2 Declarative)

5. This training was valuable for me.
(L2 Value/attitude)

6. I feel confident about using what I learned to
help my child at home with his/her computer.
(L2 Confidence)

Short response:
7. List some major concepts you learned today.
(L2: Declarative Knowledge)

8. How do you plan to apply what you learned
today when you work with your student at home?
(L2: Procedural Knowledge)

ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGY GAP THROUGH PARENT SUPPORT

143
APPENDIX O
SAMPLE DELAYED BLENDED EVALUATION SURVEY MEASURING KIRKPATRICK
LEVELS 1, 2, 3, AND 4
Instructions: Please complete the following survey to the best of your ability on the Computers
at Home training you attended several weeks ago. The survey will provide the training facilitator
and the CAH program with important data to analyze the effectiveness of the training and the
areas that can be improved. Your feedback is valuable to make sure the workshop is reaching its
intended goals. Thank you.

Questions 1–4 utilize a scale. Please indicate by marking if you Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Agree, or Strongly Agree. Questions 5 and 6 are open-ended, and can be answered by a short
answer.

Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. The CAH training provided me with a valuable
learning experience.
(L1: Reaction)

2. The CAH training has been applicable as I work
with my child/ren at home.
(L1: Reaction)

3. After the training, I was able to support my child
at home on his/her computer.
(L2: Learning)

4. I have successfully applied what I learned in the
training when working with my child/ren at home.
(L3: Behavior)

Short response:
5. What are some observations I have made by
using what I learned at the CAH training?
(L4: Results)

6. Looking back, how could the training be
improved?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The problem with the first-level digital divide in U.S. schools has been well-documented for over thirty years. However, it is not only important to acknowledge that a divide exists, but it is important to understand why it matters, how it affects students and their futures, and what influences contribute to bridging the divide. This study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) conceptual framework to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps related to parents supporting their children on computers at home. Through a study that included a general literature review and the administration of surveys and interviews, influences on parents were analyzed. Parents who participated in this study demonstrated self-efficacy in using computers and saw value in using computers to support students’ academic goals. Parents also knew about safety issues related to student online access, and how to access computer literacy support. Recommendations for the organization were provided in this study related to ways in which validated influences could be closed through parent training and feedback.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Student engagement in online education: an evaluation study

PDF

The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

Nourish to flourish: strengthening social emotional wellness of teachers to mitigate stress, enrich engagement, and increase efficacy: an evaluation study

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

The happiness design: an innovation study

PDF

Spiritual persistence of high school alumni: an evaluation model

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Factors that facilitate or hinder staff performance during management turnover

PDF

The role of higher education in bridging workforce skills gaps: an evaluation study

PDF

Increase parental involvement to decrease the achievement gaps for ELL and low SES students in urban California public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Employment rates upon MBA graduation: An evaluation study

PDF

Application of professional learning outcomes into the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Innovative parental involvement: Utilizing information and communication technologies to increase parental involvement

PDF

A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study

PDF

Leveraging the principalship for instructional technology equity and access in two urban elementary schools

PDF

Addressing the principal shortage: women teachers

PDF

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student center: a promising practice study

PDF

Parental participation in efforts to reduce the African-American math readiness gap at Timber Middle School: an evaluation study

PDF

Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Salcido, Susan C. (author)

Core Title Eliminating the technology equity gap for students through parent support at home: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 03/28/2018

Defense Date 02/02/2018

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

Tag computers at home,conditions of access,digital divide,equity gap,first-level digital divide,OAI-PMH Harvest,parent engagement,parent support,second-level digital divide,technology gap

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence (committee member), Sundt, Melora (committee member)

Creator Email scsalcid@usc.edu,susansalcido@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-488034

Unique identifier UC11267960

Identifier etd-SalcidoSus-6132.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-488034 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SalcidoSus-6132.pdf

Dmrecord 488034

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Salcido, Susan 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