University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP

Leveraging the Principalship for Instructional Technology Equity
and Access in Two Urban Elementary Schools
By
Bernadette Lucas

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

December 2019

Copyright 2019 Bernadette Lucas
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 2

Acknowledgements
This dissertation is possible thanks to my professors and doctoral cohort with whom I
completed the program. All of whom challenged my thinking and beliefs in a way that
encouraged my growth and development professionally and personally.
I also thank all of the students whom I was honored to teach and all the faculty and staff
members with whom I was so fortunate to work throughout my years as an educator. My journey
as a doctoral student was immeasurably influenced and informed by both experiences.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 3
Dedication
Many of us know the beautiful expression, “I am my ancestors’ wildest dreams.” Only a
few generations ago, it was illegal for my ancestors to even be educated. As I submit this
dissertation with the passion and commitment that I feel to this work, I feel the echo and love of
all my ancestors before me.
I dedicate my doctoral dissertation from the University of Southern California to my
paternal and maternal grandparents (Lola Lucas, Frederick Lucas, Aver Gill, and Charles Gill)
who are beloved to me. I also dedicate this work to my Aunt Sylvia Gill who I loved and love
beyond words.
And lastly, this dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Victoria Lucas and Bernard C.
Lucas, Sr., without whom none of who I am would have been possible. There are no words to
describe the sacrifices they made for my sister (Felicia Lucas), my brother (Bernard Lucas, Jr.)
(to whom I also dedicate this submission), and me.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................9
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................10
Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................11
Chapter One: The Problem ............................................................................................................12
Background ........................................................................................................................13
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................14
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................16
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................17
Overview of the Research Methodology ...........................................................................18
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................19
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................20
Summary ............................................................................................................................22
Overview of the Study .......................................................................................................23
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................24
Theoretical Paradigm .........................................................................................................24
Mead’s Theory of Symbolic Interactionism ......................................................................26
Blumer and Symbolic Interactionism ...................................................................27
Symbolic Interactionism as a Dynamic System .....................................................28
Symbolic Interactionism and Emotion ...................................................................29
The First-Level Digital Divide (FLDD) ............................................................................31
The Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD) ........................................................................32
Technology and Instructional Strategies That Integrate Technology ....................32
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 5
Social Implications of the Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD) .........................33
The Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD) and Brown v. Board of Education .....34
The Hidden Curriculum and Its Unspoken Messages ............................................35
Long-Term Implications and Civil Rights .............................................................35
Teacher Impact on the Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD) ..........................................36
Teacher Support and Professional Development ...............................................................37
The Principal’s Role in Closing the Second-Level Digital Divide ....................................39
The Role of Vision .................................................................................................41
Principals and Teachers .........................................................................................41
Summary ............................................................................................................................42
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................45
Research Designs and Methods .........................................................................................45
The Rationale for a Qualitative Research Methodology ........................................45
Epistemology .........................................................................................................46
Reflexivity ..............................................................................................................46
Ethics ......................................................................................................................47
Research Population Selection ..........................................................................................48
Sampling Technique ..............................................................................................49
School Selection .....................................................................................................49
Teacher and Principal Selection .............................................................................49
Researcher Access and Prior Relationships ...........................................................50
Interviews ...........................................................................................................................50
Observation ........................................................................................................................51
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 6
Triangulation ......................................................................................................................52
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................52
Interview Protocols ................................................................................................53
Observation Protocols ............................................................................................54
Research Questions Alignment ..........................................................................................54
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................54
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................55
Categorizing, Connecting and Pattern Identification .............................................55
Threats to Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................56
Summary ............................................................................................................................57
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................58
Description of District and Participating Schools ..............................................................61
Oak Unified School District ...................................................................................61
Baldwin School ......................................................................................................62
Angelou School ......................................................................................................63
Description of Participants .................................................................................................64
Elaine: Senior Director of Technology ..................................................................65
Nate: Principal, Baldwin School ............................................................................65
Siobhan: Teacher, Baldwin School ........................................................................65
Roxy: Instructional Technology Coach, Baldwin School ......................................66
Nicole: Principal, Angelou School ........................................................................66
Isabela: Teacher, Angelou School .........................................................................66
Sophia: Teacher, Angelou School ..........................................................................67
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 7
Kimberly: Instructional Technology Coach, Angelou School ...............................67
Summary ................................................................................................................68
Findings for Research Question One: What is the Impact of Elementary School
Principals at High-Performing, Urban Schools on Closing the SLDD? ............................68

Organizational Coherence ......................................................................................70
Defining Organizational Coherence ..........................................................70
Coherence and Culture ...............................................................................71
Leadership Understanding of Alignment ...................................................72
Teacher and Coach Understanding of Coherence ......................................75
The Need for a Formal Feedback Protocol ............................................................78
Differentiated Professional Development for Principals .......................................82
Summary ................................................................................................................86
Findings for Research Question Two: How are Teachers Being Supported
in Regard to Technology Integration in their Classrooms? ................................................87

Established Support Structures ..............................................................................88
Differentiated Support and Professional Development for Teachers
and Coaches ...........................................................................................................91

Elements of Professional Development .....................................................92
Everyone Can Create .................................................................................93
Coaching ................................................................................................................98
Accountability ......................................................................................................100
Summary ..............................................................................................................106
Summary ..........................................................................................................................108
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................................110
Summary of Research Findings .......................................................................................111
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 8
Research Question One ........................................................................................111
Formal Feedback Protocol .......................................................................112

Differentiated Professional Development ................................................114

Systemic Change ......................................................................................115
Research Question Two .......................................................................................117
Implications for Practice ..................................................................................................120
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................122
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................123
References ....................................................................................................................................125
Appendix A: Theoretical Matrix ..................................................................................................133
Appendix B: USC IRB Approval ................................................................................................135
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Protocol ....................................................................................137
Appendix D: Coach Interview Protocol………………………………………………………...139
Appendix E. Principal Interview Protocol ...................................................................................141
Appendix F: Director of Technology Interview Protocol .……………………………………...143
Appendix G: Observation Protocol: Professional Development……………………………….145
Appendix H: Qualitative Codebook……………………………………………………...…......146

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 9
List of Tables
Table 1: Computer and Broadband Access by Race and Ethnicity ...............................................31
Table 2: Computer Use by Household Income ..............................................................................31
Table 3: Online Engagement Activities by Race and Ethnicity ....................................................34

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 10
List of Figures

Figure A: Instructional Technology Feedback Protocol to Close the SLDD ..............................114

Figure B: Teacher Accountability for Closing the SLDD ...........................................................119

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 11
Abstract
Today’s elementary school students require 21st century skills to gain entrance to college,
achieve career readiness, and fully access the benefits of a democratic society. Unfortunately, the
Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD) disproportionately creates a barrier for low socio-
economic status African American and Latino students to acquire these critical skills. The SLDD
is the inequity in how instructional technology is used in the classroom to develop cognitive
ability, critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaborative skills. Low-level use of
technology does not prepare minority students who are living in poverty for economic self-
sustainability that comes with college preparedness, career readiness, and competitive
participation in the global economy. A crucial variable in student achievement is the classroom
teacher, whose key to growth and effectiveness is the principal. A principal’s leadership and
support impact the extent to which technology is integrated into daily classroom instructional
strategies. The current research study addresses the lack of access to cognitively challenging
instructional technology strategies among low socio-economic status minority students. A
qualitative design was used to explore the experiences of principals and teachers as they worked
to integrate instructional technology to advance higher order thinking skills. The study design
included teacher interviews and observations of classrooms in order to understand how
technology is leveraged to advance higher order thinking skills.
Keywords: Second-level digital divide, elementary school, instruction technology, equity,
principal, leadership, coaching, technology gap, organizational coherence

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 12
Chapter One: The Problem
A principal’s leadership and support impact the extent to which technology is integrated
into daily classroom instructional strategies. Effective use of technology can have important
student outcomes for critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaborative skills. This is
especially true for low socio-economic status (SES) African American and Latino students
attending schools in urban settings. As technology use has blossomed in schools across the
country, students of color have experienced increased access to technology. Unfortunately, they
have not benefitted from this access to the same degree as White students (Hohfield, Ritzhaupt,
& Kemker, 2008; Kim & Bagaka, 2005; Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011).
Students of color are more likely to use instructional technology for skill-and-drill
practice than they are to engage in learning experiences that develop critical thinking, college
preparedness, and career readiness skills. This lack of preparation to use technology for higher
order tasks limits the educational, economic, and social opportunities for low SES and minority
students. As a result, minority students are experiencing a technology gap in learning
experiences that will impact their college readiness, matriculation, and graduation rates as well
as career readiness, employability, and future earning power. In a broader context, low SES and
minority students are denied access to the promise of the technology revolution that impacts
every facet of life in the 21st century (Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011; Margolis et al., 2017).
When students are not able to fully benefit from instructional strategies enhanced by
technology, they do not acquire the skills and experiences that position them for deeper learning;
high-skill, high-demand jobs, and career competitiveness through connections in an increasingly
global marketplace. Ladson-Billings (2006) coined the term “educational debt,” the
compounding educational disparity between minority and White children and between poor and
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 13
affluent children. Educational debt frames the impact of institutionalized education practices in
the United States in terms of an accumulating “debt” owed to children of color and children in
poverty because systemic practices disenfranchise those students in ways that limit their pursuit
and attainment of the American dream.
Remedying this debt requires that students of color and students in poverty receive
rigorous instruction enabled by technology. Repaying this debt to African American and Latino
students is critical because the mounting debt significantly limits these students’ access to equity
in public schools, post-secondary education, career readiness, and economic opportunity. While
this education debt is not wholly attributable to the instructional technology gap, it is an element
and manifestation of it.
Background
Low socio-economic status (SES) African African and Latino students are not exposed to
cognitively demanding instructional technology. The literature demonstrates the reality of this
disparity in instructional technology plaguing African American and Latino students. But, it is
not merely access to technology hardware and the internet. Dolan (2016) suggests that access is a
complex system of independent and interdependent variables. Solving this disparity is not as
easy as putting more computers in a classroom; it requires systemic change at the institutional
level.
The two-dimensional definition of “access” involves both daily access to technology
hardware and a teacher who is proficient in the meaningful integration of instructional
technology into his or her daily teaching strategies (Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, Barron, & Kemker,
2008). The evidence highlights the mechanisms that prevent students of color—especially those
in high poverty, predominantly minority, urban school settings—from engaging with technology
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 14
in meaningful ways (Morse, 2004; Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004; Warschauer &
Matuchniak, 2010). Meaningful engagement with technology requires students to use technology
for cognitively demanding tasks. These tasks should require critical thinking, simulations,
collaborative work, innovation, and divergent thinking. However, unlike their affluent White
peers, low SES African American and Latino students tend to engage in drills and practice when
they use technology in school.
This disparity in the use of technology is called the “Second-Level Digital Divide”
(SLDD). Reinhart, Thomas, and Toriskie (2011) define the SLDD as “the difference, or ‘divide,’
in how technology is used.” The SLDD is another manifestation of the educational debt
described by Ladson-Billings (2006). Students of color suffer from compounding social
inequities that include lack of access to quality health care, adequate social services and supports,
entry into meaningful civic engagement, unbiased law enforcement and incarceration systems,
and educational equity. As the global marketplace evolves, the SLDD creates another barrier to
success for low SES African American and Latino students.
Statement of the Problem
The current research study addresses the lack of access to cognitively challenging
instructional technology strategies among low socio-economic status (SES) minority students.
Again, students of color—especially those in high poverty, predominantly minority, urban school
settings—are less likely to engage with technology in cognitively meaningful ways (Morse,
2004; Warschauer et al., 2004; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). The low-level use of
technology does not prepare minority students who are living in poverty for the economic self-
sustainability that comes with college preparedness, career readiness, or competitive
participation in the global economy.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 15
Morse (2004) draws parallels with the foundational ideals expressed in the landmark
Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954), noting, “Cultural assimilation,
preparation for participation in the political process, and training so that economic opportunities
might become available.” Participation in 21st century civic life and economic competitiveness
necessitate that schools provide equal access to instructional strategies that integrate high-level
technology skills. Closing the digital access gap is imperative given the far-reaching
implications, including but not limited to disparities in earning potential, college graduation
rates, and full engagement in American democratic society.
Some parents and policymakers question the importance of technology in the classroom.
They ask, “Can’t 21st Century skills be taught without technology? How can and does
technology enhance 21st Century skill development? Is it worth the cost?” In truth, yes, 21st

century skills could be taught without technology but it’s hard to imagine a career path that does
not require at least basic technology skills. Even work environments like machine shops make
use of CAD/CAM computer programs in place of tool and die machinery common in the 1950s.
Additionally, instruction is deepened and accelerated by technology, which enhances
complexity, provides an audience, and facilitates collaboration. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Lefwich
(2010) asserted that the use of technology impacts the quality of student learning, “For students,
the shift was toward active, deeper learning, aligns well with skills students need to be successful
in college and the workplace” (p. 205). Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Lefwich went on to suggest that
technology “activated cognitive processes that learning science tells us enhance learning” (p.
206). However, low SES African American and Latino students are not accessing the promise of
technology at parity with their White peers.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 16
This divide reverberates beyond the public-school experiences of low SES African
American and Latino students. Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) assert that advances in
technology necessitate that all students achieve technology proficiency in order to gain full
access to the global economy. Conversely, a lack of access to technology has the potential to
exacerbate the achievement gap (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). One could argue that access
to technology and the cognitive demands that it enables is in fact a civil rights issue. If the
problem is not solved, the opportunity gap will continue to widen for low SES African American
and Latino students, not just during their K-12 schooling but throughout their adult lives.
The literature suggests that teachers of low SES African American and Latino students
are not closing the SLDD because they lack 1) ongoing coaching and feedback on their
classroom use of technology; 2) adequate professional development in instructional strategies;
and 3) systemic support structures to address the disparity, from the classroom to the
superintendent’s office. These three factors are greatly influenced by site principals who bridge
institutions, systems, and classrooms. Principals shape, monitor, and nurture school culture. In
order for teachers to effectively use instructional technology to close the SLDD, their principals
must optimize the teaching and learning environments to close the SLDD.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify support structures that principals can
implement to begin to close the SLDD for low socio-economic status (SES) minority students
who are already experiencing “opportunity gaps” or “educational debts.” The most crucial
variable in student achievement is the classroom teacher. The most critical variable in teacher
growth and effectiveness is the principal. This study addressed the power of the principalship to
close the SSLD by supporting teachers. This study addressed the following research questions:
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 17
1. What is the impact of elementary school principals at high-performing, urban
schools on closing the SLDD?
2. In what ways do teachers perceive they are being supported by their principals?
These questions will be examined through the lens of Mead’s Symbolic Interactionism
theoretical framework. Mead (1934) offers a framework that allows the participant’s view of
closing the SSLD and their efficacy to impact the closing of the divide to be studied in a manner
that values the participant’s experiences and perspectives.
Significance of the Study
Today’s elementary school students require 21st century skills in order to gain entrance
to college, achieve career readiness, and gain full access to the benefits of a democratic society.
Furthermore, without technology they will not be able to compete effectively and gain
opportunities available through the increasingly global marketplace. Students of color who attend
school in high poverty settings experience a digital divide that will continue to impact their
economic self-sustainability and their ability to lift themselves—and their children— out of
poverty. In the 21st century, the digital divide is a significant perpetrator of generational cycles
of poverty.
While the hardware gap for low socio-economic status (SES) students of color has
improved over the last decade, there is still a critical disparity in their use of technology in
cognitively demanding ways that develop critical thinking. While the hardware access gap for
low SES African American and Latino students has begun to close compared to their more
affluent White peers, the critical-thinking gap continues to grow. Remedying this gap is
becoming a moral imperative. If not solved, the Second-Level Digital Divide will “further
amplify the already too-large educational inequities in American society” (Warschaeur &
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 18
Matuchniak, 2010). Educators must continue to learn from the past inequities suffered by
minority students. What is at stake are additional layers of student disenfranchisement from
college readiness and career preparedness. The precedent for ensuring access and equity has been
long-established by Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The current study has socio-political
implications because of the civil right implications (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Margolis, Estrella,
Good, Holme, & Nao, 2017; Morse, 2004)
Overview of the Research Methodology
A qualitative, comparative, multi-site case study methodology was used to investigate the
Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD). A qualitative case study methodology allowed the
researcher to delve into the experiences and teaching contexts of the participants (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This empirical inquiry facilitated an exploration of the social interactions between
students, teachers, and principals in the context of instructional-technology integration in public
elementary school classrooms. The school served as the single system with boundaries, a
bounded system, that characterizes qualitative case studies (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
bounded system allowed for rich, thick, deep descriptions of the contexts and phenomena being
studied (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A case study approach benefited the research by minimizing
the likelihood that the researcher would overgeneralize outside the context of the study and
focused the researcher on the diversity of the participants within the setting (Maxwell, 2013).
Interviews, observations, focus groups, and documents analysis were conducted at two
school sites and used to collect data. This data was analyzed to identify themes and patterns to
develop a reform agenda that called for change (Creswell, 2014). These themes and patterns
were used to describe the phenomenon of principal leadership as it related to instructional
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 19
technology integration and to formulate recommendations to advance the use of technology to
develop learning and life skills for low SES African American and Latino students.
Data was collected based on a priori themes using a data analysis matrix (See Appendix
A). The data analysis matrix facilitated the categorization of data around organizational and
theoretical themes (Maxwell, 2013). Therefore, the data analysis matrix was organized around
the research questions and the themes. It is important to note that the data analysis categories
were based on the analysis of theory done before the data was collected, a priori (Harding, 2013).
These interdependent analysis strategies were critical to understanding the phenomena under
study because they presented a roadmap for connecting prior research and theory to data
collection and data analysis. This in turn resulted in the researcher building a new theory
(Maxwell, 2013). This new theory grounded recommendations to the case study participants for
improved instructional technology practices.
In order to collect data, the principals of two schools (gatekeepers) were approached.
Semi- structured interviews (individual and focus groups) were conducted with principals and
teachers in grades three through five who taught low SES African American and Latino students.
Observations took place in the classrooms of the teachers who were interviewed. Each teacher
was observed twice. Document review of lesson plans and student work were also conducted.
Limitations and Delimitations
Validity and reliability are not defined in the same terms for qualitative and quantitative
research. The limitations of a qualitative case study include a potential lack of trustworthiness,
authenticity, and credibility of interview participants (Creswell, 2014). These are considered
threats to validity. However, qualitative validity is defined as the researcher’s utilization of
specific strategies, such as triangulation, to check for the accuracy of the findings (Creswell,
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 20
2014). Qualitative reliability is a measure of the consistency of the research across different
researchers and research designs (Creswell, 2014).
Threats to validity and reliability were minimized through triangulation of the data;
member checking; rich, thick description; researcher bias clarification; and peer debriefing
(Creswell, 2014). These strategies held the researcher, not the participants, responsible for the
study’s validity and reliability.
This study does not include quantitative measures, as the focus was understanding the
experiences of the participants via a rich and nuanced examination. The literature review does
not include an in-depth examination of teacher efficacy in relation to closing the SSLD as a
significant body of research exists on this topic. Additionally, this study seeks to add to the
literature by taking a closer look at a principal’s impact on teacher influence on closing the
SSLD. The literature review does not include an in-depth study of the home use of technology
because the researcher focused on the responsibility schools hold in eradicating the SSLD gap.
Definition of Terms
African American
The United States Census Office defines African Americans as persons who 1) identify
as descendants of Blacks originating from the various regions of Africa and 2) are citizens of the
United States of America. (U.S. Census, n.d.)
Educational Debt
The resources that have historically been denied to African American and Latino students
through a lack of investment in their education. This lack of investment leads to a variety of
social problems and an academic achievement gap. These resources are morally owed to these
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 21
students in order to remedy the access gap they experience in school and after school. (Ladson-
Billings, 2006)
Latino (Hispanic)
The United States Census Office defines Latinos (Hispanics) as persons who 1) identify
as being a descendent of people from or themselves being from Puerto Rico, Cuba, Mexico,
South America, Central America, or other Spanish culture regardless of race and/or ethnicity;
and 2) are citizens of the United States of America. The census list over 30 different subgroups
of the Latino/ Hispanic designation. (U.S. Census, n.d.)
Learning and Life Skills
The skill set necessary to actively engage and thrive in a global context (economically,
educationally, socially, and civically). The dimensions of this skill set include learning and
innovation; critical thinking and problem solving; communication and collaboration;
information, media, and technology; information, communications, and technology literacy; life
and career; productivity and accountability; and leadership and responsibility. (P21, 2015)
Low Socio-Economic Status (SES)
A category of social status designated by low income and occupation that yields low
wages. The American Psychological Association identifies the implications of low SES as
inequality, lack of or diminished power and privilege, diminished educational opportunities, lack
of access to resources, and inequitable access to pathways out of poverty. (APA, 2007)
Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD)
The First-Level Digital Divide describes the technology hardware gap between White
and African American and Latino students. The Second-Level Digital Divide describes the
inequity in how instructional technology is used in the classroom. Affluent White students use
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 22
technology to engage in more cognitively demanding tasks than low socio-economic status
African American and Latino students, who more often use technology for tasks related to skill-
and-drill (Warschaeur & Matuchniak, 2010).
Summary
A principal’s leadership and support impact the extent to which technology is integrated
into the classroom and instructional strategies. Effective use of technology can have important
outcomes for critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaborative skills. This is
especially true for low socio-economic African American and Latino students attending schools
in urban settings.
Students of color—especially those in high poverty, predominantly minority, urban
school settings—are less likely to engage with technology in cognitively meaningful ways. The
low-level use of technology does not prepare these students for the economic self-sustainability
that comes with college preparedness, career readiness, or competitive participation in the global
economy. This disparity in the use of technology is called the “Second-Level Digital Divide”
(SLDD).
The purpose of this study was to identify solutions that classroom teachers can implement
to begin to close the SLDD for minority students living in poverty. This research study used a
qualitative, comparative, multi-site case study methodology to investigate the SLDD.
Overview of Study
Chapter Two presents a literature review that describes the body of research related to the
First-Level Digital Divide (FLDD), the Second-Level Digital Divide (SSLD), teacher impact on
the SSLD, teachers support and professional development, and the principal’s role in closing the
SSLD. The literature review analyzes the interconnectedness between these focus areas. The
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 23
literature review offers a description of Mead’s symbolic interactionism theoretical framework as
the scaffold for this study. Chapter Three describes the research design and methods, sampling
and population, instrumentation, pilot study, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter Four
provides a detailed description of the findings. Chapter Five presents an overview of findings,
recommendations for practice, and potential areas for future research.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 24
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Race and socio-economic status are directly correlated with the digital divide. Like their
affluent White peers, low socio-economic status (SES) African American and Latino students
have increasing access to technology hardware and the internet. What is missing for low SES
minority students is the rigorous use of technology for cognitively demanding tasks, which
increase critical thinking skills, enjoyed by their more affluent White peers. This disparity
widens the success gap for low SES minority students by impeding their college preparedness
and career readiness.
The literature review examines the relationship between the SSLD, teacher impact on
closing the SSLD, teacher professional development and support, and the principal’s role in
closing the SSLD. The theoretical framework is meant to contextualize the study by allowing the
researcher to define the research questions and the corresponding methodology.
Theoretical Paradigm
Maxwell (2013) argued that the conceptual framework guides the study design. The
conceptual framework includes the “system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and
theories that supports and informs your research” (Maxwell, p. 39). The interview questions were
grounded in the following conceptual framework:
• Low SES African American and Latino students do not have the same access to
instructional technology that helps them gain higher order critical thinking skills
compared to their higher SES White peers. This phenomenon is called the Second-Level
Digital Divide (SLDD).
• The SSLD is a manifestation of the injustices experienced by low SES, African American
and Latino students in American public schools.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 25
• When teachers engage in differentiated instructional technology professional
development and receive systematic support, they are able to close—or even eliminate—
the SSLD.
• Principals are a key, often under-utilized factor in creating and leading an instructional
technology initiative that supports classroom teachers in closing the SSLD.
In order to study the dynamics between teacher instructional-technology practices and
principal leadership in depth, Mead’s Theory of Symbolic Interactionism will be used to frame
the organizational dynamic of schools and the relationships that emerge therein (Mead, 1934, p.
173-175). Blumer (1966) defines four components of symbolic interactionism, where humans 1)
engage with people or things based on the meanings they assign to them; 2) make meaning based
on the interactions they have with each other; 3) interpret experiences based on their internal
dialogue and thought processes (minding); and 4) construct meaning about themselves through
imagining what they look like to others, resulting in a state of constant flux as they evolve in the
context of human interaction.
Previous literature and research was reviewed through the lens of a critical,
transformative worldview which looked to analyze the change-issues related to
disenfranchisement and marginalization. This worldview aligned with the research questions
because it emphasized the experiences and perspectives of the participants. It focused on how the
power dynamics in American public schools contribute to the marginalization of low socio-
economic status African American and Latino students. The critical, transformative worldview
also supported the researcher’s goal of finding solutions to reform the system and/or remedy the
problem (Creswell, 2014).

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 26
Mead’s Theory of Symbolic Interactionism
In building schools that are responsive to the instructional technology needs of
underserved students, teachers and administrators must engage in professional interactions and
relationships that create effective teaching and learning environments. Mead’s Theory of
Symbolic Interactionism offers a framework on which instructional technology equity can be
modeled in order to manage the intricate relationships that contribute to school effectiveness.
Mead’s theory emphasizes the importance of the relationships between the individual and
his or her situation or context. Symbolic interactionism recognizes that human beings make
meaning of their situations based on their internal interpretations of their environments (Blumer,
1966; Fields, Copp, & Kleinman, 2006; Mead,1934). This theory stands in contrast to many
social and behavioral theories that assert that human beings make meaning of the world based on
their environment.
For Mead, symbolic interactionism emphasizes the internal processing or dialogue that
takes place within a human being’s mind as he or she makes meaning of the world around them.
In other words, symbolic interactionism emphasizes internal human influences instead of
external environmental influences as humans make meaning of the world. This distinction is
critical to teacher and administrator professional development as they prepare to integrate
technology into the instructional program. If meaning-making is internal, professional
development will seek to support educators in constructing meaning as they interact with others.
Processes that emphasize internal meaning-making in the context of interacting with others is
key. Such processes include coaching and dialogue as a component of professional
development.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 27
Blumer and Symbolic Interactionism
Blumer (1966) describes three pillars of symbolic interactionism. First, human beings act
toward objects and situations based on the meaning they assign to these objects and situations.
Second, human beings derive meaning from other people, objects, and situations based on their
interactions with other human beings. Finally, the meanings of things evolve through an
interpretative process as a person engages in interacting with an object or situation.
How does symbolic interactionism define meaning? Traditional definitions of meaning
frame symbolic interactionism as either intrinsic to the object and, therefore, objective or “rising
out of psychological elements of the person” (Blumer, 1966). Symbolic interactionism attributes
meaning as resulting from interactions between people. Blumer (1966) wrote, “symbolic
interactionism sees meanings as social products, as creations that are formed in and through the
defining activities of people as they interact.”
The Theory of Symbolic Interactionism posits that meaning-making occurs in two parts.
First, a person has to choose a thing to which meaning will be assigned. Second, he or she has to
process the thing to which meaning is assigned by categorizing, transforming, or regrouping it.
These processes are internal. The assignment of meaning plays a critical role in how the person
will act in relation to the thing. This action is born of an iterative, self-interaction process.
Blumer (1966) cautioned that meaning is taken for granted when human behavior is
being analyzed. For example, social behaviorists place great emphasis on external factors such as
culture, norms and values, gender roles, social roles, and social pressures. Blumer (1966) argued
that focusing on these factors minimizes the importance of the internal processes in which human
beings engage to assign meaning. Further, Blumer asserted that internal meaning-making leads to
behaviors.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 28
Symbolic Interactionism as a Dynamic System
Symbolic interactionism views human existence as action-oriented. According to Blumer
(1966), social interactionism is not the result of human conduct or activity but is the process
through which human behavior is formed. Therefore, efforts to close the Second-Level Digital
Divide (SLDD) must focus on the processes that change teacher and administrator behavior.
And, this process must attend to the internal meaning-making that results from symbolic
interactionism.
One critical consequence of the symbolic interactionism model is that human society is
viewed as a dynamic system of human interactions between individuals, members of groups,
and/or organizational agents (Blumer, 1966). Blumer conceptualized human interaction as a
formative process, not simply a sphere for the expression of pre-influencing variables. Therefore,
teachers and administrators must interact with each other as they engage in internal meaning-
making while developing instructional strategies to improve student outcomes. Symbolic
interactionism recognizes that this human exchange is a critical component of meaning-making,
one which cannot take place in isolation.
Objects make up a person’s world or context. Blumer (1966) made a bold and impactful
assertion that two people could exist in the same environment but, because they assign different
meanings to the same objects, these two people could essentially be living in two different
worlds. This assertion explains why teachers in the same school or principals in the same district
engage to different degrees with instructional technology even though they were exposed to the
same professional development activities and were guided by the same professional expectations.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 29
The meaning-making constructed by individuals has implications for group dynamics.
Group, or collective, action is based on the interconnectedness and linkages made through the
meaning-making and the separate actions of its member individuals (Blumer, 1966).
Symbolic Interactionism and Emotion
Fields, Copp, and Kleinman (2006) asserted that emotion plays a distinct role in dynamic
symbolic interactionism and its impact on inequality and inequity. This study not only sought to
understand the experiences of teachers and administrators involved in closing the Second-Level
Digital Divide (SSLD) for underserved and underrepresented students but, also, to offer solutions
to close the gap itself. Fields et al. (2006) maintained that emotion was central to daily
interaction because it stimulates human behaviors, including self-regulation, agency, and cultural
norms. Emotions are not solely physiological responses to objects, people, and situations but,
also, malleable and subject to change or evolution based on internal processes and people’s
interactions with others.
This need or desire to change one’s emotional state based on interaction with an object is
often based on how the individual views expectations that society, culture, or an organization
places on that object. The importance of aligning with expectations “informs the development,
institutionalization, and maintenance of social ties and groups” (Fields et al., 2006). Emotions
serve as markers that alert individuals when they have not met, met, or exceeded societal
expectations. Fields et al. (2006) placed great emphasis on how feelings of shame, guilt, or
embarrassment have positive impacts when looked at through the lens of self-regulation and
social control. Positive feelings of pride, worthiness, and achievement can also positively
reinforce behaviors.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 30
The key point is that emotions play a critical role in establishing and maintaining social
organizations, such as schools. Logically, if a social expectation is unjust, oppressive, or
disenfranchises individuals, then the symbolic interactionism of the system works to reinforce
that oppression instead of eradicating it. The implications for schools and digital equity are
enormous.
American public schools have a history of creating and compounding instructional
climates that do not meet the needs of underserved and underrepresented students. Ladson-
Billings (2006) described the education debt that has steadily compounded for these students.
According to symbolic interactionism, the actions of human beings who make up school
organizations would seek to align with the expectations of those organizations. The documented
collective expectations of American public schools, often defined tangentially by voters and
policy makers, have historically been low for underrepresented students. The combination of this
educational debt and low expectations have led to the SSLD. In order to pay down and eliminate
the education debt, the expectations of schools, especially teachers and administrators as they
relate to underserved students and the SSLD, must change.
Symbolic interaction frames meaning-making as interpreted internally and developed in
concert with other human beings. Therefore, teachers and administrators must engage in
experiences that allow educators to renegotiate and reconstruct meaning in a way that supports
the academic achievement of all students across the SLDD. The call-to-action becomes
designing experiences that will support teachers and administrators in evolving meaning and
aligning behaviors to expectations that all students have a positive digital self-image. Behaviors
and expectations must account for not only the importance of closing the digital divide for
underserved students but, also, the circumstances that have led to it.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 31
The First-Level Digital Divide (FLDD)
Despite recent research suggesting that the hardware and internet divide is closing
between more affluent White students and low socio-economic status (SES) minority students,
the hardware and internet gap persists in meaningful ways that prevent low SES and minority
students from achieving their full potential. The United States Department of Commerce (2011)
published data that measures the significance of this gap (see Table 1 and Table 2).
Table 1
Computer and Broadband Access by Race and Ethnicity
Race or Ethnicity Have a computer
at home
Have broadband
access
Asian 86% 81%
White 80% 72%
Latino 53% 57%
African American 35% 55%

Table 2
Computer Use by Household Income
Household Income Use Computers
< $25,000 56%
$25,001 to $50,000 76%
$50,001 to $75,000 88%
$75,001 to $100,000 93%
> $100,001 96%

The narrowing of the First-Level Digital Divide is promising as technology becomes
more ubiquitous. However, the gap persists (Kim & Bagaka, 2005). The persistence of the gap
makes access to technology at school more urgent as the American public-school system was
designed to support the blossoming of a democratic society through an educated and well-
informed electorate. Therefore, the use of technology in schools is important because it has the
power to bridge the gap created by differences in socio-economic status.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 32
The Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD)
Unlike the hardware gap, which is decreasing, a more alarming gap exists between racial
and ethnic groups and by socio-economic status (SES) in the meaningful use of technology
(Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012). African American and Latino students from low SES
backgrounds are more likely to suffer from the instructional impact of the digital divide. The
challenges for low SES African American and Latino students occur both at home and in school.
When minority children have access to technology at home, they tend to use it for drills, practice,
and social interactions; conversely, high-SES White children use home technology for tasks that
require critical and divergent thinking (Hohfield et al., 2008; Morse, 2004; Valdez & Duran,
2007; Warschauer et al., 2004; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). This disparity persists and is
exacerbated when low SES minority children go to school (Darling-Hammond, Zielezinski, &
Goldman, 2014; Hohfield, Ritzhaupt, Barron, & Kemker, 2008; Morse, 2004). This gap is called
the Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD).
Technology and Instructional Strategies That Integrate Technology
Warschauer et al. (2004) found that teachers and administrators (regardless of school
SES) had concerns about the workability of technology. They noted that low SES schools did
not, or perhaps could not, create infrastructure support commensurate with that of high SES
schools. Teachers in low SES schools did not believe they could rely on technical support
(Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Teachers reported that this lack of confidence in technical
support contributed to inhibitions around using technology during instruction, widening the
SLDD. Valadez and Duran (2007) cautioned educators and policy makers not to mistake the
closing of the primary digital divide with the closing of the instructional access divide, or SLDD.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 33
At issue are the specific technology tasks in which low SES students engage and the
widening of the SLDD. Low-income students tend to use technology for less cognitively
demanding tasks (Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011; Valadez & Duran, 2004; Warschauer et
al., 2004). Low SES African American and Latino students do not use technology as rigorously
as do their more affluent White peers. Therefore, the American education system continues to
expand the SLDD, creating new ways for students of color to fall behind in an already disparate
educational landscape.
Social Implications of the Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD)
The SLDD has significant social implications that limit opportunities for low SES
minority students from their K-12 education through college attendance and into their career
lifespan. Pearson (2002) argues that the technology tasks in which low SES minority students
engage in are not preparing them for “their daily and future lives” where “they must see
computers integrated into their education” (p. 17). The academic and professional worlds
demand complex thinking skills. Low SES African American and Latino students are not
engaging in learning tasks that prepare them for those worlds. Students require deft technology
skills in order to thrive academically and economically in an increasingly globalized economy.
Unaddressed, the SSLD will continue to “further amplify the already too-large educational
inequities in American society” (Warschaeur & Matuchniak, 2010). Warschauer and Matuchniak
(2004) reported the disparities in online engagement activities by race and ethnicity (see Table
3).

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 34
Table 3
Online Engagement Activities by Race and Ethnicity
Online Activities
Race or Ethnicity Technology
Simulations and
Applications
Drills or Practice
White 25% 34%
Latino 31% 31%
African American 14% 52%

The Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD) and Brown v. Board of Education
Morse (2004) drew parallels between the SLDD and the foundational ideals of Brown v.
Board of Education (1954), quoting the importance of “cultural assimilation, preparation for
participation in the political process, and training so that economic opportunities might become
available.” Morse distinguishes the impact of the SLDD using Brown vs. Board of Education’s
distinctions of “tangible” and “intangible” inequities. The First Level Digital Divide, the
hardware and internet divide, is a tangible issue because computers can be seen and touched. The
Second-Level Digital Divide is an “intangible” inequity because it includes not just the divide
itself but the consequences of the SLDD for students. Morse (2004) outlines the following
intangible inequities associated with the SLDD:
• a skills-and-drills versus a problem-solving approach
• controlling students versus student control
• integrated technology versus additive technology
• technology used as a classroom management tool
• software that fails to reflect the diversity in low SES minority schools
• and, insufficient role models who reflect diverse student populations.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 35
The Hidden Curriculum and Its Unspoken Messages
These less than tangible inequities result in a “hidden curriculum” that conveys unspoken
messages to students of color. In today’s technology driven world, a student’s technology or
digital identity, shapes their personal identity. A technology identity that emphasizes drills and
practice instead of tasks that require critical thinking limits a student’s sense of self as a critical
thinker (Margolis et al., 2017). The result is that students do not think of themselves as “masters”
of technology but, rather, as “servants” of technology (Morse, 2004). Unlike masters, servants
typically do not seek to use resources to their own personal advantage. This technology identity
may be transferred to a student’s sense of self in the world, where they become powerless
servants to rather than powerful masters of their future. The subtle, almost subconscious,
parallels to America’s history of slavery and racial oppression are potent.
For this reason, is it imperative that schools level technology access and instructional
strategy. Students have a moral right to envision themselves as learners who use technology to
create knowledge, not merely consume it. They have a right to see themselves as masters of their
future, not servants of or victims to their circumstances. Closing the digital access gap is critical
given the far-reaching implications for students as they reach adulthood, including the inability
to gain college entrance, failure to graduate, limitations to income potential, and incomplete
engagement as a citizen in the American democratic society.
Long-Term Implications and Civil Rights
This divide reverberates beyond the K-12 classrooms of low SES African American and
Latino students. Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) asserted that advances in technology and
their significant implications necessitate that all students fully achieve technology proficiency in
order to gain full access to the global economy. They argue that, conversely, the lack of access to
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 36
technology has the potential to exacerbate the achievement gap (Warschauer & Matuchniak,
2010).
Access to technology and the cognitive intelligences that it nurtures places the SLDD on
a par with other civil rights issues. Schools have a moral responsibility to narrow this divide in
order to fulfill the promise of an education that prepares all students, regardless of race, ethnicity,
or economic status, to thrive in our shared American democracy.
Teacher Impact on the Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD)
Technology has become ubiquitous in many public-school classrooms. The potential of
technology to provide unique instructional opportunities is vast. Integrating technology is crucial
because it helps students to develop the higher order thinking skills necessary to thrive in a
global economy.
The key variable to any student’s school-generated academic achievement is the teacher.
In order for low socio-economic status (SES) minority students to reap the benefits from and
promise that instructional technology offers, they must have access to a teacher who knows how
to effectively integrate technology into the instructional program (Kalyanpur & Kirmani, 2005;
Morse, 2004; Valdez & Duran, 2007; Warschauer et al., 2004; Warschauer & Matuchniak,
2010).
Unlike their peers in more affluent schools, teachers in low SES minority schools often
report that they do not have consistent access to technical support when technology is not
working (Kalyanpur & Kirmani, 2005; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Teachers in schools
that serve students impacted by the Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD) must have greater
access to working technology and the technical supports that engender confidence in integrating
technology as part of a successful instructional strategy.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 37
Teachers of low SES students also require access to robust professional development and
support aimed at increasing the use of technology for critical thinking and innovation in order to
prepare students for their lives beyond high school. The research strongly suggests that
technology is not being leveraged in a manner that will challenge these student’s higher-order
skills such as critical thinking, creativity, production, computational skills, and innovation
(Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011; Valdez & Duran, 2007; Warschauer et al., 2004).
Dolan (2016) asserts that the digital divide can no longer be discussed in terms of binary
physical and instructional access. Other factors are at play, including technical support, teacher
time for planning, and home computer use (p. 31). The complexity of this dynamic system can
make closing the divide seem insurmountable. However, the role of the principal can be used to
bring these factors into alignment so that teachers experience school environments that promote,
advance, and leverage the robust integration of instructional technology.
Teacher Support and Professional Development
Research indicates that professional development, technical support, and coaching are
important for the effective integration of instructional technology into the curriculum (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Harper & Milman, 2016; McKnight et al., 2016; Stanhope & Corn,
2014). These models included informal discussions, demonstrations from colleagues, and online
videos (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Lefwich, 2010). Additionally, teachers and other staff note the
effectiveness of self-led professional development at their school sites (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Lefwich, 2010). These findings suggest that context-embedded professional development at a
school site is important to consider as part of the teacher support structure.
Research also reveals the importance of including instructional technology facilitators or
coaches who support context-embedded professional development. Stanhope and Corn (2014)
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 38
emphasized the role of technology facilitators as an important component of a well-designed
instructional technology plan and support system for teachers. The authors asserted that the
qualitative data highlighted the benefits of technology facilitators or coaches through increased
sense of teacher confidence and self-efficacy, improved professional development, more
resources that increased productivity and efficiency, and the implementation of best practices
related to instructional technology.
Sugar (2005) noted that the barriers to technology integration expressed by teachers were
remedied by working with technology coaches. Technology coaches had an impact on
instructional technology because they provided hands-on professional development, gave
individualized support (instead of traditional undifferentiated workshops), and supported a
teacher’s autonomy in making his or her own instructional decisions (p. 566). Sugar suggested
that a significant component to the effectiveness of coaches was dependent on their ability to be
“empathetic and responsive” (p. 566). Coaches required both professional (instructional) and
interpersonal (emotional intelligence) skills in order to effect positive change with regard to
classroom instructional technology integration. This is supported by Fields et al. (2006) who
asserted that emotion plays a distinct role in dynamic symbolic interactionism.
Studying the factors that contribute to the proficiency of teachers who are exemplary
users of technology in the classroom is essential. The goal is to apply these factors in other
settings in order to support all teachers in becoming exemplary users. Becker (1994) wrote,
“Exemplary teachers were much more likely to be found in schools where there was either a full-
time staff member designated as a computer coordinator (with limited teaching responsibilities)
or a district-level coordinator who directed school level activities” (p. 305).
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 39
Instructional technology is important to developing 21st century skills and competencies
in K-12 public education. Warschauer (2011) asserted that the most effective use of technology
in the classroom was to engage students in complex tasks that involved critical thinking,
analysis, research, and synthesis because they positively impacted student academic
achievement. Technology offers opportunities to facilitate the use of a skillset grounded in
intellectually challenging tasks which facilitates critical thinking (Warschauer, 2011). Teachers
are the key variable in creating positive instructional experiences for students. The effective
integration of instructional technology is reliant on many factors (Warschauer & Matuchniak,
2010).
The Principal’s Role in Closing the Second-Level Digital Divide
The importance of technology in building 21st

century skills (critical thinking,
collaboration, creativity, and communication) and computational thinking is rarely disputed
(Morse, 2004; Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011; Valdez & Duran, 2007; Warschauer, 2011).
Kalyanpur and Kirmani (2005) analyzed the intersection of technology access and diversity,
concluding that the goal is to facilitate “digital inclusion” for all students. They argued that
access to technology was both physical and social, which lead to a Second Level Digital Divide
(SLDD) in digital literacy. Digital literacy constitutes patterns of use, availability of technical
support, and ability to use the internet or applications effectively. Both first-level and second-
level digital divides are mostly related to inequity of resources. Therefore, they
disproportionately affect low socio-economic status (SES) minority students.
The Wallace Foundation (2013) described the role of principal as second only to that of
the teacher with regard to improving student achievement. The nexus between principal
leadership and the integration of instructional technology for underserved students is critical.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 40
Principals must be able to identify the components necessary to achieve instructional technology
equity for all students if they are going to lead to close the gap.
Kalyanpur and Kirmani (2005) argue, “Digital equity requires not only instructional
leadership but, also, political leadership that results in changed public policies.” As a player in
the educational system, the principal has political power; therefore, studying the principal’s role
in closing the SLDD is critical.
Unfortunately, the pool of research that has examined the importance of principals in
leading instructional technology adopted by teachers was shallow at best and, thus, prevented
this researcher from identifying patterns across the literature. Richardson, Bathon, Flora, and
Lewis (2012) asserted that while researchers from countries such as Turkey have conducted
thorough studies on the impact of principal leadership on teacher integration of technology,
researchers in the United States still have much room to improve and responsibility to pursue this
research.
McLeod and Richardson (2011) documented this gap in the literature with regard to the
role of site administrators in technology leadership. They reported that just 11.6% of the school
technology leadership articles focused on closing the digital divide. In reviewing the literature,
they found that associations for educational leaders rarely focused presentations on technology
leadership at their annual conferences (McLeod & Richardson, 2011):
• 2.12% for the American Educational Research Association;
• 2.94% for the University Council of Educational Administration; and
• 7.40% for the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 41
The Role of Vision
Shattuck (2010) identified eight critical strategies principals used to facilitate teacher
technology adoption in four suburban middle schools in the Southeastern United States: vision,
modeling, expectations, resources, encouragement, human capital, professional learning, and
capacity building. Dexter (2011) also emphasized the importance of vision with regard to
principal leadership when implementing technology initiatives. And, she stressed the importance
of distributed or shared vision as the vehicle to manifest the vision (p. 185). Vision is critical to
leading teams and organizations through change. This is especially true for principals who must
engage parents, teachers, and other staff in embracing the integration of technology into
classroom strategies.
Principals and Teachers
Teachers are the key variable in a student’s education, especially when technology is
integrated in the instructional program (Shaffer, Nash, & Ruis, 2015). The barrier to deepening
students’ critical thinking through technology lies in teacher readiness to leverage technology to
re-imagine learning in a way that prepares students for engagement in a global environment.
Many teachers find this divide a challenging one to traverse (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Lefwich,
2010). Principals play an important role in helping teachers to bridge the divide.
Several factors contribute to or impede the implementation of instructional strategies that
include the purposeful integration of technology. These factors include a lack of professional
development, inadequate school or district support, limited planning time, poor infrastructure
readiness, and insufficient principal or site leadership. Sincar (2013) emphasized that effective
principals and site technology leaders improved the chances of effective technology
implementation at a school site. While the literature identifies the leadership dimensions that are
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 42
necessary to create a climate for effective instructional technology integration, it stops short in
identifying the mechanisms to manifest these dimensions in the context of technology
integration. These dimensions are critical because the dynamic within and between teachers and
principals is where the solution lies to closing the SSLD.
Additionally, the role of culture and change management are not adequately emphasized
in the literature. Leadership and culture are the bedrocks of any substantive and impactful
instructional change. The principal has the organizational authority and influence to create the
climate and culture conditions that teachers need to close the SLDD (Hur, Shannon, & Wolf,
2016). Moreover, school technology leaders are responsible for creating the environments and
structures that will end inequity as it relates to technology integration (Flanagan & Jacobsen,
2003).
The principal’s role in supporting the integration of technology into instructional
strategies clearly requires further study (McLeod & Richardson, 2011; Richardson et al., 2012).
Given the impact of school leadership on technology integration, the dearth of literature
necessitates further study of school technology leadership (Davies, 2010; McLeod & Richardson,
2011).
Summary
The Second-Level Digital Divide (SSLD) is an educational challenge that has long-term
consequences for low socio-economic status (SES) and minority students. Failure to master 21st
century technology skills as a result of the SSLD will limit these students from access to and
success in college, career paths, and life. The literature review revealed key factors that could
help to close the SSLD and open opportunities for these students, including improved teacher
support, teacher professional development, and school leadership through effective principalship.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 43
More study is needed to understand how these factors work in concert to perpetuate or eliminate
the SSLD.
Mead’s Theory of Symbolic Interactionism provides a framework to examine these
dynamics by focusing on the educators’ internal interpretations of the process of closing the
SSLD and the interactions between educators who co-create meaning as they work together to
close the SSLD. In order to close the SLDD, teachers and principals must be willing to work
together in new ways and to make new meaning of the technology and instructional implications
of emerging technology. The willingness to work in concert to close this gap requires
professional development and support. Professional development and support are organizational
components led by the principal. Symbolic interactionism informs the dynamic between teachers
and principals and is crucial to making new meaning.
Additionally, Fields et al. (2006) asserted that emotion and expectations were a potent
guiding force in how humans engage in behavior. Principals play a key role in establishing
school expectations and school culture, a manifestation of human emotion in an organizational
setting.
The body of literature places great emphasis on the teacher’s role in closing the SLDD
and not enough emphasis on the principal’s role in actively managing the process of eliminating
the SLDD. This qualitative study sought to add to that body of knowledge in an effort to
eliminate the SLDD and create equity for all children.
The SLDD is a complex educational manifestation of American injustices that have long
plagued underrepresented and underserved populations, in this case low SES children of color.
These injustices have limited the educational, financial, and social opportunities for these
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 44
children. Therefore, the mandate to eliminate the SLDD is not merely an issue of educational
parity but a moral one.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 45
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of the current study was to examine the role the principal plays in
establishing support structures that aid in closing the Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD) for
low socio-economic status (SES) African American and Latino students in an urban elementary
school setting. A qualitative, comparative, multi-site case study methodology was used to
investigate the SLDD in two urban Los Angeles-area schools. The researcher sought to
understand promising practices in an effort to understand what practices might transfer to other
school sites and what additional practices might augment the promising practices already being
implemented at the sites The study design included teacher interviews and observations of
elementary school classrooms in order to explore how technology was leveraged to advance
higher order thinking skills for low SES minority students. The current study addressed the
following research questions:
1. What is the impact of elementary school principals at high-performing, urban schools on
closing the SLDD?
2. In what ways do teachers perceive they are being supported by their principals?
Research Design and Methods
The Rationale for a Qualitative Research Methodology
A qualitative design was selected in order to understand the experiences of principals and
teachers as they worked to integrate instructional technology to advance the higher order
thinking skills of low SES African American and Latino students. This qualitative approach
sought to explore how participants made meaning of their world and experiences (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 15). The qualitative focus on the perspectives and processes of the participants
revealed the internal world of the teachers and principals who participated in the research.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 46
Gathering data through this lens supported the researcher in constructing new theories and
illuminating concepts from existing literature in order to improve instructional technology
strategies and begin to decrease the SLDD (p. 17).
A qualitative research design allowed the researcher to study the research questions
inductively, exploring how principals and teachers viewed the impact of principal leadership on
the integration of technology to close the SLDD. It allowed the researcher to engage with
participants in their own context, the elementary school classroom. A deep, rich qualitative
exploration of participants’ views and perspectives provided an opportunity to discover
previously undefined themes and patterns that can advance theory and practice concerning the
relationship between principal leadership and the integration of classroom technology.
Epistemology
It is important to note that the qualitative design of this study was guided by a critical
epistemological perspective (Bernal, 2002). The researcher examined the study phenomenon for
the purpose of confronting the injustice that has historically the limited academic success of
African American and Latino students in American public schools.
Reflexivity
The most challenging check on trustworthiness and credibility is often reflexivity.
Reflexivity is defined as the researchers’ ability to “explain their biases, dispositions, and
assumptions regarding the research to be undertaken (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 249). This
process protects the integrity of the study by facilitating transparency into the researchers’
worldview, experiences, and positions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 249). Throughout the
current study process, the researcher reflected on the lens through which she viewed the topic
and the framework for analyzing the data.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 47
The researcher served as the principal of a technology magnet school and as the Director
of Technology in two separate districts. The researcher considered her bias in believing students
of color have historically been marginalized in American public schools. She included her bias in
advocating that low SES African American and Latino students deserve rigorous access to
integrated instructional technology. It is likely that that researcher’s point of view caused her to
look for data that affirmed her constructivist, critical, transformative worldviews.
Conversely, it was also a strength that the researcher’s experience provided her with the
context and perspective to witness the impact of the meaningful use of technology in classrooms
with low SES minority students. This knowledge was used to design more meaningful interview
questions that aligned congruently with the research questions. This experience and worldview
also provided the researcher with the knowledge to understand the data and the background to
conduct effective classroom observation as it related to instructional technology integration. In
other words, well-managed, transparent reflexivity is not necessarily an impediment to high-
quality research and meaningful outcomes.
Ethics
Ethics dictate that a qualitative researcher be transparent in all aspects of the research that
are impacted by the researcher’s perspective and experience. Merriam & Tisdell (2016) assert
that it is the researcher who defines whether or not a study has been conducted ethically. A
researcher ensures the ethics of a study by rigorous detail and thought being applied to
methodology and data analysis (p. 260). Ultimately, it is the researchers’ values and ethics that
are the measure of the ethical authority of the study (p. 261). The following steps were taken to
ensure a strong ethical foundation for the current study:
• names and locations of interviewees and observation sites were redacted from the data
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 48
• privacy statements were shared with participants and adhered to during the research
• teacher interviews and observation data were not shared with their principals
Ethics are the essential guardian of trustworthiness and credibility. Given the intimate
work in which qualitative researchers engage, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommend Patton’s
“Essential Issues” Checklist, which includes the following ethical considerations: methods and
purpose of inquiry, reciprocity, promises, risk assessment, confidentiality, informed consent, data
access and ownership, interviewer mental health, ethical advice, data collection boundaries,
ethical and methodological choices, and ethical versus legal.
Demonstrating reciprocity (Glesne, 2011) by writing a thank you card and including a
Starbucks gift card for a nominal amount was intended to show the participants how much the
researcher appreciated their time, knowledge, and sharing of voice. Reciprocity was also
demonstrated by thanking participants at the end of the interview and sharing how much their
engagement in the process benefitted the researcher’s own learning.
Research Population Selection
Before beginning research, approval was obtained from the University of Southern
California’s Internal Review Board (IRB). The purpose of the IRB is to protect the rights and
well-being of human subjects involved in university research. (See Appendix B).
Two elementary schools in urban settings were studied. The elementary schools shared
the following target demographic characteristics:
• Located in an urban setting
• More than 70% of students were identified as receiving free or reduced-price lunches.
• More than 70% of the student population was African American or Latino.
• The student to technology device ratio was 1:1 in grades three, four, and five.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 49
Sampling Technique
The sampling strategy was purposeful. Maxwell (2013) defines purposeful sampling as a
researcher’s purposeful selection of participants and settings that can yield information pertinent
to the research questions. Given the nature of the research topic and the dearth of existing
literature to guide the study, the sampling technique necessitated a purposeful approach. The
criteria for sampling is explained in the following section.
School Selection
The two observation sites were selected because they were majority Title I elementary
schools with majority African American and Latino students in urban Los Angeles. The student
to device ratio was 1:1, meaning that hardware access issue was not a factor in the Second-Level
Digital Divide (SLDD).
The goal of this research study was to explore issues related to the SLDD. Therefore, the
respondents were chosen from schools that did not suffer from First-Level Digital Divide
(FLDD) issues, as evidenced by their classroom technology ratio. This eliminated any possibility
of data distortion, where SLDD issues could be attributed to FLDD issues. The researcher was
able to focus on the instructional use of technology to advance higher order critical thinking,
bridging the SLDD.
Teacher and Principal Selection
The eight interview respondents from each school—teachers, coaches, principals, and the
Executive Director of Technology—were chosen because they worked with predominantly
African American and Latino elementary-aged students. Within each elementary school, two
classroom teachers from grades three through five were selected to be interviewed. These same
teachers were observed in the following settings: classroom (teaching a technology empowered
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 50
lesson), instructional technology professional development, and a feedback session with the
principal.
The principal of each school was interviewed. They were observed in the following
settings: leadership team when instructional technology was being discussed, feedback session
with the two selected teachers, and a one-day shadowing session.
Researcher Access and Prior Relationships
The researcher interviewed the Executive Director of Technology who referred principals
for the study. Both principals eagerly agreed to allow the researcher to conduct interviews and
observations at their schools. The principals recommended teachers who matched the
characteristics the researcher needed to answer the research questions.
Interviews
The goal of a qualitative study is to build authentic relationships with participants and
gatekeepers in a manner that respects and aligns with ethical standards. Relationships are
important because the researcher is the “instrument of research” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 91). Given
this important dynamic, it was critical for the researcher to maintain a relationship with
participants that was grounded in the study. This was accomplished by ensuring that the
researcher monitored the impact of her worldview on the collected data; continuously assessed
her rapport with the participants; and planned for issues (ethical, political, relational) that might
impact the relationship between the participants and the researcher (Maxwell, 2013, p. 91)
Coming from a ground of authenticity, conducting interviews allowed the researcher to
enter participants’ experience from their own points of view (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Maxwell,
2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). Interviews yielded data that would be impossible
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 51
to collect otherwise and gave the researcher deep insight into the internal thought processes and
meaning-making of the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 108).
Observation
This study’s second data collection method was classroom observation, focused by the
research questions. Observations were chosen as a data collection method because they are a
systematic method that address research questions while providing a check and balance on other
forms of data collection, such as interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Observable elements in
the classroom allow researchers to understand participants in their native environment: physical
environment, the participants themselves, individual and shared activities, private and public
conversations, and other subtle factors (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 141). Ideally, the researcher
is able to observer his or her own behavior while in the participants’ environment. Observations
align seamlessly with the single goal of qualitative research: to understand participants’
experiences as they occur naturally in their environment (Patton, 2002).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described the importance of observation in allowing the
researcher the opportunity to witness study phenomenon firsthand, create guides for subsequent
interviews, and apply his or her own knowledge of the phenomenon instead of relying on “once-
removed” interview reports of classroom practices. Classroom observations allowed the
researcher to triangulate findings, provide context for themes that arose from the interviews,
observe teachers’ actual teaching routines, and experience natural occurrences of the phenomena
described in interviews in their native environment (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 137-139).

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 52
Triangulation
Maxwell (2013) noted three rationales for using multiple sources of data collection:
triangulation, complementarity and expansion, and description. Utilizing interviews and
observations for this study addressed all three of Maxwell’s rationales.
Triangulation is defined as using multiple data sources and forms of data collection in
order to gain access to as many different perspectives as possible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). Triangulation is a highly effective means to ensure
credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 245). The interviews allowed the
researcher to hear different perspectives regarding the research questions and to look for patterns
within and across the interviews. Data from the interviews were compared to the classroom
observations to validate patterns and themes across classrooms and sites.
Throughout preparation for and implementation of this study, the researcher engaged in
peer review. Peer review is the process of peer examination of the study’s methodology and
findings (Meriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 249). The peer review process provided invaluable
feedback to improve the study design, data collection protocols, data analysis, and approach to
identifying findings. It constituted, in many ways, an additional form of triangulation.
Instrumentation
Individuals make meaning of their experience in unique ways. Therefore, this research
study utilized a semi-structured interview approach which allowed for the flexibility to gather
data specific to individuals (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 110). A semi-structured interview
approach furthers the goal of a qualitative study (understanding the phenomenon via the
participants’ perspectives) by “having the potential to unlock the subject’s way of viewing the
world” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 105).
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 53
Interview Protocols
An interview guide was used to conduct the interviews. Four distinct interview protocols
were used: a teacher interview protocol (see Appendix C), a coach interview protocol (see
Appendix D), a principal interview protocol (see Appendix E), and an interview protocol for the
director of technology (see Appendix F).
Interview guides allow for the systematic collection of data and heighten the
comprehensiveness of data collection while leaving room for a conversational tone and
explorations into nuances of participant responses (Patton, 2002). Shortcomings of interview
guides include increased likelihood of greatly varied responses, which can hinder the
identification of themes and patterns (Patton, 2002). Therefore, the researcher must be prepared
to “respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new
ideas on the topic” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 11).
These sets of questions were used to provide a consistent framework to address the
research questions; however, these frameworks were modified during the interviews in order to
explore individual participant’s responses. The interview questions were designed to provide
focused data to answer the two research questions. The final interview questions resulted from
peer review and revisions based on the pilot study. The questions were also refined to more
precisely align with the theoretical framework. The interview guide included experience and
behavior questions, opinion and values questions, knowledge questions, and background or
demographic questions (Patton, 2002).

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 54
Observation Protocols
An observation protocol was designed to focus on teacher instructional practices and
student learning behaviors, quotes, and a physical map of the classroom set-up. A T-chart was
used to script behaviors that were based on “how” the technology was used. (See Appendix G.)
Research Questions Alignment
The two research questions sought to understand the participants’ experiences.
Interviewing allowed the researcher to empathetically gain an understanding of each
participant’s experience in his or her unique voice. The responses to the research questions were
meant open a door to the perspectives of the participant in order to understand the phenomenon
of why African American and Latino students experienced this gap in access and equity to robust
instructional technology integration.
The observations allowed the researcher the opportunity to understand the context in
which participants were working to close the SLDD. Additionally, the observations provided a
triangulation point to validate the information participants shared in the interviews.
Through understanding participants’ experiences and needs, themes and patterns were
identified. The goal of this study was to use these experiences to offer strategies for participants
and other educators to close the SSLD.
Data Collection
The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Teacher
interviews were conducted in their classrooms after school on the same day as the classroom
observation. The purpose of conducting the interviews in the teachers’ classrooms was to create
a comfortable environment for the teacher. Some teachers and coaches opted to be interviewed in
a faculty room or other common area. Principal interviews were conducted in their offices or a
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 55
faculty room. All interviews were recorded with the permission of the participants. An interview
and observation protocol were used to collect data.
After collecting the data, memos and reflections were recorded. There was some delay in
recording the researcher’s reflections, which may have resulted in some data loss.
Data Analysis
Categorizing, Connecting and Pattern Identification
Coding is the shorthand designation for pieces of data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 199).
The interview and observation analysis process included coding the interview transcript and
observation data. The coding process facilitated analysis by organizing and reducing the data into
a manageable volume (Harding, 2013, p. 82). Moreover, coding provided perspective (Harding,
2013, p. 82). A priori codes, predetermined codes based on the literature review, were used to
begin data analysis. This allowed the data to be summarized, selected, and interpreted (Harding,
2013, p. 84-85). Open codes were identified by highlighting the interview transcripts and
observations notes; these codes were added to the codebook (see Appendix H). This process
allowed the researcher to gain a more intimate understanding of the collected information
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 66). Corbin and Strauss (2008) asserted that questioning the data
facilitates a rich data analysis process through probing, developing initial answers, thinking
divergently, and becoming more intimately acquainted with the data.
The data gathered through a priori codes was translated into empirical coding. This
process produced a constant comparative method to analyze the data. The constant comparative
method is a sequential process in which the researcher moves through the levels of coding: from
open coding to axial coding to selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 73-78). Merriam and
Tisdell (2013) defined open codes as discrete pieces of data. Axial coding is the process of
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 56
relating categories and properties to each other (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 229). Patterns are
codes grouped into themes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 86). Patterns and themes were identified
as a result of the data analysis and interpretation. These patterns or themes answered the research
questions.
Threats to Credibility and Trustworthiness
Maxwell (2013) defined trustworthiness as a study’s correctness and credibility based on
the researcher’s worldview in the context of the research. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) equated
trustworthiness with credibility; they defined these dimensions in the context of qualitative study
as the worthiness of the topic, rigor of the methodology, sincerity of the researcher’s approach,
transparency of the researcher, ethics, coherence, and the ability of the findings to resonate with
peers in the field.
All of these dimensions are critical. But, if the value of a qualitative research study is to
contribute meaning, then the ability to resonate with peers in the field is of particular importance.
Therefore, a key aspect of the trustworthiness and reliability in a qualitative research study is its
relevance or importance to the body of knowledge to which it seeks to contribute. The relevance
of the research is bound to the reader’s ability to trust the manner in which the study was
conducted and the findings the study yielded (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 257). Trust in a
research study is strengthened by the methodology, ethics, and rigor of the researcher and the
findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 257).
Ensuring the credibility and trustworthiness of research findings is the responsibility and
duty of the researcher. There are several strategies that qualitative researchers can use to protect
the internal validity (credibility) and trustworthiness of their studies: triangulation, member
checks, adequate engagement in data collection, reflexivity, peer examination, audit trail, thick
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 57
descriptions, and maximum variation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 259). These strategies are
crucial to the very nature of qualitative research, which is to make meaning of the experiences of
participants that are contextualized in the worldview and conceptual framework of the research
study itself (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pp. 238-239).
Summary
The purpose of the current study was to examine the role the principal plays in
establishing support structures that aid in closing the Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD) for
low socio-economic status (SES) African American and Latino students in an urban elementary
school setting. Two elementary schools in urban settings were purposefully selected based on
location, demographic makeup of the students, and student-to-device ratio. Before beginning
research, approval was obtained from the University of Southern California’s Internal Review
Board (IRB).
A qualitative design was selected in order to understand the experiences of principals and
teachers as they worked to integrate instructional technology to advance higher order thinking
skills. Interviews with administrators and teachers allowed the researcher to build authentic
relationships with participants and gatekeepers to enable exploring their experiences working to
close the SLDD. Observations were chosen to provide a check and balance with interview data.
Throughout preparation for and implementation of this study, the researcher engaged in peer
review. Interviews, observation, and peer review were used to triangulate the data. A coding
process facilitated analysis of data by organizing and reducing the data to a manageable volume
for interpretation.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 58
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter Four describes the findings from the current research study exploring the support
structures that principals in two urban elementary schools implemented to close the Second-
Level Digital Divide (SSLD). The SSLD is the instructional technology digital disparity between
the teachers of White and Asian American students, who use instructional technology for more
cognitively demanding tasks, and teachers of African American and Latino students, who use
instructional technology for skill-building.
Instructional technology is an important element in schools today. The ability to use
technology for complex tasks is a necessity in today’s rapidly changing global educational and
business environment. Research indicates that African American and Latino students who attend
low-socioeconomic schools are less likely to engage in learning experiences that require them to
use technology in ways that develop critical thinking skills tasks (Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie,
2011; Valdez & Duran, 2004; Warschauer et al., 2004). This inequity is problematic because it
further widens the opportunity gap between these students and others who have historically had
more educational access (Ladson-Billings, 2006). The negative impact of this gap on African
Americans and Latino students impacts their access to critical information, college education,
advanced careers, and economic success (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).
Eradicating this gap is a moral imperative if the goal is to ensure that all students (regardless of
race, ethnicity, and/or socio-economic status) have equitable access to key societal institutions
(Clarke & Zagarell, 2012). Public schools are uniquely positioned to impact the gap and,
therefore, have the responsibility to make it a priority to close the SLDD (Flanagan & Jacobsen,
2003).
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 59
Teachers are the most critical variable in a student’s academic achievement. The
literature demonstrates how instructional technology use for African American and Latino
students is directly tied to their teacher’s proficiency in using technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwhich, 2013; Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Furthermore, the literature identified key factors that
impact the integration of instructional technology, including but not limited to improved teacher
support, teacher professional development, and school leadership through effective principalship.
However, the literature also is clear that principals have the most significant impact on a
teacher’s performance and a school’s culture as a whole (Fullan, 2014; Elmore, 2000). In other
words, by improving a principal’s performance, teacher performance will improve; when teacher
performance improves, so does student performance. Therefore, principals are the key to student
achievement and closing the SLDD,
Principals are an essential component in the effort to effectively integrate technology,
which makes their professional development as critical as that of teachers (Flanagan & Jacobsen,
2003). Principal professional development is especially efficacious because they are uniquely
positioned to establish and maintain a culture that stresses accountability around teacher
practices and skill development based on their impact on the “collective work” (Elmore, 2000).
The lack of professional development focused on technology integration and designed for
principals is a barrier to the integration of instructional technology into the teaching and learning
cycle (Sincar, 2013). Schrum, Galizio, and Ledesma (2011) asserted that the impact of teacher
professional development on classroom technology integration is minimized if effective
leadership by trained principals is not in place. Principal professional development and readiness
to lead instructional technology integration matters tremendously. Therefore, effective principal
leadership is essential to closing the SLDD.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 60
Teachers are the primary decision-makers in how technology is utilized in the classroom.
However, very little research examines the role of principals in helping teachers to integrate
instructional technology in their classrooms with a goal of closing the SLDD. Therefore, this
study focused on the principal’s role in supporting teachers in closing the SLDD. This study
explored the strategies elementary school principals leveraged to support teachers of underserved
African American and Latino students by addressing the following research questions:
1. What is the impact of elementary school principals at high-performing, urban schools on
closing the SLDD?
2. In what ways do teachers perceive they are being supported by their principals?
During data analysis, textual analysis was used to group keywords into nodes and themes (see
Appendix H). Three key themes emerged as a result of the first research question:
• the importance of organizational coherence;
• the need for a formal feedback protocol; and
• the need for differentiation of professional development.
Undergirding these findings was the principal’s pivotal role in establishing school structures that
would enable these findings. Data analysis revealed four key themes in response to the second
research question:
• there was a need to ensure the creation of shared (common) language/meaning,
expectations, and support structures in order to ensure teachers felt comfortable using
technology effectively in the classroom;
• differentiated professional development was critical to principal leadership in closing
the SLDD;
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 61
• formal coaching and feedback protocols contributed to teacher reflection and skill
refinement; and
• stronger accountability structures were needed to ensure that all teachers made use of
available resources and training to integrate instructional technology.
The themes are connected because they work to build organizational coherence, capacity-
building, and accountability. These are essential elements for ensuring that the educators in a
school are equipped with the knowledge and skills to close the SLDD. These themes are
connected to the research questions because they empower the principal and the teachers in a
school with specific strategies to build organizational culture and coherence, which addresses the
basic intention of the research questions: How does a principal leverage his or her leadership to
close the SLDD?
Description of District and Participating Schools
The school district that was the subject of research in this study was given the pseudonym
Oak Unified School District (OUSD). OUSD is an urban school district located in Los Angeles
County. At the time of this research, the district was comprised of more than 26,000 students and
36 school sites. The district’s foci included Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and
Mathematics (STEAM). One of the district’s objectives included ensuring that every student had
equitable access to the promise of technology. Two school sites within OUSD were selected for
this research, known by the pseudonyms Baldwin School and Angelou School.
Oak Unified School District
According to the 2016-2017 District Accountability Report Card, the student population
of OUSD was diverse: 18.6% African American, 79.0% Latino, 34% English Language
Learners, 80.8% socioeconomically disadvantaged, 11.2% students with disabilities, and 3.0%
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 62
youth in the foster care system. At the time of this research, the district’s graduation rate was at a
three-year high of 78.4% with dropout rates steadily declining.
CAASP results showed 31% of students were assessed as meeting or exceeding standards
in English Language Arts/Literacy and 24% in Mathematics. The percent of students who
completed graduation requirements (93.1%) outpaced the state-wide rate (87.1%). OUSD was in
its third year of Federal Program Improvement (PI) status with 75.7% of its school in PI as of
2016-2017.
Baldwin School and Angelou School were two of five schools recommended for the
current research project by “Elaine” (a pseudonym), the Senior Director of Technology. The
other three schools declined to participate. Both participating schools met the study constraints:
(1) the majority of their student populations were African American and Latino and (2) all upper
grade students were in a 1:1 device-to-student ratio educational setting. Elaine recommended
these schools because their principals had led their buildings in ways that have fostered
successful technology integration.
Baldwin School
At the time of this study, Baldwin School had a student population of just over 800
preschoolers through eighth graders. The student population was predominantly Latino (92.3%
Latino) with the remaining population distributed as follows: 5.6% African American, 0.6%
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander, 0.4% White, and 0.33% American Indian/Alaskan Native.
English Language Learners accounted for 43.8% of students and 90.4% of students were
identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. Students with disabilities made up 9.8% of the
school population and 0.8% of students were identified as foster youth. All teachers at Baldwin
School were fully credentialed.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 63
Baldwin was located in a residential area of single-family homes. The campus was
comprised of several bungalows. A mural highlighting the school’s Apple Distinguished School
status was prominently displayed and visible on the walk from the parking lot to the school’s
campus. Apple Distinguished School status is an earned designation based on the consistent,
rigorous implementation of instructional technology. This designation is given to schools that
use Apple products and meet qualifications determined by an application process.
Upon visiting the campus for the first time, the researcher observed students and parents
engaging with each other and with school staff. There was a warmth to the campus evidenced by
laughter and easy exchanges between students and adults. During another visit to the campus, the
principal could be heard guiding his students through a chant as the school community stood on
the playground for Friday morning meeting.
This positive culture was also evident in observing the faculty in an all-day professional
development. There was an atmosphere of collaboration and trust as teachers shared
vulnerabilities in practice and instructional strategies with each other throughout the day.
Angelou School
Angelou School is two and a half miles from Baldwin in a mostly residential
neighborhood, though it was bordered on one side by commercial buildings. In contrast to
Baldwin School, Angelou has a single school building with bungalows housing the upper grades.
Angelou spanned kindergarten through seventh grade.
The student population was 40% African American and 60% Latino. According to the
2016-2017 SARC, 32.3% of students were English Language Learners, 86.6% of students were
considered socioeconomically disadvantaged, 22.6% were students with identified disabilities,
and 6.8% of students were foster youth.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 64
Angelou School also enjoyed a positive school environment. One teacher participant,
Sophia, noted the sense of family that the faculty and staff enjoyed:
We as a group have a lot of history together, gone through so many things, and just keep
pushing forward. . . This is my other home. I mean, we're here more than the school
hours. More than 180 days, on weekends during the summer. . . [the neighborhood] is
stigmatized, but to me it's like …You know, the kids drink water, I drink the water. You
know, we’re on the same page.
This sense of history and comradery was consistent across the Angelou participants. Their shared
values and history, described in detail below, contributed to their collaborative professional
relationships and mutual support of one another.
Description of Participants
Participants in this study are identified by pseudonyms and include: the Director of
Technology, two principals, two coaches, and three classroom teachers (see Table 1). All
participants worked in a 1:1 student-to-device upper elementary (third through sixth grade)
setting. A portrait of their professional and educational backgrounds and instructional technology
philosophies are described below.
Table 1
Description of Participants
Pseudonym Site Position
Elaine District Site Senior Director of Technology
Nate Baldwin School Principal
Nicole Angelou School Principal
Siobhan Baldwin School Teacher, Fifth Grade
Isabela Angelou School Teacher, Fourth Grade
Sophia Angelou School Teacher, Fourth Grade
Roxy Baldwin School Instructional Technology Coach
Kimberly Angelou School Instructional Technology Coach

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 65
Elaine: Senior Director of Technology
The Senior Director of Technology at OUSD had worked in instructional technology
leadership roles for four districts (urban and suburban) and had a national presence because of
her expertise. Elaine shared that she had worked in diverse communities her entire career. Her
roles and responsibilities included coordinating professional development and support for
teachers and principals in their efforts to robustly integrate technology.
Elaine’s name came up in the majority of interviews. Her colleagues credited her with
revolutionizing instructional technology integration to amplify pedagogy. They cited her
professional development, support, and resource management as key reasons OUSD had made so
much progress in integrating rigorous instructional technology for African American and Latino
students.
Nate: Principal, Baldwin School
Nate was in his seventh year as principal. He started as a student teacher, eventually
serving as a curriculum specialist with a focus on English Language Learners and an afterschool
enrichment director with a middle school concentration.
Siobhan: Teacher, Baldwin School
Siobhan was a fifth-grade teacher who had taught at Baldwin for the entirety of her
eighteen-year career. She had served in many leadership positions at the school including Gifted
and Talented Education (GATE) lead teacher, Meet the Masters lead teacher (an art program),
and nutrition lead teacher. She had done affiliated professional development outside her district
for a local university. She began the student council at Baldwin. She shared during her interview
that she had limited her out-of-classroom professional activities because she had “been trying to
just be focused on teaching.”
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 66
Roxy: Instructional Technology Coach, Baldwin School
Roxy started her career as a teacher and had taught second, third, fourth, and fifth grades.
She was in her third year as a Technology/Curriculum Specialist. She described her role:
I have different roles. So, technology, I'm focusing on the technology. Students have an
issue with their iPads. They come to me and I fix it. If there are issues about their logins,
that's my role, too. But, I have another role, which is going to the classrooms. . . I have
small group interventions with them. Do they need help in math? I'm there. So, another
role is handling the GATE program.
Her principal, Nate, emphasized how important she was to the instructional technology support
at Baldwin.
Nicole: Principal, Angelou School
Nicole was in her fourth year at the Angelou School. She was a teacher and an English Language
Learner Specialist who had been assigned as an interim principal. She loved the school and the
community so much that she decided to stay. In her description of her instructional technology
philosophy, Nicole emphasized equity with regard to hardware and the use of technology in the
classroom. She also highlighted the importance of developing critical thinking skills through
learning activities rather than students only receiving lectures.
Isabela: Teacher, Angelou School
Isabela was a fourth-grade teacher in her twelfth year as a teacher. She was working on
her master’s degree in instructional technology at the time of her interview. She was a dedicated
member of her school community who felt a strong commitment to ensuring the students of
Angelou received a high-quality education. Isabela emphasized the importance of access and
opportunity when considering using instructional technology with African American and Latino
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 67
students. In order to facilitate equitable use of technology, she noted that students must be able
to “collaborate, engage, and communicate.”
Sophia: Teacher, Angelou School
Sophia was in her sixteenth year of teaching; her entire career had been at Angelou. She
was highly involved in the school and said of her fellow staff members, “We…have a lot of
history together. [We’ve] gone through so many things and just keep pushing forward. [Angelou]
is my other home.” Besides being a fifth-grade teacher, she served as the School Site Council
secretary, a member of the Turn Around Arts Program team, and a tennis coach. Immediately
prior to her interview, she was working with another teacher to design a set for a play; she was
excited to put on this production with her students and fellow teachers.
Sophia was dedicated to working with the OUSD student population. She chose OUSD
despite it being “stigmatized” because she heard it was the “hardest place to be.” Sophia earned
her bachelor’s degree in psycholinguistics. She returned to school to earn her master’s in
teaching. She described a rich background in researching formulaic language in African
American and Latino children. Sophia’s commitment to technology integration as a means to
empowering her students was powerful and would be the hallmark of her responses throughout
the interview, described below.
Kimberly: Instructional Technology Coach, Angelou School
Kimberly was in her third year as an instructional technology coach at Angelou and her
20th year in teaching. She described her role as assisting and supporting teachers as they
integrated technology into the instructional program and provided professional development on
instructional technology integration during the school year and over the summer. She had a
master’s in biblical studies and was pursuing her doctorate in K-12 leadership. Her instructional
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 68
technology philosophy was that teachers can no longer serve in the role of the gatekeeper of
information. She believed that teachers must leverage instructional technology for student
engagement.
Summary
All participants were considered highly proficient technologists and/or technology
leaders by their supervisors and/or peers. They shared commonalities in their instructional
technology philosophies, such as the value of instructional technology to facilitate critical
thinking skills; the inevitability of students needing a deft technology skill set; and the power of
technology to transform and empower. They all conveyed a commitment to their school
communities, serving in a variety of roles in education and at their school sites. They were not
only instructional technology leaders, they are leaders in education.
Findings for Research Question One: What is the Impact of Elementary School
Principals at High-Performing, Urban Schools on Closing the SLDD?
The role of the principal in any instructional endeavor is a key variable to the success of
that endeavor. Flanagan and Jacobsen (2003) asserted that technology integration is impeded by
four factors: pedagogical issues, concerns about equity, deficient professional development, and
a dearth of knowledgeable leadership. Research Question One addressed the need for informed
leadership to narrow and eventually close the SSLD. Not only do principals require a working
knowledge of the pedagogical implications of technology integration, they also need to
understand hardware and infrastructure issues (Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003). This study focused
on the instructional and leadership responsibility of the principal with regard to closing the
SLDD.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 69
In order to develop the skills necessary to support teachers, principals must have access
to professional development (Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003; Sincar, 2013). Sincar (2013) noted the
following technology leadership challenges that impact principal effectiveness in leading
instructional technology integration: lack of training, resistance, resources, equity, and
bureaucracy. When principals find ways to break down these barriers, the SLDD narrows.
In order for teachers to provide African American and Latino students with rigorous
instructional technology experiences, they require principals whose leadership practices not only
eliminate these barriers but also create a culture that enhances highly effective technology
integration. These proactive leadership qualities include the components of creating a culture that
encourages technology integration, such as developing a shared vision; modeling technology in
leadership; securing and managing resources; providing professional development; and
communication. These leadership qualities work symbiotically in that they can enhance and
propel each other or stifle each other. Brown and Jacobsen (2016) asserted that “small actions
and connections" constructed “more complex ecosystems and societies (p. 3).” Each effective
leadership skill is a “small action” that contributes to creating the “complex ecosystem” that is a
school. In the case of closing the SLDD, principals must leverage the unique responsibilities of
their roles.
Research Question One was intended to highlight those effective behaviors and identify
behaviors that could further contribute to closing the SLDD. Nate and Nicole were selected
because they were principals who demonstrated the majority of leadership qualities necessary to
support teachers in effectively integrating instructional technology. Both Nate and Nicole
proactively worked to support their teachers. They described the supports as developing the skill
sets and the environments that enabled teachers to close the SLDD for African American and
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 70
Latino students. The interviews illustrated that teachers and coaches at Baldwin and Angelou felt
well-supported by their principals. They agreed that Nate and Nicole had effectively created
support structures that advanced the integration of instructional technology. These support
structures, described below, were the reason these schools were high performing in technology
integration.
The goal of Research Question One was also to identify strategies that would further
improve Baldwin’s and Angelou’s integration of technology. The data revealed that there were
additional steps that principals could take to further support their teachers, described below.
Organizational Coherence
Organizational coherence emerged as one of the foundational themes from the series of
interviews conducted as a part of this research. Before directly addressing the research, it is
important to define organizational coherence and its relationship to organizational culture.
Defining organizational coherence. Organizational coherence is defined as the
alignment of the mission and vision to the components that make up the culture of an
organization (e.g. values, language, goals, expectations, and experiences). These components are
also the foundation of effective technology leadership. Organizational coherence also
necessitates that the alignment is shared by the organization’s members. This shared coherence
allows for the members to work collaboratively to achieve shared, and often formalized,
organizational goals. If school leaders seek to achieve their school’s goals, they must foster,
enhance, and monitor organizational coherence.
One critical action in which principals engage is ensuring a shared understanding of the
aforementioned culture elements (Elmore, 2000). When principals and teachers align their
understanding of common expectations and language, they are better able to work
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 71
collaboratively to achieve those goals because all parties are talking about the same thing. While
the literature identifies these elements as key to technology leadership, there is a dearth of
literature on what specific actions principals can take to facilitate coherence in the context of
technology leadership. The type of school culture a principal fosters is dependent on their ability
to shift their school’s to coherence.
Coherence and culture. Elmore (2000) referenced Rosenhoeltz’s description of two
types of school cultures or climates as they relate to school effectiveness. One focuses on
teachers’ efforts that are enabled by principal actions that further teacher skill acquisition in the
context of specific goals. This kind of culture emphasizes collaboration and continuous
improvement. These schools value experimentation and failure recovery. Professional feedback
is viewed as necessary to new skill development. The other kind of culture is characterized by
vague goals that are not anchored in a common teaching approach. In these schools, shared
definitions of teaching effectiveness are not typical and lead to highly individualistic teaching
practice. Elmore (2000) wrote:
Rosenholtz argues that collegial support and professional development in schools are
unlikely to have any effect on improvement of practice and performance if they are not
connected to a coherent set of goals that give direction and meaning to learning and
collegiality. Effective schools, she argues, have “tighter congruence between values,
norms, and behaviors of principals and teachers, and the activities that occur at the
managerial level are aligned closely with, and facilitative of, the activities that occur at
the technical level.
There is an organizational basis for directing behavior, for motivating behavior, for
justifying behavior, and for evaluating behavior.” (Rosenholtz, 1985, p. 360)
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 72
Significantly, she found that principals’ collegiality with teachers had no direct effect on
school performance, but it did have an indirect effect when mediated by school-level goal
setting, as well as teacher recruitment, socialization, and evaluation. In other words,
principal collegiality with teachers affects school performance only when it is connected
to activities that focus the school’s purposes and that translate those purposes into
tangible activities related to teaching. (Rosenholtz, 1986, p. 100).
What Rosenholtz (1986) and Elmore (2000) were describing in the first type of culture was a
process by which principals and teachers come to a common understanding of goals,
expectations, and culture. Mead’s (1934) Theory of Symbolic Interaction describes the process
by which this alignment occurs. Rosenholtz (1986) and Elmore (2000) made the case that the
principal has the responsibility to ensure that this calibration occurs. Moreover, the principal is
accountable for ensuring that this calibration results in effective classroom practice. Principals
have the organizational influence to actualize the culture and climate that lead to eradicating the
SLDD. Research Question One explored how principals facilitated the process of aligning
language and expectations.
Leadership understanding of alignment. The context of Nate’s and Nicole’s responses
is provided when each describes the importance of instructional technology. Nate described his
philosophy as:
[Instructional technology] has to be purposeful and it has to have meaning. Technology's
great. However, it comes with great responsibilities, making sure that our teachers are
trained and our students are provided the opportunity not only to use technology, but how
can they use technology towards creativity, creation, or taking it to the next level with the
SAMR model [Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition, a framework
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 73
that categorizes four levels of technology integration] … creating diversity as far as a
project or some type of project based learning with the use of technology.
Nate emphasized the importance of technology with purpose. His response was earnest
and passionate. He was clearly driven by the impact that technology could have on his students’
learning when it was integrated with intention, purpose, and meaning. Nicole’s response when
asked about her instructional technology philosophy also focused on using technology for rigor:
The more money that we get, we try to buy more iPads and Chromebooks for our
students because nowadays. . . all the district initiatives have ties with computers. So, we
try to first provide that for our students because a lot of our students don't have that at
home. . . They can take their iPads home, but they could utilize it here, during Saturday
school, and after school. It's a great tool for our students who don't do well in first
instruction. I think it helps with students who are more like critical thinkers [or] when
they can't stay seated for a long time. It's not like old school days, right? To just lecture
the students, sit and just listen.
In her description of her instructional technology philosophy, Nicole emphasized equity with
regard to hardware and the use of technology in the classroom. She also highlighted the
importance of developing critical thinking skills through learning activities rather than students
only receiving lectures.
When answering the question about an aligned understanding of effective technology
integration, Elaine’s response emphasized principals’ focus data and test scores. She offered that
it is sometimes hard to compete with the pressure on principals to present and discuss test score
data at principal meetings. She expressed a desire to take a more balanced approach by including
questions in principal meetings, answering the question, “What does good instructional
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 74
technology look like? What does project-based learning look like? What is equality? Why do we
need to have these instructional models in place?” Elaine’s questions (if implemented) have the
potential to bring about a shared understanding and common goal-setting among principals, a
shared understanding that interviews revealed was entirely missing with reference to technology
integration and the SLDD. This calibrated language and understanding among principals and
teachers would lead to coherent dialogue and engagement. Elaine’s response came closest to the
intent of the question. The other responses proved there was little understanding of the
importance of coherence and shared vision and mission.
Nate’s responses to the question were consistent with Elaine’s comments that principals
were encouraged to focus on student data during their professional development. Nate focused
on student data and meeting the needs of special populations at Baldwin. He also discussed the
importance of his leadership team in identifying and breaking down barriers to effective
technology integration. His remarks were valuable and important because student data analysis
leads to decision-making based on student needs. Nate’s focus on student data was tethered to his
technology leadership because he used the data to make technology leadership decisions. He was
a highly successful technology leader, so his leadership contributed to his school being a leader
in technology integration.
Nicole spoke about utilizing faculty meetings at Angelou to discuss “usage reports” that
detailed the amount of time students were using software applications as a means of building
common understanding. She also described how current students presented with different
learning styles compared to years past. However, Nicole did speak to the importance of shared
learning, “Even if you’re not feeling comfortable with [instructional technology integration], we
have to learn it together…We’re doing this together, so you’re accountable for what’s happening
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 75
in your classroom.” She shared questions that she posed to her teachers that lead to conversations
about how to use technology because “ongoing conversation about [instructional technology
integration] is very important.” Nicole’s responses reflected an understanding that a shared
understanding of goals was important to effective technology integration.
Sophia’s responses to the introductory questions were rich with examples of her
dedication to her students, the Angelou School, and the OUSD community. She clearly felt a
strong sense of purpose to educate and empower her students so that they could thrive then and
in the future. She spoke to organizational coherence as she connected her instructional
technology philosophy to her students’ power and agency:
This idea of equity…You know, we do not have this yet. We know we may have the
advantage of certain things now because the laws are changing. But there we do not have
equity across the board… So, I feel that all the kids here need to have some type of power
to balance it out. And with technology. . . It's like everybody needs it. If they can present
that to the world, they're like, “Hey, I'm valuable. You may not think of me as a valuable
entity on this planet because you see me as less, but I have something to offer.” And,
without this, what are you going to do? You know? That's. . . how I see it. So, we need to
make ourselves valuable in some sense. And, it has to be something that others need so
badly that they will overlook all of their prejudices. And, I feel technology is that.
Teacher and coach understanding of coherence. However, when asked about how
principals and teachers aligned and calibrated mutual understanding of the components of
effective technology implementation, most participants did not answer the question. Or, they
answered the question in a way that reflected their lack of understanding of it. A rephrasing of
the question did not yield responses aligned to the question. This was significant because it
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 76
showed that in order to close the SLDD gap, schools must first create organizational coherence
around the mission, vision, and role of technology integration. This was one of the current
research study’s major findings, identifying an important focus for changes in practice and
research, discussed in Chapter Five.
When teachers and instructional technology coaches responded to the question, there was
a misalignment between their responses and their principals’ responses. They did not cite
examples of calibrated language, experience, and expectation. Siobhan spoke about the
alignment between after school programs (such as Gifted and Talented) and what is “happening
in society today.”
Isabela offered a unique perspective. Her remarks were insightful because she addressed
the need for and described a framework that could be used to facilitate the alignment of language
for all teachers (not only teachers who use technology in a highly effective way):
We all have the same teaching expectations. We want them [students] to learn. However,
with the component of technology, not everyone is working on it. We're just a couple of
teachers who are filling in that component. I don't think a lot of teachers know that there's
actually the International Standards for Technology in Education [ISTE]. So,
unfortunately. . . we need to work a little bit more to get more teachers to work on this
technology component.
The International Standards for Technology in Education (ISTE) is the premier K-12
instructional technology organization in the world. ISTE Standards have been developed for
students, teachers, school leaders, and coaches. The standards offer a common language and
aligned expectations for all four groups. Siobahn’s comments were very insightful because,
without prompting, she described a framework that would facilitate coherence not only at her
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 77
school site but across OUSD. By referencing the ISTE Standards, she connected organizational
coherence to a set of standards. Her remarks also reflected that “only a couple of teachers” were
rigorously integrating technology while most were not. She and a few colleagues were working
to close the SLDD, but most teachers were not.
Sophia’s definition of calibrated expectations, language, and experiences aligned to her
principal, Nicole. Her answer focused on usage reports and curriculum standards. Both of these
are important to teaching and learning. However, there was no description of instructional
technology coherence.
Kimberly commented that calibration may happen informally, but her school didn’t “sit
down with this agenda, which may be the reason why those processes are not going on for
African American and Latino students. Because it’s not done with intentionality.”
Both Isabela and Kimberly recognized the need for organizational coherence around
instructional technology integration for African American and Latino students. Isabela offered a
solution to facilitate coherence in the ISTE Standards. They both connected the lack of
coherence to gaps in schoolwide integration of technology.
These interviews with teachers and coaches suggested that Elaine, Nate, and Nicole were
highly effective technology leaders who had practiced leadership skills that led to robust
technology in their organizations. Their definitions of alignment focused on student data and
usage. Both have value, but neither effectively translated into organizational coherence around
expectations, language, and experiences. The majority of teachers either misunderstood the
questions or described how coherence could contribute to closing the SLDD.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 78
The Need for a Formal Feedback Protocol
Another important support structure that surfaced during data analysis was feedback. In
order to reflect and improve on practice, teachers must engage in a feedback cycle that provides
them with opportunities to deepen their skills. In order for feedback to transfer to practice, there
must be an organizational understanding of the expectations principals and teachers have for the
integration of instructional technology for African American and Latino students.
Principals, teachers, and coaches all reported that teachers were given feedback on their
integration of instructional technology. Nate reported that teachers received feedback from
multiple sources:
A lot of teachers received their feedback through our instructional walkthroughs and we'd
definitely aligned it through best practices. We would sometimes calibrate rubrics
depending on what the activity is. For example, if it's some type of project-based learning
format, we would calibrate it through rubrics and we will always attach the teaching, how
are we doing it? And, also, the learning and the responses that the students give. So, those
are the things that teachers would get feedback on, they would get it through our staff
development. Sometimes we would get it by grade levels. And, then, also, based on
instructional feedback.
Nate noted several sources of feedback that aided teachers in improving their practice,
such as data, administrator walkthroughs, and rubric calibrations. These were all important data
sources that supported a formal feedback cycle. However, a formal feedback cycle related
specifically to instructional technology integration was not mentioned by principals or teachers.
Siobhan offered a different perspective from her principal, Nate. She stressed that Nate
created a supportive culture that modeled and secured resources for the use of technology. But,
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 79
she also described the need for intentional feedback on teacher practice as it related to
instructional technology integration:
I'm not really sure if we receive a lot of feedback. So, I know that, for example, [our
principal] definitely will give us. . . our resource teachers will definitely give us new
strategies or new websites or apps and how to use them. But, as far as feedback goes. . .
I'll be honest with you; I don't really think we have a lot of feedback.
When asked if more feedback would improve instructional technology integration,
Siobhan did not directly answer the question, but shared that most of her interactions were with
her grade level. She went on the to describe feedback as including collaboration with other
teaches because she felt that she could learn from them as well. In addition to engaging with
other colleagues, she thought feedback would help her improve or know whether what she was
doing was effective. While validating that feedback from her principal would be “helpful,” she
also introduced the idea that feedback did not have to come exclusively from the principal.
According to Siobhan, valuable feedback can come from other teachers. Her comments spoke to
the need for members of the group to discuss, calibrate, and make meaning of their practice
together. In so doing, they would co-create a common understanding of the work (Mead, 1934).
This common understanding would lead to shared expectations and enhanced practice (Elmore,
2000).
Siobhan described the impact of the lack of feedback on teacher practice as
“disheartening” because teachers “put a lot of work into this and a lot of time.” She offered that,
“Any feedback to me is good feedback. So, I just think it would help, be helpful to improve our
teaching overall, especially with technology being so dominant now.” Siobhan described the
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 80
hard work that some teachers do put into ensuring that instructional technology was rigorously
integrated.
Isabela noted the two forms of feedback she received on her instructional technology
integration: administrator walkthroughs (including other district administrators) and observations
by her principal. She shared that the administrator walkthroughs focused on whether or not
“[teachers] are using the technology to just let the students play” as opposed to technology being
used to “enhance [student] learning.” Her comments highlighted that there was an expectation
that teachers be accountable to integrating technology into teaching critical thinking,
communication, and collaboration skills. Isabela did not describe a formal feedback protocol in
which she was given the feedback in a way that changed her instructional technology practice.
Kimberly described an annual “comfort” survey that evaluated the degree to which
teachers felt comfortable integrating technology. While assessing teachers’ comfort levels has
value, because it allows principals and coaches to know how to engage teachers based on their
affective data, a “comfort” survey would not provide direct feedback on their technology
teaching practice in a manner that addressed closing the SLDD. When asked what would happen
without principals providing teacher feedback on their practice as it related to instructional
technology integration, Kimberly said that she did not think teachers would improve their
technology practice.
Sophia also referenced the comfort survey as a form of feedback that district
administration elicited. When probed, she added that the formal evaluation process only provided
her feedback every two years. She did not receive specific feedback on the integration of
technology. She thought her principal, Nicole, “maybe” used the observation data to identify
teachers who were struggling with instructional technology, sending those teachers to
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 81
professional development. She described the feedback relationship between the principal and
teachers as being more of a one-to-one relationship. She commented that she only knew what
happened between her principal and her. A formal feedback process was apparently not a
component of Angelou’s organizational coherence.
When asked about the consequences of teachers not receiving feedback, Sophia said she
had seen two extreme scenarios play out at Angelou over the years. One extreme was that the
lack of feedback lead to teachers who were “coddled” and over-assisted when they did need to
use technology (e.g. for mandatory tasks such as state testing). The other extreme was when the
need or expectation for technology became so great that the teachers who had not received
feedback were then “shocked” when they were required to use it. She says the shock came from
having been enabled so long through lack of feedback or accountability. She believed a group of
teachers at Angelou were at a place where they had been “sneaking through the cracks,” but the
proliferation of instructional technology had made “sneaking through the cracks” less and less of
an option. She credited her principal with creating the urgency around instructional technology
integration.
Sophia stressed that her principal had created a supportive culture that encouraged
teachers to rigorously integrate technology. She credited her principal with changing the school’s
focus from one that tolerated some teachers not integrating technology for African American and
Latino students to one that expected all students have this access. Her comments also highlighted
that while there was some feedback, the feedback was not formal or systemic as it related to
instructional technology integration.
It is critical for school teams to have a shared organizational understanding of the
expectations for the integration of instructional technology for African American and Latino
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 82
students. However, this in and of itself, is insufficient to close the SLDD. Teachers must engage
in feedback cycles if they are to integrate theory into classroom practice and to move from skills-
based to critical-thinking applications of instructional technology. If the goal is to narrow and
eventually close the SLDD, they must have access to consistent, formal protocols.
Differentiated Professional Development for Principals
Principals are responsible for creating, nurturing, and monitoring the culture of teaching
and learning. Furthermore, principals are responsible for ensuring system-wide change, not
merely developing what teachers do in their individual classrooms. Closing the SLDD requires
system-wide change. Building organizational coherence and establishing a formal feedback
protocol requires professional development that is differentiated to the role of the principal. Both
are complex tasks that necessitate mastery of complex ideas and training.
Principals require specific training on supporting teachers in closing the SLDD because
they are second only to teachers in remedying this divide. Principal leadership has the greatest
impact on teacher performance. In order for principals to effectively leverage their impact and
influence on teachers’ integration of instructional technology, they require professional
development that empowers them to support teachers in closing the divide.
Elaine, Senior Director of Technology, described an OUSD principals’ series she hoped
to launch that would focus on specific skills that principals need to successfully lead technology
integration. For example, in the past, a specific skill (e.g. such as using Google Classroom) was
modeled for principals to take back to the teachers at their schools. Elaine discussed in detail the
support OUSD had put into place for teachers; it appeared that a greater emphasis was placed on
professional development and support for teachers rather than principals.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 83
Part of her response to differentiated professional development for principals included a
discussion of moving schools forward when professional development was voluntary for
teachers. She commented, “How do you move schools forward on voluntary methods. . . and,
thinking differently, how do you make a more coherent and cohesive model that really produces
the outcome?” Elaine’s question deftly frames the need for differentiated principal professional
development. This question, or problem of practice, was uniquely suited to the principal’s role.
Principal professional development should support them in answering this question and acting in
accordance with their answers.
Both principals, Nate and Nicole, acknowledged that they did not participate in
professional development differentiated to principals and their unique roles and responsibilities.
Nate shared that while he had attended instructional technology professional development with
the 21st Century Specialists, he had not participated in principal-specific professional
development. He attended district-level professional development with the instructional
technology coach and school-based professional development with his teachers.
When asked about the ways instructional technology should be different for principals of
African American and Latino students, Nate highlighted the importance of integrating equity and
access into principal professional development. He believed that equity-related data should be
used to create awareness so that he could transfer that awareness to his teachers. He extended
this awareness to creating culturally sensitive approaches to the needs of students as they related
to all instructional components, including technology. He emphasized the importance of using
data in the context of equity to drive professional development for principals and teachers. Nate
connected equity to data-driven decision-making, and decision-making to establishing clear
goals and expectations for teachers and students. He identified this connection as an important
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 84
element that could be part of principal professional development. His remarks were consistent
with Elmore’s (2000) assertion that clear goals and expectations need to be communicated by the
principal.
Nate also affirmed that goals and expectations needed to be included in principal-
differentiated professional development. Professional development designed for principals
should support them not only in identifying these goals and expectations, but also in the
processes that are necessary to hold principals and teachers accountable to the agreed-upon goals
and expectations.
Nicole acknowledged that OUSD did not offer differentiated professional development
for principals. She placed greater emphasis on “old school” principals benefiting from
differentiated professional development. She felt that principals who were “a little younger”
would “already know” how to leverage leadership to support instructional technology
integration. The literature did not connect the need for principal professional development in
technology to age or time in role.
Elaine, as a seasoned and highly skilled technology leader, recognized the need for
organizational coherence. She had developed an instructional model that led to district-level
coherence around the purpose and application of instructional technology. All participants
echoed this coherence by mentioning one, two, or all of its components. This same coherence is
needed for principal professional development.
The current research clearly demonstrates the need for differentiated professional
development. Both teachers and coaches highlighted a need for deeper organizational coherence
and a formal feedback protocol. Principals require specific training to incorporate these two
complex concepts into their school structures and cultures. The SLDD will narrow and
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 85
eventually close when principals participate in job-specific professional development focused on
the digital divide (Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2002). Though neither Nate nor Nicole participated in
professional development differentiated to their roles, both acknowledged that it would be
valuable.
Elmore (2000) asserted that principals are responsible for their professional development
in order to develop the skillsets necessary to facilitate change in teaching practice and,
ultimately, in student outcomes. Not only is the principal’s knowledge important, but so is the
principal’s ability to model that knowledge for teachers (Elmore, 2000). Elmore deftly
articulated the exchange that occurs between principals and teachers as they work together to
facilitate improved teaching and learning:
The chief administrative leaders—superintendents and principals—are accountable for
using these resources and authority to guide improvement. Both types of leaders are
responsible for explicitly modeling in their own behavior the learning they expect of
others. And leaders of practice—teachers and professional developers—are accountable
for developing the new knowledge and skill required for the demands of broad-scale
improvement. Distributed leadership makes the reciprocal nature of these accountability
relationships explicit. My authority to require you to do something you might not
otherwise do depends on my capacity to create the opportunity for you to learn how to do
it, and to educate me on the process of learning how to do it, so that I become better at
enabling you to do it the next time (p. 21).
The OUSD might consider designing and implementing professional develop specifically
aligned to the specific needs of its school leaders. The purpose of this professional development
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 86
would be to develop “capacity” in its principals to equitably and effectively lead technology
integration for all students.
Summary
In describing the emergence systems, Adrienne Marie Brown (2017) spoke to the
importance of community and collaboration in building resilience:
Oak trees don’t set an intention to listen to each other better or agree to hold tight
to each other when the next storm comes. Under the earth, always, they reach for
each other, they grow such that their roots are intertwined and create a system of
strength that is as resilient on a sunny day as it is in a hurricane.
Teachers at Baldwin and Angelou affirmed that the support structures that their principals
implemented and maintained had created such a system, where teachers and staff work together.
This system made an impact on their instructional practices related to rigorous technology
integration for African American and Latino students. The data also revealed that the support
architecture could be fortified by:
• Establishing calibrated language that all educators understand and against which they
could measure their instructional technology effectiveness.
• Implementing a formal feedback protocol as it relates to instructional technology
integration for African American and Latino student.
• Providing professional development focused on closing the SLDD specifically for
principals.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 87
Findings for Research Question Two: How are Teachers Being Supported
in Regard to Technology Integration in their Classrooms?
The literature establishes that teachers require support in order to close the Second Level
Digital Divide (SLDD). These supports include professional development, coaching, feedback,
and planning time (Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011). Research Question Two was studied in
order to gain a deeper understanding of the supports available to teachers and whether those
supports were working in service of closing the SLDD.
Support for teachers is a key factor in the integration of instructional technology. Without
a clear, well-implemented support structure, teachers are less likely to integrate technology in a
manner that fosters rigorous access for students. The impact of a lack of support on rigorous
technology integration for African American and Latino students is amplified when compared to
the impact on their White and Asian American peers (Inan & Lowther, 2009; Warshauer,
Knoebel, Stone, 2004; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Therefore, identifying support
structures that would aid in closing the SSLD is critical. Support includes coaching, feedback,
technical/ IT support, and professional development.
Teachers and coaches at Baldwin and Angelou felt strongly that their principals had
created, implemented, and maintained support structures that enabled instructional technology
integration when a teacher chose to make the effort to integrate technology that facilitated
student acquisition of critical thinking skills. In other words, the data indicated that established
support structures existed at Baldwin and Angelou.
The need for additional dimensions to strengthen the support structures that teachers
praised in their principals also surfaced. The four themes that emerged about supports provided
to teachers by their principals were (1) the need for established support structures, (2)
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 88
differentiated teacher professional development, (3) formal feedback protocols and coaching, and
(4) increased accountability. Key to all four themes was the idea that professional growth and
practice could be enhanced through actions that encouraged the exchange of ideas and practices.
This calibration resulted in a common understanding and meaning of that which the organization
sought to accomplish. In this case, the calibration would lead to closing the SLDD. This
calibrated meaning-making is a hallmark of symbolic interactionism (Mead, 1934).
Established Support Structures
Teachers and coaches at Baldwin and Angelou reported that their principals had put in
place supports that facilitated and enhanced their ability to integrate technology in an effort to
close the SLDD. All three teachers and both coaches described how their principals’ entailed
modeling the use of technology; providing time for professional development; advocating for
and securing resources such as hardware, software, and grants; and providing moral support. All
teachers and both 21st Century Specialists noted that their principals messaged the importance of
instructional technology integration and commended their principals for displaying behaviors
that matched their expectations. Siobhan described the expectations that were established as part
of the support system:
The expectations for each grade level are set and they're pretty high. I think that the
different programs and apps that have been available for us are carefully chosen. You
know, I think that they are definitely broad, where it's for all students not just African
American and Latino students.
Siobhan’s comments were important because they spoke to a culture of support where the
principal had established clear expectations. In establishing clear expectations, the principal
could then design support structures to assist teachers in meeting those expectations.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 89
Roxy affirmed that Nate had designed and implemented a support structure that had
created a path for effective instructional technology integration to occur in classrooms. She
acknowledged how Nate leveraged his leadership and modeled as a form of support to “keep up
with the 21st century;” she described how he used Google slides, Google docs, and apps with the
teachers. When asked about the degree to which the principal supported a culture that facilitated
robust instructional technology, Roxy responded:
A lot! [Nate] is so very supportive. Whatever teachers need, if they want to have a
training, go to conference. He's always there to support. And he encourages all teachers
to really, even with this after-school training from the district, they even invited all
teachers to go. So, 100% yes.
Nate had clearly created an environment and a culture where teachers and coaches feel supported
and could articulate the reasons they felt that way.
Teachers and the coach at Angelou also feel supported by Nicole. Kimberly shared the
support her principal provided to teachers:
She's provided numerous opportunities for professional development and coaching. She's
working aggressively to get us towards one-to-one devices. She highlights those teachers
who are actively using technology in the class. . . She's quick to showcase what we're
doing. . . she encourages us to step it up, tons of kudos for effort and celebrating the
student's success as well.
Kimberly described some of the specific support structures available at Angelou:
In addition to myself, they have the support of one another…There's a few [teachers] on
one end who are not making the attempt. We have quite a few who are outstanding. So,
those teachers are definitely an effective resource.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 90
She also described some of the specific support structures available through OUSD:
We also have district support where they come in based on my request. . . to provide
hands-on classroom support. So, some teachers are not as inclined to have someone else
from the outside come in, even though that's technically an internal support. Right. But
there are those who will utilize it. Like one of the teachers I mentioned before. . . we had
a visit and the support was offered and she said sure. And she had them come in and sit
down one-to-one to help clear up the kids' website. And, their online portfolios. So just
the extra manpower that sometimes teachers don't have in a class because we don't have
aides or anything.
Isabela agreed with Kimberly that Nicole had established a supportive environment for
instructional technology integration:
The principal is also very supportive. . .[there] had been a lot of changes and we’ve come
a long way… All teachers didn't have computers. So, at least now the upper grades have
that. And, also, grade level collaboration. We also kind of try to work with each other.
When asked about the strategies Nicole had implemented to further African American and
Latino students mastering critical thinking skills, Isabela responded:
Our principal is continually offering staff development to our teachers here at school. She
gives us different training programs that will assist us in creating critical thinking skills
because she believes that technology is the future. I think because she's working on
getting all of our staff, hopefully, to one-to-one computers. So, she was very supportive,
and she encourages those professional developments… when she can offer them, she
gives them to us.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 91
All teachers and coaches recognized and valued their principals’ support. When asked
about support structures that their principals had implemented, teachers and coaches focused
largely on professional development offerings, access to hardware, recognition, and modeling.
These support structure components created a supportive culture that gave teachers the resources,
agency, and models to feel empowered to integrate instructional technology into their
curriculum. These supports encouraged and created a culture for teachers to use technology to
teach critical thinking skills to African American and Latino students.
These patterns also reflected some of the support structures that are necessary to close the
SLDD. The patterns revealed that when teachers have these supports, they are able to integrate
technology in a way that closes the SLDD. However, the Senior Director of Technology,
teachers, and coaches reported that the mere existence of support structures did not mean that all
teachers would avail themselves of those resources. The consequence was that not all African
American and Latino student benefitted from a teacher who was well-prepared to integrated
technology. What was needed was a system of accountability, discussed below.
Differentiated Support and Professional Development for Teachers and Coaches
Teacher and principal professional development is imperative if the SLDD is going to be
closed. Kimberly connected the importance of teacher growth to student instructional technology
needs:
At one point, I would have been the most resistant teacher to technology integration, but
with realizing the population we serve and the benefit that it has to our students, even
though initially it made me uncomfortable because I was not as strong with technology, I
see the importance. This is a way of actively engaging the students and learning. And,
with our profession, technology is not going away. So, if I want to continue in the
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 92
profession, I'm going to have to adapt and adjust and not force the adjustment on our
students.
Kimberly articulated the importance of teachers evolving in the context of professional
development. Her response advocated that the needs of students should drive educator
professional growth. The importance of this internal dialogue in relation to professional
development was echoed by Siobhan:
The “Everyone Can Create” professional development, for me, personally, definitely
made me take a different, a deeper look into how to drive instruction… Because in my
mind, during that whole professional development, I was thinking, “Okay, I can use this
for this, or I can do this and this . . . It gave me different ways to think about how we're
using these, how we're trying to teach the kids and develop the critical thinking skills.
Both Nate and Siobhan acknowledged the dynamic of symbolic interactionism by
describing the process of teachers reflecting and making internal meaning of the work in the
context of the organization. Professional development, then, allowed teachers and administrators
to share learning through shared experiences. This process of calibrating a shared experience was
evident during an all-day professional development, “Everyone Can Create,” that Nate and
Siobhan attended with approximately 23 other teachers. Siobhan described the process of
digesting the meaning of the professional development in her “mind” in a manner that propelled
how she was teaching critical thinking skills. She engaged in an internal meaning-making
process that translated to classroom practice.
Elements of professional development. All teachers and coaches believed that
meaningful professional development impacted classroom practice. They defined the
components of meaningful professional development: (1) it is differentiated, (2) it uses a just-in-
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 93
time approach, and (3) it includes modeling and coaching. Their responses included elements of
internal meaning-making that facilitated the bridge between effective professional development
and the meaningful integration of technology in the classroom for African American and Latino
students. For example, two teachers and one 21st Century Specialist described meaningful
professional development as providing opportunities for teachers to observe each other
integrating instructional technology to teach critical thinking skills. They added that the
opportunity to discuss the peer observation experiences was important in order to digest and
diagnose the effective elements of teaching practice. Siobhan described the process:
During our own school professional development, having teachers present and actually
present as if we were the students, those specific lessons or activities that are homing in
on their critical thinking skills. It's like teachers, we all steal from each other, right? Like
nothing's our own. So, if you give me something, I'll make it my own, but that's a great
idea. I didn't think about that. So, that's definitely other teachers presenting how to help,
how can I adapt it to my own classroom.
Siobhan was describing a process of sharing a common experience with another teacher, then
making meaning of that experience to adapt her teaching practice. A relationship of mutual
exchange where teachers are building knowledge together through shared experiences and
processing that meaning together leads to refined practice.
Everyone can create. “Everyone Can Create,” a professional development program, was
held in Baldwin’s STEAM Lab the second day of a five-day Apple professional development
series. Though the majority of teachers taught at Baldwin, Nate shared that teachers and coaches
from other schools were invited to attend.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 94
The session started with one of the two facilitators, “Natasha” (a pseudonym), reviewing
the objectives and asking teachers what they wanted to learn during the session. Responses
included podcasting and using iMovie. Natasha emphasized that the priority was for students to
be able to express themselves in the way that they learned best. Also emphasized was the
importance of the purposeful use of technology. Natasha asked teachers to reflect on how they
integrated the tools they learned in Session One. Teacher responses included:
• Setting up a lesson and telling students to “figure it out” because she wanted them to
engage in discovery and to get over the fear of failure. She noted that her students had
been used to playing games with the technology, but not creating.
• “Daring” herself to create a photo book. She explained that she used the word “dare”
because integrating technology was not something she was used to doing and she had
become inspired by her students’ photography work.
These descriptions of teachers’ technology integration activities demonstrated that teachers in
OUSD were challenging themselves to meet their students’ needs by taking risks to integrate
technology that facilitated cognitively demanding tasks.
As Session Two continued, teachers learned how to use music to facilitate learning across
all content areas. They were asked to create projects using musical applications. Throughout this
segment of the professional development, teachers sought each other’s support and dialogued
about their individual projects through questioning and feedback. The questioning and feedback
allowed for opportunities to exchange and calibrate the elements of robust technology
integration. Teachers were encouraged to come to a consensus about the meaning of instructional
technology terms and expectations. The cycles of this mutual exchange repeated throughout the
session.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 95
The format of the session was facilitator input, educator engagement with the content,
and small and whole group dialogue focused on leveraging the technology for cognitively
demanding tasks. The discussions were rich and robust, characterized by teachers challenging
each other in a professional manner that led to the calibration of meaning around what rigorous
technology looks like in the classroom.
In order to ensure that this calibrated meaning was understood and tested, Natasha
modeled a lesson based on the professional development sessions as the educators observed. The
observation lasted approximately forty minutes. After the modeled lesson, the educators returned
to the STEAM room to debrief the lesson. The conversation was designed to be an examination
of how well Natasha translated the goals of the professional development session to classroom
practice. Teachers critiqued the lesson, providing supporting evidence for their positions. This
professional development was an exemplar of the professional development that teachers of
African American and Latino students need in order to close the SLDD. It was impactful because
it established the components of effective technology integration; provided educators with
multiple opportunities to calibrate their understanding of expectations and strategies; and
facilitated observation of an instructional technology lesson that all educators could discuss. The
teachers who participated in this professional development were being well-prepared to close the
SLDD. Siobhan’s comments about how she integrates instructional technology into the
instructional program evidence the impact of technology:
I think [students] should be able to take ownership of [the instructional technology] and
they should be responsible for it… but I also think they should have fun with it. Like that
everyone creates. I could say here's a worksheet or write a bunch of sentences, but they
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 96
are going to make meaning of the content when they take ownership of it and make it
their own.
The importance of teachers of African American and Latino students being taught by
teachers who are well-prepared to integrate technology in a meaningful way is necessary to
closing the SLDD. Isabel shared her philosophy on instructional technology:
I believe that students could benefit from using instructional technology to enrich and
better learn. I mean, in order for them to be prepared for this, for 21st century skills, and
for them to be college or career ready, they need to know how to be able to research, how
to be able to collaborate, how to work together. And, using technology, there's so many
ways that students. . . work together, collaborate, engage, and communicate.
Isabela emphasized the importance of access and opportunity when considering using
instructional technology with African American and Latino students. In order to facilitate
equitable use of technology, she noted that students must be able to “collaborate, engage, and
communicate.” These require the use of critical thinking skills and surpass the “skill and drill”
activities to which African American and Latino students are often subjected when instructional
technology is used in their classrooms.
Kimberly addressed this when asked about the importance of African American and
Latino students learning how to deftly use technology in a global context:
Familiarizing them with the devices. The capability is definitely there. I think as
educators they need to see it modeled. And, that means, as educators, especially digital
immigrants, we need to let go of some of our anxieties to help engage those learners
because their ability is definitely there. The knowledge is there. But, personally, I feel
that it is the instructors that at times impeded the process.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 97
Kimberly’s remarks highlighted the importance of teachers meeting students’ needs because
students had the capacity to acquire the necessary skills. She believed that teachers were a
variable in students not accessing the opportunities afforded by instructional technology. She
went on to link professional development to effective technology integration in the classroom
versus a lack of instructional technology integration:
The students have the ability, they have the interest and, if utilized, I think it could
definitely impact practice. But, in many cases [professional development] is not, so you
can't have impact where you don't have practice.
Kimberly described another challenge of instructional technology professional development at
Angelou, “Professional development is normally during times where they are not actively
engaged anyway. So, I don't know how impactful the professional development really is.” Her
comments acknowledged that professional development may be offered, but she questioned its
effectiveness if not designed to meet the needs of teachers. Siobhan and Isabela shared
Kimberly’s observation. They also emphasized the importance of designing professional
development to meet the precise needs of teachers when they need it (a just in time approach).
Siobhan described how the “Everyone Can Create” professional development met her
needs but added that some of the other professional development was not aligned with her
instructional technology proficiency. She noted that professional development was often at a
lower proficiency level than hers. She would have appreciated professional learning
opportunities offered at her level. Siobhan’s spoke to the importance of differentiated
professional learning. Siobhan’s remarks further illuminated Nate’s and Kimberly’s comments
that one size does not fit all.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 98
Coaching
Coaching was highly valued in OUSD. The coaches, called 21st Century Specialists,
supported teaching with instructional technology integration. Nate described the coaches as
integral to supporting teachers because they provided professional development and modeled
lessons. He placed value on their status as teachers because he believed that they still had a
“connection” to the classroom that gave them credibility. Nate beautifully crystalized the
importance of coaches:
There's two things. [One,] you're creating innovative programs and [two,] it's also
meaningful because now you have two teachers there and it's really professional
development for our [classroom] teachers. Another teacher could see how she's doing it
and it actually opened up some doors. Like, “Hey, I want to try this on my own in the
classrooms.” Or, you never know what the conversation will be as far as the spark from
team teaching. But those are the things that they do. So, the expectation for [the coaches]
is always stepping up a notch, so that they're able to provide the support that's needed
with our programs because people make that program. You could have a thousand
programs. If you don't have the people making it meaningful, it's not going to work out
for the school.
Nate described the importance of the human interaction and meaning-making through a coaching
relationship. Teachers were able to learn from and with each other through a symbiotic
relationship. Limited evidence of coaching was identified through this research; this was
reflected in the teachers’ desire for more feedback and a perceived lack of feedback protocols.
However, more formal coaching would support teachers in advancing their practice by
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 99
facilitating shared meaning-making and calibrating understanding of the actions needed to close
the SLDD.
Coaching, while limited, was a critical support structure for teachers as they were
developing instructional technology integration skills. Coaching was a key strategy in ensuring
that teachers and principals built relationships. These relationships allowed them to make
calibrated meaning of the work by engaging in shared experiences and dialogue that allowed for
reflection and internal processing of those professional experiences. Symbolic interactionism
describes the shared process of members of a group developing a common understanding of an
experience. Coaches were a conduit to facilitating this organizational meaning-making by
facilitating dialogue, reflection, and modeling of agreed upon language. Kimberly described a
challenge that she confronted as a coach with regard to resistant teachers:
You have those teachers who do not fit. Not as many as when I first began the position.
But, you have those who are still adamant that is not needed. They can teach without it.
So, I'm constantly in the classroom, checking for understanding and trying to see what
their needs are. Is it an issue with the technology itself and then offering them one-to-one
coaching? If you're not comfortable with me, then I can bring someone from the district
because we have that connection. . . I tread lightly is all I can say.
Kimberly went on to describe the different approaches she had to take with teachers who
were open to technology integration compared to those teachers who were not:
Some teachers are very receptive. There was one teacher, she's bringing me new
technologies because she's in school now learning. She's receiving her masters in
instructional tech. So, we share our information and so she'll ask me for ideas and
strategies and for teachers who are open, it's very easy. Yes, I can go in the classroom,
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 100
watch a lesson, and then we can discuss ways that additional technology could have been
used. But there are others where sometimes I have to go in the classroom and just do the
lesson and bring the technology or bring them into the lab.
An important finding as it related to coaching was that while there may be an identified
coach working with teachers, the principal can take on a coaching role that advances practice as
it relates to instructional technology integration. Kimberly believed that principals serving as
coaches was an effective strategy:
I think there's definitely a role the principal plays as an instructional coach and ensuring
that integration is occurring. But I'm working closely with the principal and seeing some
of the challenges. I don't know the effective strategy and doing right. I'm an aspiring
principal myself, so I'm trying to it figure out. Do you mandate it? . . . I think some of it
comes from monitoring, consistent monitoring and not just, “You're going to be
evaluated today and I want to see you use technology.” I'm going to have to actually be in
there. Seeing it used and encouraging, probably aggressive and I want to mandate, they
get a mandate and demand you use it, but I know I may have union reps coming for me.
But, I think it starts with the principal as the instructional leader.
Accountability
Accountability is an important factor when considering the closure of the SLDD. If
teachers are not held accountable for closing the gap, what evidence indicates that it will ever
close? Expectations without accountability lack the urgency required to close the divide. While
teachers must be held accountable to close the instructional technology disparity in their
individual classrooms, principals must be held accountable for the closing the SLDD in every
classroom in their schools. Organizational coherence, differentiated professional development,
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 101
support, and feedback should and must be offered as part of a complete support architecture for
principals and teachers in order to build professional capacity. But, unless the professionals in
the organization are held responsible and accountable, the SLDD will persist and compound.
OUSD administrators, teachers, and instructional technology coaches cited accountability
as an issue impacting the rigorous integration of technology for African American and Latino
students. When asked about how support structures could be improved, Elaine emphasized that
the teacher supports in OUSD were robust and effective. She identified accountability as the
barrier to system-wide instructional technology integration. She believed a key factor to
eliminating the SLDD was ensuring that teachers were implementing the instructional
technology strategies they learned in professional development. Elaine acknowledged that
accountability was an area that OUSD was still strengthening. She explored a variety of solutions
that had the potential to motivate teachers to remedy the accountability gap, including stipends,
micro-credentialing, and a professional development management system (PDMS). According to
Elaine, a PDMS would allow teachers and their administrators to monitor the professional
development in which teachers engage. The PDMS data would be analyzed in the context of
student needs. In other words, were teachers participating in professional development that
would improve their practice to meet the specific needs of their students? Elaine believed that
this kind of data analysis would facilitate differentiated professional development through
“correlation” of student needs and teacher professional learning. She had implemented this
practice in one of her former districts and had started the process for implementing a PDMS in
OUSD.
Kimberly deftly described the importance of educator accountability in closing the SLDD
in terms of what students need in order to be prepared for the future. Furthermore, she placed the
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 102
onus of preparing students on the teachers by calling on them to “adapt and adjust” to meet the
needs of students. Her assessment was made more compelling because she used herself as an
example of a teacher who had to come to terms with the changing world and her responsibility to
adapt to effectively educate students in that evolved world. There was an urgency to Kimberly’s
voice that translated into a call-to-action for her colleagues.
Isabela linked teacher technology performance to professional development and
commended Elaine’s efforts to offer opportunities such as micro-credentialing to encourage
teachers to participate in District-offered professional development. She described the positive
impact of district-offered professional development and believed that those efforts had resulted
in technology integration based on advancing students’ critical thinking skills. Despite the many
professional development opportunities offered by Elaine, Isabela noted that there was still work
to be done because not all teachers were working to close the SLDD. After describing a middle
school colleague who rigorously integrated instructional technology, Isabela spoke about
teachers who were not integrating technology, “We still have a long way to go. Not all of us are
into that technology. They still [teach] the regular, old-fashioned instruction.”
When asked about how teachers and the principal worked together to align practice,
Isabela re-emphasized that some teachers were not “for technology.” She shared that the teachers
at her school “all have the same teaching expectations” but do not all integrate the technology
component. She connected the disparity to a lack of knowledge on the part of her colleagues. She
felt that their lack of understanding of instructional technology standards (i.e., from ISTE)
contributed to their lack of technology integration. She asserted, “We need… to work a little bit
more to get more teachers to work on this technology component.” While Isabela spoke about a
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 103
collaborative culture that could move teacher performance in this area, the person with the most
positional influence to ensure that all teachers were working to close the divide was the principal.
When asked about the role principals played in closing the SLDD, Kimberly also
highlighted the influence principals had in holding teachers accountable. She shared that she
aspired to be a principal and wondered how she would go about holding teachers accountable.
She worked very closely with the principal and witnessed the challenges her principal
encountered when trying to ensure instructional technology integration. Her principal
“encourages and celebrates” teachers who were integrating technology, but Kimberly wondered
if “more of a mandate” was needed to ensure all students benefitted from robust instructional
technology. She understood that principals might encounter problems with the teachers’ union if
they mandated instructional technology. Despite the barriers, she felt accountability was
necessary:
I think it starts with the principal as the instructional leader. . . I think the work could be
improved [with] more of a mandate. . . She strongly encourages and celebrates those who
are [integrating instructional technology]. But, for those [who] are not, other than the
blended learning walkthrough and all, I don’t know how that can be pushed a little more.
The blended learning walkthroughs were observations that included administrators from
throughout the district. During the walkthroughs, the administrators visited classrooms and used
a checklist to ensure that technology was being used robustly. Kimberly cited monitoring student
usage of mandated district software as another accountability measure.
Despite the walkthrough and usage reports, Kimberly brought up accountability on a few
occasions during the interview and felt that more could be done to ensure that teachers were
working to close the SLDD. She saw accountability as a sensitive topic and would ask for re-
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 104
assurance that her comments were going to be kept anonymous when she discussed issues
connecting accountability, the principal’s role, and the teacher’s union. She noted that the
number of teachers who fell into this category was shrinking, but she also acknowledged that it
was a persistent problem that impacted the access African American and Latino students had at
Angelou. The question she asked that captured her concerns about accountability was, “How do
you make it mandatory because it’s all there and available?”
Kimberly’s question captures three important ideas. First, the district and her principal
ensured quality professional development and support were available to teachers. Therefore, the
district and the school had created the infrastructure of support that could close the SLDD.
Second, district-level professional development was voluntary. Therefore, teachers could choose
to attend or not. The consequence of a teacher’s individual choice was that only students whose
teachers volunteered to attend the professional development (and implemented what they
learned) were in instructional environments that were likely to close the SLDD. Furthermore,
Kimberly noted that while some teachers took full advantage of professional development, others
did not. And, when they did, “there was no evidence of anything being taken away.” Within a
district and school, inequitable access to the benefits of instructional technology was occurring
for students suffering from the SLDD. Third, teachers were not held accountable for integrating
instructional technology despite having the resources and support to integrate the technology. In
other words, OUSD had all the necessary resources in place and available. The SLDD was not
being closed because of teacher resistance to using the resources. This ultimately harmed already
disadvantaged African American and Latino students.
When addressing accountability, Sophia noted the usage reports and shared that schools
were ranked by their usage. Sophia described teachers who did not integrate technology as being
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 105
perhaps afraid that the technology would eventually replace them. She explained that these
teachers were in a state of resistance to technology integration because they feared that they
would inevitably be replaced by it. She was able to engage district and site leaders to counter
their resistance with support and honest conversations about the role of teachers in the context of
instructional technology. As Sophia’s interview concluded, she passionately volunteered the
importance of accountability to closing the SLDD:
I feel like Latin culture in general. . . We're like, the indigenous people, almost invisible,
an invisible group of people that don't exist. . . I know for African American history, the
slavery is known. But, they don't even state what happened to most of the Latin people. . .
It's almost as if it weren't even worth knowing. So, I feel a lot of people feel that way,
like just invisible, invisible to the rest of the world. Nobody cares if [my students]
succeed or fail because they're not worth knowing. . . So, you know, I want them to know
that they're, they can rise to any level.
Sophia connected the importance of ensuring that her students had strong technology
skills to liberating their invisibleness, aligning with the growing movement that positions
education as a civil right gap (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). She highlighted that society
was not concerned about the success of her students. She strongly felt that ensuring their ability
to leverage technology would empower them to combat society’s injustices with the strength of
their education. Sophia passionately described the purpose of closing the SLDD. As she
described empowering her students to make themselves visible, she began to cry. Her
commitment to this process was captured in every word and sentiment:
I feel like if people cannot get past their prejudice or if they can do that, the only way to
get across people is through money, money speaks through everything. We have to get
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 106
these kids to the point where they will be valuable. You're going to be able to compete
because people will need you and they will have to see you.
This idea of technology being a means to make the world “see” her students was a transcendent
one. She moved from the critical educational implications of closing the SLDD to a conversation
that centered on her students’ humanity and their right to be in this country and this world.
Moreover, her vision meant that it would no longer be the dominant culture’s right to decide if
her students were of value. It would be not only their right, but their destiny. Again, education
was not just an entitlement but an issue of civil rights and ending the equity gap (Warschauer &
Matuchniak, 2010).
Summary
Brown (2017) used a powerful quote by Naima Penniman to communicate the
importance of interdependence in social institutions that are working to bring about social
change:
Instead of digging its roots deep and solitary in the earth, the oak tree grows its roots
wide and interlocks with other oak trees in the surrounding area.
Brown (2017) argued that the cooperative practices demonstrated in nature are worthy lessons
for human beings seeking to liberate people from social injustices. This idea was reflected in the
interviews presented by teachers and coaches. The findings indicate that they placed a heavy
emphasis on collaboration, professional exchange, and calibration.
Teachers and coaches at Baldwin and Angelou all felt well-supported by their principals.
They reported easy access to professional development, resources, feedback, and moral support
from their principals. They readily credited their principals with establishing and maintaining a
culture of support that facilitated the rigorous integration of instructional technology for African
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 107
American and Latino students. These support structures were successful, as both schools had
very effectively implemented instructional technology best practices. The reasons Elaine
recommended both schools for this study were clear and observable. The culture and support
structures reflected the recommendations in the literature for closing the SLDD: professional
development, resource allocation, modeling, and feedback (Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie 2011;
Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012)
The findings that resulted from Research Question Two focused on how teachers and
coaches saw that instructional technology integration could be further enhanced at their school
sites. In order to deepen and enhance their own practices and to support the improved
instructional practice of their colleagues, Baldwin and Angelou teachers and coaches offered
insights into professional development and feedback.
First, Nate and Nicole were positively acknowledged by their teachers and coaches for
facilitating on-going professional learning opportunities. The importance of these support
structures cannot be overstated. Their leadership moves created cultures that encouraged their
teachers to take calculated risks when integrating technology. Their teachers credited them with
providing support, modeling, and providing resources. These efforts resulted in Baldwin earning
Apple Distinguished School status. Both Baldwin and Angelou were recognized by OUSD
leadership as exemplars in instructional technology integration. The essential components that
both principals built at their schools created a strong foundation for continued growth.
Second, in order to grow the effective strategies implemented by their principals, teachers and
coaches believed that they would benefit from more targeted, differentiated professional
development based on their needs as teachers and groups of teachers. In order to close the
SLDD, teachers should engage in differentiated professional development. Differentiated
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 108
professional development should include the following elements: alignment to the needs of
individual teachers and groups of teachers; timed when teachers can best receive new
information; and, teachers observing each other integrating instructional technology to
development critical thinking skills in African American and Latino students.
Finally, accountability was necessary to ensure that all students benefitted from equitable
access to a teacher who was effectively integrating instructional technology. An effective support
structure was critical to creating an environment that fostered robust instructional technology
integration. However, principals must implement explicit accountability measures in order to
ensure that teachers meet the responsibility of closing the SLDD.
Summary
Teachers are the agents of student access, growth, and achievement. Given their essential
role in eradicating the SLDD, they deserve support that meets their collective and individual
needs. This study’s teacher participants placed value on differentiated support. Differentiated
support includes tailored professional development based on proficiency level, feedback, and
collaborating with other teachers. Coaches and teachers reported that differentiated support
facilitated individual teacher growth because teachers presented with different technology
integration proficiency levels. Addressing this gap in proficiency levels is key to addressing the
SLDD.
Once principals have ensured that the necessary support structures are in place to build
and sustain teachers’ capacity to robustly integrate technology, principals can leverage their
leadership role to close the SLDD by systematizing accountability structures. The systemization
of accountability benefits not only students but also educators because accountability measures
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 109
ensure that those educators fulfill their commitments and responsibility to the students whom
they serve.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 110
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Oak trees don’t set an intention to listen to each other better or
agree to hold tight to each other when the next storm comes.
Under the earth, always, they reach for each other, they grow such
that their roots are intertwined and create a system of strength that
is as resilient on a sunny day as it is in a hurricane.
Adrienne Maree Brown (2017)

The purpose of this study was to examine the role the principal plays in establishing
support structures that aid in closing the Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD) for low socio-
economic status African American and Latino students in an urban elementary school setting.
The SLDD is defined as the inequity in rigorous tasks in which students of color engage as
compared to their White and Asian American peers (Morse, 2004; Warschauer et al., 2004;
Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). African American and Latino students are much more likely
to use classroom technology for low-cognitive demand activities like skill and drill, while their
White and Asian American peers are more likely to use it for high-cognitive demand tasks like
researching, writing, and projects (Morse, 2004; Warschauer et al., 2004; Warschauer &
Matuchniak, 2010). This inequity is important because a lack of high cognitive demand
technology skills and experience limits access to college, high potential careers, and full
participation in the global economy. In fact, the lack of access to technology proficiency
compounds the educational debt owed to students of color (Ladson-Billings, 2006). In the
context of public education, the SLDD is a violation of the civil rights of African American and
Latino students (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). Schools are the social institutions charged
with educating all students. Therefore, it is the responsibility of all teachers and principals to
address the SLDD with the goal of narrowing and eventually closing this source of social and
economic inequity.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 111
This study examined how principals leverage their leadership to support teachers in
closing the SLDD. While teachers are the key factor in a student’s academic achievement, the
principal is the key factor in establishing, cultivating, and monitoring the context and culture in
which teachers work. If the SLDD is to be closed, a systemic approach must be leveraged.
Principals are the agents of systemic change in schools. Principals must actively engage in
leadership behaviors that will close the divide. This study focused on identifying the support
structures that principals systemize for teachers so that the SLDD is closed. The following
research questions were explored to identify these structures:
1. What is the impact of elementary school principals at high-performing, urban schools on
closing the SLDD?
2. In what ways do teachers perceive they are being supported by their principals?
The research questions were investigated using a qualitative methodology that included
interviews and observations. All participants were considered technology leaders and worked in
or with schools that were high performing in instructional technology integration. Participants
included a Senior Director of Technology, two principals, three teachers, and two instructional
technology coaches.
Summary of Research Findings
Research Question One
Establishing organizational coherence would provide the context and culture to advance
the closure of the SLDD. Organizational coherence is the shared understanding between
principals and teachers around the goals they seek to achieve together (Elmore, 2000). Elmore
(2000) defined a “shared teaching technology” as a mutually agreed upon understanding of
student academic goals and, therefore, outcomes. When a principal focuses her attention on a
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 112
problem of practice, such as the SLDD, and offers support, teachers feel greater self-efficacy to
achieve the school’s goals (Newmann & Rutter, 1989).
If the goal is to deepen and extend technology proficiency among both highly effective
and less effective teachers, principals should create opportunities to develop a shared, coherent
understanding of the components of effective technology integration. Furthermore, this
coherence of understanding must be aligned and integrated into coherent cultural shifts among
leadership, staff, parents, and students. Organizational coherence and cultural alignment foster
accountability, which is key to closing the SLDD.
Organizational coherence can be achieved by the process described in Mead’s symbolic
interaction. However, this process needs to be an explicit component of principal and teacher
professional development. Organizational coherence is the pre-requisite to accountability
(Elmore, 2000).
Accountability is key to closing the SLDD. The futures of African American and Latino
students should not be a consequence of teacher assignment. All teachers have the responsibility
for ensuring that rigorous technology integration is a component of instructional design.
Principals have the responsibility for ensuring coherence in every classroom. In order to hold
teachers accountable, principals have the responsibility to build teacher capacity in this area
through differentiated professional development and targeted support.
Formal feedback protocol. Implementing a formal feedback protocol as it relates to
instructional technology integration for African American and Latino student would shift
organizational coherence to deeper practice for teachers. The nexus of instructional practice is
the point where professional development meets “systematic inquiry” and evaluation (Elmore,
2000, p. 23).
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 113
A formal feedback cycle that empowers teachers, coaches, and principals to discuss
effective technology integration based on a common understanding of language, expectations,
and accountability would facilitate closing the SLDD. This feedback cycle should focus on
teacher practice as it relates to teaching critical-thinking skills. While all teachers and coaches
agreed that they received feedback through various forms, they all acknowledged that more
direct, formal feedback would contribute to enhanced teaching practice as it related to
instructional technology integration. The feedback protocol should include the following
components: common, calibrated language; clear expectations; a process to make meaning
together; and accountability for improved practice. This process should be consistent and
recursive. In order to facilitate the feedback protocol, a common, calibrated language and
understanding of expectations is necessary so that both principals and teachers understand that
which they are working toward (Elmore, 2000).
Furthermore, data analysis revealed that even highly effective integrators of technology felt that
they would deepen and accelerate their proficiency were they to receive consistent feedback or
“systematic inquiry” of their practice. Such a feedback protocol (see Figure A, below ) should
include the following components: organizational coherence, instructional technology practice, a
support architecture, and accountability. While accountability is not focused on evaluation, it is a
necessary component of accountability. In this feedback protocol, accountability refers to
principals’ and teachers’ responsibility for closing the SLDD. Moreover, a principal cannot hold
a teacher accountable for a goal for which she has not built that teacher’s capacity (Elmore,
1997). Thus, teachers must have the opportunity to benefit from professional development and
support if they are to be held accountable for closing the SLDD.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 114

Figure A. Instructional technology feedback protocol to close the SLDD.

Differentiated professional development. In order for principals to be held accountable
for closing the SLDD, districts must provide professional development that builds principals’
capacity to close the gap. Principal engagement in professional development differentiated to
their role would provide them the with strategies and knowledge that would accelerate the
closure of the SLDD. Both principals in this study reported that differentiated professional
development was not offered in their district. However, it is important to note that both
principals acknowledged that their district has been very supportive in establishing critical
structures that had greatly impacted their ability to lead with transformative instructional
technology integration and innovation. Therefore, the groundwork had been established. What
Closing
the
SLDD
Differentiated
Support
Instructional
Technology
Practice
Targeted Feedback based on
Instructionla Technology
Expectations and Standards
Accountability
Organizational Coherence
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 115
lies ahead is augmenting and re-imagining how those successful structures could further be
enhanced.
In order to fulfill the responsibilities of their leadership roles, principals must engage in
ongoing professional development that increases their expertise. Principal professional
development should not only include technology-related pedagogy and curriculum but, also,
stress how to leverage leadership to close the SLDD. Opportunities to discuss and calibrate
expectations, goals, and language related to instructional technology must be provided.
Differentiated professional development should focus on the leadership dimensions that close the
SLDD, such as teacher professional development; shared vision; common language; feedback,
modeling, and evaluation on the context of technology integration; and allocation of resources.
Professional development differentiated to the unique position of principals is necessary because
they alone can create a culture and put in place support structures that close the SLDD.
Systemic change. Brown (2017) quotes Obolensky (2014) when describing her theory of
emergent leadership and strategy, “Emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out
of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions.” Brown’s promise is that the members of an
organization are empowered to bring about the necessary change in an organization through
interdependent, dedicated work that holds members accountable. In order to collaboratively
facilitate change, all members are responsible even as the leader is accountable. Obolensky’s
quote brings symphony to Mead (1934), Elmore (2000), and Brown (2017) by arguing that the
actions of individuals collectively create the patterns and shifts needed in an organization to
bring about change.
In fact, the Senior Director of Technology posed this exact question, “How do you move
schools forward on voluntary methods. . . and, thinking differently, how you can make a more
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 116
coherent and cohesive model that really produces the outcome?” The outcome here being system
change to close the SLDD. Her question deftly framed the need for principal differentiated
professional development as key to system change and closing the SLDD. This question, or
problem of practice, is uniquely suited to the principal’s role. Principal professional development
should support them in answering this question and acting in accordance with the answers.
In the context of this study, systemic change and emergence translate to the individual
actions of site administrators supporting the individual actions of teachers which become a
complex pattern across the organization. That pattern is the systematic closing of the SLDD for
all students. The principals in this study have implemented changes such as establishing
consistent support structures, allocating resources, facilitating professional development, and
modeling. These actions have led to their schools being recognized for their instructional
technology integration.
The next level of action to establish the complex systems to dismantle the SLDD would
be to create a dedicated support architecture. This support architecture should involve all
teachers and include a shared language for the work, formal feedback system, and participation
in professional development differentiated to their role. And, in fact, the data in this study
revealed that such a support architecture would be fortified by:
• Establishing calibrated language that all educators understand and against which they
could measure their instructional technology effectiveness.
• Implementing a formal feedback protocol as it relates to instructional technology
integration for African American and Latino students.
• Providing professional development focused on closing the SLDD specifically for
principals.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 117
Research Question Two
Principals who leverage their leadership skills and influence create a support architecture
that facilitates integrated technology that closes the SLDD. Both principals in this study provided
modeling, professional development, coaching support, moral support, effective resource
management, and opportunities for feedback in ways that were both recognized and highly
valued by their teachers. The teachers and coaches in this study reported that these supports
contributed greatly to the effectiveness of instructional technology integration for students. These
supports systems were critical because they created the context for and translated into practices
which began to close the SLDD.
In order for principals to further advance the integration of instructional technology for
all students, teachers reported that differentiated support would further enhance and deepen their
practice as related to rigorous technology integration. Teachers and coaches at both schools
expressed deep appreciation for the professional development that their principals provided.
They discussed professional development that focused on using software to facilitate critical
thinking, creativity, and communication. While the teachers were eager to express the
importance of the professional development they had received, they also noted that differentiated
professional development would not only further enhance and advance their individual skillsets,
it would likely also lead to a greater number of teachers leveraging instructional technology to
close the SLDD.
Teachers and instructional technology coaches suggested a variety of methods to
differentiate professional development: by technology proficiency, peer-to-peer coaching, and
peer observation. When teachers and instructional technology coaches described these pathways
to differentiated professional development, they almost always included a component of
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 118
calibrated meaning-making. Their descriptions also emphasized the importance of learning from
fellow educators in a manner that leads to shared understanding and expectations, or
organizational coherence.
These suggestions offered the possibility of engaging all teachers in the work necessary
to close the SLDD because they would have the supports necessary to meaningfully integrate
technology. Leveraging a dedicated support architecture to develop teacher instructional
technology proficiency is critical because the lack of such proficiency creates a key barrier to
closing the SLDD. This architecture would not only support teachers who are already
implementing best practices that are closing the SLDD, it would encourage teachers who are not
to join the effort to liberate African American and Latino students from the life-long impact of
the SLDD.
An accountability gap exists because some teachers leverage support structures to
integrate technology while many others do not. Therefore, all students do not have the same
opportunity to engage in high-cognitive instructional tasks that involve technology integration.
This accountability gap leads to an access issue for African American and Latino students. The
SLDD is a phenomenon that impacts equity and access for African American and Latino
students. Educators have a moral imperative to close this gap because of its far-reaching
implications and ramifications. Educators should not have choice in integrating rigorous
technology for these students; the consequences for students are too enormous and far-reaching.
And, in fact, all teachers and coaches in this study expressed a strong equity philosophy (belief
system). Figure B, below, shows an accountability system for closing the SLDD.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 119

Figure B. Teacher accountability for closing the SLDD.

The accountability measures should extend from the support structures in such a manner
that they encourage teachers’ growth. For example, principals might visit classrooms in order to
provide feedback to teachers on the professional development that has been made available to
teachers. Post-observation dialogue should focus on how teachers have leveraged the
professional development to close the SLDD and how the principal might continue to offer
support to meet the needs of the teacher. In this way, both educators are held accountable for
closing the SLDD for the students whom they serve.
Accountability to their
Students
Implementing Pratice
Leveraging Available
Support Structures
Resource
Management &
Allocation
Belief System
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 120
Implications for Practice
Nothing happens in isolation. There is always a squad, collaborators,
a body that supports change occurring. Sage Crump

Educators have the power and influence to close the SLDD. This study’s findings
indicate that there are specific steps that educators of African American and Latino students
could take to pay down and, eventually, eradicate the “educational debt” (Ladson-Billings, 2006)
owed to these students. Therefore, principals and teachers must be fully equipped to not only
overcome the barriers associated with the SLDD but to eradicate it. Eradicating this inequity
necessitates examination of the entire school ecosystem impacting instructional technology
integration, including professional development, accountability, feedback, and organizational
coherence. Key implications for practice resulting from this study include:
• Districts should design professional development that deepens principals’ abilities to
positively impact instructional technology integration for students of color.
• Principals should build organizational coherence in the context of closing the SLDD,
including building common language throughout the organization; facilitating
differentiated professional development for teachers; providing feedback to teachers
on their integration of instructional technology; and holding all teachers accountable
for closing the SLDD.
• Principals must maintain support architectures using research-based strategies such as
modeling, allocating resources, providing professional development, etc.
• District and school leaders should call specific attention for all adults in the
organization to the phenomenon of the SLDD and the importance for closing it.
In order to prepare principals to make a difference in closing the SLDD, districts should
design professional development that deepens principals’ abilities to positively impact
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 121
instructional technology integration for students of color. When principals have the tools they
need, they are able to support teachers in making changes in their classrooms; this in turns
impacts student achievement. Darling-Hammond (2014) calls these necessary components
“goodness of fit/available resources.” In her description of a “Digital Learning Ecosystem,”
Darling-Hammond draws a direct and symbiotic connection between technology (digital
resources, access, and infrastructure), context (learning activity, learning goals, learning
community), and learner outcomes (affective, behavioral, skill, and cognitive). These are all
critical elements of organizational coherence.
Principals should build organizational coherence in the context of closing the SLDD.
This coherence is developed collaboratively between the principal and teachers; it must be
intentionally nurtured and monitored. Ongoing support such as professional development,
coaching, and feedback should be aligned to common goals, language, and expectations. One
component of building organizational coherence and support is the feedback protocol. Improved
practice is informed by and cascades from consistent feedback.
Once the first three steps in the feedback protocol (differentiated support, teaching
practice, and targeted feedback) have been implemented, the context for accountability emerges.
Districts must hold principals accountable for ensuring an environment and culture that
facilitates the rigorous integration of instructional technology for African American and Latino
students. Principals must hold all teachers accountable for using technology to engage students
of color in cognitively demanding tasks. The SLDD cannot be eliminated without accountability.
Furthermore, the closure of the SLDD is a moral issue that public schools have the power to
impact. Without educator intervention, African American and Latino students will continue to
suffer from educational, economic, social, and political disenfranchisement.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 122
The first step in holding teachers accountable to closing the SLDD is building their
capacity to do so (Elmore, 1997). Building teacher capacity means providing professional
development, coaching, and feedback. These support structures build a support architecture that
impacts the integration of technology. When principals create and maintain these support
structures, they encourage the robust integration of technology.
In order to leverage these support structures for improved practice, teachers require
differentiated support. Varying levels of instructional technology proficiency mean that support
must meet teachers at their performance level. Professional development, coaching, and feedback
should be targeted to the individual needs of teachers. This precise approach to capacity building
will allow for sustained growth for all teachers. Principals are responsible for ensuring that their
support architectures meet teachers’ needs as a group and as individuals. Meeting the individual
needs of teachers also empowers individual teacher accountability in closing the SLDD.
Recommendations for Future Research
High-performing technologists (teachers, coaches, and site administrators) were studied
in the current research. Further research is needed on teachers of African American and Latino
students who are not integrating technology robustly. The instructional technology philosophy of
high-performing technology educators reflects a strong belief in the importance of technology in
their students’ futures, especially in terms of access, equity, and empowerment. However, the
literature provides little to no meaningful understanding of why many educators do not
incorporate technology in their classrooms. Given the prevalence of smart phones and tablets,
with their myriad capacities, it is inconceivable that these teachers do not recognize the value of
technology. What remains unexplained is why teachers would not want to use a valuable
resource with their most vulnerable students.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 123
The systemic barriers to integrating technology for African American and Latino students
has been studied at length. And, yet, a significant still gap exists. Thus, future research must
explore beyond the boundaries of traditional systemic barriers. Recommendations for future
research include:
• Study whether less effective technology teachers differ from highly effective
technology teachers in their belief systems. A true commitment to closing the
SLDD would benefit from further research around the belief systems of teachers
of African American and Latino students as it pertains to technology.
• Investigate the impact of principal-differentiated instructional technology
professional development. The principals in this study noted the lack of
differentiated professional development targeted specifically towards them. In
order to close the SLDD, it is important to understand the scope of change
possible if principals were better prepared to support the teachers and specialists
in their buildings. Additionally, it is important to discern how such change could
be leveraged into systemic change that closes the SLDD.
• Identify the characteristics of teachers who create “pockets of instructional
technology excellence” and the impact of their principals’ leadership moves as
compared to those of teachers who do not create “pockets of instructional
technology excellence.”
Conclusions
A critical worldview is the lens through which this study was conducted. In order to
interrupt the cycles of injustice visited upon African American and Latino students, a
transformative justice approach must be levied to remedy the educational debt owed to these
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 124
students. A transformative justice approach includes acknowledging that a “state of harm” exists,
looking for divergent strategies to remedy the harm, ensuring that the remedies are rooted in
community-oriented strategies, and “transforming the root causes of the harm” (Brown, 2017, p.
135).
The integration of technology is inherently worthwhile because today’s educational
standards call for student technology proficiency. Educators are charged with ensuring that
students meet or exceed academic standards. However, the lack of technology integration takes
on equity and access dimensions when it fails to meet these same needs in low-socioeconomic
students of color. The lack of access to rigorous technology integration poses life-altering
consequences for these students, including lack of access to educational, political, economic, and
social systems and opportunities. Therefore, closing the SLDD is not only an educational issue
but a moral issue and a civil rights issue.
These educational, moral, and civil rights issues necessitate a proactive, intentional
approach on the parts of all educators, from district administrators to principals to teachers. The
approach must include professional development, coaching, feedback, and accountability
specific to closing the SLDD. When this systematic approach is implemented, the promise of
American public education will be kept, and the debt owed to students of color will be paid
down.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 125
References
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation
of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-82.
doi:10.1177/0013161X04269517
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn't
happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education , 13(4), 519-546.
Becker, H. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers. Journal
of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291-321.
doi:10.1080/08886504.1994.10782093
Bernal, D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered
epistemologies: recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge.
Retrieved from https://blogs.brown.edu/amst-2220j-s01-2017-fall/files/2017/10/Delgado-
Bernal-2002.pdf
Berrett, B., Murphy, J., & Sullivan, J. (2012). Administrator insights and reflections: technology
integration in schools. The Qualitative Report , 17(1), 200-221.
Blumer, H. (1966). Sociological implications of the thought of George Herbert Mead. American
Journal of Sociology, 71(5), 535-544.
Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Brown, A. M. (2017). Emergent strategy: Shaping change, changing worlds. Chico, CA: AK
Press.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 126
Brown, B., & Jacobsen, M. (2016). Principals' technology leadership: How a conceptual
framework shaped a mixed methods study. Journal of School Leadership, 26, 811-836.
doi.org/10.1177/105268461602600504
Butler, O. (1993). Parable of the sower. New York, NY: First Trade Printing.
Clarke, G., & Zagarell, J. (2012). Technology in the classroom: Teachers and technology: A
technological divide. Childhood Education, 88(2), 136-139. doi:10.1080/
00094056.2012.662140
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support
at-risk students' learning. Retrieved from https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/
default/files/scope-pub-using-technology-report.pdf
Davies, P. M. (2010). On school educational technology leadership. Management in Education,
24(2), 55-61. doi:10.1177/0892020610363089
Dexter, S. (2011). School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice. Journal of
School Leadership, 21, 166-189. doi:10.1177/105268461102100202
Dolan, J. E. (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.
doi: 10.108/15391523.2015.1103147
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 127
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership . Retrieved from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/shanker/files/building.pdf
Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and
instructional improvement. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED416203.pdf
Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Lefwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education , 42(3), 255-284. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.0782551
Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich. A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes
required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers &
Education(64), 175-182. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008
Fields, J., Copp, M., & Kleinman, S. (2006). Symbolic interactionism, inequality, and emotions.
In J. Stets & J. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of emotion (155-178).
Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century
principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142.
doi:10.1108/09578230310464648
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing Impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harper, B., & Milman, N. (2016). One-to-one technology in K-12 classrooms: A review of the
literature from 2004-2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 129-
142. doi:10.1080/15391523.2016.1146564
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 128
Hohfield, T., Ritzhaupt, A., Barron, A., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-
12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers &
Education, 51, 1648-1663. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.002
Hur, J. W., Shannon, D., & Wolf, S. (2016). An investigation of relationships between internal
and external factors affecting technology integration in classrooms. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education , 32(3), 105-114. doi:10.1080/21532974.2016.1169959
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2009). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12
classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2),
137-154. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y
Kalyanpur, M., & Kirmani, M. (2005). Diversity and technology: Classroom implications of the
digital divide. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(4), 9-39.
Kim, S. H., & Bagaka, J. (2005). The digital divide in students' usage of technology tools: A
multilevel analysis the role of teacher practices and classroom characteristics.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education , 5(3/4), 318-329.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. American Educational Research Association, 35(7), 3-12.
Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J. J., & Nao, K. (2017). Stuck in the shallow end:
Education, race, and computing (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 129
McKnight, K., O'Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Kelly Horsley, M., Franey, J., & Bassett, K. (2016).
Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 48(3), 194-211.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856
McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage. Journal
of School Leadership, 21, 216-240. doi:10.1177/105268461102100204
Mead, G. and Morris, C. (1934). Mind, self & society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4 ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morse, T. (2004). Ensuring equality of educational opportunity in the digital age. Education and
Urban Society, 36(3), 266-279. doi:10.117/001324504264103
Newmann, F. M., Rutter, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational factors that affect school
sense of efficacy, community, and expectations. Sociology of Education, 62(4), 221-238.
doi:10.2307/2112828
Obolensky , N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Gower Publishing.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pearson, T. (2002). Falling Behind: A technology crisis facing minority students. TechTrends,
46, 15-20.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 130
Reinhart, J., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. (2011). K-12 teachers: Technology use and the second
digital divide. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3/4), 181-193.
Richardson, J. W., Bathon, J., Flora, K. L., & Lewis, W. D. (2012). NETS-A scholarship: A
review of published literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 45(2),
131-151. doi:10.1080/15391523.2012.10782600
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Liu, F., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2013). Differences in student
information and communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status,
ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 45, 291-307. doi:10.1080/
15391523.2013.10782607
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of
Education, 93(3), 352-388. doi:10.1086/443805
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (1986). Organizational conditions of teacher learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2), 91-104. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(86)90008-9
Shaffer, D. W., Nash, P., & Ruis, A. (2015). Technology and the new professionalization of
teaching. Teachers College Record, 117(120301), 1-30.
Schnellert, G., & Keengwe, J. (2012). Digital technology integration in American public
schools. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology
Education, 8(3), 36-44. doi:10.4018/jicte.2012070105
Schrum, L., Galizio, L. M., & Ledesma, P. (2011). Educational leadership and technology
integration: An investigation into preparation, experiences, and roles. Journal of School
Leadership, 21, 241-261. doi:10.1177/105268461102100205
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 131
Shattuck, G. (2010). Understanding school leaders' role in teachers' adoption of technology
integration classroom practices. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook , 35, 7-28.
Sincar, M. (2013). Challenges school principals facing in the context of technology leadership.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(2), 1273-1284.
Stanhope, D., & Corn, J. (2014). Acquiring teacher commitment to 1:1 initiatives: The role of the
technology facilitator. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 252-276.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2014.888271
Sugar, W. (2005). Instructional technologist as a coach: Impact of a situated professional
development program on teachers' technology use. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 13(4), 547-571.
Valdez, J., & Duran, R. (2007). Redefining the digital divide: Beyond access to computers and
the internet. The High School Journal, 90(3), 31-44. doi:10.1353/hsj.2007.0013
VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: guiding schools to better
teaching and learning. Retrieved from https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-
center/Documents/The-School-Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-
and-Learning-2nd-Ed.pdf
Warschauer, M. (2011). Learning in the Cloud: How (and Why) to Transform School with
Digital Media. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Warschauer, M. (2011). Learning in the cloud: How (and why) to transform schools with digital
media. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 132
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,
179-225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791
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
Zielezinski, M. B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Promising practices: A literature review of
technology use by underserved students. Retrieved from https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/
sites/default/files/publications/scope-report-promising-practices-v1.pdf

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 133
Appendix A: Theoretical Matrix
I. Title: The Principal’s Role in Closing the Second-Level Digital Divide and Paying the
Educational Debt to African American and Latino Elementary Students

II. Importance of Problem
This problem is important to address because students require 21st Century skills in order
to fully access a democratic society, college, and career. Furthermore, they will not be
able to fully access the opportunities available through globalization. Students of color
who attend school in high poverty settings experience a digital divide that will impact
their access to successfully completing college and entering a career that is likely to lift
them out of poverty.

The hardware gap has improved over the last decade. African American and Latino
students have more access to technology at school. However, their use of technology
tends not to be demanding in a way that develops critical thinking. The problem is that
the digital use gap between African American and Latino, low-SES students and their
White, high-SES peers continues to grow. Remedying this gap is a moral imperative. If
not solved, these students will have less access to and success in higher education and
high-paying jobs than do more affluent White students. SSLD access will “further
amplify the already too-large educational inequities in American society” (Warschaeur &
Matuchniak, 2010). Educators should learn from past inequities suffered by minority
students in order to avoid an additional layer of student disenfranchisement from college
and career preparedness. The precedent for ensuring access and equity has already been
established by Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka (1954).

III. Research Questions
1. What is the impact of elementary school principals at high-performing, urban schools on
closing the SLDD?

2. In what ways do teachers perceive they are being supported by their principals

IV. Threes key literature findings from Chapter 2

Theoretical Framework
Symbolic Interactionalism (interaction between cultural subgroups)
• Human beings engage based on the meaning things have for them
• This meaning arises from social interaction that one has with fellow human beings
• An interpretive process (1) is the context for meaning making and (2) can lead to
the construction of new meaning

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 134
Professional Development
• Differentiated to Student Needs
Instructional technology needs of students of color
• Differentiated to Teacher Needs
Using technology to teach higher order critical thinking skills
Using technology to design lessons that support students of color in mastering
college and career readiness skills
• Context Embedded

Support
• Instructional Technology Coaches
• Peer Coaching

Principal Leadership (Most significant factor in moving student achievement on a school
level)
• Feedback Loop
• Modeling
• School Culture & Systems
V. Methodology ideas
• Semi-Structured Interviews
• Observations
• Purposive Sampling
VI. Theoretical Alignment Matrix

Research Questions Data Theoretical Framework Instrument Question
What is the impact of
elementary school principals
at high-performing, urban
schools on closing the SLDD?

Symbolic Interactionalism
(interaction between cultural
subgroups)

(Shattuck, 2010)

Interview Questions

Observation

Document Review
In what ways do teachers
perceive they are being
supported by their principals?
Symbolic Interactionalism
(interaction between cultural
subgroups)

(Shattuck, 2010)

Interview Questions

Observation

Document Review

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 135
Appendix B: USC IRB Approval
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board
1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90033-9269
Telephone: (323) 442-0114
Fax: (323) 224-8389
Email: irb@usc.edu

Date: Dec 16, 2018, 03:17pm
Action Taken: Approve
Principal
Investigator:
Bernadette Lucas
ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Faculty
Advisor:
Patricia Tobey
OFFICE OF THE PROVOST
Co-
Investigator(s):

Project Title: Leveraging the Principalship for Instructional Technology Equity
Study ID: UP-18-00817
Funding: N/A - no funding source listed

The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) designee determined that your project
meets the requirements outlined in 45 CFR 46.101(b) categories (1) & (2) and qualifies for
exemption from IRB review. This study was approved on 12/16/018 and is not subject to further
IRB review.

Consent and recruitment documents are not required to be uploaded for exempt studies;
however, researchers are reminded that USC follows the principles of the Belmont Report,
which requires all potential participants to be informed of the research study, their rights as a
participant, confidentiality of their data, etc. It is recommended that you utilize the Information
Sheet For Exempt Research and revise the template to be specific to your study. This document
will not be reviewed by the IRB. It is the responsibility of the researcher to make sure the
document is consistent with the study procedures listed in the application.

**Per USC Policy, someone may not collect data about people he or she oversees in a
professional capacity. Please ensure that someone on the study (represented in 2.1, with the
required human subjects certification) is able to serve as an independent data collector. Further,
data must be stripped of any identifying information before being provided to people who have
the supervisory relationship in order to protect the confidentiality of the participant responses.**

Because your research involves regular interaction with minors, you or your faculty advisor [if
you are a student] are:

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 136
1. A mandated reporter under state law required to report to state authorities if you become
aware of child abuse. Click here for more information about mandated reporters.
2. Covered under USC’s protecting minors policy, and must register your research with the
Office of Equity and Diversity and complete training. Click here to register and take the
training.

You are responsible for ensuring that your project complies with all federal, state, local and
institutional standards. Please check with all participating sites to make sure you have their
permission (including IRB/ethics board approval, if applicable) to conduct research prior to
beginning your study.

All submissions, including new applications, contingency responses, amendments and
continuing reviews are reviewed in the order received.
Attachments:
Guidance for Recruitment Tool.doc
Information Sheet for Exempt or Flex-Exempt Studies, dated 07-01-2018 (1).doc
Updated IRB Contact Information.doc

Social-behavioral health-related interventions or health-outcome studies must register
with clinicaltrials.gov or other International Community of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
approved registries in order to be published in an ICJME journal. The ICMJE will not accept
studies for publication unless the studies are registered prior to enrollment, despite the fact that
these studies are not applicable “clinical trials” as defined by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). For support with registration, go to www.clinicaltrials.gov or contact Jean Chan
(jeanbcha@usc.edu, 323-442-2825).

Important
The principal investigator for this study is responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals before
commencing research. Please be sure that you have satisfied applicable requirements, for example conflicts of
interest, bio safety, radiation safety, biorepositories, credentialing, data security, sponsor
approval, clinicaltrials.gov or school approval. IRB approval does not convey approval to commence research
in the event that other requirements have not been satisfied.

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 137
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Protocol

Thank you so much for taking the time to participate in this pilot study. As I have previously
shared, I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. I am researching the
instructional use of technology in the classroom for African American and Latino students. If it
is okay, I would like to tape our interview so that I do not miss any of your comments or
responses. Your name and school will not be included in any discussions or writing related to
this pilot study. In other words, your demographic information will be kept completely
confidential.

Researcher: I would first like to ask a couple of introductory questions.

1. Please share your name, grade level, and school.
2. How long have you been a teacher?
3. Please describe your professional background including education and other positions
that you have held.
4. Please describe your philosophy on the use of instructional technology in the classroom?
5. What are your thoughts on preparing students of color to deftly use technology in a
global context?
6. How would you describe the overall use of technology in your classroom?

Researcher: I’m going to, now, transition to questions about the professional development and
support teachers participate in as it relates to the integration of instructional technology to teach
critical thinking skills.

7. How do teachers receive feedback on their integration of instructional technology?
8. What would happen were teachers not to be given feedback on how they are using
technology to advance your student’s critical thinking skills?
9. In your opinion, to what extent has instructional technology professional development
prepared teachers to develop critical thinking skills in your students? Please share
specific examples or evidence.
10. How has instructional technology professional development translated to classroom
practice of designing learning experiences to develop critical thinking in African
American and Latino students?
11. Please describe the support structures put in place to support teacher integration of
instructional technology to develop students’ critical thinking skills. How effective do
you think those structures have been?
12. In an ideal situation, what would support look like for teachers in order to ensure that
they were able to teach critical thinking skills to African American and Latino students
using technology?
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 138
13. In what ways to you think support and/ or professional development for teachers of
African American and Latino students should be different when it comes to technology
integration?

Researcher: We’re going to move to questions related to the impact of school culture on the
integration of instructional technology.

14. In what ways do you feel the principal has supported a culture that encourages teachers to
use technology to teach critical thinking skills?
15. How does the faculty including teachers and administrators calibrate and align their
understanding of the components of effective technology integration for African
American and Latino students? The components include language related to this effort,
teaching expectations, learning expectations, and accountability.
16. How does the faculty build common language and understanding of the components that
are necessary to the integration of technology that leads to African American and Latino
students building and mastering critical thinking skills?
17. How is the culture different than what it was before technology was being used to teach
critical thinking skills?
18. What would you say the principal is doing to support the integration of instructional
technology? What could be improved?
19. Some teachers may not feel committed to the integration of technology if their principals
do not model the use of technology. What would you tell them?
20. What specific ways does the principal model the use of technology with his/ her teachers
and students?

Researcher: I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to participate in the observation and
interview. Your time has contributed to my learning and will contribute to the body of
knowledge on this topic. Do you have any questions for me?

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 139
Appendix D: Coach Interview Protocol
Thank you so much for taking the time to participate in this pilot study. As I have previously
shared, I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. I am researching the
instructional use of technology in the classroom for African American and Latino students. If it
is okay, I would like to tape our interview so that I do not miss any of your comments or
responses. Your name and school will not be included in any discussions or writing related to
this pilot study. In other words, your demographic information will be kept completely
confidential.

Researcher: I would first like to ask a couple of introductory questions.

1. Please share your name and school.
2. How long have you been a coach? Please describe your job roles and responsibilities.
3. Please describe your professional background including education and other positions
that you have held.
4. Please describe your philosophy on the use of instructional technology in the classroom?
5. What are your thoughts on preparing students of color to deftly use technology in a
global context?
6. How would you describe the overall use of technology in your classroom?

Researcher: I’m going to, now, transition to questions about the professional development and
support teachers participate in as it relates to the integration of instructional technology to teach
critical thinking skills.

7. How has your role as coach contributed to the rigorous integration of technology in a way
that facilitates the rigorous integration of technology? Please provide specific examples.
8. How do teachers receive feedback on their integration of instructional technology?
9. What would happen were teachers not to be given feedback on how they are using
technology to advance your student’s critical thinking skills?
10. In your opinion, to what extent has instructional technology professional development
prepared teachers to develop critical thinking skills in your students? Please share
specific examples or evidence.
11. How has instructional technology professional development translated to classroom
practice of designing learning experiences to develop critical thinking in African
American and Latino students?
12. Please describe the support structures put in place to support teacher integration of
instructional technology to develop students’ critical thinking skills. How effective do
you think those structures have been?
13. In an ideal situation, what would support look like for teachers in order to ensure that
they were able to teach critical thinking skills to African American and Latino students
using technology?
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 140
14. In what ways to you think support and/ or professional development for teachers of
African American and Latino students should be different when it comes to technology
integration?

Researcher: We’re going to move to questions related to the impact of school culture on the
integration of instructional technology.

15. In what ways do you feel the principal has supported a culture that encourages teachers to
use technology to teach critical thinking skills?
16. How has your principal modeled and advocated the rigorous integration of technology?
17. How are teachers held accountable for integrating technology that facilitates student
mastery of critical thinking skills?
18. How does the faculty including teachers, coaches, and administrators calibrate and align
their understanding of the components of effective technology integration for African
American and Latino students? The components include language related to this effort,
teaching expectations, learning expectations, and accountability.
19. How does the faculty build common language and understanding of the components that
are necessary to the integration of technology that leads to African American and Latino
students building and mastering critical thinking skills?
20. Please describe the role you believe principals play in closing the second-level digital
divide?
21. What would you say the principal is doing to support the integration of instructional
technology? What could be improved?
22. Some teachers may not feel committed to the integration of technology if their principals
do not model the use of technology. What would you tell them?
23. What specific ways does the principal model the use of technology with his/ her teachers
and students?

Researcher: I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to participate in the observation and
interview. Your time has contributed to my learning and will contribute to the body of
knowledge on this topic. Do you have any questions for me?

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 141
Appendix E: Principal Interview Protocol

Thank you so much for taking the time to participate in this study. As I have previously shared, I
am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. I am researching the instructional
use of technology in the classroom for African American and Latino students. If it is okay, I
would like to tape our interview so that I do not miss any of your comments or responses. Your
name and school will not be included in any discussions or writing related to this research study.

Researcher: I would first like to ask a few of introductory questions.
1. Please share your name, grade level, and school.
2. How long have you been a principal?
3. What other roles in education have you held?
4. Please describe your philosophy on the use of instructional technology in the classroom?
5. Please describe the degree to which you believe it is important for African American and
Latino students to master the use of technology in general and specifically when it comes
to using technology to learn higher order thinking skills? What role does a principal play
in advancing technology proficiency for African American and Latino students?
6. How would you describe the overall use of technology in your school?

Researcher: I’m going to now transition to questions about the professional development and
support teachers and principals participate in as it relates to the integration of instructional
technology to teach critical thinking skills.

7. How do teachers receive feedback on their integration of instructional technology?
8. How would you define critical thinking skills?
9. Please describe any professional development, support, or coaching you have received to
support teachers as they integrate instructional technology in the instructional program.
10. How do you view your role in leading the instructional technology initiative at your
school?
11. In your opinion, to what extent has instructional technology professional development
prepared teachers to develop critical thinking skills in your students? Please share
specific examples or evidence.
12. How has instructional technology professional development translated to classroom
practice of designing learning experiences to develop critical thinking in African
American and Latino students?
13. Please describe the support structures put in place to support teacher integration of
instructional technology to develop students’ critical thinking skills. Support structures
can include human support, IT support, and/ or cultural support. How effective do you
think those structures have been?
14. In an ideal situation, what would support look like for teachers in order to ensure that
they were able to teach critical thinking skills using technology?
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 142
15. In what ways to you think support for teachers of African American and Latino students
should be different when it comes to technology integration?
16. In what ways to you think support and/ or professional development for principals of
African American and Latino students should be different when it comes to technology
integration?

Researcher: We’re going to move to questions related to the impact of school culture on the
integration of instructional technology.
17. In what ways do you feel that you as a principal have supported a culture that encourages
teachers to use technology to teach critical thinking skills.
18. How does the faculty including teachers and administrators calibrate and align their
understanding of the components of effective technology integration for African
American and Latino students? The components include language related to this effort,
teaching expectations, learning expectations, and accountability.
19. What would you say you are specifically doing to support the integration of instructional
technology? What could be improved? Please provide specific examples.
20. Please describe the extent to which you model the use of technology to facilitate teaching
and learning. What evidence to you have that your modeling has impacted teacher use of
instructional technology to teach critical thinking skills?

Researcher: I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to participate in the observation and
interview. Your time has contributed to my learning and will contribute to the body of
knowledge on this topic. Do you have any questions for me?

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 143
Appendix F: Director of Technology Interview Protocol

Thank you so much for taking the time to participate in this research study. As I have previously
shared, I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. I am researching the
instructional use of technology in the classroom for African American and Latino students. If it
is okay, I would like to tape our interview so that I do not miss any of your comments or
responses. Your name and school will not be included in any discussions or writing related to
this research study.

Researcher: I would first like to ask a couple of introductory questions.
1. Please share your name, grade level, and school.
2. How long have you been a Director of Technology?
3. Please describe your philosophy on the use of instructional technology in the classroom?
4. Please describe the degree to which you believe it is important for African American and
Latino students to master the use of technology in general and specifically when it comes
to using technology to learn higher order thinking skills?
5. How would you describe the overall use of technology in your district?

Researcher: I’m going to now transition to questions about the professional development and
support teachers and principals participate in as it relates to the integration of instructional
technology to teach critical thinking skills.

6. How do teachers receive feedback on their integration of instructional technology?
7. How would you define critical thinking skills?
8. Please describe any professional development, support, or coaching you have received to
support teachers as they integrate instructional technology in the instructional program.
9. How do you view your role in leading the instructional technology initiative at your
school?
10. In your opinion, to what extent has instructional technology professional development
prepared teachers to develop critical thinking skills in your students? Please share
specific examples or evidence.
11. How has instructional technology professional development translated to classroom
practice of designing learning experiences to develop critical thinking in African
American and Latino students?
12. Please describe the support structures put in place to support teacher integration of
instructional technology to develop students’ critical thinking skills. How effective do
you think those structures have been?
13. In an ideal situation, what would support look like for teachers in order to ensure that
they were able to teach critical thinking skills using technology?
14. In what ways to you think support for teachers of African American and Latino students
should be different when it comes to technology integration?
LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 144
15. In what ways to you think support and/ or professional development for principals of
African American and Latino students should be different when it comes to technology
integration?

Researcher: We’re going to move to questions related to the impact of school culture on the
integration of instructional technology.
16. In what ways do you feel that you as a principal have supported a culture that encourages
teachers to use technology to teach critical thinking skills.
17. How is the culture different than what it was before technology was being used to teach
critical thinking skills?
18. What would you say you are doing to support the integration of instructional technology?
What could be improved?
19. Please describe the extent to which you model the use of technology to facilitate teaching
and learning. What evidence to you have that your modeling has impacted teacher use of
instructional technology to teach critical thinking skills?

Researcher: I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to participate in the observation and
interview. Your time has contributed to my learning and will contribute to the body of
knowledge on this topic. Do you have any questions for me?

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 145
Appendix G: Observation Protocol: Professional Development

Thank you so much for taking the time to participate in this research study. I am a doctoral
student at the University of Southern California. I am researching the instructional use of
technology in the classroom for African American and Latino students. If it is okay, I would
observe your participation in this professional development. Your name and school will not be
included in any discussions or writing related to this pilot study.

Seating Arrangement of Professional Learning Session & Notes

Professional Learning
Leader’s Behaviors &
Quotes
Teacher Behaviors &
Quotes
Principal Behaviors &
Quotes

LEVERAGING THE PRINCIPALSHIP 146
Appendix H: Qualitative Codebook

Name Description Files References
Culture The organizational norms, beliefs, values, and behaviors that create the identity of an organization.
The context in which the work of the organization occurs.
5 34
Common Language Faculty (teachers, coaches, and administrators) sharing the same meaning for related to the SLDD. 3 8
Data-Driven Stakeholders ability to use data to make instructional decisions. 1 6
Instructional
Structures
Predictable communicates, ad agreed upon instructional approaches that facilitate a common
understanding of how a faculty approaches educating students.
3 8
Modeling Behaviors that the principal exhibits that provides exemplars and expectations regarding the manner
in which technology should be used to further student learning at a specific school site.
2 5
Risk-Taking The willingness to calculated risks in order to improve professional practice and learning in the
context of student and faculty learning and acquisition of new skills and competencies. Principals and
teachers must create environments where all stakeholders feel safe to take risks as instructional
technology is integrated.
1 3
Vision A common, clear understanding within the educational organization of the goals, expectations as
relate to the future. The vision represents the ideal state of the organization. The vision allows
stakeholders to work with a common focus.
2 4
Equity Equity represents leveled access to not only physical technology and infrastructure, but also the
cognitively demanding tasks that are possible with technology.
5 21
Access The ability of students to acquire all the benefits of technology regardless of race, ethnicity, socio-
iconic status, etc.
2 3
Accountability The responsibility of the adults in the organization to ensure that robust instructional technology is
taking place for all students. Accountability requires that individual teachers and site administrators
be held responsible for meeting the needs of all students as it relates to robust instructional
technology integration.
2 6
Expectations Clear goals and objectives related to instructional technology integration. Once expectations are
agreed upon and clearly communicated, educators can be held accountable for meeting expectations.
A critical component of expectations is that those responsible for fulfilling them must be supported to
meet the expectations.
4 8
Support Support includes a clear architecture that provides the resources to build the capacity of stakeholders
to meet expectations. Support as it relates to the SLDD includes: coaching, differentiated professional
development, time, etc.
6 41
Coaching Guided feedback, modeling, and guidance to those acquiring or refining a skill. Coaching is
necessary is an essential support component and should accompany a professional development
model.
3 8
Feedback Feedback is the reaction to a performed task or event in which a teacher or principal has displayed a
skill. Feedback is aligned to expectations and focuses on professional growth.
4 8
Professional
Development for
Principals
Ongoing learning for principals to prepare them to close the SLDD. 1 1
Professional
Development
Teachers
Ongoing learning for teachers that prepares them to close the SLDD. 6 24

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Today’s elementary school students require 21st century skills to gain entrance to college, achieve career readiness, and fully access the benefits of a democratic society. Unfortunately, the Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD) disproportionately creates a barrier for low socio-economic status African American and Latino students to acquire these critical skills. The SLDD is the inequity in how instructional technology is used in the classroom to develop cognitive ability, critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaborative skills. Low-level use of technology does not prepare minority students who are living in poverty for economic self-sustainability that comes with college preparedness, career readiness, and competitive participation in the global economy. A crucial variable in student achievement is the classroom teacher, whose key to growth and effectiveness is the principal. A principal’s leadership and support impact the extent to which technology is integrated into daily classroom instructional strategies. The current research study addresses the lack of access to cognitively challenging instructional technology strategies among low socio-economic status minority students. A qualitative design was used to explore the experiences of principals and teachers as they worked to integrate instructional technology to advance higher order thinking skills. The study design included teacher interviews and observations of classrooms in order to understand how technology is leveraged to advance higher order thinking skills.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers

PDF

A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school

PDF

Using technology to drive high academic achievement

PDF

Instructional technology integration in a parochial school district: an evaluation study

PDF

Equity and access: meeting the needs of diverse learners with UDL in elementary general education

PDF

Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers

PDF

Technology integration and implementation in curriculum and instruction in K–12 schools

PDF

College-educated older adults and information and communications technology

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Instructional coaching and educational technology in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools with educational technolo...

PDF

Effective implementation of technology in elementary schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school

PDF

Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

PDF

Instructional coaching in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs in elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher self-efficacy with educational...

PDF

Hawaiʻi public school principals' level of technology use and the meaningful integration of technology in their school

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district

PDF

Cultural proficiency to provide equity for African American and other students of color: an evaluation study

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

Asset Metadata

Creator Lucas, Bernadette Cecilia (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 12/03/2019

Defense Date 07/10/2019

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

Tag Coaching,elementary school,equity,instruction technology,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational coherence,Principal,second-level digital divide,technology gap

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Combs, Wayne (committee member), Hinga, Briana (committee member)

Creator Email bernadel@usc.edu,bernadette.lucas22@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-242965

Unique identifier UC11673995

Identifier etd-LucasBerna-7976.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-242965 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LucasBerna-7976.pdf

Dmrecord 242965

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lucas, Bernadette Cecilia

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