EDUC-5373 | Week 2 | Digital Leadership Framework

Applying Leadership/Technology Frameworks to Bridge the Digital Divide in the ATS

Who are the stakeholders that you would reach out to first to develop a technology integration plan?

My Call-to-Action identified the digital divide at the USAF Aircrew Training System (ATS) as it relates to aircrew trainees' digital literacy levels and the instructors' inadequate digital competency. For the KC-135 ATS at Altus AFB, I would begin by reaching out to a diverse group of stakeholders who directly or indirectly influence the training outcomes. This includes pilot and boom operator instructors (the frontline implementers), courseware developers (instructional designers like myself), subject matter experts (SMEs), and ATS program leadership. I would also include representatives from Air Education and Training Command (AETC), system administrators who manage the LMS and CBT systems, and select student trainees to gather indirect input through instructor feedback. For a broader perspective, I would like to include community technology advocates from our TMS and education technology consultants with USAF Training Experience (Buttry, 2025).

How might technology integration be aligned with current projects or goals in your organization?

Technology integration aligns directly with ongoing modernization efforts within the ATS. One major project currently underway is the transition from legacy training platforms to more interactive solutions such as AR, VR, and XR simulation tools. These efforts are designed to improve training realism, reduce time in full-motion simulators, and address the uneven digital literacy skills among new trainees. My Call-to-Action proposed structured onboarding, digital literacy assessments, and instructor competency training—all of which align with the goals of improving training throughput and mission readiness (Buttry, 2025).

How would you structure opportunities or take advantage of current practices to learn together and build capacity to implement the plan?

I would begin by identifying existing touchpoints, such as weekly instructor meetings (TSCWG) and quarterly Systems Review Board (SRB) meetings, where digital training concerns are already discussed. I would propose the use of “champion instructors,” a strategy recommended in the Microsoft Education Transformation Framework, to serve as mentors and lead early implementation efforts (Microsoft, 2014). These individuals would model digital best practices, facilitate micro-workshops, and help build trust among peers. I’d also use our current LMS analytics and annual courseware review sessions as opportunities for collective learning about where digital gaps exist and how to respond collaboratively.

What outcomes might you focus on to provide input/feedback for your plan?

I would focus on four key outcomes aligned with the findings in my Call-to-Action:

• Improvement in digital literacy scores among trainees after onboarding and assessments.
• Reduction in remediation hours due to trainees' lack of digital skills.
• Increased instructor confidence using digital tools like XR and LMS platforms, measured through surveys and self-evaluations.
• Improved CBT and LMS completion times and reduced delays in training progress.

These outcomes also address key areas identified in digital divide research, including socioeconomic and geographic disparities in digital preparedness (Ma, 2021; Kormos, 2018; Buttry, 2025).

Choose a model for change from the readings that resonates with you and briefly discuss application of this model to your community.

• Falloon’s TDC Framework for instructor development and tech integration
• Microsoft’s Education Transformation Framework for leadership planning

The Microsoft Education Transformation Framework stands out to me because it supports systemic change through collaboration, vision, leadership capacity, and sustainable planning (Microsoft, 2014). In the context of the ATS, this framework allows for strategic planning across USAF and contractor teams, defines the leadership roles at multiple levels (from TSSC staff, instructors, AETC decision-makers), and promotes inclusive technology integration. It also aligns well with the use of digital onboarding and instructor development described in my Call-to-Action (Buttry, 2025).

This Framework will be paired with Falloon’s Teacher Digital Competency (TDC) Framework, which provides a roadmap for assessing and supporting instructor competencies in a holistic way. The combination of the two will provide both the leadership and instructional development focus needed to bridge the digital divide in the USAF ATS environment (Falloon, 2020).

References

Buttry, B. (2025). A call to action: Bridging the digital divide in aircrew training [Unpublished manuscript]. Southeastern Oklahoma State University.

Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4

Kormos, E. M. (2018). The unseen digital divide: Urban, suburban, and rural teacher use and perceptions of web-based classroom technologies. Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2018.1429168

Ma, J. K.-H. (2021). The digital divide at school and at home: A comparison between schools by socioeconomic level across 47 countries. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 62(2), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207152211023540

Microsoft Corporation. (2014). Microsoft Education Transformation Framework Overview. https://www.microsoft.com/education