Running Head: PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Professional Technology Development: Preparation for K-12 Educators

Amy I. Keithley
Western Oregon University

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION
Professional development trainings are currently being employed across the nation.
These trainings help define how technology is being integrated into our schools. Tools and
technological knowledge are key to helping students in the 21st century rise to their full potential.
Teachers can harness technology to expand the horizons of teaching by connecting to other
persons around the world, integrating primary resources, and exercising creativity and innovation
in their work. Ideally, students can then - through that technology - learn in new ways and
develop necessary academic skill sets.
Research has shown that the degree of teacher change within the classroom is directly
linked to the quality of professional development experiences (Desimore, Porter, Garet, Yoon, &
Birman, 2002). Although each school district looks at professional development through
different lenses, many of their conclusions have similar findings. Professional development must
include series of trainings, reciprocal relationships, authenticity in practice, and self-efficacy in
order to create the most effective integration of technology in K-12 classrooms.

SERIES OF TRAININGS
More often than not, current professional development trainings are seen as a time quota
fulfillment on hot topics rather than a meaningful, constant game plan for change. Effective
technology trainings must occur in sets, or series, in an effort to ensure better results for teachers
and their students alike. Schrum (1999) saw that brief exposure does not provide sufficient
trainings or practice to incorporate technology into the classroom (p. 85). While this is true for
most new content or learning experiences, it is especially true for technology trainings due to
their complex nature. Time and time again research has shown that one-day, highly focused

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

workshops are ineffective in the long term. Instead of the current system of quota-filling oneday sessions, professional development needs to become an ongoing experience. Teachers and
administrators need to come together to create an overall plan that works well for everyone and
allows for the necessary time expenditure of follow-up sessions.
Most current training models today are conservative and traditional. Traditional training
models are seen as short seminars hosted by an expert or after school workshops [] without
follow-up, support or directiontrainings [should] be geared towards teachers perceived needs
and goals (Ivers, 2002, p. 3). Such trainings focus on highly specified topics without context,
authenticity, or practiced application. The tools and topics, while intriguing, are being
introduced without assessing or discussing the current gaps between curriculum and technology
use. Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) reiterated this point by noting that technology is not
effectively being integrated into the curriculum. Often technology is solely being used in the
classroom because it is mandated, not because it is an integral component that transforms
teaching and learning.
For a more effective training model, a paradigm shift must occur. Schlager and Fusco
(2003) provided a key alternative view with professional development being viewed as a careerlong, context-specific, continuous endeavor that is guided by standards, grounded in the
teachers own work, focused on student learning, and tailored to the teachers stage of career
development (p. 205). Flashy hot topics and tools are no longer the focus in this new kind of
training model. Instead, educators can use content standards (Common Core State Standards or
CSS) and technology standards (International Society of Technology in Education Standards or
ISTE) to guide real and necessary technology integration into their curriculum.

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

This type of training still allows for creativity and flexibility. Leh (2005) found utilizing
different types of groups (large and small) along with individualized trainings with mentors to be
successful in maintaining productivity in the long run. Time suddenly becomes maximized;
educators can learn new tools while also collaborating with colleagues to test and implement new
ideas. With the framing mindset of longevity, new series of trainings will allow educators to
have their needs heard and ultimately met.

RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIPS
Series of trainings also provide the benefit of fostering close reciprocal relationships
among peers and colleagues. Reciprocal relationships are considered mutual exchanges and can
include partnerships through mentoring, reverse mentoring, and coaching from colleagues and
other professionals in the field. Educators and administrators need to work together to use these
relationships in order to build inventive new ways to incorporate technology into their schools.
Strong bonds create increased communication channels, shared norms of practice and
cooperation among stakeholder groups, continuity and cohesion across providers, and the
capacity to support sustained adoption within the community of practice (Schlager & Fusco,
2003, p. 204). These relationships are key because education is not single faceted; it is
comprised of students, guardians, teachers, and administrators. Each stakeholder group can only
help the others when there is open communication and an understanding of the environment they
are working in. Teachers specifically require cohesion and continued support from their
colleagues, as well as administrators, for any effective changes to be made or implemented.
To create strong reciprocal bonds, cooperation and work in professional trainings must
create an environment where teachers can work without fear of asking questions or making

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

mistakes. Technology is fast moving and complex not everything is easy to pick up in one
quick session. Teachers need to be helping each other instead of working in isolation in order to
become more productive and effective with technology. Schrum (1999) used the term cognitive
apprenticeship for this scenario, capturing the essence of teachers helping out their colleagues
with time spent observing and practicing actual application. This type of relationship creates
environments conducive to creativity and change since teachers will feel more relaxed and
comfortable taking risks and challenges with close, guided support.
Reciprocal relationships also directly affect students in schools. Brush et al. (2003)
found that when teachers use collaborative strategies with technology it showed positive impacts
not only on students performance, but also on students attitudes. Teachers who are able to
focus on teaching content with technology as a companion or asset, instead of as a perceived
irrelevant requirement, are able to elicit deeper learning from students. Instead of being forced
to teach students concepts in only one or two ways, suddenly new learning avenues, techniques,
and tools available exponentially grow through collaboration of ideas between colleagues and
professionals. It is clear that this application and integration permeate classrooms from those
teaching the trainings, to the educators implementing tools, to the students participating in those
given lessons.

AUTHENTICITY IN PRACTICE
Ongoing trainings and reciprocal relationships are not enough; effective trainings are also
authentic in practice. Like any other aspect of education, authenticity holds the key for deeper
learning. Many teachers attend professional development workshops where they are shown a
technological tool but have minimal experiences with actual hands-on practice. Even worse,

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

many educators rarely have practice implementing the tools in any lessons or their own
classrooms. After these traditional workshops end, little if anything has changed with the
level of technological knowledge of integration. Schrum (1999) noted that nothing has
promised so much and has been so frustratingly wasteful as the thousands of workshops and
conferences that led to no significant change in practice when the teachers returned to their
classrooms (p. 84). This is a very real problem. Time is an extremely limited resource for
educators; each minute needs to count and be relevant to their classroom and occupational goals.
This current practice must be drastically altered in order for teachers to see the utmost
significance and application of technology integration. One way to do that is to start designing
trainings around teachers current needs. Ivers (2002) stated that it is important to identify
teachers needs and to create training modules that support teachers learning requirement (p.
5). This means that educators and other stakeholders need to be open about discussing what is
needed, rather than speculating on possible needs.
Once the educators needs have been addressed, the tools provided in trainings can be
selected with purpose. Mouza (2003) argued tools need to be selected for real problems of
practice; haphazard selection can result in a feeling that teachers needs are unimportant or not
being heard. By assessing the gaps between lessons and the mandated curriculum, educators can
be given tools to bridge those gaps. For example, if an educator is looking for a way to increase
students oral skills, he or she could be taught about VoiceThread or Voki. These types of tools
are easy to use, help solve a very real issue in schools, and can be integrated across content areas.
Even if the tools are adequately picked and explained, however, teachers still need the
opportunity for hands-on experiences using them. They will ultimately fail if there is no
authentic way to integrate them into the curriculum. Here is where the importance of reciprocal

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

relationships comes into play. Educators are more effectively integrating tools into their lessons
when they have time to practice the tools themselves with professional guidance and support. By
practicing using these tools in an actual lesson format with a mentor, teachers can begin have a
deeper knowledge base and begin to naturally integrate new tools into their material. Practicing
with a peer in an actual classroom also has the added benefit of acting as a dry run; teachers
can perform a full lesson using the technology and gain feedback on not only the lessons
content, but also on tips or tricks to use the technology more smoothly. This helps teachers feel
more confident by the time they use the lesson with students.

SELF-EFFICACY
If teachers are confident with technological tools but uncomfortable applying them, less
technology will be integrated into the classroom. Hew and Brush (2006) asserted there is a
generally accepted, yet far too narrow, view in traditional trainings on how to prepare teachers
through professional development. Trainings that offer an extremely narrow view do not afford
teachers the opportunity to grow in confidence or extend learning as a teacher. The lesson is
only as good as the teacher; those uncomfortable with technology are far less likely to integrate it
into their classrooms. Some harbor the fear that a student will ask a question they will not know
how to answer. Others harbor the fear that they will fail teaching a lesson because they are
focused too much on tool integration rather than the content itself. These fears can easily
become exacerbated if they know someone in the field whom this has happened to in the past.
Effective professional development for technology should be focused on helping teachers
become more comfortable and confident in technological tools and application within their
classrooms. This means that teachers should not only understand what tools are available and

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

how to use them, but also be confident in their choices. Not every tool is perfect for every
lesson; practice and implementation over time and with guidance can help teachers to more
intuitively select a specific tool for a relevant lesson.
Preparedness and high self-efficacy directly benefit students. Watson (2006) noted how
studies have shown a link between a high level of self-efficacy on the part of the teacher and
higher student achievement (p. 152). When teachers are confident in their material, it is
obvious to students. Teachers with confidence are able to integrate tools more seamlessly.
Lessons can suddenly maximize creativity by allowing students to express themselves in new
ways. Seemingly abstract ideas and concepts can be brought to life through multimedia and Web
2.0 tools. This type of innovation can only be procured once teachers have confidence in their
skill sets.
The desire to grow in technological knowledge, however, may also be in part a mindset.
Russell et al. (2003) found that a key step in increasing teachers uses of technology may be
changing their beliefs about the importance of technology [] perhaps efforts to change beliefs
about technology before asking teachers to use the technology may result in higher levels of use
(p. 303). Teachers and administrators have exceptionally busy careers and lives; if they do not
see the relevancy of change to their careers, their drive to learn and increase new skill sets is
minimal. Relevancy to their careers can include making work easier, such as using tools to help
analyze student assessment data, maximize student knowledge retention, reaching students of all
levels and learning types, etc. Dawson and Rakes (2003) also suggested a teachers commitment
to innovation is key for progression. This illustrates a basic cost to benefit ratio: if there is little
perceived benefit, the cost of professional training and technology integration is too high. The

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

mindset must shift to where educators can see the high benefits of technology, over the smaller
cost of time, in order to maintain committed to pursuing growth.

CONCLUSION
The traditional views of Professional Development for technology integration in K-12
settings need to be drastically altered in several ways in order to become more efficient. Some of
the most pertinent changes fall into one of the following categories: organization and resources.
Organization addresses the planning and setting up of the training themselves, while resources
include the tangible items, such as technological hardware, and nontangible items, such as time.
When districts begin to organize their professional development trainings, they must
consider the overall long-term framework. Administrators need to be aware that bursts of
trainings without follow up are completely ineffective for technology integration. Instead, this
process needs to begin at the ground level and work its way up. Teachers and administrators
need to schedule several meetings dedicated solely to the discussion of what is going on in their
classrooms. This goes beyond a typical PLC conversation; it must delve into the deeper issues of
what gaps teachers are finding in their teaching and curriculum in an effort to figure out what is
truly needed. From these meetings, administrators should work to create a long-term business
plan that allows for more frequent, shorter sessions that allow relevant tools to be introduced,
practiced, and integrated authentically. Additionally, time should be parceled out and included
for individualized mentoring and follow-up sessions.
The other component that needs to be changed is the allocation of resources. By far the
largest resource that needs to be analyzed is available professionals. Professionals, who act as
the experts on tools or as mentors, are important to cultivating safe environments that foster

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

positive self-efficacy of teachers. It is important to consider that professionals do not need to be
at a centralized location either; trainings can shift to become more focused on the globalized
community. Teachers from different countries, cultures, and backgrounds could work on
developing international standards for technology trainings for K-12 teachers.
While specific traits have been selected that reflect effective best practices in professional
development, it is important to note that districts environments play an important role in how
trainings can be conducted. Variables such as limited funding, lack of resources, or lack of
accessible trainers or professionals for mentoring should be considered when developing
trainings. Districts that are excited to become more technologically savvy but they have no
access to tools and professionals begin their journey at a distinct disadvantage. This
disadvantage can lead to negative feelings surrounding technological implementation. That is a
situation where the availability of collaboration among colleagues to yield information and
resources is necessary, not just within one school but across districts.
Professional development is the key to imminent innovative endeavors. These trainings
should showcase the importance of technology in an effort to better engage teachers in a practice
that they find to be useful and purposeful. While there is no one size fits all equation, one
thing is true. There is never a better time than now to start the change, so future generations of
students can begin to create their own futures with vital 21st century skills.

10

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

References
Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M., . . . Sutton, J.
(2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher-training program: The PT3@ASU
project. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(1), 57-72.
Dawson, C., & Rakes, G. C. (2003). The influence of principals' technology training on the
integration of technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
36(1), 29-49.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2006, December 5). Integrating technology into k-12 teaching and
learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 55(3), 223-252.
Ivers, K. S. (2002, April). Changing teachers' perceptions and use of technology in the
classroom. EDRS, 2-6.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007, December 3). Professional development in integrating
technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better
questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-613.
Leh, A. S. (2005). Lessons learned from service learning and reverse mentoring in faculty
development: A case study in technology training. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 13(1), 25-41.
Mouza, C. (2003, Winter). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional
development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272-289.

11

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003, October). Examining teacher
technology use: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher preparation. Journal
of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 47(4), 83-90.
Schlager, M. A., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and
communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The Information
Society, 19(3), 203-220.
Watson, G. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher selfefficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 151-165.

12