Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Piecing the Puzzle: Professional Development and Technology

Amber Michelle Fowler Pepperdine University Graduate School of Education and Psychology Master of Arts in Learning Technologies June 18, 2013

Advisor: Margaret Riel, Ph.D

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM MY WORK CONTEXT LITERATURE REVIEW RESEARCH DESIGN CYCLE REPORTS Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 FINAL REFLECTIONS REFERENCES

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM As educators, it is important to recognize the needs and challenges of our students. Classrooms across the United States are increasingly becoming more diverse and are representing unique challenges for teachers. In todays society, it is essential that teachers are utilizing different methodological approaches in their curriculum to tailor students strengths and improve academic success. Just as it is imperative for students to have different methodological approaches available, it is imperative teachers are given support to be able to apply creative approaches in their curriculum. At my private school, teachers illustrate passion and determination to provide students with a deeper understanding of concepts learned. Teachers are searching for creative solutions to apply in their curriculum. They are open and willing to learn new strategies, demonstrations, and suggestions for implementing use of the iPad with curriculum. Despite the overall desire to learn new ways to implement technology in the classroom, teachers are not using the iPad with their curriculum as a collaborative tool. In fact, teachers often complain of time constraints when modifying or implementing changes in current curriculum. Another complaint of teachers is learning a new device they are unsure of how to use. The purpose of my Action Research is to create a framework in the workplace that will allow for a successful iPad deployment program that will enable teachers to be successful with collaboration in the classroom. This action research will understand interactions, practices, and contexts of teachers that are hindering or fostering the integration of iPad technology in the classroom.

MY WORK CONTEXT
Paraclete High School is a private high school, comprised of 365 schools within the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Within the Archdiocese, the Department of Catholic Schools serves as a headquarters for all preschools, elementary, and high schools. The Archdiocese serves all elementary, middle, and high schools within Los Angeles County. The motto of the Archdiocese is A Catholic Education is an Advantage for Life. Teachers who teach recognize they are here to serve others and make a difference in the world. Paraclete aims to strive for continual growth of faith and tradition. As a private school, the administration has a number of freedoms in terms of hiring teachers and staff, making decisions pertaining to budget, course planning, evaluating curriculum, purchasing equipment, and improving the school by developing new initiatives for learning tools. Paraclete, a private

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY high school consisting of 800 students has an abundance of technological devices available for students to utilize. The school is receiving state funds to implement an iPad deployment program to students and teachers without providing direction and a framework for professional development to teachers. A year ago, iPads were issued out to teachers without a framework in place as to how they would provide professional development to staff. Teachers were not sure how to effectively utilize the new technology with their current curriculum in place. As a result of change in school dynamics, it has been a huge challenge for the more seasoned teachers to try new things in the classroom. Administration began to place pressure on teachers to incorporate usage in the classroom. Many teachers are uncomfortable introducing iPads into their curriculum and there is a resistance to learning how to use this technology effectively in the classroom. Furthermore, there is resistance to learning how to use this technology effectively in the classroom to enhance learning and comprehension.

My role in the community of practice in which I serve can be described as active participant in my community. I am a member of this high school community serving as a technology teacher to freshman and senior students. I work full time as a technology teacher and work in elision with teachers having difficulty with iPads. My other duties include visiting conferences and schools to assist with the creation of tailored customization of integration that is conducive to our community.

LITERATURE OF REVIEW
Introduction Over the past 20 years, technology has transformed society and changed many aspects of daily life. The proliferation of technology has led to a growing consensus among educators and the general public that it should play a more integral role in students education (Culp et al., 2003; CEO Forum on Education and Technology, 2001; Fouts, 2000; Johnson, 2000). Expectations are placed on teachers to implement integration as schools across the nation become adapted to the growing demands of technology. In 2006, the Americas Digital Schools report estimated that over 19 percent of all student devices were mobile and predicted that this percent would increase to 52 percent by 2011 (The Greaves Group, 2006). In 2008, there were, on average, 3.8 students for every instructional computer in the nations public schools, compared to 5.7 students per computer in 1999, and 125 students per computer in 1983 (Education Week, 2008; Glennan & Melmed, 1996). According to the U.S. Department of Education (2012), preparing technology proficient educators to meet the needs of 21st-century learning is a critical challenge facing the nation. Although digital technologies have

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY become part of peoples everyday lives, teachers still struggle to integrate these technologies into their everyday lessons (Cuban, 2001). The purpose of this research is to investigate attitudes and perceptions, practices, interactions, and instructional integration of iPads when professional development and on-site training is provided to teachers. After researching and reviewing literature, several themes emerge that coincide with my investigation. The themes present include: educator practice and resources, teacher attitude and beliefs, iPad expertise and proficiency, interaction, and professional development. Educator Practice

Hamilton (1998) depicts self-study as an important means of developing my professional self-understanding as a teacher educator, helping me to clarify what I can bring to the role and how and what I bring to teacher preparation may influence my actions and interaction with others in the learning to teach process (Hamilton, 1998, p. 5). Bullough & Gitlin, (2001) assert that teacher education should begin with who the beginning teacher is or rather, who you imagine yourself to be as a teacher and then assist you to engage in the active exploration of the private or implicit theories you bring to teaching (Bullough & Gitlin, 2001, p. 12). Attitudes Towards Common Issues Information and Communication Technology have affected the teaching learning process. According to Dr. S. Kayarkanni (2012): Advancement in computing on the advent of internet and wireless facility which mean information can be distributed and accessed all most instantaneously. In teacher education, teacher trainees and the teaching communities are adapting to new technologies. The classroom teaching does not function in lecture alone; Information and Communication Technology (ITC) has brought many teaching learning materials to the classrooms (S. Kayarkanni, 2012). The integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has longed been a contributing factor in the wake of the Internet and communication technology. ICT is now a commonly used practice that exists in many countries all over the world. According to Albrini (2006): In the last 20 years, initiatives, projects and implications related to use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) into education motivate teachers to gain necessary knowledge and skills in using ICT in their instruction (Albrini, 2006). In the last 20 years, there have been a large variety of instruments used to measure the attitude of teachers toward computer and technology usage. According to Oosterwegel, Littleton & Light (2004): One of the well-known instruments in this field is Computer Attitude Scale (CAS). Lloyd & Gressard developed this scale in 1984. This instrument is seen as providing an appropriate metric for assessing attitudes toward computer use by many researchers. Another widely used instrument in this field is Teachers' Attitudes toward Computers Questionnaire (TAC) developed by Christensen and Knezek in 1996. The major aim of this scale is

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

to measure teachers' attitudes. The TAC was originally constructed as a 10-part composite instrument that included 284 items spanning 32 Likert subscales (Katz and Jones, 2000). According to Marcinkiewicz (1994), educators are often resistant to using computer technology in the classroom. Therefore, changing teachers attitudes is a key factor in fostering technology integration (Marcinkiewicz, 1994). One of the things that must be addressed when looking at technology integration is the existence of computer anxiety amongst teachers in school districts. Researchers are now recognizing the importance of teachers engaging in professional development to ensure computer competence and positive attitudes. Based on an international study involving children, teachers, and computers, Pelgrum and Plomp (as cited in Collis et al., 1996) concluded that: Teachers are the main gatekeepers in allowing educational innovations to diffuse into the classrooms. Therefore one of the key factors for effecting an integration of computers in the school curriculum is adequate training of teachers in handling and managing these new tools in their daily practices (Collis, 1996, p. 31). Teacher Motivation There are a couple variables that contribute to teacher motivation and effectiveness. They are: teacher and school characteristics and organization. For school characteristics, they pertain to experience, knowledge and education, rotation, and professional calling to the field. Organizational factors would include salary, technical assistance, support from administration, curriculum and standards, and level of authority with curriculum design. The term teacher motivation is characterized by values, perceptions, interests, actions, and closely related beliefs. In an education sense, motivation is characterized by the willingness and desire of the teacher to constitute good teaching in their classroom. For teachers, Chapman et. al. (1993) notes that incentives are related to teacher job satisfaction, but not to teacher classroom practices. Thus, it appears that while teachers need housing, food, safety, belonging, etc. in order to be professionally motivated, the provision of these needs past a baseline requirement is not a sustainable driver of teacher motivation. Instead, teachers need supports that encourage their intrinsic, or internal, motivation; such as achievement, recognition, and career development. (Chapman et. al., 1993). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB), placed the burden of low standardized scores on state and local districts. The effects of NCLB have meant that teachers have to teach curriculum that is tailored around the framework and standards. Jesus and Lens (2005) detailed a teachers professional engagement constituted the best index of teacher motivation. The level of teacher engagement has strong implications not only for professional growth and the quality of instruction but also for student achievement. When teachers perform and carry out their specific job roles and duties, students produce and achieve positive results (Tucker et al., 2005) . Butler (2007) examined the relationship between goal orientation as a motivational variable and the behavior of teachers with regards to asking for help. Results referred to a connection between teachers with a clear learning goal

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

orientation and those who show a high level of appreciation for asking for help, while avoidance achievement goal orientation was linked to the opinion that asking for help amounts to a confession of personal incompetence. High levels of work avoidance orientation thus correlated with a pragmatic attitude towards asking for help, for example that it saves time and effort. (Butler, 2007 p. 241-252). The result from this finding illustrates that asking for help is viewed as an incompetence. Professional Development It has been widely developed that appropriate professional development (PD) of teachers should include the use of technology for both personal and classroom use. Teachers who feel comfortable and have learned to use technology within curriculum, teach differently than teachers who have not mastered these skills. According to Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2001), describes three systems of professional development that coexist in the educational world and are used to explain and justify different approaches to improving teaching and learning. They are: knowledge-for-practice (formal theory generated by university-based researchers and used by teachers to improve their practice), knowledge-in-practice (practical knowledge that is embedded in practice), and knowledge-of-practice (reflective knowledge that emerges when teachers ponder their practice) (CochranSmith and Lytle 2001, p. 47). Robison Acosta Roa (2006): is of the opinion that teacher development must reflect on pedagogical, epistemological, historical and social elements if they are to interpret the changes that mankind has undergone. To do so, as explained by Acosta Roa, teachers need to develop their capacity for proposing innovative strategies and to strengthen their skill for intervening in the transformation of education (AcostaRoa, 2006). From this, Acosta Roa confirms that professional development for teachers should be tailored around the need to develop innovative curricula and understand the what, how, and why we teach such things. There is evidence that highly motivated teachers are more likely to engage in PD and implement innovative programs to increase student learning (Cave & Mulloy, 2010). Teacher self-direction and efficacy have been identified as essential factors in the success of PD. Numerous studies have shown that teacher efficacy is important for improving student performance and stress the need for PD programs to incorporate this dimension in their designs and evaluations. Among these studies, articles explore the potential relationship between teachers self-efficacy beliefs and the integration of computer technology in teaching and learning through PD. Govender, D. & Govender, I., (2009), examine how the level of teaching self-efficacy of highly regarded teachers influences their experiences in PD (Govender, D. & Govender, I., 2009, p. 153-165). Currently, there is increased attention to professional development when technology is applied to classroom curriculum. It can be suggested that PD is being evaluated to determine teacher attitudes and their level of competence with new and existing technology.

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY Conclusion This literature review has illustrated and synthesized findings on attitudes toward common technology uses, teacher motivation, teacher empowerment, and professional development for the iPad. The factors investigated for teacher motivation include interest, basic needs, and specific incentives. Revelations about teacher motivation was examined by attitudes with asking for help and strain associated with classroom management and curriculum expectations of NCLB. PD is only effective if and when teachers placed the knowledge learned and utilize it to improve instruction. Teacher self-direction encompasses both evaluations of practice in the classroom and examines it to the actual design of the PD. Effective PD that will be implemented by teachers relies on the effectiveness of the organizers of the PD.

RESEARCH DESIGN
With upcoming changes of Paraclete going 1:1 with iPads this fall and the current challenge of teachers using iPads, I tailored my action research to explore this issue. Action research is a cynical process that places the researcher at the center of the research. It enables the researcher to identify an area to change, act upon the change, collect data, and reflect as a result of that action. The reflection of each cycle allows the action researcher to devise a new plan that is a progression of the previous. Action research not only involves the researcher but also the inhabitants and environment around the researcher. As a result, there is a continual progression or improvement of ones workplace or environment. Based upon my understanding of action research, I have started with the following research question: Will the creation of a framework allow for a successful iPad deployment program that will enable teachers to be successful with collaboration in the classroom? I will embark on the next steps of this journey through analyzing data, reflections, and discussion.

CYCLE 1 REPORT
INTRODUCTION: This cycle was about evaluating iPad technology barriers with technology integration faced by teachers at the high school. There has been an increased pressure for teachers to learn all of the different components of newest technologies before implementing in the classroom. Paraclete, a private high school consisting of 800 students has an abundance of technological devices available for teachers to utilize. Last year, all teachers were given iPads to begin using in their classroom. In addition to all of the teachers receiving iPads, the school has also received title 1 funds to implement an iPad program for a small population of students. Since deploying the iPad program, the school has provided teachers with only one

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY workshop that focused on how to efficiently and effectively use the iPad as a digital learning device.

Last years iPad deployment was assimilated without consistent communication, community engagement, and it lack direction and a supportive framework for justin-time professional development. Teachers are challenged with increasing pressure from administration to implement iPad use in the classroom. The lack of framework for professional development has contributed to the minimal use of iPad in the classroom. Currently, there is no structure in place to be able to accommodate the professional development of teachers. After evaluating my workplace atmosphere, I met with the assistant principal and department chair to gain support for my ideas of action research. From there, I approached one teacher from each department to individually discuss my action research project and to see if they would be willing to participate. The next step involved the use of establishing teachers understanding and competency of educational technology tools. CYCLE 1 RESEARCH QUESTION: How will understanding the technology competency of teachers be useful when developing a professional development framework for curriculum? EVIDENCE COLLECTED: I collected the following evidence during this cycle: needs assessment survey and notes reflected in my action research blog. The purpose of my needs assessment for teachers was to identify the gap that exists between implementation requirements and current teacher performance. The evidence that was used in this cycle was a needs assessment survey that was created in the form of a Google document. The needs assessment was initially sent out to all 39 teachers through email on December 3rd. The x number of questions on the needs assessment were open-ended multiple choice, list, and checkbox questions. The questions were similar to the following: How would you define your skill in educational technology * Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced How often do you integrate iPad technology into your classroom instruction? * Daily 1-2 Times a Week

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

10

1-2 Times Biweekly 1-2 Times a Month Rarely or Never The remaining questions to the survey can be found at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dE1ZdUJmV2NDNWN5Z URMS0JZT0Jhdnc6MQ#gid=0 After week 1, I received 12 surveys from the teachers. After the first week, the survey was sent out a second time with a detailed explanation of how this will aid in the discussion of useful topics at faculty meetings. Eight more teachers submitted the survey for a final total of 20 teachers who completed the surveys. ANALYSIS: The percentage of teachers from each department that completed the surveys is indicated below. The majority of the teachers who responded to the survey said their skills in educational technology lie between basic and proficient. 75 percent of the teachers surveyed, define their skill in educational technology as being proficient. Only 5 percent of teachers defined their skills as being advanced.

Question 5 from the needs assessment asked teachers to indicate current software used on the iPads. Teachers responded to using a variety of software such as productivity, multimedia, educational, social media, and other web 2.0 resources. 100 percent responded they use the iPad for some of the educational technology tools in their curriculum. The results from the need assessment indicate teachers frequently used iPad resources for administrative tasks such as communication with administration and teachers or for preparing teaching materials for students. The two categories used the most by teachers were productivity and multimedia. 100 percent of teachers use Microsoft Office resources for preparing notes, handouts, presentations, or graphs. 95 percent use the iPad to display video and

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

11

other multimedia related resources. The following chart indicates current resources being used by teachers in conjunction with iPads.

60 percent responded to using additional educational resources on the iPad to enhance learning. 15 percent of teachers reported to using other iPad resources such as Dropbox, TED, Explain Everything, Popplet, or Socrative software. 10 percent currently use iTunes University, Prezi, or Google Docs with curriculum. Only 5 percent current use Edmodo or other blogging resources on the iPad. No teachers are currently using Podcasts or other audio broadcast apps. Question 10 asked teachers if they could use iPads in the classroom to enhance learning. Only 5 percent of respondents stated they could teach or mentor fellow peers to enhance learning with the iPads. 10 percent of respondents are capable and comfortable with implementing iPads to enhance student learning. 55 percent of respondents are learning how to use iPads with curriculum to enhance learning and 15 percent are aware of possible ways to implement. These respondents are not comfortable with current learning or professional training to fully implement iPads in the classroom.

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

12

10 percent of respondents integrate iPad technology into classroom instruction on a daily basis. 20 percent stated they integrate iPad technology with curriculum 1-2 times a week. The majority of respondents rarely or never integrate iPad technology with curriculum. 50 percent of respondents do not use the iPad on a weekly basis.

90 percent of the teachers responded they were very interested in professional development with the iPads. 55 percent of teachers would like addition professional development in addition to faculty in-service days. 45 percent wanted to have specific PD days while the other 55 percent had no preference as long as it was Monday-Thursday. Almost half of the teachers surveyed responded they would like individualized PD support in a small group setting.

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

13

Almost half of the teachers surveyed responded they would like individualized PD support in a small group setting. REFLECTION: Upon my reflection of the first cycle, there were a couple of things that did not work out as well as I had hoped. First, some of the questions that I developed in the needs assessment did not provide me with a full representation of each respondent. One of the questions was constructed to enable my participants to develop subjective responses. I believe that all of my questions should have begin with Why How or What. Second, I should not have included multiple-choice questions with the option choice Other. The option choice of other was not useful in the analysis, as I could not define from this response what exact tools teachers were using in the classroom. I found that I could not include the response other in my analysis. There were a couple of things that really surprised me about the teachers that took the survey. First, I was surprised to see that the majority of teachers felt their skills in educational technology was proficient but yet they only use a limited amount of both software and technology. Outside of Microsoft Office and video I found it striking that these teachers had no understanding of what web 2.0 tools and wikis are. This makes me wonder what does it mean for one to be proficient with technology. This can vary greatly from school to school across the Los Angeles Archdiocese. Better yet, how did these teachers view their proficiency when they were completing the survey? The second thing that surprised me was the majority of teachers are comfortable with learning how to identify iPad related resources for use in the classroom. From this result, my next question is: Why are only 3 percent out of 20 teachers using iPads on a daily basis. If they recognize which iPad related resources are appropriate for classroom use, why arent they using the device more often? To examine this question, I may need to look into how long have they been able to recognize appropriate iPad resources for classroom use. If they just recently began learning how to recognize useful resources, the possibility lies that they have not

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

14

had the opportunity to test out some of these resources or develop a way to incorporate them with curriculum. Is the technology crunch mentioned earlier really a time challenge for many teachers? Or maybe teachers need fellow support with other teachers in regards to implementing this with grade specific content. This reflection could explain why many are not using the iPads on a daily or weekly basis. The third part of my evidence that surprised me was that more than half of the teachers surveyed would be interested in being involved in a small learning circle on technology usage in the classroom with fellow teachers. Based upon the school culture, I was not anticipating so many teachers to view this as being beneficial. Is there a link between ongoing learning communities amongst teachers and increased use in the classroom? This possible link will be evaluated in the next cycle.

CYCLE 2 REPORT
ACTION TAKEN: The design of cycle two was to create a professional technology community that provides just in time, ongoing professional development for teachers to promote iPad integration in the classroom. For this cycle, I began meeting on a bi-weekly basis with 5 teachers from Math, English, History, and Religion departments. Our group meetings are tailored for teachers to plan, discuss, and share ways in which they can use the iPad with their curriculum. In this cycle, I am interested in exploring how collaboration in technology learning community affects knowledge, relationships, and engagement. This cycle was extensive in that it was broken down into the following units: Planning: As the second semester began, both the teachers and I continued to map out a balance between academic content and collaboration with teacher iPads. One-on-one discussions: As this cycle progressed, I initially conducted oneon-one interviews with five teachers to determine their personal needs and understanding of concerns Implementation phases During this phase of the cycle, the teachers discussed both challenges using iPads in their curriculum and inability to effectively carry out implementation due to constraints in their classroom. After conducting the initial interviews, I scheduled a date with two of the teachers to observe the first half of their classes. After the initial observation of their classroom, I arranged a meeting with each teacher to assess learning, set goals, and to map out a plan for implementation in the classroom. The goal of creating a professional technology community was to create a peercoaching environment amongst teachers. In addition to meeting individual with teachers, the technology community met twice a month to reflect on

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY implementation, offer support with one another, and determining strategies for instructional needs.

15

Next, I would volunteer a person in their department who is comfortable with using the iPad in their curriculum and have them serve as a mentor/coach for that department. This will allow teachers who are not currently in a leadership position work with other teachers who are unsure as to how to implement into their curriculum. CYCLE 2 RESEARCH QUESTION: How will the implementation of professional technology communities increase teacher iPad engagement and usage in the classroom? EVIDENCE COLLECTED: The research that was collected from this cycle includes written conversation with the sample of five teachers used in this research. Other data collected included professional development activities, an online collaborative application, and a sign in sheet to record level of attendance during learning development meetings. ANALYSIS: There were a total of five professional technology community meetings and five one-on-one meetings with the teachers from January through February. The first technology community meeting took place on December 14th after school. The remaining technology community meetings took place on January (16th and 30th) and February (13th and 27th). Since initially I was suppose to work with a larger group of teachers for these technology community meetings, I had originally planned to have all of the 20 teachers surveyed to participate in these meetings. However, that changed to working with five teachers from the math, English, history, and religion departments. I used a sign-in sheet to record attendance for each of the five meetings. During the first meeting on December 14th all five teachers attended the meeting. January 16th there were four teachers who attended the meeting. January 30th and February 13th, three teachers attended the group technology community meetings. By the last group meeting on February 27th, only two teachers attended the meeting. The first meeting on December 14th addressed the goal of the professional technology community and the direction that I would like to see it go. I explained to the teachers that I would like to interface with them on developing and facilitating iPad integration with current curriculum and modify existing. I also introduced a online community application, which allows users a common place to ask questions and post suggestions. The questions and suggestions for our plan centered on

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

16

conversation between the five teachers. Between December 14th and January 30th there were no messages posted on the board. Teachers were not using this medium to communicate how their experiences with the iPad were going. To try to spark conversation, I posted questions such as What tools have been helpful with meeting objectives in an efficient manner? What tools have been challenging to implement? What challenges have you encountered with iPads? What worked well this week? The five one-on-one technology meetings with the five teachers occurred during the months of January through February. I met with the English and math teachers on January (17th and 24th). During the first meeting, we discussed goals and direction of iPads in the curriculum. I also mapped out a plan for what they wanted to use the iPad for. Based upon the results from the mapping, all five teachers resulted in the improvement upon the following skills with iPad implementation: Desired Map Plan: 1. Appropriate Daily Use 2. Expansion of Lesson Design Capabilities 3. Acquisition of new resources 4. Collaborative Learning 5. Confidence with Implementing Resources in the Classroom REFLECTION: I found this cycle to be more challenging than the first. When reflecting about my second cycle question, I keep returning to the issue of professional learning communities and teacher engagement. Prior to acting upon this cycle, I thought people in a professional community would be willing to explore new methods of iPad collaboration in the classroom as long as they receive on-going support over a period of time. As this cycle progressed, I became surprise to learn that this would not be the case. In a group setting it became hard to hold people accountable for meeting with the community or expanding lesson design. The first challenge of this cycle was attendance of all teachers when we met collectively as a group. Even with snacks being provided at the meetings, I noticed from the sign in sheets that I had the same two people attending most of the meetings. This was a bit discouraging because I had designed the community meetings to be ongoing and connected to practice. How is the community going to grow and manifest itself into their place of practice if I am not able to meet with them collectively to discuss curriculum ideas and tools? One of my initial goals of the technology community was to build strong teacher relationships that are tailored around cumulative reflection of practice in the classroom. The first challenge with teacher accountability is attendance and participation at both the technology community and my one-on-one meetings with them. The same

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

17

2-3 teachers would not attend the technology community meetings. The personal one-on-one meetings with teachers also seemed to have schedule conflicts. Canceling meet times seemed to be more of the issue instead of them forgetting. As a result, I was only able to meet twice with two of the teachers. I tried to develop alternatives to meeting with them since after school seemed to be a bit of a challenge for them. I asked both teachers which times would work best and I will try to accommodate their wishes. One of the teachers suggested that meeting during his prep period would work best for him. He stated that his challenge with meeting with the technology community is that he tutors math afterschool. When I met with another teacher to discuss challenges with attending the technology community meetings, she stated not only is she the assistant track coach but also serves as moderator of 3 clubs on campus. As a result, she has track practice 4 days a week and club meetings at lunch. In reflection to the establishment of a technology community in this cycle, I felt it would have been beneficial for me to further examine the current roles of teachers in my work context. Prior to creation of the technology community, I should have examined the percentage of teachers who are involved with extracurricular activities. Currently, 80 percent of teachers serve either as club moderator or coach an athletic team. Teachers at Paraclete High School are encouraged to moderate at least one club or coach one sport on campus. Many teachers are involved in two or more activities. This work context contributed to the accountability issues I experienced in this cycle. When I think about the challenges that are present in the professional learning community, I am reminded of how people experience being in a community. From the reading of Wagner, I am reminded of the 9 district orientations that align how communities learn in different ways. The nine orientations are comprised of: meetings, open-ended conversations, projects, content, access to expertise, relationships, individual participation, community cultivation, and serving a context. My actions in this cycle only reflected a few of these orientations. Somehow in between this cycle, I lost sight of how communities learn in different ways. Rather than relying on the group meetings to foster community cultivation in the classroom, I should have focused closely on individual participation in our one-onone meetings. Cycle 2 would have benefited if I had explored strengthening professional and personal relationships within my community. Tools that were introduced during my technology communities were centered between group needs verses individual. As a result, some of the tools offered could have been customized to tailor individual challenges and needs. Ultimately the implementation of a technology community has been useful in discussing challenges experienced by teachers and how some of these challenges are solved. I do believe the small action of establishing a technology community

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY illustrated the social mechanisms of learning. Our team dynamic benefited from teachers seeking advice from one another.

18

CYCLE 3 REPORT
ACTION TAKEN: My first and second cycles were dedicated to finding technology barriers associated with integration in teacher practice. Cycle 2 was designed to address everyday technology challenges and strategies with tools in teaching. The establishment of a technology community was designed to provide teachers with hands-on practices with iPads in the classroom. The actions taken in cycle 2 greatly influenced my role as a coach toward my professional community. I found that by taken these actions, the community setting opened the opportunity for teachers involved with the technology community to collaborate within the school as technology leaders. To examine my reflection from cycles 1 and 2, I decided that cycle 3 presented the opportunity to expand the leadership roles within the community. To begin the process of fostering leadership roles, I designed cycle 3 around the following criteria: shared vision of technology integration, variations of teaching and personal practice, and supportive and shared leadership. I envisioned my actions would yield leadership involvement of the technology community at the April 22nd professional development staff meeting. CYCLE 3 RESEARCH QUESTION: How will establishment of an on-going professional learning community influence teacher perception, collaborative inquiry and leadership? EVIDENCE COLLECTED: I collected the following evidence during this cycle: technology community notes from my action research blog, Google doc for discussions, and evaluation form from the professional development meeting. The evidence that was used in this cycle was a session evaluation form that was provided to 19 teachers that attended the professional development meeting on April 22nd. The technology community and myself developed a list of strategies that would be useful for teachers at the professional development session in April. Between 5 teachers that make up the technology community, 3 teachers wanted to participate as active leaders in the preparation of the staff development meeting. The technology community developed a list of challenges that they faced before the start of our sessions. These notes were recorded in a Google document. The professional development staff training was divided into 9 sessions from 8:30am-2: 30pm. Teachers were given the flexibility of attending 2 sessions of their

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY choice. Nadine and I were leading two sessions that focused on strategies for flipping classrooms with the iPad. The two workshops that we co-anchored by Nadine and myself were Flipping Possibilities and Turnitin.com. A total of 19 teachers attended both sessions. At the end of the session, teachers were given a session evaluation form to fill out. The x number of questions on the session evaluation form contained open-ended multiple-choice questions and 2 reflective questions tailored to beneficial and recommendations. The questions were similar to the following:

19

Information and strategies presented will assist in the integration of technology to teaching and learning * Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 The presenter was knowledgeable about the content and well organized * Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 The remaining questions to the survey can be found at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1B3Da_yTGvY_DsbrRDhnwWVVym4jmvjwjD35Q igXHho/viewform ANALYSIS: In regards to the first question: Information and strategies presented will assist in the integration of technology to teaching and learning.

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

20

84 percent of the teachers surveyed strongly agreed that information presented by my technology community assisted them with iPad integration. 16 percent survey somewhat agreed that the information and strategies presented will assist them with teaching and learning.

95 percent of teachers surveyed strongly agreed that my presenter Nadine and myself provided strategies in academic content areas. 5 percent somewhat agreed that Nadine and I provided strategies in academic content areas. 5 percent surveyed notated in the comments: Expected more time on Turinitin.com, less on blogging but still useful. 79 percent of teachers surveyed strongly agreed that pacing of the training allowed time to grasp the information and materials. 21 percent of the others surveyed somewhat agreed. Out of the 21 percent of teachers that somewhat agreed, 16 percent of those surveyed indicated in the comments that they need office time and that they need to take small steps. REFLECTION: In reflection to this cycle, it became clear that the teachers in my community are fully aware of two realizations: first, the benefits with iPad integration in the classroom and second that long-term support that is tailored around personal professional learning is needed for professional development success. I believe that discussion was more dynamic in this cycle because individually we discussed personal challenges they experienced in the classroom. The teachers were able to collaborate to discuss specific challenges ranging from time constraint, being overwhelmed, resistance to modifying lesson plans for iPad integration, and lack of knowledge to expand student knowledge. One thing that I noticed about our discussion is that all five teachers actively voiced out concerns and challenges they felt needed to be addressed. Each teacher took on the role as an active member in

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY our community. They came together as one voice to state their desire for demonstrations, suggestions, or direction.

21

As we worked in a small community to development information and material that will be useful to teachers at the professional development meeting, it became evident that we would not be able to put together an entire sample of subjects. Instead, I re-directed them to think about how they first approached learning strategies to incorporate into their lesson plans. I wanted to showcase how each and every teacher is capable of putting together small lesson plans that is tailored to a topic. When I reflect back from the first two cycles, I am reminded how the teachers in the technology community were overwhelmed with the amount of time that is involved with putting together an entire unit, semester, or year of lessons. Time constraints and time saving techniques seem to be hot topics for teachers. Some of the teachers in my technology community and others that attended the professional development session placed emphasis on the amount of time it takes to do just one lesson. In working on strengthening the leadership role of each member, it become clear in this cycle that professional learning was most effective and structured when it addressed a specific challenge teachers encounter.

FINAL REFLECTION
If someone would have pulled me aside and told me 8 years ago that I would be both a technology steward at my job and embarking on a master of arts in learning technologies, I would have dismissed the thought immediately. Three years ago I transitioned from the corporate world of mergers and acquisitions to the education sector. With the assistance of my mentor and my commitment to being a life-long learner, I became receptive to the possibility of exciting adventures that lie ahead. When reflecting upon my first two years of teaching, I am reminded of how I am constantly searching for ways to improve my practice. Fortunately, I have been given much leeway to explore my creativity in the classroom and design of my curriculum. I have been able to develop my own teaching style that reflects my ability to leverage technology as both communicative and collaborative tools. As I examined the dynamics of my school, it became imperative for me to sustain a level of leadership at my school. While I embraced the notion of new technologies and willingness of change, it became clear this was not the case in my community of practice. While I sought solutions to the challenges I encountered with using technology in my curriculum, I began to realize not every teacher recognized the possibilities with using iPads with curriculum. More importantly, I begin to reflect upon my current practice with iPads and curriculum. I need to examine how can I improve my own practice.

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

22

Technology has always played an important role to me. I knew it was crucial that I focus my action research on something meaningful and passionate to me. It was also necessary that my research addressed challenges faced by teachers in my community. My personal goal of this research was that we would become one as a school body. I see myself as part of an energetic team of educators that are constantly searching for creative ways to engage students. Since embarking on this masters degree in learning technologies, I ended up learning more about professional development and professional learning communities than I could have imagined. Instead of just examining my own personal practice as a teacher, I see myself as a technology steward. A leader. A facilitator. Community builder. My role in my action research has allowed me to step into a leadership position at my school. It was through this new challenge that I began to see the importance of my coaching practice within my community. Action research is a personal and self-reflective process in which I am in the center of my research. Instead of simply acknowledging a problem and developing one possible solution, I am able to identify new methods that are more conducive to my community. Ideas, challenges, perspectives, encouragements and frustrations are just a fraction of the elements that are experienced during this process. This process did not simply examine a problem. Rather it was cohesive process centered between dynamic relationships. It was through these relationships that I have learned that people need encouragement, suggestions, support, demonstration, and direction. Through my action research, I have become actively aware of my actions, interactions, and relationships with people. Even as the end of this program is nearing, I have learned that action research does not end here. As I have learned, it is a cynical process that will only build further upon. In a little over a year, I have learned the importance of establishing smaller learning communities in my school setting. I have learned not only do these communities establish rapport and engage in social learning, but they also empower leaders with everyone involved. The dynamics of professional development and professional learning communities in this research is like fitting pieces of a puzzle together. To begin and implement a new plan of professional development, first you must begin with the outer framework. Each piece of the puzzle represents a challenge, method, possible and actual outcome. As I work through the puzzle, I reflect on each of the previous actions that I used in the process. As my cycle 3 comes to an end, I leave the possibility of furthering my method by going on to my next cycle in this research. I am a different person than I was a year ago. I cannot go back to my teaching practice as I did in the past. I now understand the social learning and collaborative aspect of professional learning.

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

23

REFERENCES
Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers Attitudes Toward Information and Communication Technologies: The Case of Syrian EFL Teachers. Computers and Education, 47(4), 373398 Butler, R. (2007). Teachers Achievement Goal Orientations and Associations With Teachers Help Seeking: Examination of a Novel Approach to Teacher Motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 241252. Cave, A., & Mulloy, M. (2010). How do cognitive and motivational factors influence teachers degree of program implementation?: A qualitative examination of teacher perspectives. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 27(4). The CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2001). Education Technology Must Be Included in Comprehensive Education Legislation. Policy Paper. Retrieved from http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/forum3.pdf. Chapman, David W. "Teacher Incentives in the Third World." Teaching and Teacher Education 9, no. 3 (1993): 301-316. Cochran and Smith, M. and Lytle, S. L. (2001). Beyond Certainty: Taking an Inquiry Stance on Practice." In: Teachers Caught in the Action: Professional Development that Matters. A. Lieberman, & L. Miller. New York: Teachers College Press. Collis, B. A., Knezek, G. A., Lai, K. W., Miyashita, K. T., Pelgrum, W.J., Plomp, T., Sakamoto, T. (1996). Children and Computers in School. Mahwah,

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

24

Culp, K.M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2003). A Retrospective on Twenty Years of Education Technology Policy. Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/20years.pdf. Education Week. (2008). Technology Counts 2008. Education Week, 27(30). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2008/03/27/index.html. Francis, L., Y. Katz, and S. Jones. (2000). The Reliability and Validity of the Hebrew Version of the Computer Attitude Scale. Computers and Education, 35(2), 149-59. Fouts, J.T. (2000). Research on Computers and Education: Past, Present, and Future. Retrieved from http://www.portical.org/fouts.pdf. Glennan, T.K., & Melmed, A. (1996). Fostering the Use of Educational Technology: Elements of a National Strategy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Govender, D., & Govender, I. (2009). The Relationship Between Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Integration and Teachers Self-Efficacy Beliefs About ICT. Education as Change, 13(1), 153-165. The Greaves Group. (2006). Americas Digital Schools 2006: A Five-Year Forecast. Retrieved from http://www.ads2006.org/main/pdf/ADS2006KF.pdf. Johnson, K.A. (2000). Do Computers in the Classroom Boost Academic Achievement? The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/CDA00-08.cfm.

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (19931994). Computers and Teachers: Factors Influencing Computer Use in the Classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220237.

25

Oosterwegel, A., K. Littleton, and P. Light. (2004). Understanding Computer-Related Through an Idiographic Analysis of Gender-and Self-Representations. Learning and Instruction 14(2). 215-233. Tucker, C. M., Porter, T., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., Ivery, P. D., Mack, C. E., & Jackson, E.S. (2005). Promotion Teacher Efficacy for Working with Culturally Diverse Students. Preventing School Failure, 50(1), 29-34.