Running head: TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1

Technology Professional Development Plan for Patrick Henry Elementary School, Anaheim, CA

Michael Chen and Jessie Gurbada

California State University, Fullerton

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2

Table of Contents

Introduction ... 3

Mission Statement .. 5

School Description .... 6

Student Technology Access and Use ......... 8

Teacher Technology Access, Use, and Technology Development 9

Rationale for Technology Professional Development .. 10

Needs Analysis . 17

Development and Implementation .. 21

Narrative Rationale ... 33

Timeline . 33

Budget 34

Evaluation . 34

Reflection .. 37

References . 40
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3

Technology Professional Development Plan for Patrick Henry Elementary School,

Anaheim, CA

An important component of 21st century learning is professional development,

particularly in the area of technology skills and integration. According to the Kaiser Family

Foundation (2010) and Project Tomorrow (2011) reports (as cited in Donovan & Green, 2014),

students desire a learning environment where they can use technology in meaningful ways to

explore digital content, to communicate with their peers and teachers, to collaborate with their

peers and others throughout the world, and to learn anywhere at any time (p. 66). In order to

ensure a 21st century learning environment, which entails student-centered instruction, teachers

must know how to integrate technology with content and pedagogy to give students an engaging

and meaningful learning experience. The purpose of this plan is to outline technology

professional development for Patrick Henry Elementary School with the goal of increasing

student engagement and academic achievement through the use of technology to promote

collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking.

A major obstacle of technology integration is the lack of teacher training (Ertmer,

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Khodabandelou, 2016; Kurt & Ciftci,

2012). Khodabandelou concluded that training should be provided for the teachers to widen

their knowledge on how the technology can ease their teaching processes (p. 56). Lack of

training and knowledge leads to lack of confidence. As Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, and

Woods (1999) concluded, the lack of relevance and lack of confidence were barriers to teachers

using technology in the classroom. Furthermore, Miranda and Russell (2012) found that the

most significant predictor of teacher-directed student use of technology was the relationship
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4

between teacher experience with technology and the perceived importance of technology for

teaching. In other words, as teachers gained more experience with technology use, they valued it

more as a tool that aided instruction and student learning. Bauer and Kenton (2005) agreed on

this matter and stated that confidence is a key factor in learning to teach with computer

technology (p. 532). Teachers with more technology experience may feel more confident

about their technology skills and have a positive perception of computers as an important

teaching tool than teachers who are less experienced and less confident. However, it is not

enough to provide general professional development on the newest technology. Pittman and

Gaines (2015) argued that simply providing professional development related to technology

integration was not enough to guarantee higher levels of integration in the classroom.

Professional development must be refined to focus on improving teachers attitudes toward

technology by providing specific and practical ways that technology will improve student

learning (p. 541). In other words, as teachers observe concrete examples of the benefits of

technology integration in teacher instruction and student learning, they will more likely be

convinced to adopt the same practices.

One of these benefits is the ability of technology to provide students with choice and

control. A study done by Dietrich and Balli (2014) found that the opportunity for control and

choice is central to learning with technology. In this way, learning is akin to learning in the real

world (p. 30). Another benefit is the ability of technology to engage and motivate students in

ways traditional methods cannot. Yen, Tuan, and Liao (2011) found that students who

participated in online learning became deeply engaged with the content and increased their

interest toward that subject, which led to enhanced learning and heightened intrinsic motivation.
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5

Like Yen, Tuan, and Liao, Chandra and Fisher (2009) found that web-based learning led to

increased understanding and higher student engagement versus traditional teaching methods.

Although the list of benefits may continue to grow, the benefits may never be passed

down to the students if teachers are not aware of them or embrace their superiority over

traditional methods. Teachers who understand and believe in the value of technology integration

will pass on its benefits to the students (Ertmer et al., 2012; Pittman & Gaines, 2015). Therefore,

it is the goal of this technology professional development plan not only to explicitly explain and

present technology integration but to express its value in teacher instruction and student learning.

Patrick Henry Mission Statement

Patrick Henry is committed to promoting a partnership between home, school, and

community, which creates an environment that provides a positive climate for learning in which

all students will reach their fullest potential. Our vision is to ensure that each student will

succeed. The mission of our school is to provide a safe learning environment in which all

students are valued, confident, and successful critical thinkers. We will motivate them to

become responsible risk-takers and contributing members of society. Students will be assessed

regularly and teachers will work collaboratively to meet the needs of all students. We

specifically strive for excellence. Focus is on setting high standards, planning activities that will

result in quality learning experiences, working continuously and collaboratively to improve

instruction, and regularly evaluating the quality of our efforts. Our emphasis is on

standards-based interactive direct instruction, focusing on language arts, mathematics and

English language development, social science, science, visual and performing arts and other
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6

disciplines are also taught and integrated into the daily instructional program. All teachers focus

on increasing student achievement.

School Description

Patrick Henry Elementary School is part of the Anaheim Elementary School District

(AESD), which consists of 24 schools in Anaheim, California. Henry is a TK-6 walking

community school with a population of 706 students, located at 1123 W. Romneya Dr.,

Anaheim, CA 92805. There are 13 teachers in TK to third grade and 9 teachers in fourth grade

to sixth grade. The average class size is 26.5 students. Student enrollment by grade level is

found in the table below (see Figure 1).

Grade Level Number of Students

Transitional Kindergarten 21
Kindergarten 74
Grade 1 77
Grade 2 80
Grade 3 90
Grade 4 71
Grade 5 98
Grade 6 88
Total Enrollment 599
Figure 1. Student Enrollment by Grade Level

A large population of Patrick Henry students are Hispanic or Latino (95%) and

socioeconomically disadvantaged (90%), meaning they come from low-income families which

qualifies them for a free or reduced lunch. The table below summarizes student enrollment by

various groups (see Figure 2).

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7

Student Group Percentage of Total Enrollment

Black or African American 0.7

Asian 0.4

Filipino 0.7

Hispanic or Latino 95.4

White 1.4

Multi-ethnic 1.4

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 90.2

English Learners 71.7

Students with Disabilities 8.3

Homeless (under McKinney-Vento Act) 2.8

Figure 2. Student Enrollment by Various Groups

Patrick Henry School is a Visual and Performing Arts School. Two full-time music

teachers provide general music instruction for TK-4th grade students and instrumental music

instruction for 5th-6th grade students. Ongoing staff development is also important at Patrick

Henry, with an emphasis on Close Reading, Research Based Lesson Design, Explicit Direct

Instruction, Academic Discourse, Thinking Maps, and Science/ELA/Technology integration for

4th-6th grade. Finally, Patrick Henry is a Positive Behavior Intervention Program (PBIS) school,

with a leadership team that goes through intensive monthly training in order to refine the

school-wide behavior plan. Reinforcing positive behavior is the key and students are taught

daily to be safe, kind, ready, and respectful.

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8

Student Technology Access and Use

There are two computer labs on campus. One lab is adjacent to the library and contains

older desktop computers running Windows XP. This lab is primarily used by kindergarten and

first grade students. The other lab houses newer Chromeboxes and is used primarily by third

through sixth grade students and special day class students. Students typically have access to

these labs twice a week for a total of 1.5 to 2.0 hours a week. Additionally, every grade level has

access to a Chromebooks on Wheels (COW) which is a portable Chromebook cart with built-in

charging capability. A COW is typically shared among three teachers. Most teachers opted to

keep the COW for one to two days before rolling it to the next teacher. Each classroom also

contains four to six Chromeboxes, typically stationed on the side or the corner of the room.

Two mandatory school-wide student applications are ST Math and Accelerated Reader

(AR) quizzes. Most students use the weekly computer lab time for these two applications. One

new expectation for the 2017-18 school year is the implementation of Google Classroom for all

students. Other programs or applications that students use include Google Docs, Slides,

Drawings, Typing.com, Scratch, Kahoot!, Seesaw, and Pear Deck. Some of these programs are

integrated into the language arts, math, science, or social studies curriculum. Each student is

given an email address and password, which gives access to most of these programs through the

Student Portal. The main screen of the Student Portal (see Figure 3) contains hyperlink icons to

the most commonly used district-approved applications.

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 9

Figure 3. The main screen of the Student Portal

Teacher Technology Access, Use, and Technology Development

Every teacher is given a laptop or tablet running Windows 10. The screen content is

projected to a ceiling-mounted projector during instruction. All teachers use their device to

check and compose email, take attendance, teach McGraw-Hill My Math lessons, and input and

analyze assessment data in SMART (an online AESD data management system). Some teachers

take advantage of their device to manage student behavior and communicate with parents

through ClassDojo, assign My Math and Benchmark e-Assessments, create quizzes or feedback

forms using Google Forms, show videos to frontload or teach content, deliver Mystery Skype

sessions, take students on virtual field trips, create student portfolios using Seesaw, Google

Classroom, or ClassDojo, and create interactive lessons using Pear Deck or Kahoots!
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 10

Henry has a full-time technology assistant, whose primary function is to diagnose and fix

hardware and software problems, and a part-time digital learning coach (DLC), whose primary

function is to demonstrate the implementation and integration of technology in the learning

environment. The DLC shares a calendar where teachers can sign up for mini-lessons every

other week. Once every few months, there may be a staff meeting on the use of AR management

or ST Math. This is typically led by the DLC or district personnel. Technology professional

development the last five years has focused on the basic use of programs mentioned in the

previous paragraph (e.g. how to create a roster, add photos, share files, etc.). Looking at the

SAMR model, the focus has been on substitution and some augmentation. According to the

TPACK framework, technological knowledge has been addressed at Henry, but integration of the

three components (i.e. technology, content, and pedagogical knowledge) has yet to be fully

realized. District and school site initiatives have mostly been at that same level, that is, teachers

are simply expected to use the latest technology devices (e.g. Qwizdom, Interwrite tablets,

Microsoft Surface tablets, etc.) and applications (e.g. Google Classroom) in some way as they

roll out. Student expectations are similar. There hasnt been a clear or specific direction to

transform student learning through augmentation, modification, and redefinition.

Rationale for Technology Professional Development

After reading through the sites Single Plan for Student Achievement plan, we

reviewed literature around the 4Cs (communication, creativity, critical thinking, and

collaboration), digital writing, and online learning. The literature presented four themes: (1) the

4Cs are a must in current and future work places (2) feedback allows students to improve their

writing skills and digital writing allows faster feedback as teachers and students can access the
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 11

same document synchronously and asynchronously (3) having an on-site tech mentor is more

effective than district-driven professional development since teachers can get just-in-time

support tailored to their needs and (4) technology in the classroom provides for effective and

efficient use of planning and instructional time. This section highlights literature that provides

rationale for our technology professional development plan.

4Cs in the Workplace

21st century skills in education are often synonymous with the 4Cs communication,

creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration. According to a report published by the

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), the Partnership for 21st Century

Skills, and the State Educational Technology Directors Association (2011), employers feel

schools fail to prepare students for a technology-based economy. These technology skills

surpass the ability to instant message (IM), play online games, download programs, and master

the bells and whistles of Smart Phones. It requires much more (Levin-Goldberg, 2012, p. 60).

Our professional development will look at equipping teachers with ways to integrate these

technology skills in their everyday classrooms. Similarly, Crockett, Jukes, and Churches (as

cited in Keane, 2016) say that to be successful in school and after school, teachers need to move

beyond their primary focus and fixation on the Three Rs (3Rs)beyond traditional literacy to

an additional set of 21st century fluencies, skills that reflect the times we live in (p. 770). For

current and future jobs, employers are looking beyond content knowledge to usable skills.

Keane summarizes these skills as:

ways of thinking-creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making and

learning,
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 12

ways of working-communication and collaboration,

tools for working-information and communications technology (ICT) and information

literacy,

skills for living in the world-citizenship, life and career, and personal and social

responsibility (p. 772).

These four skills are highly valued in the workplace, and it is our job as educators to ensure

students are well versed in these skills when they graduate from high school. Thus, it is crucial

that teachers receive the proper training to work toward proficiency in these skills. Future work

needs to focus on developing the 4Cs for teacher professional development and evaluating

student outcomes in a technological transformative environment (p. 779). Through this plan,

we intend to do just that.

4Cs in Google Classroom

Google Classroom is an online platform developed by Google to facilitate teacher and

student communication and collaboration. Teachers create assignments using Google Apps (e.g.

Google Docs, Sheets, Slides, etc.) and give students the option of working collaboratively (i.e.

edit the same document) or independently (i.e. create individual copies of the document). These

assignments are populated in each students Google Drive, essentially creating a portfolio of

cumulative work. Having multiple students work on the same document will promote a certain

degree of communication and collaboration. According to Rowe, Bozalek, and Frantz (2013),

the use of Google Drive gives students a platform to interact with the information and with each

other, provide and receive feedback from peers and facilitators, chat with each other in the

document window, and receive email notifications when changes or comments are made (p.
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 13

602). In a study conducted by Shinsky and Stevens (2011), Google Apps was found to facilitate

collaborative planning and learning. One student commented,

Google Apps definitely was a vehicle that enhanced our learning experience. Our

team modeled many of the course goals, demonstrating collaboration and coordination

of resources, through the real-life activities we pursued to complete our project. We

were not just assembling a presentation, but building an online structure for the

implementation of an actual activity, and our final product reflected this. Google Apps

is more than just a listing of ideas. It is the foundation and framework for an achievable

community engagement program that can have a positive effect on student achievement.

(p. 210)

Additionally, the use of Google Apps within Google Classroom to promote the 4Cs

creates an effective learning environment in which students have higher motivation and

participation, partly because there is more opportunity for team building and for receiving

immediate feedback (Lin & Jou, 2013). Through giving feedback and reviews in Google Docs,

students comprehension of their thinking process would improve (Jou & Shiau, as cited in Lin

& Jou, 2013). Furthermore, Hwang and Chang (2011) (as cited in Lin & Jou, 2013) found that

the use of Google Forms allowed the teacher to assess student learning during the teaching

process, which provided a useful basis for the instructors to understand how students felt about

the teaching and adjust teaching paces if required (p. 158).

Although much of the communication and collaboration occurs naturally, the most

effective kind requires modeling and direct instruction from the teacher or facilitator. Without
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 14

modeling, students may only communicate or collaborate at a superficial level. Reflecting on a

poetry unit for middle-grade students, Guise and Friend (2017) stated,

For instance, although we provided opportunities to respond to a peers poem through the

use of the Google Classroom threads, some of this feedback remained surface-level, with

comments such as thats deep or nice job. It makes sense that students might

struggle to provide constructive feedback to a peers poem, especially when Ms. Friend

did not model how to do this beyond providing sentence frames. This gap could be

addressed through the implementation of a think-aloud in which the teacher models how

to provide feedback on a variety of student poems. (p. 403)

As with communication and collaboration, creativity and critical thinking can also remain

surface-level unless the proper modeling is conducted by the teacher. Therefore, it is pertinent

that teachers receive adequate training (i.e. given substantial examples and tools) in the

implementation of the 4Cs in Google Classroom.

Digital Writing

Writing on its own is not a new, or even impactful topic; the magic in writing lies in the

realm of teacher feedback. Technology (in terms of digital writing) allows for quicker feedback,

and therefore quicker student learning. According to Lin and Jou (2013), when students engage

in digital writing, especially through Google Apps or Google Classroom, instructors have the

ability to view each student submission and share comments and suggestions immediately with

the students (p. 158). Yim, Warschauer, and Zheng (2016) point out that using Google

Documents to write is beneficial due to its collaborative nature through features such as sharing,

working with multiple authors, and getting feedback (p. 18). The authors go on to state that
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 15

students felt they learned the most when they authored their own work and received peer

feedback, rather than co-authoring a piece of writing with another student. In addition to

students creating their own piece of writing, both students and teachers felt that writing in

Google Documents was beneficial due to the ability for simultaneous access by students and

teachers:

Since cloud-based technology enables students and teachers to simultaneously access the

same document, teachers easily employ demonstrative techniques in writing instructions,

such as color-coding or modeling, to help students focus on revision processes.

Compared to traditional tools, the digital version of annotating and highlighting in a

Google Docs environment was perceived by teachers and students to be more beneficial

as it is more convenient, fast, and interactive among peers. (Yim, Warschauer, & Zheng,

2016, p. 18)

Feedback has always been a part of writing, and will continue to be. The draw of digital

writing is that it allows teachers to leave feedback or model appropriate techniques as students

are watching. Because feedback and help is immediate, there is no longer a need to wait a week

for a teacher to grade the rough draft and hand it back, just for the student to make changes and

re-submit the work, to wait another week for more feedback.

Effectiveness of an On-site Technology Mentor

Most professional development in education happens in the form of one-size-fits-all,

sit-and-get instruction. This instruction is not tailored to individual teachers, nor is it geared

towards what teachers need, but it is often what districts or sites think teachers need. This

method is not the most beneficial professional development model; Mouza (2002) (as cited in
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 16

Sugar, 2005) notes that "traditional sit-and-get training sessions without follow-up support have

not been effective in preparing teachers to integrate classroom technologies. Rather thoughtful

and ongoing professional development programs are needed" (p. 549).

After reviewing literature around effective professional development, we see that on-site

mentoring, especially regarding technology use, is the most effective. According to Glazer,

Hannafin, and Song (2005), a professional development model situated in the context of the

school environment (see Glazer & Hannafin, in press), has the potential to increase the quality

and frequency of technology integration. Teachers obtain on-site, continual, and just-in-time

support from peers as professional learning is integrated into the communitys repertoire (p.

58). Similarly, Sugar (2005) states that situated professional development (driven by teacher

need/want) is more effective than traditional methods (driven by others agendas - like

district/principal). Sugar goes on to state that teacher training around technology has to focus on

individual teachers needs as well as their varying confidence levels. Traditional professional

development might train a teacher how to use a device or application, but it does not educate

them on how to integrate that piece of technology into their classroom in a meaningful way.

Technology Provides for Effective and Efficient use of Planning and Instructional Time

Although integrating technology into a classroom can be difficult in the beginning stages,

the payoff is huge for student learning. Teachers who allow students to work collaboratively

online find that lessons are more intentional, and students learn more in the same amount of time.

To highlight this, Kutaka-Kennedy (2015) states that online collaborative dialogue that

synthesizes ideas, encourages debate, and explores related themes requires students to combine

inductive and deductive reasoning, often lead[s] to greater depths of knowledge, mastery of
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 17

content, and satisfaction with learning (p. 874). This lesson allows all three activities (ideas,

debate, and related themes) to occur simultaneously, allowing students to get more out of a

single class period than they would without the use of technology. Similarly, Yim, Warschauer,

and Zheng (2016) state that, achieving more in less time and with less effort provides a

significant incentive to connect to technology (p. 13). There may be a time cost upfront with

technology, but in terms of instructional minutes, there is much less time required, with the same

(or better) outcome.

Needs Analysis

We created a needs analysis survey to determine where teachers needed help with

technology integration. The questions focused on a combination of tools and concepts such as

Google Classroom, Seesaw, the 4Cs, digital writing, etc. The survey was administered via email

to all teachers at Patrick Henry Elementary School and twenty three teachers responded. The

results were highlighted using pie charts and bar graphs (see Figure 4).

Screenshot Analysis/Rationale

General overview of
teacher technology use
at Patrick Henry
Elementary.
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 18

Google Classroom is a
required initiative this
year for all teachers.

1 = Never, 5 =
Everyday

The 4Cs broken down

into separate
questions.

1 = Never, 5 =
Everyday

The 4Cs broken down

into separate
questions.
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 19

1 = Never, 5 =
Everyday

The 4Cs broken down

into separate
questions.

1 = Never, 5 =
Everyday

The 4Cs broken down

into separate
questions.

1 = Never, 5 =
Everyday

Digital writing is
specifically called out
in the site plan.
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 20

Which of these choices

would you prefer to
receive professional
development on?

Figure 4. Summary of needs analysis responses

From this needs analysis survey, we see that all respondents use technology, and they all

see some purpose behind using technology in the classroom (i.e. no one answered that they use

technology superficially simply because they have to). We see that students are using

technology to collaborate, be creative, think critically, and communicate, although

communication is the least used of the 4Cs. We also see that digital writing is incorporated in

most classes, but five teachers said they never used technology to allow students to write

digitally, which is a school focus in the sites Single Plan for Student Achievement.

Based on our needs analysis survey, we see that teachers need help with using Google

Classroom in a meaningful way (incorporating the 4Cs and digital writing). To accomplish this,

we will create technology professional development around the 4Cs and digital writing using

Google Classroom as our platform for delivering the content. The main focus of the professional

development is the modeling of specific strategies and practices that teachers can use within

Google Classroom to ensure their students access to and development of the 4Cs and digital

writing.
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 21

Development and Implementation

Our professional development planning began with administering a needs assessment to

all Patrick Henry Elementary School teachers. All but one teacher returned the survey, so we felt

comfortable using the results to create the plan for our technology PD. Teachers (and the site

plan/principals directive) said they needed help using Google Classroom with their students, and

that they did not feel comfortable incorporating the 4Cs and digital writing into their lessons.

We chose to do our PD with these two goals in mind: (1) Participants will gain a deeper

understanding of how to use Google Classroom with their students and (2) Participants will

integrate at least one of the 4Cs into a lesson using Classroom. In the needs analysis, some

teachers responded that they had started using Classroom with their students while others said

they had no experience with Classroom. Due to this dichotomy, we needed to ensure that all

teachers felt challenged at the appropriate level, and tailored the PD to meet all teachers needs.

To differentiate, we gave multiple examples, walked teachers through basic and advanced

features of Classroom, and gave planning and question time at the end of the session. To keep

all participants focused and engaged, we split the session into sections and created an agenda

(see Figure 5) that gave them a students and teachers perspective. We had the teachers join our

Classroom as students to give them the experience of a students perspective. We first

introduced them to the Stream (see Figure 6), where all the assignments were posted. The

participants first clicked on the Google Forms sign-in assignment to determine a base level of

understanding.
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 22

Figure 5: Agenda

Figure 6: Google Classroom Stream

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 23

For the first fifteen minutes, teachers participated in a collaboration activity using a circle map

(see Figure 7), answered a critical thinking question and responded to each other (see Figure 8),

and learned how to create an assignment as a teacher and assign it to their students.

Figure 7: Collaboration activity using a circle map

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 24

Figure 8: Answering a question and responding to peers

Next, we had our participants return to the Stream and click on a Google Slides

presentation on the integration of the 4Cs and digital writing in Google Classroom (see Figure 9

and 10). This created a copy in their Google Drive in case they want to take notes or refer to it at

a later time.
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 25

Figure 9: Stream - Google Slides presentation on the 4Cs and digital writing

Figure 10: Google Slides presentation on the 4Cs and digital writing in Google Classroom
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 26

The Google Slides presentation introduced the SAMR model and included multiple

examples of integrating the 4Cs and digital writing using Google Classroom. We showed

practical ways of creating a Google Doc using Benchmark, the current language arts curriculum

used at the school site (see Figure 11), then integrating collaboration and communication using

the share and comment features (see Figure 12). Additionally, we provided ideas and examples

of how to incorporate creativity and critical thinking with communication into a language arts

lesson (see Figure 13 and 14).

Figure 11: Google Slides presentation on the 4Cs and digital writing in Google Classroom
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 27

Figure 12: Collaboration and communication using the comment features

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 28

Figure 13: Critical thinking and communication using the Assign a Question feature
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 29

Figure 14: Creativity and communication using Google Slides and the comment feature

At the end of the session, we gave teachers the time to create and design assignments.

We answered and clarified questions and concerns as well as guided and monitored teachers

navigation through Google Classroom. Finally, we had all participants complete a feedback

form (see Figure 15) which we used as an evaluation of the training.

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 30

Figure 15: End-of-session feedback form

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 31

To summarize the implementation of our technology professional development, we first

delivered two identical one-hour training sessions, a week apart to accommodate as many

teachers as possible. Each session consisted of signing in, teachers experiencing Classroom as a

student, assigning activities in their personal Classroom, looking at examples of integrating the

4Cs and digital writing, and creation/question time. These sessions were voluntary, as we could

not require teachers to attend an after school training, and we did not have a budget to pay

teachers for their time. The next step in our development plan is to provide ongoing support via

the Online PD assignment in EDEL 590. This online component of the professional

development will be an extension of the face-to-face sessions, where we will offer more

examples and activities that will help teachers create their own resources for implementing the

4Cs and digital writing in Google Classroom. Mr. Chen works on the same campus as these

teachers, and can act as a face-to-face tutor or mentor, and Mrs. Gurbada can be reached by

email or Twitter as a remote contact. The year-long professional development plan (see Figure

16) follows a cycle of two face-to-face sessions, an online PD (e.g. using PowerSchool Learning

or Google Classroom), and a follow-up via email or Twitter chat, which will include teacher

feedback to be used as the current needs analysis.

Person
Month Tech PD Format Evaluation Method
Responsible

September Administer needs analysis and Mr. Chen & Google Form Responses
determine goals for PD Mrs. Gurbada;
Henry teachers

October Face-to-Face Sessions: Mr. Chen & Google Form - post-session

Intro to Google Classroom and Mrs. Gurbada; evaluation
Integration of 4Cs and Digital Henry teachers
Writing
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 32

November Online PD & Session Follow Mr. Chen & PowerSchool Learning
Up Mrs. Gurbada; (Haiku) and Google Form
Henry teachers Responses (teacher use of
new knowledge and
student learning)

December Email with Resources or Mr. Chen & Google Form - support,
Twitter Chat; Needs analysis Mrs. Gurbada questions/concerns, new
ideas, etc.

January Face-to-Face Sessions: Mr. Chen & Google Form - post-session

Examples of Integrating Mrs. Gurbada; evaluation
Benchmark and Science with Henry teachers
Google Classroom

February Online PD & Session Follow Mr. Chen & PowerSchool Learning
Up Mrs. Gurbada; (Haiku) and Google Form
Henry teachers Responses (teacher use of
new knowledge and
student learning)

March Email with Resources or Mr. Chen & Google Form - support,
Twitter Chat; Needs analysis Mrs. Gurbada questions/concerns, new
ideas, etc.

April Face-to-Face Sessions: Mr. Chen & Google Form - post-session

Google Classroom and Mrs. Gurbada; evaluation
Integration of 4Cs and Digital Henry teachers
Writing (advanced)

May Online PD & Session Follow Mr. Chen & PowerSchool Learning
Up Mrs. Gurbada; (Haiku) and Google Form
Henry teachers Responses (teacher use of
new knowledge and
student learning)

June Email with Resources or Mr. Chen & Google Form - support,
Twitter Chat; Needs analysis Mrs. Gurbada questions/concerns, new
ideas, etc.
Figure 16: Year-long break down of technology PD
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 33

Narrative Rationale

As seen in Figure 16, our technology professional development spans the entire school

year, with the exception of May and June due to testing and end of the year time commitments.

The needs analyses will go out to every teacher on campus to gauge their needs, and therefore

the goals of the upcoming PD. The face-to-face sessions are initially scheduled early in the

school year to allow teachers to use what they learn in their classes immediately, as well as give

them time to plan how to fit Google Classroom into their lessons this year. The face-to-face

sessions are open to anyone on campus who wishes to attend (teachers, coaches, administrators,

etc.) and will be followed up with online professional development (open to the entire staff) as

well as check-in communication (for those that attended one of the face-to-face sessions).

Currently, face-to-face trainings are conducted for an hour after school during teachers planning

time. Pending administrator's approval, one or two sessions will be held during a weekly staff

meeting to increase attendance. The emails or Twitter chats will include everyone on campus to

ensure that all teachers, regardless of attending a face-to-face session or working on an online

course, have access to material that will help them integrate technology into their class in

meaningful ways.

Timeline

The following timeline is one cycle of a face-to-face session, online PD, and

email/Twitter chat. The first cycle takes place from September to December. The second cycle

takes place from January to March. The last cycle takes place from April to June.

Week 1: send out a needs analysis through Google Forms to determine goals for the PD
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 34

Week 2: determine audience for face-to-face sessions, send out Google Calendar invites,

purchase snacks, print handouts, design presentation

Week 3: send email reminder to participants of upcoming PD

Week 4: secure PD room, set up tablet and projector, and administer face-to-face PD and

evaluation

Week 6: send follow up evaluation email asking about teacher use and impact on student

learning through Google Forms and one-on-one interviews, design online PD modules

Week 8: send link to online PD to all teachers

Week 10: gather resources, create new needs analysis in Google Forms

Week 12: send email/Twitter chat link with resources and send new needs analysis

Budget

Our technology professional development requires no real money, as the school has

chosen to use Google Classroom, which is free. The only piece we are spending money on is

snacks for the face-to-face sessions, but we plan on providing these snacks ourselves, not asking

for the site to pay for them. All face-to-face sessions are voluntary and happen after school, so

there is no need for a substitute for any of the teachers or presenters. Stipends could be provided

to encourage higher attendance but with the current budget forecast, it is unlikely. If the

administrators would like to make future sessions mandatory, we would be given a regular staff

meeting time to deliver the PD.

Evaluation

To ensure our growth as coaches as well as the usefulness of our professional

development, we started planning our PD with two main goals in mind. We knew we wanted
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 35

and needed to gather participant feedback to allow us to reflect on our delivery of the content and

to offer extra support to teachers who needed it. Figure 17 shows our overall professional

development goals as well as our method for evaluating those goals.

Goal Evaluation

Participants will gain a deeper understanding Day of evaluation form - gauge PD itself
of how to use Google Classroom with their
students

Participants will integrate at least one of the Follow up evaluation form - look at teacher
4Cs into a lesson using Classroom use and impact on student learning

Face-to-face interview and coaching session

Figure 17: Overall goals and evaluation methods

We evaluated ourselves and our PD from the feedback we received as well as discussing

minor tweaks to time management and content priority (i.e. which slides can we skip or quickly

present, and which slides do we need to spend more time discussing) at two different times,

immediately after the PD as well as two weeks later. The Google Form survey at the end of each

face-to-face session was administered to gauge the professional development itself and our

presentation of the material. We examined the results of this survey together before the second

face-to-face session to ensure that what we did was effective and useful for the first group of

participants, and made any changes necessary to ensure that the second session was even more

beneficial. The follow up evaluation, sent via email two weeks after the face-to-face session,

identified any changes in student learning and achievement due to applying the knowledge and

skills acquired at the PD as well as teachers continued use of Google Classroom (see Figure 18).

We asked teachers to rate themselves on their application of the knowledge and skills they

learned at the face-to-face session in a fairly broad manner. We did this intentionally to ensure
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 36

that teachers felt comfortable giving honest answers and not feeling pressured to do one more

thing to check off because someone was watching. We will use the results of the follow up

survey to see which teachers need more one-on-one support to ensure higher levels of student

engagement and achievement.

Figure 18: Follow up evaluation questions

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 37

Reflection

We, Jessie and Michael, learned a lot from this project. Primarily we learned how to

create and deliver technology professional development that is not only informational but is

practical and transformational for individual teachers and for the school. It was clear from the

literature review that professional development was crucial for the successful integration of

technology in the classroom, so we understand the importance of developing a technology PD

plan to achieve that goal. However, we were also aware that trainings often had an association

with theoretical and irrelevant practice, given by people who dont work with students on a daily

basis. Therefore, we set out to make our technology professional development as practical and

relevant as possible so that teachers would gain something they could use consistently with their

students.

Prior to the development and implementation of the PD, we conducted a needs analysis to

determine the primary needs of the school and of individual teachers. This was an important step

of the process as it helped us create meaningful and targeted content for the PD. We spent a lot

of time discussing what to include in a one-hour face-to-face PD session so that it would benefit

teachers and their students learning. We decided to incorporate examples of how Google

Classroom can be used so that teachers could experience it from a student perspective and then

moved into examples of how teachers could use Classroom themselves. We were very

intentional with the examples we showed so that teachers had a usable product when they left the

PD (we created templates that teachers could make a copy of and use with their students) to

ensure that teachers gained something useful from our session.

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 38

The greatest challenge of implementing our complete technology PD plan will be to keep

up with the various tasks in preparation for each face-to-face session as well as keeping teachers

interest throughout the whole school year. From experience, teachers get busy and dont always

devote time to prepare for, and attend, optional training sessions. If we can make this plan work

and see it through, Patrick Henry teachers and students will benefit greatly from Google

Classroom, because it helps streamline teachers paperwork and grading and strengthens

students 21st Century skills (the 4Cs). Working with a partner was beneficial for this project

because we added to each others ideas and provided constructive feedback and multiple

perspectives in creating the PD. We also felt that working independently would put too much

stress on one person to do the plan justice.

I, Jessie, learned that elementary and secondary education are two completely different

animals, and preparing PD for both levels is just as different. Up until this point, most of my

experience has been with middle and high school teachers, so working with elementary teachers

was an eye opener as they have very different standards, activities, etc. I also learned that my

communication skills and confidence have improved. I have only been a staff developer for a

few months, but I already feel way ahead of where I was when I started.

I, Michael, learned that there were more teachers at Henry than I expected to be open to

integrating technology using Google Classroom. The teachers and administrators who attended

were very supportive and interested in seeing more PD like this. With backing from the

administrators and all teachers on board, students will benefit greatly from consistently using and

mastering the Google tools through Classroom, which will prepare them for more advanced work

in middle and high school. I also learned that the knowledge I acquired through this program can
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 39

only benefit others by coaching, mentoring, and delivering PD sessions to a group of teachers,

which I experienced for the first time this semester. Additionally, I felt that the PD was effective

because I believed in what I was sharing. Being convinced myself that a particular technology is

effective, goes a long way in convincing others of the same. Finally, I am encouraged by the

positive feedback I received from my mentee, administrators, and teachers, and am confident and

hopeful that I will continue to grow and develop as an educational technology coach.
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 40

References

Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isnt

happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546.

Chandra, V. & Fisher, D. (2009). Students perceptions of a blended web-based learning

environment. Learning Environments Research, 12, 31-44.

Dietrich, T., & Balli, S. (2014). Digital natives: Fifth-grade students authentic and ritualistic

engagement with technology. International Journal of Instruction, 7(2), 21-34.

Donovan, L., & Green, T. (2014). Making change: creating 21st century teaching & learning

environments. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education.

Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers beliefs

about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 32(1), 54-71.

Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher

beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers &

Education, 59(2), 423-435.

Glazer, E. , Hannafin, M, & Song, L. (2005). Promoting Technology Integration Through

Collaborative Apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research and Development,

53(4), 57-67.

Guise, M., & Friend, N. (2017). Demystifying Poetry for Middle Grades Students through

Collaborative, Multimodal Writing. Language Arts, 94(6), 395-406.

Keane, T. (2016). Beyond Traditional Literacy: Learning and Transformative Practices Using

ICT. Education and Information Technologies, 21(4), 769-781.

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 41

Khodabandelou, R. (2016). Exploring the main barriers of technology integration in the english

language teaching classroom: A qualitative study. International Journal of Education and

Literacy Studies, 4(1).

Kurt, S., & Ciftci, M. (2012). Barriers to teachers' use of technology. International Journal of

Instructional Media, 39(3), 225.

Levin-Goldberg, J. (2012). Teaching Generation TechX with the 4Cs: Using Technology to

Integrate 21st Century Skills. Journal Of Instructional Research, 1, 59-66.

Lin, Y., & Jou, M. (2013). Integrating Popular Web Applications in Classroom Learning

Environments and Its Effects on Teaching, Student Learning Motivation and

Performance. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 12(2),

157-TOJET, 2013, Vol.12(2), p.157-165.

Miranda, H., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher-directed

student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation modeling

approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 652-666.

Pittman, T., & Gaines, T. (2015). Technology Integration in Third, Fourth and Fifth Grade

Classrooms in a Florida School District. Educational Technology Research And

Development, 63(4), 539-554.

Rowe, M., Bozalek, V., & Frantz, J. (2013). Using Google Drive to Facilitate a Blended

Approach to Authentic Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4),

594-606.
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 42

Shinsky, J., & Stevens, H. (2011). Teaching in Educational Leadership Using Web 2.0

Applications: Perspectives on What Works. Journal of Research on Leadership

Education, 6(5), 195-215.

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.

Yen, H., Tuan, H., & Liao, C. (2011). Investigating the influence of motivation on students'

conceptual learning outcomes in web-based vs. classroom-based science teaching

contexts. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 211-224. Doi:

10.1007/s11165-009-9161-x