The challenge is the evaluation portion of an ETPD, by finding out how it impacts the teacher’s content delivery and how the transfer of knowledge impacts the student. The way to overcome this challenge and provide and effective and meaningful ETPD assessment is to design activities that address the areas within the TPACK model. As stated in the journal article, “Participant-Directed Evaluation: Using Teachers’ Own Inquiries to Evaluate Professional Development in Technology Integration” by Vince Ham (2008), these activities should be discipline specific and iterative so that the teacher’s needs are understood as well as understand the type of assistance that may be required. Teachers must understand which technologies are best suited for delivering lessons based on specific subject-matters, and how content dictates or shapes specific educational technological uses, and vice versa.
Stated in the article: “Participant-Directed Evaluation: Using Teachers’ Own Inquiries to Evaluate Professional Development in Technology Integration” by: Melissa Pierson (2010), the main outcome from a successful PD is having the educators change their teaching practice and ultimately affect student learning outcomes. Within the articles that were reviewed, producing the results for this outcome is rather difficult due to the measurability and consistency of the variables (students). Students in the 21st century are so technically savvy, it’s difficult to pinpoint how much influence the teacher had over the successful learning outcome of the class. Did the PD training for that teacher directly influence the overall success of their class? Are those students more prepared to compete in the 21st century with the technical skills learned in their classes? Questions such as these illustrate the level of difficulty to track the results of an effective PD. Some articles suggested to measure and assess the performance of the PD developed by an Educational Technologist is to use the following model illustrated by Ham, V. (2008), (see Figure: 1).
Phase 1 in the model represents the various activities that will be evaluated in the PD. Phase 2 displays the characteristics of the PD, the type observations and measurable skills the teacher had, prior, during and after the PD. Phase 3 discusses the student learning outcomes from the newly implemented technology into their course curriculum. According to Louanne Smolin in the article, “Evaluation Across Contexts: Evaluating the Impact of Technology Integration Professional Development Partnerships” (2010), state that the most effective approach to evaluating a successful PD is through collaboration. There are several stake holders involved in the development and in the integration of technology in schools, including funders, teachers, school administrators, Information Communication Technology (ICT)personnel, higher education institutions, parents, and community members. With all of these stake holders exchanging information from the technological perspective and pedagogical perspective, outcome will be fully integrated technical content rather than simple skill building tasks.
“Our education system holds educators responsible for student achievement but does support them with the latest technology the way professionals in other fields are supported.” U.S. Department of Education (2010). This quote from the 2010, National Educational Technology Plan demonstrates the truth in which teachers are faced with at every state level in the U.S. The development and implementation of effective educational technology professional development (ETPD) for teachers are scarce and the National Department of Education is recognizing these truths. It is our responsibility as educational technology leaders to assist with an ETPD plan that will help teachers gain the technical skills necessary to transfer over to our 21st century students. Standards developed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), help facilitate goals that should be achieved by teachers for the purpose creating technology enriched curriculum to support skills needed to compete in the digital age. Standard 2 in NETS state that the responsibilities of teachers are to: “design or adapt relevant learning experience that incorporate digital tools and resources to promote student learning and creativity.” ISTE|NETS (2008). In order for this standard to be executed is by the development of a sound ETPD.
There are several components of an effective ETPD but the most relevant one found among the research literature was having the technology training spread out over time with several follow –up session. “..workshops for technology integration would support the notion that the best professional development activities are spread out over time with opportunities for follow-up learning and feedback.” Lawless, K. & Pellegrino, J. (2007). This model would help teacher’s intake new technologies and digest them in small compartmentalized pieces. The follow-up could be in the form of mentors in the form of “ technology-savvy colleagues, graduate students in instructional technology or online mentors.” Lawless, K. & Pellegrino, J. (2007). It is found that teacher’s that have completed an effective ETPD directly relates to higher student achievement in their technology enriched projects. If teachers have successfully gained technical skills from a well-developed ETPD they are able to properly provide technology-enhanced learning opportunities for their students that support the NET standards for students. These skills are directly transferred a successfully student outcome that is reflected in the state and national educational standards.
In the article:, “Constructivism and technology use”, it states that, “Teachers with a constructivist orientation consider the perspective of their students with seeking to facilitate learning, provoke the questioning or assumptions, and focus on the big ideas that are relevant to students.” Overbay, A., et. al (2010). Based on the constructive theory, a well-developed ETPD allow teachers freedom to develop their own methods of delivering the curriculum to their students with their newly developed technical skills. As the literature states in terms of evaluation, a high quality ETPD provides access to new technologies for teaching and learning that will actively engage teachers in meaningful and relevant and activities…to promote peer collaboration and community building…to have a common vision of student achievement.” Lawless, K. & Pellegrino, J. (2007).
The practical application that could be developed at my educational setting would be the TPACK model. There are several stake holders that would be involved in the development of an effective PD for the faculty at Pasadena City College (PCC). Each group serving an important role of exchanging their own knowledge base to result in successful student learning outcomes as well as meeting the ICT standards of the 21st century. Building ETPD learning modules that separate technology, pedagogy and content seems logical as well as feasible. Each stake-holder could have their area of expertise and therefore create a plan to fully integrate various technologies into the curriculum that would spread to all of the disciplines within our campus community. By utilizing the TPACK model, an educational technologist could also build in a mentor system where there are a set of educators that are more technological saavy (early majority) could mentor, assist and support educators that are less comfortable with new technology (late majority, laggards). The mix of technology experience will create an exchange of new and old school principals, resulting in the growth of the entire organization. See Figure 2. “Successful educational technology PD initiatives are characterized by an expanded, informed, and connected view of learning on both the individual and the organizational level.” Pierson, M.(2010).
Citations
- Harris, J., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2009).Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Learning Activity Types: Curriculum-based Technology Integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education.
- Lawless, K. & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614. doi: 10.3102/0034654307309921
- MacDonald, J. (2008). Professional Development for Information Communication Technology Integration: Identifying and Supporting a Community of Practice through Design-Based Research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Volume 40 Number 4.
- Pierson, M., Borthwick, A. (2010). Framing the Assessment of Educational Technology Professional Development in a Culture of Learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 26 Number 4.
- Smolin, L., Lawless, K. (2011). Evaluation Across Contexts: Evaluating the Impact of Technology Integration Professional Development Partnerships. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 27 Number 3.
- U.S. Department of Education (2010). Technology U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology Transforming American Education. National Education Technology Plan 2010 Retrieved from: https://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 on 11/05/2011
- Yates, S. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of their professional learning activities. International Education Journal, 8(2), 213-221.
