914886

research-article2020
ISCXXX10.1177/1053451220914886Intervention in School and ClinicLove et al.

Teacher Education
Kristin Sayeski, Associate Editor
Intervention in School and Clinic 1­–4
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2020
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1053451220914886
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220914886
isc.sagepub.com

Professional Development to Increase Teacher

Matthew L. Love, PhD1, Lisa A. Simpson, EdD1, Andrea Golloher, PhD1,

Abstract
As technology continues to provide new instructional options in the classroom, opportunities to embed new tools in
their pedagogy are critical for teachers. One avenue that could encourage teachers to adopt new technologies in their
classroom is professional development. This column outlines how a comprehensive program can be implemented to build
teacher capacity for implementing new tools in their classrooms. Suggestions include developing a referral system that
connects teachers to necessary supports, developing ongoing trainings that build teacher knowledge and skills for using
technology, and creating site-based leaders for technology use through professional development and the creation of
professional learning communities.

Keywords
personnel preparation/professional development, education/training/preparation, teacher(s), integration of technology

Instructional technologies (IT), when well designed and a facilitator of student exploration of content (McKnight
thoughtfully applied during instruction, are key tools for et al., 2017).
teachers to use to meet the needs of students with learning Despite the promise of IT, simply making technology
disabilities (LD) in general education classrooms (Basham available to teachers is unlikely to lead to improved student
et al., 2016). The promise of IT has led to its inclusion in the outcomes. It is the meaningful planning and integration of
National Education Technology Plan (U.S. Department of these tools in instruction and assessment that may enhance
Education, 2017) and the Council for Exceptional Children’s student learning (Karlin et al., 2018). Guiding the use of
(CEC) list of high-leverage practices (HLP; McLeskey et al., technology as an instructional tool for students with dis-
2017). The efficacy of these tools for students with LD, how- abilities are the HLPs that suggest instruction be delivered
ever, is dependent on a teacher’s ability to use them to deliver in a direct and explicit manner with technology being used
specially designed instruction (Ertmer & Ottenbreit- to modify and adapt content to meet diverse learning needs.
Leftwich, 2010). Instructional technology refers to any mul- However, initial evaluations of the roll out of large technol-
timedia tool designed to provide instruction, including web ogy initiatives at multiple school districts have suggested
browsers, mobile device applications, and learning manage- that, without a strong vision and plan for supporting teach-
ment systems (LMS), which can increase a teacher’s capacity ers in embedding technology in their pedagogy, the invest-
to differentiate instruction (Edyburn, 2013). Such differentia- ment in technology alone does not improve student
tion benefits students with disabilities (SWD) while allowing
teachers to provide flexible learning opportunities to all stu- 1
San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, USA
dents (Sailor, 2015). Increasingly, school districts are invest- 2
Palo Alto Technology Collaboration Hub, Palo Alto, CA, USA
ing in technology (e.g., 1:1 initiatives) to support the learning
Corresponding Author:
needs of students by providing access to flexible learning Matthew L. Love, San Jose State University, One Washington Square,
materials, increased collaborative opportunities, and the San Jose, CA 95192, USA.
transformation of a teacher’s role from instructional leader to Email: [email protected]
2 Intervention in School and Clinic 00(0)

outcomes (Cole & Sauers, 2018). In addition to making strategies), technology knowledge (i.e., knowledge and
tools available to teachers, professional development (PD) skills for using technology), and the combination of these
that supports teachers in understanding how to integrate areas where teachers define a clear role for IT to play in
the tools into their instruction is imperative (Liu, Ko, addressing a specific instructional task or objective
Willman & Fickert, 2018). This column provides practical (Swallow & Olofson, 2017). Moving beyond the adoption
steps that districts can follow in facilitating teacher adop- of new IT described by TAM, TPACK describes how well
tion of new IT that are rooted in established conceptual teachers make use of the IT in their classrooms.
frameworks and research. Combined, these frameworks suggest areas for PD to
address alignment of instruction with the HLPs and to
Model of Professional Development increase teacher confidence in using technology with the
ultimate goal of integration of technology in teacher peda-
Research on teacher PD and adult learning indicates that gogy (Anderson & Putman, 2019; Courduff et al., 2016).
effective PD should be “seamless, technology enabled, Provided below is a description of how PD can support
comprehensive, cohesive, and career spanning” (Rock teachers in building technology knowledge and their per-
et al., 2016, p. 98). One-time PD opportunities that treat ceptions of the benefits new IT will have in their class-
teachers to sleek demonstrations of new technologies will rooms, so that IT will ultimately be included in direct and
rarely result in changes to instruction in the classroom if explicit instructional cycles to address specific instructional
these sessions do not include the opportunity for teachers to tasks and objectives.
directly apply the tool to their work or offer ongoing sup-
port for implementation (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, Opportunities to address technology acceptance model, and
2009). Districts should strive to develop models of PD that technological pedagogical and content knowledge. The pro-
recognize educators’ expertise in instructional practices and curement of tools for classroom use is typically made at
allow them flexible access to training opportunities so that the district level (Cole & Sauers, 2017). Although teachers
they understand how new and existing IT may be applicable may have some input into these decisions, it is unlikely
to their ever-evolving professional responsibilities (Cook that all teachers will have complete knowledge of the tools
et al., 2017). It is important to realize, however, that dis- available to them in their classroom. Without requisite
tricts, schools, and teachers have differing technological technology knowledge, it would be hard for teachers to
needs and resources for providing direct support for adopt- view tools as useful in their pedagogy. In increasing
ing and implementing IT. Although PD that effectively teacher capacity for using technology, an initial strand of
meets the needs of all stakeholders may look different PD should be aimed at familiarizing teachers with the
between districts, it remains important that any support pro- tools available to them and their functionalities. These
vided be flexible and sustainable. activities are likely to increase acceptance of the tools
(i.e., TAM) and should be a precursor to sessions that sup-
Differentiated, Ongoing, and On-Demand port TPACK by drawing connections between the IT and
teachers’ existing pedagogy so that they are more likely to
Professional Development adopt the tools in their classrooms (Lamond & Cunning-
With the ever-evolving professional responsibilities of ham, 2019). At this stage, districts may want to devise a
classroom teachers, particularly special educators, access rollout that includes these sessions during district-wide
to PD sessions should be flexible (Rock et al., 2016). For PD days, ensuring that those teachers who would benefit
districts that have differing resources (e.g., PD funds, from it attend the PD.
technology experts), these sessions can take multiple As teachers begin to adopt IT, it is critical that they see
forms (e.g., online, face-to-face). Regardless of the for- a tool as (a) easy to use and (b) beneficial for instruction, to
mat, they should focus on building teacher knowledge of ensure continued use of the tool (Anderson & Putman,
available tools and their uses in the classroom. In their 2019). To develop a deeper understanding of each tool’s
analysis of exemplary technology use in classrooms, constraints and affordances (i.e., technology knowledge),
Courduff et al. (2016) highlighted two frameworks, the teachers will need to understand how, when, where, and for
technology acceptance model (TAM) and technological whom a technology would be appropriate. To support the
pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) to capture development of TPACK, follow-up, more individualized
the self-efficacy and skill sets required for the effective PD sessions should provide teachers with demonstrations
use of IT. The TAM is a measure of how users view tech- and hands-on practice. These sessions should demonstrate
nology in terms of its utility and ease of use; it, therefore, (a) how to navigate and use specific tools, (b) the unique
serves as a precursor to technology adoption (King & He, capabilities of the tool, (c) the way in which the tools inter-
2006). The TPACK framework looks to describe the inter- act with the existing technology infrastructure, and (d) the
sections of pedagogical knowledge (i.e., instructional accessibility and differentiation options available in the
Love et al. 3

tool. Each of these sessions should end with specific infor- achievement when different types of technology are used
mation about how teachers’ use of the tool can drive the (Ault & Bausch, 2014). Having students keep a log of
learning of students with disabilities. These hands-on dem- when they actually use a specific tool can be helpful in
onstrations can be scheduled on a regular basis (e.g., first understanding how useful that tool is for the student. In
Tuesday of the month) so teachers understand there is a addition, reflective comments and anecdotal notes can pro-
regular time and place to get additional support with a spe- vide important information about how well specific tech-
cific technology. This type of ongoing PD may encourage nology is working and whether there are any specific
teachers to persist in using a new IT; if they have options challenges with implementation.
for planning PD into their schedules, they may seek help
before discontinuing use of a specific tool. Regular hands-
on sessions with various IT can increase teacher comfort
Building Teacher Capacity as Technology
with using new tools in the classroom, develop their under- Leaders
standing of where new tools fit in the existing technology A final consideration for districts is how to create a sustain-
infrastructure and, ultimately, increase the likelihood that able model of technology adoption to prevent limited
technology becomes embedded in teacher pedagogy. resources from being overwhelmed by requests for training
or consultations. Two models to consider adopting include
Integrating teacher planning for and evaluation of instructional professional learning communities (PLC; Stoll et al., 2006)
technology in professional development. As teachers begin and train-the-trainer (TTT) models (Pancucci, 2007). With
to adopt new IT into their instruction, PD should support PLCs, groups of teachers work together to learn about and
teachers’ thoughtful planning of how to use the technology share resources on a particular topic. An IT PLC could be
for instructional and assessment purposes within explicit developed so that teachers from different school sites using
instructional cycles. Training should be designed to the same tools are able to delve deeper into the literature on
deepen TPACK, allowing teachers to make connections the pedagogical impact of the tools while sharing practical
between the capability of technology-based tools, the suggestions for how to use the tool based on their experi-
needs of students in their classrooms, and the curriculum ences in their own classrooms (Cook et al., 2017). In TTT
they are tasked with covering so that teachers can system- models, teachers would be trained to use a new tool with the
atically design and adapt instruction with embedded tech- expectation that they will train their colleagues. The PLC
nology to support students in meeting specific curricular and TTT models can also be combined so that teacher train-
goals (Koehler et al., 2013). This support can include PD ers lead or participate in the IT PLC.
at the school, department, or individual level. Using more Districts have multiple options when building commu-
individualized strategies, technology support providers nities of practice and site-based leaders. An initial consid-
may consider ways of demonstrating how specific tech- eration would be how to create a central repository for
nology tools can be incorporated in a lesson, including materials that can be accessed district-wide. This can be
joint planning sessions, modeling a lesson, or co-teaching built out through a school district website that allows
a lesson. teachers to share ideas across the district through forums,
As described in the TPACK framework, teachers should demonstration videos, and resource lists. Another option
recognize the role IT plays in their instruction. In support- could include a compendium of shared documents (e.g.,
ing teachers to plan for the use of IT, PD should include Google Drive) that allow teachers to share resources.
considerations for evaluating the effectiveness of these District-sponsored platforms or social media groups can
tools for students. Teachers will also need to develop skills provide a helpful medium for teachers to collaborate as
to evaluate newly adopted tools, including evaluating their well. The resources teachers share and the questions they
ease of use (i.e., do students use them as planned) and their ask in these forums may help identify future avenues for
impact on student learning. A comprehensive PD plan for PD on IT.
IT should include consultative planning sessions where the
role of teachers and technology are identified in detailed
plans for individual lessons (Hughes et al., 2017).
Conclusion
Specifically, teachers should be able to identify when to Effective PD that supports continued implementation of
employ the technology during instruction and have sys- innovative pedagogy is a critical component for teacher and
tems in place to assess its effectiveness in increasing stu- student success given the evolving professional responsi-
dent knowledge and achievement. Technology support bilities educators are asked to assume (Rock et al., 2016).
providers should assist in developing data collection sys- Considering how IT continues to change and evolve, PD
tems to record frequency and duration of technology use by plays an important role in keeping teachers abreast of new
the teacher and the student in addition to data on student technological tools available to them and increasing their
progress. When possible, teachers should monitor student ability to embed these tools in their instruction. The TAM
4 Intervention in School and Clinic 00(0)

and TPACK frameworks for technology integration suggest Hughes, C. A., Morris, J. R., Therrien, W. J., & Benson, S. K.
teachers need comprehensive support and training when (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary
adopting and implementing new tools. This should include contexts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32,
building teacher knowledge, skills, and competency for 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12142
Karlin, M., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Ozogul, G., & Liao, Y. (2018).
embedding tools in their classrooms, while supporting
K-12 technology leaders: Reported practices of technology pro-
teachers in becoming leaders at their own sites to create a
fessional development planning, implementation, and evaluation.
sustainable model of PD and, ultimately, support the use of Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18,
technology to drive student achievement. 722–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.00
King, W., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology
Declaration of Conflicting Interests acceptance model. Information and Management, 43, 740–
755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is techno-
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
logical pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal
of Education, 193, 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574
Funding 1319300303
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, Lamond, B., & Cunningham, T. (2019). Understanding teacher per-
authorship, and/or publication of this article. ceptions of assistive technology. Journal of Special Education
Technology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419841550
Liu, M., Ko, Y., Willman, A., & Fickert, C. (2018). Examining the
References role of professional development in a large school districts iPad
Anderson, S. E., & Putman, R. S. (2019). Special education teach- initiative. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50,
ers’ experience, confidence, beliefs, and knowledge about inte- 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1387743
grating technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, McKight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M.K., Franey, J.J.,
35, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419836409 & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educa-
Ault, M. J., & Bausch, M. E. (2014). Monitoring assistive technol- tors use technology to improve student learning. Journal of
ogy: Make event-based data recording work for you. Journal Research on Technology in Education, 48, 194–211, https://
of Special Education Technology, 29, 51–54. https://doi. doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856
org/10.1177/0162643416673912 McLeskey, J., Barringer, M.-D., Billingsley, B., Brownell,
Basham, J. D., Hall, T. E., Carter, R. A., Jr., & Stahl, W. M. M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., & Ziegler, D. (2017).
(2016). An operationalized understanding of personalized High-leverage practices in special education. Council for
learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31, 126– Exceptional Children; CEEDAR Center.
136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416660835 Pancucci, S. (2007). Train the trainer: The bricks in the learn-
Cole, B.V., & Sauers, N.J. (2018) Superintendents’ perceptions ing community scaffold of professional development.
of 1:1 initiative implementation and sustainability. Journal of International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational,
Research on Technology in Education, 50, 200-213. https:// Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 1, 597–604.
doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1442754 Rock, M. L., Spooner, F., Nagro, S., Vasquez, E., Dunn, C.,
Cook, R. J., Jones-Bromenshenkel, M., Huisinga, S., & Mullins, Leko, M., . . . Jones, J. L. (2016). 21st century change driv-
F. (2017). Online professional learning networks: A viable ers: Considerations for constructing transformative mod-
solution to the professional development dilemma. Journal els of special education teacher development. Teacher
of Special Education Technology, 32, 109–118. https://doi. Education and Special Education, 39, 98–120. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0162643417696930 org/10.1177/0888406416640634
Courduff, J., Szapkiw, A., & Wendt, J. L. (2016). Grounded in what Sailor, W. (2015). Advances in schoolwide inclusive reform.
works: Exemplary practice in special education teachers’ tech- Remedial and Special Education, 36, 94–99. https://doi.
nology integration. Journal of Special Education Technology, org/10.1177/0741932514555021
31, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416633333 Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learn- (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the
ing: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53. literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258.
Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special Swallow, M. J. C., & Olafson, M. W. (2017). Contextual under-
education technology evidence base. Exceptional Children, standings of the TPACK framework. Journal of Research on
80, 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291308000107 Technology in Education, 49, 228–244. https://doi.org/10.108
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technol- 0/15391523.2017.1347537
ogy change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the role of
intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), technology in education: 2017 national education technology
255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551 plan update. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf