Personalized Teacher Technology Professional Development:

A One-on-One Approach to Technology Training

Kimberly Bushman
Pepperdine University
July, 2014



PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 2




Contents

Introduction to the Problem
My Work Context
Literature Review
Research Design
Cycle Reports
Cycle One
Cycle Two
Cycle Three
Final Reflections
References


PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 3

Introduction to the Problem
Technology has become commonplace in schools, and its availability to teachers has increased
dramatically in recent years. At Fredericksburg Academy, in our lower school, instructional
technologies (computers, iPads, projectors, and document cameras) are available for teachers
to integrate into their instruction, but these devices are used infrequently and ineffectively.
Professional development involving technology integration has not been made a priority, and
so technology use has not increased. Last year, a series of webinars developed by PLP (Powerful
Learning Practices) were mandated by the administration. The purpose of the curriculum was
to enlighten teachers to the power of technology in their classrooms and as a personal learning
tool. Unfortunately, the very format of these sessions presented in webinars with participants
from throughout the United States and overseas, was not very accessible for teachers who
were novices with technology. The administration also insisted that teachers participate
independently, instead of in groups as the teachers strongly requested. This left many teachers
feeling completely unprepared to participate, and so they did not. The teachers still lack the
skills, and more importantly, the confidence, to successfully integrate technology into their
daily practice.


My Work Context
Fredericksburg Academy is a PK through 12 independent day school. The school first opened its
doors in 1992 to 60 students, and currently has an enrollment of approximately 350 students.
The campus consists of two academic buildings and an athletic center situated on 50 acres just
south of the Fredericksburg city line. The campus is divided by a four lane road with the
buildings on one side and athletic fields, tennis courts, and a forested nature trail on the other.
The two sides are linked by a tunnel that goes beneath the road allowing students to safely
cross for activities and athletic events.

Grade levels are divided into three different divisions within FA. The lower school consists of
grades PK-3 through 5, the middle school includes grades 6 through 8, and the upper school
houses grades 9 through 12. The lower and middle school share the larger of the two buildings.
This building was originally built to house an office park, and over the years many internal
renovations have been made to accommodate the classrooms needed for the growing student
population. The upper school building was built as an Arts and Sciences building that opened in
2004. At the time, the plan was to build a second building to house the remainder of the upper
school programs, but this has not come to fruition due to the economic downturn and the
resulting decline in student enrollment.

Technology has been a major focus in the upper school for many years where a 1:1 laptop
program has been in place. This program was one of the first in the region, although many area
high schools have since implemented the use of 1:1 devices. Up until last year, upper school
students leased a laptop from the school with the option to purchase it at the end of their
lease. Now the students are responsible for purchasing a laptop to use in and out of the
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 4

classroom.

Until the end of this school year, a computer lab in each division was the primary access to
technology for students. Teachers are assigned a school laptop, and as of last year, each lower
school classroom had its own projector, but those were the only other examples of school
provided technology to be found in both divisions. This will change next year for the middle
school when they implement a BYOD laptop program for its students in grades 6 - 8. The lower
and middle school have just recently experienced an increased attention from the board of
trustees and school administration on improving their access to technology. This has introduced
new devices into the lower school and precipitated the BYOD program in the middle school.

New technology has also been introduced in the lower school. Two iPad carts of twenty devices
each was deployed for use in the fourth and fifth grade classrooms. In the 2012-2013 school
year, the grades took turns with the iPads with fifth grade going first and then transitioning
them to fourth grade after the winter break, in February. This past school year, each grade had
one cart of devices which was shared between two classes. The teachers in each grade decided
to use a 1:2 configuration (one iPad for every two students). Apple TVs were added in all
classrooms in grades one through four. Two iPad minis were assigned to each of our two
kindergarten classrooms, but with this limited resource, the teachers used them as part of their
morning rotation of learning centers. While new devices have been acquired, there has been
little emphasis on teacher technology professional development to facilitate their use with
students.

The lower school has a history of treating technology as a special focus class, similar to PE or
music, so students were scheduled to spend thirty to sixty minutes each week in the lab with a
computer teacher. This teacher, historically, has not been someone with a degree, or even
background, in technology, and most classes were spent playing games on the computers. Last
year this was changed by my reassignment to a newly created position, that of Lower School
Technology Coordinator. This position not only focuses on direct contact with students in the
lab, but also the development, administration and support of teacher technology professional
development as a technology integration specialist.



Literature Review
Introduction
Instructional technology has become a frequent topic of discussion in the attempts to improve
student performance in our schools, but it continues to be utilized infrequently and
ineffectively in many classrooms. There are many definitions of instructional technology. Some
approach the term as a field of study while others use the term to describe a set of tools. The
Association for Educational Communications and Technology Definition and Terminology
Committee defines educational technology as the study and ethical practice of facilitating
learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 5

technological processes and resources (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 1). Larry Cuban
(1986) defines the term as any device available to teachers for use in instructing students in a
more efficient and stimulating manner than the sole use of the teachers voice(p. 4). Though
the devices classified as instructional technology have changed dramatically since 1986, this
definition, in its simplicity, remains relevant today and reflects the definition that is applied in
this review of literature.

Innovative classrooms are abuzz with productive discussion and the excitement of
learning. Students are working in teams on challenging projects, asking questions
of each other, reviewing each others work, and referring each other to new sources of
information. . . The teams have access to technology of various kinds, enabling them to
access worlds of knowledge beyond the classroom, consult with other experts, assemble
their work, and share it with their teachers and classmates. They also know that the
audience for their work lies beyond their classrooms, in their families, the community,
and visitors to their web site.

Innovative classrooms are not defined by fixed places but by their spirit of curiosity and
collaboration among students, teachers, and others in a true learning
community (Chen, 2002).

When used in this way, technology can be a transformative tool for both teacher and student.
As this description illustrates, it allows us to move away from teacher-directed instruction to a
more student-centered, constructivist approach (Liu & Szabo, 2009).

Constructivism is a learning theory focused on the learners creation of knowledge through
interactions with the material. It relies upon reflection and the building of understanding
through experiences (Bruner, 1966; Piaget, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978). Instructional technology
enables the creation of learning opportunities that are student-centered and often student-
driven, elements of constructivism. Devices such as computers and tablets, can be used to
bring elements of the outside world into the classroom and for the creation of real world
experiences from which students can learn. It creates an audience beyond the scope of the
classroom teacher and other students which can open the door to new learning opportunities
that can motivate and engage students in ways that were not possible before.

Technology continues to become more prevalent and its use plays a more integral role in our
participation in modern society. These devices should be utilized in our classrooms to offer
students the opportunity to engage fully in these societal norms throughout the learning
process. By limiting the use of technology in schools, we are depriving our students the
opportunity to learn using the tools that have the ability to bring the outside world into the
classroom and bring a new relevance to their learning. In this review of literature, I will explore
teacher perceptions toward technology integration and the role that a more personalized
approach to professional development can take in preparing teachers to utilize technology in
innovative ways in their classrooms.

PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 6

Teachers and Technology Integration

Technology is at the core of virtually every aspect of our daily lives and work, and we
must leverage it to provide engaging and powerful learning experiences and content, as
well as resources and assessments that measure student achievement in more complete,
authentic, and meaningful ways. Technology-based learning and assessment systems
will be pivotal in improving student learning and generating data that can be used to
continuously improve the education system at all levels (National Education Technology
Plan, 2010, p. ix).

While professionals in areas such as medicine and law enforcement have integrated technology
into their practice in meaningful and transformative ways (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010),
todays teachers use many of the same tools that were used by their predecessors(Cuban,
2001). Despite the advances in technology, its increased availability in schools, and the
potential for creating student-centered learning in the classroom, technology usage in
classrooms remains disproportionately low. When teachers do utilize technology in their
classrooms, it is often to accomplish low-level tasks that support traditional, teacher-
directed instruction (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010, p. 256). In a 2009 report from the
National Center for Educational Statistics (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010), the researchers found
that while 97% of teachers had computers available in their classrooms, only 40% indicated
these were used often in daily instruction. Of these respondents, teachers sometimes or
often used the following for instructional or administrative purposes: word processing software
(96 percent), spreadsheets and graphing programs (61 percent), software for managing student
records (80 percent), software for making presentations (63 percent), and the Internet (94
percent) (p. 4). Unless things change, we will continue to use technology as a substitute for
prior technologies instead of utilizing it to transform the learning process in our schools.

Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) found the literature related to teacher change in
general, and technology integration more specifically, has focused extensively on the
variables:knowledge, self-efficacy, pedagogical beliefs, and culture(p. 267). These factors get
to the heart of the matter. If a teacher does not have the technology skills necessary, a measure
of confidence in using devices, a belief system compatible with the learning opportunities
technology can provide, or the support of their school or district, technology integration may
not seem possible or necessary. Regardless of the factors contributing to the underutilization of
technology in classrooms, much of the researchers agree that continuing professional
development for technology is a key component in a plan to increase usage among teachers
(Liu & Szabo, 2009; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon & Byers, 2002; Levin & Wadmany, 2008).

For teachers to feel prepared to integrate technology into their classrooms, they must receive
instruction on how to do so. Unfortunately, this is not always available, and when it is, it is not
always an effective learning opportunity. In their 1999 report, NCES found that one-third of
teachers reported feeling well or very well prepared to use technology in their classrooms.
While teachers indicated that technology professional development (PD) on basic computer
and software skills were available (for approximately 96% of respondents), follow-up to these
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 7

or advanced training were offered less frequently (less than 60%). This same report found that
over a three year period, most teachers (77%) participated in professional development
activities in the use of computers or the Internet that lasted the equivalent of four days or less
(i.e., 32 or few hours) (Smerdon et al., 2000, p. 51). As the amount of technology in our schools
increases, one would assume that teacher participation in PD targeting technology integration
would also, however a 2009 NCES report indicated that 64% of the teachers in the sample
received less than eight hours of technology training during the previous twelve month period
(Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010). The development and application of adequate continuing
professional development is crucial to empower teachers in their implementation of
educational technology.

Professional Development
Historically, teachers professional learning activities focused on content material, instructional
strategies and learning modifications, but with the increased inclusion of technology in schools,
a new emphasis has been placed on technology related professional development (PD). In a
literature review article presenting the framework and main characteristics for PD models,
Kennedy (2005), identifies nine categories:

training, which emphasizes short duration group instruction by an expert on a
narrow topic;
award-bearing, which emphasizes the completion of a prescribed program of
study;

deficit, cascade, which uses PD to remedy a perceived deficiency in teacher
performance;

standards-based, which scaffolds professional development using prescribed
standards created to improve teacher accountability;

coaching/mentoring, which emphasizes a one-to-one relationship between
individuals to support PD;

community of practice, which emphasizes the relationship within a learning
community to support PD:

action research, which emphasizes the teacher as researcher within the context
of their own practice; and

transformative, which emphasizes a combination of practices and conditions
that support a transformative agenda (p.246).

The author finds that the training model, also known as the workshop model, has been, and
often still is, the dominant form of PD offered to teachers. This form involves an expert
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 8

delivering information, which is determined by the expert, to teachers who participate in the
training in a passive role. This training often occurs off-site and rarely lasts more than one day.
It does not actively engage teachers in the process, and the structure does not offer
opportunities for teachers to participate in meaningful ways that might have a positive impact
on teacher confidence or give the necessary practice for the development of technology skills.

Technology professional development has often followed the traditional approach to learning
opportunities for teachers by also using the training or workshop model. The use of this model
offers limited time for teachers to experiment with the use of the targeted hardware or
software. These learning opportunities also offer limited collaboration and sharing with
colleagues or follow up with experts once teachers have an opportunity to work with the
technology themselves. In their article, Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, and Byers (2002) find [m]any in-
service workshops often take the format of motivational speeches by a forward-looking
visionary plus sessions on how to use a piece of software (p. 511). Teachers need more than an
impassioned speaker and the basics of using a technological device to successfully integrate its
use into their daily practice. Effective professional learning is intensive, ongoing, focused on the
classroom, and occurs during the teachers workday (Darling-Hammond, 2009). Research also
suggests that PD models that allow teachers to routinely collaborate and share with their
colleagues are more successful in effecting a change in their integration of technology (Levin &
Wadmany, 2008; Niederhauser & Wessling, 2011).

Professional Development to Empower
Traditionally, professional development has been developed without consideration of learning
theory. For it to be effective, teacher training must reflect that in these instances teachers are
learners and instruction needs to be planned accordingly. In a professional development
companion guide to the Learning First Alliance report on reading and language arts instructional
practices, Reading (2000) explained the need for a change in the approach to PD:

Adult learners, like children, need to inquire, reflect, and respond to new ideas if they
are to embrace them. Making sense of experience and transforming professional
knowledge into daily teaching habits takes time.

For a teacher to learn a new behavior and effectively transfer it to the classroom, several
steps are involved:

1. Understanding the theory and rationale for the new content and instruction.

2. Observing a model in action.

3. Practicing the new behavior in a safe context.

4. Trying out the behavior with peer support in the classroom (p. 8).

PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 9

Though this study focused on reading and language arts instruction, these same
recommendations, and a more constructivist approach to learning, are echoed in much of the
current research on technology PD (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon & Byers, 2002; Levin & Wadmany,
2008; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Liu & Szabo, 2009). Providing technology learning
opportunities that are focused on application in the classroom and allows teachers to construct
knowledge for themselves is effective in making a sustainable change in teacher attitudes.

Understanding that the prevalent practice in PD is ineffective in changing teacher perceptions
of technology integration, leads to a consideration of models that are found to be more
successful in changing teacher attitudes in enduring ways. In an exploratory, longitudinal study
of six teachers over three years, Levin and Wadmany (2008) questioned the effectiveness of the
one size fits all PD approach to technology integration that is the basis of most training and
workshop models. The authors went on to determine the study calls for technology-based and
school based reformers to reach the right balance between working with teachers individually
and working with meaningful groups/communities of teacher (p. 255). In their article, Ertmer
and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) propose a PD that develops necessary technology skills while
addressing the individual needs of teachers by incorporating mentoring or coaching into the
process.

A mentoring or coaching approach to PD allows for a more personalized approach to
technology instruction for teachers. This collaborative approach to learning opportunities
emphasizes a one-to-one relationship between a coach or mentor and the teacher. The
resulting program can become a personalized experience based on the needs and interests of
the individual teacher. In an article analyzing and evaluating PD models, Fraser, Kennedy, Reid,
and Mckinney (2007) determined that opportunities that allow greater ownership and control
of the process are likely to attend to more facets of the personal and social aspects of learning
and are therefore more likely to result in transformational professional learning for teachers
(p. 165).

Personalized learning has become a much-discussed topic in education. Despite the frequent
use of the term in current discourse, there is no universally accepted definition for personalized
learning. The U.S. Department of Education, in their 2010 National Education Technology Plan
defined personalization as:

instruction that is paced to learning needs, tailored to learning preferences, and
tailored to specific interests of different learners. In an environment that is fully
personalized, the learning objectives and content as well as the method and pace may all
vary (so personalization encompasses differentiation and individualization) (p. 12).

The majority of the research on personalized learning pertains to student learning outcomes
through its use. References to professional development in these instances centers on teacher
training for the use of personalized learning in their classrooms. When personalized learning is
discussed as a model for PD, it is as a means for teachers to develop their own learning through
the use of online resources. In a brief article outlining the benefits of teacher choice in PD
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 10

opportunities through the use of online resources, Foote (2013) explains that it is a means for
teachers to control everything about their own learning opportunities including content,
context, and delivery. An examination of the application of a personalized learning approach to
PD that is developed, focused and maintained through a collaborative one-to-one relationship
with a technology coach or mentor is an area that appears to be lacking in the current research.

Conclusion
The research shows that to successfully integrate technology into the classroom, teachers must
develop the skills and confidence necessary to regard it as an accessible tool. The current
professional development model of one size fits all workshops focused on technology in
isolation is not conducive to affect a sustainable change on teacher attitudes in this area. For it
to be effective, teacher training must reflect that in these instances teachers are learners and
instruction needs to be planned accordingly. Research shows that a collaborative method of
teacher training and personalized approaches to PD offer a higher probability of success.


Research Design
Action research is a cyclical process of inquiry. It enables the researcher to identify a problem or
area of change in their practice and to fully explore various solutions and outcomes. Once a
problem is identified, the researcher follows the steps illustrated below (Figure 1). Each cycle
involves developing a plan, acting on the plan, collecting and analyzing data, and reflecting on
the process and the outcomes. Through this reflection, knowledge is gained and used in the
construction of a plan for the next cycle. This reflective component is an essential part of action
research since it is where insights are made into the problem, your actions and the social
dynamic in which the research is taking place.

Figure 1: M. Riel. Center for Collaborative Action Research (2010)
My action research will focus on building teacher technology skills and confidence through the
use of personalized learning opportunities. I will start with the following research question:
How can I personalize instructional technology professional development to support teachers in
their creation and attainment of technology integration goals?
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 11


Cycle Reports
1. Cycle One Report: Listening to Teacher Technology Needs

The purpose of this first cycle was to gather evidence to determine the current attitudes, skill
level and confidence of teachers concerning their use of technology in and out of the
classroom. From this information, a starting point was determined for each participant in their
personalized professional development (PD), a plan for future topics, and a schedule and
structure for our meetings was developed.

Cycle One Question:

How will understanding the technology competencies and interests of teachers help me
develop a personalized technology professional development approach that better serves
their needs?

Action Taken:

To effectively work with teachers in a one-to-one configuration, it was necessary for me to
recruit a small sample of teachers from the lower school to work with me on this project. To
recruit participants, I sent out an email to eight members of our lower school staff. This group
consisted of a Spanish teacher, a kindergarten teacher and her associate, a first grade associate
teacher, a second grade teacher, a third grade teacher, a fourth grade teacher and a fifth grade
teacher. My goal was to generate a group of three to four teachers, from different grade levels
or specialties, and with varying comfort levels with technology. Of these eight individuals, three
responded to my request to meet and all three agreed to participate. I met with each teacher
individually to discuss my action research and to see if they would be willing to participate. The
group was finalized before we left for the holiday break in December, and work began when we
returned to school in January. I would be working with DH, a lead kindergarten teacher, AP, an
associate teacher to two first grade classes, and DG, a lead second grade teacher.

To gain knowledge of how these three teachers currently use technology in the classroom, as
well as to find out the needs and interests of these staff members, I conducted a needs
assessment distributed as a Google form. This was a crucial component of the first cycle since in
the past teacher input has not been solicited in the determination or creation of professional
development opportunities at the school.

Once the survey was completed, I looked at a few specific areas: how these teachers assessed
their own skill level with technology, what devices they currently used, their attitudes toward
technology use in education, and what they saw as their immediate technology needs. The
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 12

survey was followed by an interview which focused on the areas of technology, both in and out
of the classroom, that each teacher would be interested in learning.

Evidence Collected:

I collected the following evidence during this cycle: a needs assessment with follow-up
interview, email correspondence, and a reflection journal (blog). The survey and interview were
conducted to help determine how these teachers perceived technology and its use, devices or
tools of interest to each participant, and the preferred format for the deli. Journal reflections
were posted to my action research blog noting my assumptions before administering the survey
and meeting with teachers individually.

Analysis:

In the initial assessment, two participants defined their skill with technology (Figure 1.1) to be
"basic" while the third participant chose "below basic" as her response. This was in keeping
with my assumptions of the perceived skill level of these teachers. All teachers in our school are
issued a school laptop, and each of these teachers also has at least one iPad, access to an Apple
TV and a document camera in their classroom. The survey showed that one teacher is
incorporating all of these devices, while the other two participants use the teacher laptop and
iPad in their current curriculum.



Figure 1.1: Self-Assessment of Technology Skills

In the survey portion pertaining to teacher attitudes toward technology use in education (Figure
1.2), and in my interviews, two participants indicated the belief that "technology has left many
teachers behind", and that "schools expect us to learn new technologies without formal
training." Two teachers expressed comfort with utilizing technology to find resources to create
lessons, but they felt unprepared to integrate technology into their classroom instruction. This
was of greatest concern when asked about creating lessons that required student use of
technology.

PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 13


Figure 1.2: Attitudes Toward Technology Use in Education
Included in the survey, was an open-ended question that inquired, "When you hear the word
technology, what comes to mind?" My intention behind this question was to determine what
their understanding of technology was from a device perspective. The question was
misunderstood, and the responses I received were much different than I expected. DH
answered with the words "incompetent, frustrating, and lacks emotion." The response from DG
was "so much to learn and not enough time." A more positive response came from AP who
stated "new ways to use technology in the classroom when we have enough computers or
iPads in each room."
In the portion of the survey focused on perceived skill in the use of certain web-based tools
(Figure 1.3), the first six (Edublogs, Gmail, Google Drive, Google Calendar, internet for personal
research and internet for developing lesson plans/ideas) are tools that teachers in our school
are expected to use and use often. The remaining selections were tools that teachers have
inquired about in the past and ones I believed would be helpful to these teachers in the future.
Of the three teachers participating, all felt proficient with the use of Gmail, internet for
personal research, and internet for developing lesson plans/ideas. None of these teachers
indicated that they felt proficient with the use of blogging, specifically the Edublogs platform
that our school began using in October 2012.

Figure 1.3: Proficiency with Web-Based Tools
Another section of the survey targeted the technology needs of these teachers (Figure 1.4). All
three participants indicated "more time to use software" and "more training in the use of
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 14

technology" as immediate needs. No one selected "more support from administration when it
comes to my technology needs," "access to more student computers/devices," or "more
equipment to integrate technology in my classroom" as needs that would benefit them most if
available immediately.


Figure 1.4: Technology Needs of Teachers
Reflections:
The Actions:
Opportunities for technology PD have been limited for the teachers in the lower school. Last
year, the school paid for a series of ten webinars which focused on the benefit of integrating
technology into their teaching practice, but did not give any explicit instruction on potential
tools and their use in the classroom. The format of this instruction, in webinar form, further
alienated teachers who already felt uncertain about their skill with technology. Many teachers
were unable to find a way to connect with the material because of how it was being delivered,
and many, me included, did not complete the ten webinar series. Teachers, with whom I spoke,
needed a more personalized approach to technology PD that allowed for a more hands-on,
guided instruction in the use of technology tools. At the same time, I was attempting to hold
weekly workshops on technology tools that were of interest to teachers. With the pressure
from administration to participate in the webinars, teachers felt overwhelmed and most were
not open to spending more time on technology. The lack of alignment between what training is
offered and what is needed by teachers has contributed to the limited use of technology
resources in many lower school classrooms. It was this shortcoming that led to my focus on
personalizing technology PD for teachers.
There were a number of surprises that I encountered when collecting and analyzing the
evidence for the first cycle. My assumptions, while correct on some points, were quite wrong
on others. My first surprise was the number of teachers who responded to my initial email.
After sending the correspondence to eight teachers, only three responded. At the time, I was
relieved, since I had wanted a group of three or four, and this meant I did not have to turn
anyone away who had expressed interest. Looking back, it would have been beneficial to
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 15

determine why these other teachers did not respond to the invitation. Learning why they did
not offer to meet would be helpful in creating a more comprehensive picture of the school
environment and overall teacher attitudes toward technology and PD opportunities.
The responses to another question came as a surprise simply because I had not intended the
question to be interpreted in the way it was. On the survey, I asked the question, "When you
hear the word technology, what comes to mind?" I had meant the question to elicit a list of
devices that these teachers consider when the word technology is used. Instead, their answers,
in just a few words, effectively summarized their attitudes toward technology and their
perceived skills and confidence with devices. Their responses, though not what I had
anticipated for that question, were in line with my assumptions regarding each individual's
attitudes toward technology and their general comfort level with it. As I began analyzing and
reflecting on these responses, I realized I should have placed more emphasis on determining
the attitudes of these teachers toward technology. What I hope to accomplish with this project
is a change in their perceptions toward technology and their overall confidence in its use.
Having a more thorough assessment of these elements at the beginning would have been
beneficial to my ability to determine any change in these areas over the course of the cycles.
Before administering the survey, I would have assumed that the teachers would see the lack of
student devices as an immediate need, but I was incorrect. None of these teachers indicated
that "access to more student computers/devices" or "more equipment to integrate technology
in my classroom" was a technology need that would be of immediate benefit. As I reflected on
these results, I came to a realization. If you don't feel confident using and integrating
technology into your instruction, having more technology is not a benefit. Having those devices,
but not knowing how to utilize them effectively would actually compound the issues of their
lack of confidence and perceived skill with technology. Add to that the perceived pressure from
administration and parents to use these devices, and I can see where this would not be a
position in which these teachers could see many positive outcomes. In the past, when I spoke
with teachers about technology in the lower school, I often mentioned how I am working to get
more devices into their classrooms; something I see as a benefit. Maybe this assertion has had
the opposite impact on teachers who might see more devices as a negative since they are
unsure of how to use them with students.
The survey and interview were designed to demonstrate how each participant measured their
own skill and confidence in the use of different technologies. They also were constructed to
help determine a model for instruction with which each teacher would be comfortable and to
develop a schedule for meetings that worked best with each individual. Based on this
information, an appropriate place was determined to begin working with each teacher. Our
current use of the Edublogs platform as both a classroom site for the posting of newsletters and
information, and as the basis for student-centered blogs and digital portfolios, was an area of
concern for all three participants. This was indicated by each participant on their survey and
was mentioned by each during the interview. Some training on the use of Edublogs was
conducted last year as a one and done training opportunity, but these teachers did not feel it
had been sufficient, and they were not currently using their classroom blogs with regularity.
Since this was an area of concern for all participants, we decided to begin our work together
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 16

focusing on the use of the Edublogs platform and the process of posting newsletters and
images.
The Researcher:
Looking back over the actions of this first cycle, I have come to realize that I began this process
still unsure of the action research process and how my work fit into this method. In my mind,
action research was synonymous with scientific research which requires concrete data and a
clear scientific process consisting of set steps and anticipated results. Data in scientific research
is objective, while I quickly came to realize, my evidence would often be subjective. There is no
clear way to measure attitudes, and certainly no set formula to calculate someone's confidence.
This ambiguity was very troubling to me. In my mind, I was trying to prove something to be true
or false, but this is not the desired outcome in this process. As I created the survey and
interview to better understand the technology needs and interests of these teachers, I
expected these tools would also give me a measurable baseline for their skills and
confidence. It did not take long to realize this would not be the case. These instruments
allowed me a glimpse into these aspects of their view of technology and its use, but it was not a
measurable outcome that I could easily track to conclusively validate my findings. My evidence
would need to be subjective, and my analysis and reflections on this material would be the
critical findings.
At the beginning of this cycle, my intention was to create a structured technology PD plan for
each of my participants to follow. In addition to face-to-face meetings, I had also envisioned
creating a website that housed technology tutorials and resources for them to access
independently. While I expected this would be an opportunity to create an element of blended
learning in a PD context, I quickly came to realize this would not be beneficial to my
participants. As I reflected on these plans, I came to a realization that, despite priding myself in
my ability to empathize with the struggles and concerns of classroom teachers, I do not always
use these insights to inform my actions. My ideas and motivation to innovate classroom
instruction and teacher PD clouded my judgment, and I forgot to focus on my learner when
determining a course of action. I've come to understand that keeping the learner in mind,
focusing on meeting their needs, and working at their pace is a formula to insure that they build
confidence as well as skills.
Going Forward:
For my second cycle, I had originally planned to follow a written plan that I developed from the
teacher survey and interview. From my conversations with these teachers, and their responses
on the survey, I came to understand that a less formal structure for a PD plan would be a more
effective approach. This would also allow for flexibility of topics depending upon the immediate
needs of the teachers. By involving them in the decisions of what topics to cover and how long
to work on a given topic, I hoped to empower and engage them in this process.
I created a weekly schedule to work one-on-one with each teacher for at least thirty minutes
each week. Our first focus was on the use of the Edublogs platform for parent communication
and digital student portfolios. The instruction would be targeted to the specific questions,
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 17

needs and interests of each of my three participating teachers. Once they felt comfortable
using this platform, we would target tools and devices of their choosing.
2. Cycle Two Report: Learner Driven One-on-One Technology Professional
Development

The purpose of this second cycle was to implement a one-on-one technology PD plan for each
of the three participating teachers. When asked what device or tool each teacher would like to
study first, each chose the Edublogs blogging platform that is used for individual blogs for
students, classroom blogs for parent communication and digital portfolios for students. This
choice was supported by the results of the needs assessments and interviews administered in
the first cycle.
Cycle Two Question:
How will weekly one-on-one technology-focused professional development impact teacher
use of technology and attitudes toward developing technological skills?
Action Taken:
As we began our work together, one of my goals was to work within their time-tables and to be
as flexible with scheduling as possible. To accomplish this, the teachers chose the times we met
from my unscheduled time during and directly after the school day. DH chose to meet after
school on Thursdays while AP and DG chose to meet during a thirty minute portion of their
planning times on Fridays. We began working together the week of January 13, and attempted
to follow this schedule through the week of March 10.
Our main focus throughout much of this time was the use of the Edublogs blogging platform,
though we also worked through other questions that each teacher brought up during our work
together. These were often device related questions that dealt with the use of a teacher iPad or
Apple TV in the classroom. None of this training dealt with the student use of devices, but
instead focused on instances of teacher use.
Evidence Collected:
I collected the following evidence during this cycle: field notes, a calendar of scheduled
sessions, listing of all interactions with the participating teachers, action research journal
reflections, blog posts (newsletters, images and portfolio items) created by participating
teachers, and the TAC (Teachers' Attitudes Toward Computers) Questionnaire. Field notes
were dictated or written immediately after scheduled meetings with participants. They focused
on the interactions between the participants and me, questions or concerns that arose and
plans for the next week's meeting. A Google calendar was used to document meeting times,
canceled sessions, and the administering of surveys. The listing of all interactions with
participants included scheduled and impromptu sessions as well as conversational and email
resolutions. Journal reflections were posted to my action research blog throughout cycle two.
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 18

The number, frequency and complexity of the teacher blog posts were documented at the
beginning of the cycle to then compare to those created throughout cycle two. The TAC
(Teachers' Attitudes Toward Computers) Questionnaire was administered at the end of cycle
two to gain a more thorough understanding of their attitudes toward technology.
Analysis:
Since our primary focus for training during this period was the use of the Edublog platform to
post newsletters, images, and student portfolio materials, I documented the number of posts
made by these teachers in the two months prior to our work together. DH posted seven items
to her class blog (three images and four newsletters), while AP and DG had made no posts to
their blogs during that time.


Figure 2.1: Cycle Two Blog Posts
At the completion of the second cycle, I recorded the number of posts that had been made by
these teachers during this time period (Figure 2.1). DH continued to blog on her classroom blog
with a similar frequency as before, though the complexity of her posts increased as she began
using images with captions and creating image galleries as posts (Figure 2.2). I was able to work
with DH on an almost weekly basis for at least 45 minutes, much more frequently and for a
more substantial amount of time than with the other two teachers. This allowed us to also
include work on student portfolios, which are student blog pages that can be accessed from the
classroom dashboard. Adding items to the student portfolios follows the same process as
adding images to the classroom blog. DH and I were able to work on accessing and posting to
her students' portfolio pages. This is reflected in the thirteen posts she made to the portfolio
pages of her students.

PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 19


Figure 2.2: Blog Post Complexity (Image Gallery)
As cycle two progressed, it became apparent that scheduling to meet after school led to more
consistency in the meeting schedule. I met with DH, who chose to work after school, seven
times over the course of cycle two. AP, who originally chose to meet on Fridays from 12:45 to
1:15, during her planning period, decided at the beginning of March that after school on
Wednesdays would work better. At that point, the cycle was almost over, and we were only
able to meet once on a Wednesday. DG chose to meet on Fridays from 10:15 to 10:45, during
her planning period. Of the eight weeks we scheduled to meet, she was able to meet three
times, and two of these were for less than the thirty minutes we had planned. Two sessions
were missed with each teacher because of our school closing due to snow days. All total, we
missed eight school days due to inclement weather during cycle two. This made maintaining a
consistent meeting schedule difficult, if not impossible. DH, with whom I met after school, did
not miss any additional meetings, but the teachers who were scheduled to work during the
school day often canceled at the last minute due to a variety of reasons.

Figure 2.3: Time Spent in One-on-One Sessions
Throughout cycle two, I documented all interactions I had with these teachers in which I was
able to assist them with learning about technology or solving some technology-related issue
(Figure 2.4). These interactions included:

14 scheduled sessions
7 impromptu sessions
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 20

11 conversational resolutions, and
6 emailed resolutions.
Scheduled sessions are hands-on sessions that were planned with the teacher ahead of time
and occurred according to our weekly schedule. Impromptu sessions are those that began with
a conversation, email or question from the teacher which led to an immediate hands-on
session. Conversational resolutions are instances where the teacher would approach me with a
question about a technology-related issue that we were able to answer or address at that
moment. Emailed resolutions are occasions in which I am able to resolve an issue or answer a
question through an emailed response.

Figure 2.4: Cycle Two Teacher Interactions
While weather and scheduling conflicts affected the frequency of our scheduled sessions,
especially with AP and DG, the number of technology-related interactions I had with these
teachers increased dramatically from before we began working together. Prior to beginning this
project, DH would come to me occasionally with technology questions or issues, but neither AP
nor DG had done so this school year.
To better assess the current attitudes of these teachers toward technology, I administered the
TAC questionnaire at the end of cycle two. This instrument is divided into nine parts, eight of
which consist of statements that the participant must indicate their level of agreement from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) and one requires they choose a location between two
adjectives to indicate how they feel about computers. The sections are constructed to
determine the level of interest and comfort with technology, willingness to make
accommodations to work with computers, attitudes toward how technology affects
interactions with students, concern over the impact of computers on society, feelings
concerning the usefulness of technology, how invested and interested they are in computers
and learning about them, and how significant they feel the need is for students to be computer
literate. The ninth part deals with the participant's perceptions toward technology as
determined by asking them to choose a location between two adjectives of opposite meanings.
The results of the questionnaire for DH and AP supported my assumptions of their current
attitudes toward computers and technology. DH, who consistently voices her concerns with the
skills necessary to use technology and her lack of confidence in using devices, scored low in
interest, comfort, interactivity and absorption. While AP uses technology often in her life
outside of the classroom, she does not feel adequately prepared to incorporate those devices in
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 21

the classroom. She scored high in these same areas. The responses on the questionnaire were
did not support my assumptions for DG. The only section in which she scored lower that a 3
(undecided) was in the portion concerning absorption (personal investment and interest in
technology).


Figure 2.5: Teachers Attitudes Toward Computers Questionnaire
The ninth section of the TAC demonstrated a clearer view of each teacher's attitude toward
technology. This portion was a semantics differential scale which required each participant to
choose a position on a scale between an adjective pair to indicate how they feel about
computers. On this scale, AP consistently chose positions closer to the positive adjectives, while
DH and DG responded mainly on the negative side of the scale.

Figure 2.6: Teacher Response on Semantic Perceptions

PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 22

Reflections:
The Actions:
Working one-on-one with these teachers has been an enjoyable experience. As our work
together progressed, I found myself consciously stepping back and observing instead of
directing the teachers in what they were trying to accomplish. Each session would begin with a
short tutorial or demonstration of the tool or task on which we were exploring that day. As they
worked through the process, I was available to guide them if needed, but I waited until asked to
do so. At the end of each meeting, I asked them what they would like to work on next week,
and I encouraged them to continue practicing the skills we had worked on and come to me with
any questions along the way. This open communication helped in continuing our progress
despite the numerous interruptions to our schedule.
If cycle two had gone as I anticipated, we would have worked together on the Edublogs
platform and, iPad apps to use with the Apple TVs in each classroom and software and online
tools that were of interest to each participant. Unfortunately, the weather and schedules
conspired against us. Cycle two spanned from January 6 to March 18. During that time, we lost
eight days to snow closings, one week for the face-to-face in Florida, and a week to our school's
winter break. AP and DG had decided to meet during one of their planning times during the
school day for thirty minutes. Each had to cancel on three other occasions due to student
concerns, scheduling conflicts, and other situations that arose during the school day. Despite
what would seem like convenience in scheduling to meet during the course of the instructional
day, the teachers became too enmeshed in the immediate needs of their classrooms and could
easily justify canceling a technology session. In the future, I will encourage scheduling one-on-
one training like this outside of the usual school day.
In retrospect, for cycle one I should have utilized a more structured interview to determine
teacher technology use, needs, and interests and then the TAC questionnaire to determine a
baseline for teacher's attitudes toward technology. If I had been able to administer the survey
again at the end of cycle three, it would have offered an opportunity to more accurately
measure the impact of my research. I was relying too heavily on the few components of the
survey I generated and my interviews with teachers to determine a baseline with which to
determine outcomes. When reflecting on these instruments, I came to realize that they actually
functioned as my first cycle since this idea of determining the needs and interests of the
teachers in order to inform the content, pace and scheduling of professional development was
an unused practice in my workplace. By that time, the work on cycle two had begun, so I
decided to wait until its completion.
Early into the action of cycle two, I noticed an increase in technology-related interactions with
these teachers outside of our weekly scheduled meetings. Though I had not planned to
document these at the beginning of my action research, it became clear that this increase in
communication was a product of our work together and should be included in my evidence for
this cycle. Reflecting on the new frequency of interactions that had developed, I came to realize
that in the process of working together, I have built a mentoring relationship with these
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 23

teachers. The open communication that has developed with these mentoring relationships has
offered more opportunities to personalize technology professional development for these
teachers. I was also pleased to see a larger number of non-participant lower school teachers
approaching me to learn about technology or for help in solving technology-related problems.
Throughout this cycle, we were able to focus on technology for teacher use, but we were never
able to incorporate applications and strategies for student use in the classroom. A device these
teachers were most interested in learning about in connection with student engagement was
the iPad. This year, first and second grade each have one device in their classrooms while
kindergarten has two iPad minis, but next year, each grade, kindergarten through third will
have a set of at least five iPads with which to work. This device generated the most questions
from the participating teachers, and they were all interested in focusing on its use in the third
cycle of our work together. When talking about the iPad, I saw the most genuine interest from
these teachers. The use of the Edublogs platform is required at our school for parent
communication and student portfolios, so they wanted/needed to learn how to use it to fully
perform the tasks of their positions. This desire to learn did not stem from a true interest in its
function and use. Continuing to follow a personalized approach, we will concentrate on the
iPad and ideas for integrating it into student learning activities.
The Researcher:
As my work on cycle two advanced, I began to realize my role in my workplace was changing.
Last year, my position changed when I transitioned from a fourth grade classroom teacher to a
newly created position that was titled Lower School Technology Coordinator. Prior to this, our
school had a computer teacher who instructed students in our computer lab once a week; this
direct instruction of students being the sole task of the post. In lobbying to create the new
position, I created a job description to highlight the changes and new responsibilities I would
undertake.
The position of Lower School Technology Coordinator needs to be rewritten for the
current and future technology use needs in our program. It needs to be multi-faceted:
o Technology instructor to students (at least for the time being while integration in to
the classrooms is developing)
o Technology resource for teachers for both hardware and software concerns
o Technology Program Developer (planning for the future)
o Facilitator for Tech Professional Development for Lower School teachers
o Technology resource for teachers to support technology integration
At the end of last year, I was disappointed to realize that only the first component had been
fully realized, and the second was true when a teacher had an issue with a hardware or
software product not working properly. Teachers were not seeing me as a technology steward,
but as a "specials" teacher who took their students once a week to allow for their planning
time. Now I realize I was not doing what needed to be done to facilitate this change in
perceptions. I was attempting to be a technology steward for my colleagues without taking
initiative and acting as a leader in the process. I was apologetic for my lack of academic
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 24

qualifications for such a position, and assumed everyone else questioned my abilities. My
confidence was low, and it directly impacted my influence over my colleagues since I waited to
be asked for assistance instead of seeking to create learning opportunities. With the actions of
this second cycle, I was taking steps to change perceptions of my role in the school by taking a
leadership role in technology matters, and by proving to everyone, including myself, that I have
expertise in this area that is valuable.
Cycle two began with the idea of building a weekly technology training program with my
participant teachers, and it ended with my realization that the mentoring relationship that is
being built with each of these teachers is the most valuable product of our work together. As I
reflected on the end of cycle two, I took some time to look over my action research blog. This
process proved to be an enlightening endeavor, as I found revelations from earlier in the
process that I had lost sight of in the work of conducting the actions of my cycles. I now realize
that my recent understandings concerning the importance of my relationships with these
teachers was something I came to grasp earlier in this undertaking, and I wrote about it in this
post from October:
Instead of focusing on empowering teachers to integrate technology into the classroom,
I need to nurture a partnership with teachers to develop ways to integrate the devices
that are available into the classrooms in a meaningful way. I need to become a stronger
leader within my school. I need to work directly with teachers to take what they are
doing and introduce a technology element to hopefully continue to develop student
engagement. I need to be the focus in my action research, myself and what I bring to the
table. I need to explore how making me available to teachers in various capacities
impacts the overall use of technology by teachers in and out of the classroom. I need to
provide "just in time" learning opportunities to teachers to encourage them to continue
exploring the possibilities that technology opens in instruction and in their daily lives. If
teachers can see the value of technology on their daily lives, it is more realistic that they
will be able to see its value in the classroom.
I have come to the understanding that it is the relationship between the individual supporting
teachers in their integration of technology and the teachers themselves that is most important.
While the topics, materials and techniques facilitate the process, it is trust and an ability to be
open that motivates and moves the process forward into the classroom.
Going Forward:
My analysis of the evidence and reflections from cycle two, led me to question my plan for
cycle three. In the third cycle, I attempted to continue to provide personalized technology PD
by encouraging the teachers to choose the topics. Since they were very interested in the use of
the iPad, we would work on apps and activities to allow it to be integrated into the classroom.
By increasing my communication with these teachers, I would work to continue building the
mentoring relationships I had initiated with them. To bring the small group of teachers together
to experience the advantages of a face-to-face learning circle, I planned to develop and carry
out a full day of PD with all three teachers.
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 25

While we would continue to try to meet on a weekly schedule, as the school year came to a
close, time was at a premium. I planned utilize increased communication with these teachers to
find ways of encouraging and initiating instances for just in time learning opportunities.
3. Cycle Three: Building Mentoring Relationships

The purpose of this third cycle was to continue working one-on-one with the participating
teachers, and to increase communication with these teachers to further develop mentoring
relationships with the three. After spending much of the second cycle focusing on the use of
the Edublogs platform, all three teachers expressed an interest in integrating iPads into their
classrooms. With that in mind, I developed a day-long PD for all three participants addressing
iPad integration in learning activities.
Cycle Three Question:
If I focus on building mentoring relationships with teachers while working with them on
technology professional development, how will it impact teacher use of technology and
attitudes toward developing technological skills?
Action Taken:
While my intention had been to continue meeting with the participating teachers on a fairly
regular basis, the scheduled sessions began to decline as the teachers became more involved in
end of the year preparations. To allow the participating teachers to fully focus on a technology
professional development session, I obtained approval and support from school administration
to develop and carry out a day-long training for all three teachers addressing iPad integration in
learning activities. The schedule for the day involved a visit to an area school with a 1:1 iPad
program in grades prekindergarten through four, lunch as a group to discuss our observations
and possible application of ideas with the devices we have available, and time in our school
conference room to try out a few of the apps we had seen utilized.
To promote continued communication with these teachers, I implemented a weekly "check in"
email to inquire if there was any technology related question or issue with which I could assist.
Evidence Collected:
I collected the following evidence during this cycle: field notes, a listing of all interactions with
the participating teachers, action research journal reflections, blog posts (newsletters, images
and portfolio items) created by participating teachers, and portions of the TAC (Teachers'
Attitudes Toward Computers) Questionnaire. Field notes were dictated or written immediately
after meeting with participants. They focused on the interactions between the participants and
me, questions or concerns that arose and plans for future training. Journal reflections were
posted to my action research blog. The number, frequency and complexity of the teacher blog
posts were documented at the end of the cycle. Only the portions of the TAC (Teachers'
Attitudes Toward Computers) Questionnaire correlating with interest, comfort, and semantic
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 26

perceptions were administered at the end of cycle three to determine if there had been any
change in the attitudes of these teachers toward technology.
Analysis:
As the third cycle began, we moved into the last few months of the school year. During this
time of year, more and more is expected of teachers in regards to testing, gathering student
artifacts, preparing for performances, and end of year activities. This limited the time the
participating teachers were available to work on technology professional development and
made it necessary to discontinue weekly sessions and utilize more spontaneous interactions to
continue providing training and support. Throughout cycle three, I documented all interactions I
had with these teachers in which I was able to assist them with learning about technology or
solving some technology-related issue (Figure 3.1). These interactions included:
7 scheduled sessions
6 impromptu sessions
12 conversational resolutions, and
10 emailed resolutions.

Figure 3.1: Cycle Three Teacher Interactions
While the number of scheduled sessions decreased, the number of impromptu sessions and
conversational resolutions remained consistent with the numbers from cycle two, and the
number of email resolutions increased.
To determine a measurable outcome from our work together, I continued to monitor the
frequency and complexity of the blog posts and recorded the total number generated in cycle
three by each participating teacher (Figure 3.2). While DH and AP were no longer posting to
their class blogs, they were uploading items to their student blogs. DG continued to post to her
class blog with the same frequency she had in cycle two.
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 27


Figure 3.2: Cycle Three Blog Posts
With the end of the school year approaching, DH focused on uploading artifacts to each
student's portfolio. For each student, she successfully posted three items to their portfolio
page. Each post contained images of student work taken with a classroom iPad and uploaded to
the blog using the Edublog app. This is a more complex process than DH had used in cycle two,
and it demonstrates her continued effort to master and simplify the process of uploading items
to the blogs using both the website and iPad app.

Figure 3.3: Portfolio Items Posted by DH
Though AP did not post any material to the classroom blog, she did upload an item to each
student portfolio. This was a rather ambitious post, since it was a video of a student
presentation that she filmed on the classroom iPad. From there, she had to upload each video
to YouTube and then embed the video in a portfolio blog post. The process was rather
challenging, since prior to this work, she did not even have a YouTube account.
In early May, I took the three participating teachers to an area school with a 1:1 iPad program
in grades PK-4 through four. We spent the morning observing classrooms, engaging in
discussions with classroom teachers and interviewing students about their experiences using
the iPads as a learning tool. When finished, we continued our group discussion over lunch, and
upon returning to school worked together to experiment with a few of the apps we had seen
earlier in the day. After the day long training, one of the participating teachers said, "This has
shown me what (kindergarten) students can do with an iPad. I never thought they could do so
much." During our lunch conversation, one teacher expressed relief that the iPads had not
been used for everything in the classroom. "I thought they would use them for everything, and
the children wouldn't be able to work together on more hands-on activities." Upon returning to
school, DH had a lengthy conversation with an administrator about what she had seen and her
interest in trying to emulate it in her classroom. All of the feedback I received from this day was
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 28

positive and included ideas of how devices might be used in the classroom with students. With
only our conversations before, during and after the event to measure these changes, my
findings are not based on quantitative, but on qualitative data, I feel secure in stating that there
was an improvement in both attitude and confidence in these teachers.
At the end of cycle three, I asked my participating teachers to complete the TAC Questionnaire
as a tool to determine if any change had occurred in their interest, comfort and attitudes
toward technology. Since I was looking specifically at these three subsets, I administered the
three sections of the test pertaining to them, the first two consisting of fifteen questions each
and the final consisting of a semantic differential scale of ten adjective pairs. With the end of
cycle three coinciding with the end of the school year, one of my participants, DG, was
unavailable to complete the questionnaire, so I was only able to compare results for DH and AP.
Using this tool, I found very little change in the resulting scores(Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4: TAC Comparisons
Reflections:
The Actions:
As the school year ended, the time these teachers could devote to technology PD quickly
declined. With that understanding, we discontinued our scheduled meetings and I
implemented a weekly check-in email to see if they had questions, concerns, or needed
assistance with technology use. These emails kept the line of communication open and helped
the teachers in two ways. First, it reassured them that I was indeed available to assist them.
Second, it served as a reminder to them to keep thinking about technology and its use. When I
began analyzing my data at the end of the cycle, I was surprised to see the number of
technology related interactions I had with them in a time frame of less than two months. As I
reviewed my notes, I came to realize that more than 50% of these interactions had been a
direct result of my check-in emails.
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 29

When I queried my participants if there had been one technique or approach we had used that
had the most positive impact, all three stated the school visit and daylong session had been the
most meaningful to them. The ability to see the result of technology integration in action, and
the opportunity speak with the students about their perceptions of how the technology worked
in their classrooms, was the most effective in improving their attitudes toward technology use.
Our group conversation at lunch was the most positive I had with these teachers. Not present
were the usual statements focusing on the obstacles to technology integration, such as the lack
of time and an attitude that what they were already doing was sufficient. They shared ideas and
brainstormed possible ways to integrate the technology we have available into their
classrooms. The conversation lacked the tone of I have to do this, and appeared to reflect an
attitude of I want to do this. Our day spent together was incredibly productive with the
lengthy school visit, hour long lunch discussion, and two hours spent experimenting with iPad
apps that had interested them earlier in the day.
The Researcher:
In examining my role during this third cycle, I was struck by how vital ongoing communication
with participants is necessary for successful technology PD. These interactions must continue
beyond the actual training sessions and, as I found through my work on this project, can
become a crucial part of the learning process. I also came to understand that it is the presence
of mentoring relationships within the context of technology PD that is most effective in
improving teacher attitudes towards the use of technology in and out of the classroom. I have
come to realize that the time spent building meaningful trust relationships with these teachers
holds as much, if not more benefit than time spent creating videos and materials for training
sessions. As a technology steward in my workplace, I will move forward in my work with
colleagues with this understanding, and it will influence my planning for training in the future.
Crafting an effective technology PD program is not an easy task, and implementing it is even
more challenging. Teachers often find themselves working in isolation from their colleagues,
and this is most damaging when teachers are attempting to bring new elements into their
classrooms. Without the sharing of ideas and experiences, teachers often find themselves
losing confidence in what they are trying to accomplish and reverting to old techniques. With
this and the idea of situated learning in mind, I developed the immersive, daylong training
session with all three participants. I have a tendency to be an introverted person, so taking on
the leadership role in planning and implementing this day, working with peers from a different
school, was challenging for me. The process demonstrated to me how important it is to be
assertive, and that my leadership abilities are directly impacted by my perception of myself in a
leadership role.
For me, this experience, and its positive outcome illustrated how effective alternative PD
formats can be in changing teacher attitudes toward and confidence in the use of technology. I
enjoyed being creative with my structure for this daylong session, and I will continue to seek
out innovative, meaningful, and accessible ways to construct technology PD in the future.

PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 30

Final Reflections
In working towards an understanding of effective technology professional development, I have
gained a great deal of insight into my own practice and my role as a technology steward in my
workplace. In undertaking the MALT program I sought to attain the educational credentials
necessary to justify what was then my position of Lower School Technology Coordinator. At
that time, I approached my role apologetically and did not feel confident in my abilities and
vision for the position. Throughout the action research process, the reflection necessitated by
its structure has allowed me to see the inaccuracy of my initial perceptions and a more accurate
view of my role in the community.
Action research is a personal and self-reflective process in which I am the center of my
research. Instead of simply acknowledging a problem and ending with a concrete solution, it
tasks me with finding a solution with many forms and then putting those forms into action.
Above all else, action research is messy, and the actions and outcomes rarely play out as
anticipated. It is in these failures that the greatest insights can be found. These are the
instances that taught me the most about the effectiveness of what I was attempting and then
required that I try an even more innovative approach to move forward. Action research does
not simply examine a problem, but is cyclical process centered on dynamic relationships and
their impact on the problem in question. It was through these relationships that I have learned
that people need encouragement, suggestions, support, demonstration, direction, and above
all else to be heard.
Initially, I believed that a lack of skill, from an absence of adequate training, was largely to
blame for the disinterest and apprehension many of my colleagues exhibited in regards to
technology use and integration in the classroom. While conducting research to write my
literature review, I found an additional reason that I have come to believe is also often
responsible for these attitudes. Many of these teachers demonstrate low self-efficacy in their
use of instructional technology devices. With two of my participants in this action research, I
found that the emotional responses that stem from a lack of confidence were primarily to
blame for their avoidance of technology and their apathetic reaction toward the idea of
technology integration. This realization only became clear through our conversations made
possible by the relationships and trust I had established with my participants. These
relationships, while already in place as colleagues, continued to strengthen and develop into
mentoring relationships. I have come to realize that while technology PD can occur without the
establishment of a relationship between learner and expert, the capability of that training to
overcome issues of teacher confidence is unlikely.
Based on my literature research, I believe that there are three educational strategies that need
to be present in a plan for technology professional development. Instruction must be learner-
centered, social and involve active participation by the learner. Traditionally, PD is about
creating learning for teachers, but to be effective and lasting it should be constructed with
teachers.
PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 31

Through my action research, I sought ways to develop and sustain personalized participatory
professional development. While this approach was attainable with three participants, I am
cognizant of the potential difficulties that will most likely arise if this approach is attempted on
a larger scale. The question of sustainability is one that I have pondered throughout this
process, and I have determined that, as a one person technology integration team, it is not
realistic to attempt to replicate this experience on a larger scale. I continue to reflect on my
outcomes, however, and look for ways of using what I have learned to create a more
sustainable professional development plan for our lower school teachers.






















PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 32

References

Chen, M. (2002). Edutopia: Success stories for learning in the digital age. Jossey-Bass Inc.,
Publishers.

Cuban, L. (1986). The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College
Press, Columbia University.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in schools 1980-2000.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardon, N., Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher
development in the United States and abroad. NSDC.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
42(3), 255-284.

Foote, C. (2013). FROM PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO PERSONALIZED LEARNING. Library
Media Connection, 31(4), 34-35.

Fraser, C., Kennedy, A., Reid, L., & Mckinney, S. (2007). Teachers continuing professional
development: contested concepts, understandings and models.Journal of in-service education,
33(2), 153-169.

Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in US Public
Schools: 2009. First Look. NCES 2010-040. National Center for Education Statistics.

Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with
commentary. Routledge.

Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of continuing professional development: a framework for analysis.
Journal of in-service education, 31(2), 235-250.

Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers views on factors affecting effective integration of
information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery.Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-263.

Liu, Y., & Szabo, Z. (2009). Teachers attitudes toward technology integration in schools: a four
year study. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15(1), 5-23.

PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Page | 33

NETP (2010). National Education Technology Plan: 2010. U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Education Technology. Ed Pubs Division, Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.

Niederhauser, D., & Wessling, S. (2011). Professional Development: Catalyst for Change?.
Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(8), 38-39.

Reading, E. C. (2000). A Professional Development Guide. Washington: Learning First Alliance.
http://www.learningfirst.org/sites/default/files/assets/readingguideprofessionaldevelopment.p
df.

Riel, M. (2010). Understanding Action Research, Center For Collaborative Action Research,
Pepperdine University (Last revision Sep, 2013). Retrieved from
http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html.

Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers
Tools. National Center for Education Statistics, 2(4), 48. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001603.pdf.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology
innovations. The Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.