You are here:

Key Design Factors in Durable Instructional Technology Professional Development
Article

, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 15, Number 1, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The capacity of any professional development effort to achieve durable change in teacher practice is affected by a host of design factors and their precise alignment with multiple delivery strategies. However, how successful professional development (PD) programs achieve an effective mix of these factors and strategies is not well understood. The purpose of this study is to identify which design factors have been found to be most essential, and to better understand how successful PD programs effectively align their delivery strategies with these factors. Aligning evaluation data collected across three years of the Trek 211 Project, a PT32 project found effective in promoting durable change in teacher practice, with key design factors identified from a decade of PD research, a successful design structure is presented and implications for future professional development initiatives are discussed. Professional development (PD) that targets

Citation

Wells, J. (2007). Key Design Factors in Durable Instructional Technology Professional Development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 101-122. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved June 2, 2023 from .

© 2007 Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  2. Conti, G.J. (1982). The principles of adult learning scale. Adult Literacy and Basic Education, 6, 135-150.
  3. Conti, G.J. (1989). Assessing teaching style in continuing education. New Directions for Continuing Education, 43, 3-16.
  4. Crawford, C. (2003). Web-enhancing university coursework: An innovative professional development model to support a step-by-step approach towards web-enhancing courses and empowering instructors. International Journal on E-Learning, 2(1), 5-13.
  5. Fullan, M., & Steigelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. EDMin, (2000). Building performance communities, technology use planning, TMM. Retrieved October 5, 2000, from http://www.edmin.com/ Products/techbuilder/index.cfm
  6. Griffin, G.A. (Ed.) (1983). Staff development. Eighty-second yearbook of
  7. Guskey, T.R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development to promote visionary leadership. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 87(637), 38-54.
  8. Howland, J., & Wedman, J. (2004). A process model for faculty development: Individualizing technology learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 239-263.
  9. Johnson, D. (1997). What does it look like? Part 1: The code 77 rubrics. Technology Connection. Retrieved October 9, 2004, from http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/Rubbeg.HTM
  10. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Kennedy, M., (1998). Form and substance in inservcie teacher education. National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Research Monograph No. 13.
  11. Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., & Smerdon,B.(1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualification of public school teachers (NCES 1999-080). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  12. Little, J.W. (1994, September). Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education. Retrieved August 11, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/SysReforms/little1.html
  13. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S. & Hewson, P. (2003).
  14. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999, May). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state 116 Wells
  15. Mitchem, K., Wells, D., & Wells, J. (2003). Effective integration of instructional technologies (IT): Evaluating professional development and instructional change. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(3), 399-416.
  16. Mullens, J.E., Leighton, M.S., Laguarda, K.G., & O’Brien, E. (1996). Student learning, teaching quality, and professional development: Theoretical linkages, current measurement, and recommendations for future data collection. Working Paper No. 96-28. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
  17. National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Toward better teaching: Professional development in 1993-1994. Washington, DC: NCES (NCES 98-230), U.S. Department of Education. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2002). Professional development. Retrieved October 9, 2002, from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/TProDev.htm
  18. National Staff Development Council (1995). Standards for staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
  19. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. OTA-HER-616. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  20. Rutherford, W.L., Hall, G.E., & George, A.S. (1982). An instrument for measuring the concerns change facilitators have about their role in
  21. Sprinthall, N.A., Reiman, A.J., & Theis-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher professional development. In J.P. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 666-703). New
  22. Wenglinsky, H. (2002, February 13). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved March 12, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/
  23. Wells, J.G. (1999). Trek 21 – Educating teachers as agents of technological change. Proposal document for PT3 Grant Program, U.S. Department of Education.
  24. Wells, J.G. (2003). Trek 21 final evaluation report. Unpublished manuscript submitted to PT3 Grant Program, U.S. Department of Education. Key Design Factors in Durable Instructional Technology 117
  25. Wilson, S., & Berne, J. (1998).Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173206.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.