The fast-changing nature and prevalence of technology in society has had a substantial impact on many professional fields, such as journalism and medicine. \u00a0Likewise, changes in technology have also impacted K-12 education and how teachers and students learn. \u00a0Digital literacy has become an essential skill stakeholders have demanded be incorporated in K-12 education (U.S. Department of Education [U.S. DOE], 2016).<\/p>\n
Technology has been deemed essential for potential benefits to student learning as well as for preparing students for an increasingly digital society (Project Tomorrow, 2017). \u00a0For instance, studies done by Powell and Mason (2013) and Shin, Sutherland, Norris, and Soloway (2012) have shown that using technology to support students\u2019 learning processes can lead to improved learning outcomes. \u00a0With the increase of technology initiatives in K-12 education, stakeholders expect teachers to integrate technology effectively and prepare students with essential digital literacy skills for their future careers (U.S. DOE, 2016).<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, teachers\u2019 ineffective technology integration in classrooms has continually been identified as a critical unresolved issue (OECD, 2015; U.S. DOE, 2014).\u00a0 Despite recent increases in teacher technology use, it is often not utilized to its fullest potential to support teaching and learning (Smolin & Lawless, 2011; U.S. DOE, 2016). \u00a0Several reports have shown that teachers primarily use technology to support administrative purposes as opposed to instructional purposes that leverage students\u2019 learning processes and outcomes (Hanover Research Council, 2014; Project Tomorrow, 2008). \u00a0This ineffective technology integration could be due, in part, to ineffective teacher professional development (PD; Duran, Brunvand, Ellsworth, & Sendag, 2012; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Project Tomorrow, 2013).<\/p>\n
Effective teacher PD should help teachers adopt and integrate technology to change their teaching practices and further support student learning (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). \u00a0In order to establish effective teacher PD, the content and formats that make PD programs effective to address teachers\u2019 professional learning needs must be identified (Cosmah & Saine, 2013; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).<\/p>\n
Even though features of effective PD for technology integration have been identified in research studies (e.g., O\u2019Hara, Pritchard, Huang, & Pella, 2013; Smolin & Lawless, 2011), teachers continue to report technology PD as not effective to support their use of technology in classrooms (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2014; U.S. DOE, 2016). \u00a0If teachers do not think a PD is useful and supportive to address their professional learning needs, they are less likely to implement the technology integration ideas into their practices (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Potter & Rockinson\u2010Szapkiw, 2012). \u00a0However, teachers have different needs and prefer different kinds of PD support (Martin, Miyashiro & Baird, 2015), keeping in mind that their available technology resources, such as digital devices, learning management systems, online curriculum, and technology-related policies, are constantly changing. Therefore, giving teachers choice and more options in PD, in terms of both content (what teachers learn during PD) and format (how PD is delivered), is more likely to support teachers\u2019 use of technology in classrooms effectively.<\/p>\n
Since technology continues to change rapidly, teacher educators need to understand how teachers\u2019 preferences for both content and format change over time. \u00a0In this study, we examined teachers\u2019 preferences for technology PD content and format over a period of technology change (2009-2015). \u00a0By identifying shifts in teachers\u2019 PD preferences and needs for technology integration PD, stakeholders may recognize the importance of continually requesting teachers to identify areas of need and preference. \u00a0Using this information, stakeholders could provide effective PD by directly addressing teachers\u2019 needs and providing support for teachers\u2019 technology integration practices.<\/p>\n
Researchers have identified characteristics of effective teacher PD for technology integration. \u00a0Effective technology PD should be sustained, incorporate authentic experiences situated within school contexts, and offer various levels of support.<\/p>\n
Studies have shown that teachers perceive long-term and sustained technology PD support as being effective, as opposed to single, standalone PD trainings (Gerard, Varma, Corliss & Linn, 2011; Kopcha, 2012; Walkers, Recker, Robertshaw, Osen, & Leary, 2011).\u00a0 The Center for Public Education (2013) argued that PD programs as one-time interventions with short durations are unlikely to yield significant effects on changes in teachers\u2019 practices (Duran et al., 2012; Smolin & Lawless, 2011) and students\u2019 learning outcomes (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).<\/p>\n
Some studies have shown positive effects of sustained technology PD on teachers\u2019 technology competencies.\u00a0 Duran and colleagues (2012) examined the impact of sustained participation in PD on K-12 teachers\u2019 use of Wikis in their classrooms.\u00a0 They found that teachers\u2019 sustained participation in PD had a significant impact on their technology integration skills, confidence, and practices.\u00a0 In addition, the teachers reported valuing the ongoing and follow-up support provided by the PD facilitators.\u00a0 Teachers should be given sufficient time and opportunities to implement what they have learned from PD with follow-up support for implementation into practice (Wells, 2007).<\/p>\n
Researchers have argued that teacher PD should include authentic PD activities and learning environments (Kopcha, 2012; O\u2019Hara et al., 2013). \u00a0Authentic learning experiences usually include hands-on practice and pedagogy-focused learning content and are situated in school contexts. \u00a0Studies have shown that when teachers engage in authentic PD experiences, their knowledge and skills, as well as their teaching practices have been more likely to change (Gulamhussein, 2013), particularly for technology integration.<\/p>\n
Hands-On<\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>\u00a0As one example of authentic learning PD experiences, O\u2019Hara et al. (2013) provided 16 teachers a technology PD program with demonstrations of experts using technology in language teaching strategies, technology-enhanced curriculum design, and instructional practices. \u00a0The teachers also had opportunities to share, discuss, and reflect on their teaching practices with other teachers and experts after applying what they learned from the PD in their classrooms. \u00a0The teachers indicated that the hands-on activities encouraged them to change their technology integration practices.<\/p>\n In another longitudinal teacher PD study, Mouza (2011) found that teachers\u2019 technology competencies were built through hands-on experiences where they designed and implemented technology-enhanced instruction during their technology PD sessions. \u00a0She found that teachers not only developed technology integration knowledge, but positively changed their technology integration practices and attitudes. \u00a0To make PD effective and support teacher change in technology integration practices, teachers should be provided with time as well as opportunities to play with and learn about newly introduced technology (Potter & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).<\/p>\n Pedagogically Focused.<\/em><\/strong> Other researchers have emphasized the importance of focusing on pedagogical aspects of technology integration during PD sessions (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan, Lowther, Ross, & Strahl, 2010; Liu, 2013). \u00a0For instance, Liu (2013) set up a technology PD in an elementary school in Taiwan and found that teachers perceived the PD effective because they learned how to teach with certain technology tools in their classrooms along with various instructional strategies. \u00a0The study results showed that when technology PD was pedagogically focused, teachers shifted their technology teaching practices from teacher centered to student centered. Also, scholars have stressed the importance of teaching teachers how to use technology in pedagogical ways in their specific content areas along with instructional strategies linked to their teaching practices (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Hew & Brush, 2007; Lowther, Strahl, Inan & Ross, 2008).<\/p>\n Situated<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 <\/strong>Situating technology PD in a school\u2019s context makes teachers\u2019 PD experiences more authentic and effective (Kopcha, 2012). \u00a0Studies investigating teachers\u2019 technology integration practices have suggested that when PD was situated in local schools and classrooms, teachers\u2019 individual needs for technology use were more likely to be addressed and thus, more likely to impact their teaching practices (Hennessy & London, 2013; Vrasidas, 2015). \u00a0When technology PD is offered in their own school contexts, teachers have access to currently available technology resources and are familiar with their instructional environments. \u00a0Teachers are better able to visualize how technology can be used with their own resources when the PD is situated in their school contexts (Kopcha, 2012; Mouza, 2011).<\/p>\n To support the best practices of sustained technology PD with authentic experiences, various levels of support need to be provided to teachers. \u00a0Ongoing PD support can be categorized in three different levels: personalized support, peer and community support, and system support.<\/p>\n Personalized Support.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Researchers have specified that to motivate teachers to participate in PD programs, the content should be personalized and based on teachers\u2019 individual learning needs (An & Reigeluth, 2012; Cosmah & Saine, 2013; Kopcha, 2012; O\u2019Hara et al., 2013). \u00a0Personalization can be executed through the content provided and how PD is delivered. \u00a0To improve the effectiveness of teachers\u2019 technology integration, Hixon and Buckenmeyer (2009) urged that PD designers identify which PD approaches are appropriate for teachers at different stages of their development of technology integration and personalize PD for their specific needs (e.g., modeling for novice teachers).<\/p>\n One method for personalizing technology PD has been through a mentorship or a coaching model (An & Reigeluth, 2012; Beglau et al., 2011; Kopcha, 2012). \u00a0In these models, the coach and mentor have typically been teachers skilled in technology integration. \u00a0They work individually with teachers to provide support through curriculum planning, observations, reflection, demonstrations, and in-class troubleshooting (Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, & Pittman, 2008; Gulamhussein, 2013).<\/p>\n Community Support. <\/em><\/strong>\u00a0The next level of technology PD support has come from learning communities. \u00a0A learning community is usually a form of PD that consists of a small group of teachers having regular meetings to share experiences and expertise for improving teaching skills and student learning performance (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995).<\/p>\n Technology learning communities can exist within or outside the local school context, onsite, or in online environments. \u00a0Blitz (2013) and Borko and colleagues (2008) recommended joining online learning communities as an effective PD structure for teachers to receive community support. \u00a0Teachers can self-select from many online learning communities that focus on different content and meet at different times (Curwood, 2011). \u00a0Many teachers have also reported that the value of online learning communities comes from the interaction with other teachers or professionals to foster their growth with technology integration (Gerard et al., 2011; O\u2019Hara et al., 2013; Potter & Rockinson-Szakiw, 2012).<\/p>\n When learning communities are formed within the school context for teacher technology PD, Kopcha (2012) recommended that a teacher leader or technology expert guide activities to make PD more effective. \u00a0He further suggested that prior to establishing a community of practice, PD developers should have well-prepared activities and support to help teachers change their beliefs and attitudes toward technology. \u00a0Because teachers tend to show less motivation and interaction in online learning environments, Blitz (2013) recommended that effective online or hybrid PD formats should utilize experienced facilitators moderating group interaction and collaboration. \u00a0Overall, building professional learning communities as a form of technology PD can provide a space for teachers\u2019 active participation and continuous personalized support.<\/p>\n System Support<\/em>.\u00a0 <\/strong>Researchers have also recommended system support for effective technology PD (O\u2019Hara et al., 2013; Somekh, 2008). \u00a0System support focuses on the resources available at the administrative, school, and district level to support technology integration (such as technology resources, infrastructure, technology-related policies, and school culture).<\/p>\n Hanover Research Council (2014) stated that when teachers have limited access to technology resources, they are more likely to discontinue technology use and less likely to have a meaningful change in their teaching pedagogies. \u00a0Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) suggested that effective PD needs to evolve from a shared vision of best practices with technology integration. \u00a0This vision should be built by both administration and teachers.<\/p>\n In addition to a shared vision, administrations need to provide sufficient technology resources and supportive infrastructure, as well as help establish a school culture and environment where innovations and experiments with technology use are encouraged (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Somekh, 2008).<\/p>\n O\u2019Hara et al. (2013) argued that the alignment with district visions and goals was critical to making a technology PD program effective. \u00a0When district visions and goals are aligned with PD content, that PD content could better support teachers\u2019 teaching performance evaluated by schools.<\/p>\n However, with technology quickly changing, are teachers changing their preferences for PD content and format at the same rate? \u00a0Considering teachers\u2019 technology integration processes, we would like to better understand how the pace of technology changes in education are aligned with the pace of change in teachers\u2019 technology PD preferences and needs. \u00a0For instance, as more teachers become comfortable with technology, are they more willing to join online communities? \u00a0As technology becomes updated and easier to use, are teachers changing their preferences for what and how they learn from their technology PD?<\/p>\n To find out whether teachers\u2019 technology PD needs can be effectively addressed in the latest PD programs, we investigated the changes in teachers\u2019 technology PD needs and perceptions of effective PD programs over a 6-year time span.\u00a0 The results inform better support of teachers\u2019 technology integration practices.<\/p>\n The purpose of this study was to examine K-12 technology-using teachers\u2019 perceptions and needs of PD for technology integration before and after 6 years\u2019 time. \u00a0We used a cross-sectional study design (as described by Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011) with a two-phase survey that relied on a questionnaire and follow-up semistructured interviews (Creswell, 2002) in each phase. \u00a0Phase 1 was completed in 2009, and Phase 2 was completed in 2015.<\/p>\n With the collected quantitative and qualitative data, we examined whether shifts had or had not occurred regarding teachers\u2019 perceived useful PD formats and content for technology integration. \u00a0We examined both questionnaire responses and follow-up interview data collected in both study phases to address the following two research questions:<\/p>\n The participants in the two phases were recruited via e-mail lists from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and its affiliates who share a vision of supporting K-12 teachers\u2019 use of technology.\u00a0 Therefore, the participants we recruited were K-12 teachers who were interested in knowing more about technology integration or were already integrating technology to some extent.<\/p>\n Respondents to the questionnaires were self-identified technology-using teachers, mainly between third and 12th<\/sup> grade, across all subject areas, with a wide range of experiences teaching and teaching with technology.\u00a0 Over half the participants (60% in 2009 and 67% in 2015) had more than 10 years of teaching experience in K-12 settings.\u00a0 In each study phase, a question was integrated in the questionnaire asking about participants\u2019 willingness to participate in a follow-up interview.\u00a0 All interview participants were voluntary, were interviewed based on their availability, and were spread across different states and school districts across the country.<\/p>\n Phase 1.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>In 2009, of the 426 teachers who initiated the questionnaire, 245 teachers were selected because they completed all questions (including the open-ended question related to their previous technology-related PD experiences). \u00a0Among the 108 teachers who volunteered to participate in the follow-up interviews in 2009, 28 teachers were purposefully selected and interviewed, representing a range of subject areas and grade levels.<\/p>\n Phase 2.\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>The respondents to the questionnaire for Phase 2 were recruited through the same process and lists as Phase 1, but were not necessarily the same individuals. \u00a0However, their responses represent teachers\u2019 perceptions from the same educational technology organizations. \u00a0In 2015, of the 384 teachers that initiated the questionnaire, 175 completed it. \u00a0Among the 175 teachers, 71 indicated being willing to participate in a follow-up interview, and 16 were purposely selected (representing a range of subject areas and grade levels) to be interviewed in fall 2015.\u00a0 Three of the 16 interviewees were also interview participants from Phase 1.<\/p>\n This study examined both questionnaire and follow-up interview data collected in 2009 (Phase 1) and 2015 (Phase 2).<\/p>\n Questionnaire<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 <\/strong>In the 2009 questionnaire, the questions related to technology PD were part of a larger study (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). \u00a0The questionnaire consisted of 23 open- and closed-ended questions in an online format. \u00a0For the purposes of this study, we analyzed responses to one open-ended question from the questionnaire: \u201cDid you ever participate in a useful technology PD activity\/project as a teacher? If so, please briefly describe that experience.\u201d Teacher responses ranged from specific technology interests (e.g., Web 2.0 resources) to specific format requests (e.g., workshops, conferences).<\/p>\n When constructing the 2015 questionnaire, we intended to understand what had changed since 2009. \u00a0We wanted to know more details on specific PD content and formats that teachers continued to perceive as useful. \u00a0The result was a 2015 questionnaire that contained four main questions, one close-ended and three open-ended, asking about teachers\u2019 previous technology PD experiences and specifically what PD content and formats they found useful for their technology integration practice. \u00a0These questions were built from the coded responses from Phase 1. \u00a0The 2015 questionnaire can be found in Appendix A<\/a>.<\/p>\n The numbers of participants and responses in both 2009 and 2015 questionnaires are presented in Table 1. \u00a0Vague or blank responses were coded as \u201cN\/A\u201d and excluded from the total valid responses for counts and percentages of teachers\u2019 perceptions of useful PD. \u00a0Some of the responses specifically mentioned format, but were vague on the content or vice versa.<\/p>\n Table 1Various Levels of Support<\/h3>\n
Methods<\/h2>\n
\n
Participants<\/h3>\n
Data Sources<\/h3>\n
\n<\/strong>Participants With Valid Responses in 2009 and 2015 Questionnaires<\/p>\n