Differentiated PD for Technology Integration
Mark Montgomery, Harts Bluff ISD, Baylor University
Becky Odajima, Midway ISD
Presentation for TCEA 2013
Join in the Conversation: www.todaysmeet.com/DIPD
Welcome & Introductions
Our role as Instructional Specialists in WISD
Differentiated Instruction as a model for classroom instruction
School Background Information
- Equipment Available
- Professional Development
- Administrative Support
- Technology Proficiency of Staff
Our New Plan for Training - Technology Tuesdays and Venn Diagram
Origin of Study
Differentiated PD Dissertation Study
1. How does a differentiated professional development model impact teachers'
understanding of "student-centered technology" integration?
2. How does a professional development model with a mentoring piece, such as is
implemented in this study, impact teacher's beliefs about technology
3. How does a differentiated professional development model impact the ability of
teachers to overcome natural barriers to technology integration?
Discussion of Participants
1. Faye Cummings
2. Donna Clayton
3. Ann Evans
1. All teachers initial barriers to tech integration are not overcome by a
traditional professional development model, thereby causing
integration to be non-existent or rarely successful.
-- All three teachers have initial barriers that relate to "what if" barriers, despite
their TSAT levels or former professional development trainings.
--Are barriers based on individual technologies or technology in general?
--At what point or through which means does a teacher overcome "what if"
--Teachers participating in a TPD don't always overcome the initial intrinsic
barriers of technology integration.
--TPD doesn't seem to assist all teachers in overcoming the internal barriers
related to attitude and motivation.
--One of the most discussed barriers is attitude, which according to Stiggins (2008)
--RESEARCH: time, troubleshooting, access, school culture, knowledge & skills,
ability, high-stakes testing, teacher interest, professional development goals,
curriculum materials, teacher beliefs, teacher technological and content
knowledge (Hixon & Buckenmeyer (2009), Stiggins (2008), Hew & Brush
(2007), Lowther, Inan, Daniel Strahl, & Ross (2008), Velazquez (2007),
Niederhauser & Perkman (2008)
1. Internal vs. external control factors were not overcome with only TPD ("what if"
vs. "if only.")
2. Specifically addressing internal control issues gave teachers
ability/confidence/willingness to tackle external control issues (not a reciprocal
3. Overcoming initial barriers often unveiled new barriers that may or may not be
overcome by teachers (barrier "web").
4. Without working or available equipment ready, overcoming internal control
barriers may be useless.
5. Administrative support is necessary in keeping teachers progressing with
technology (includes PD, equipment, vision).
--One year later
2. Teachers' ideal classroom and ideas about essential skills are related
to their own beliefs and attitudes about technology integration.
--Correlation between teacher belief of the purposeful use of technology to their
overall attitude about technology
--RESEARCH: attitude is strongest predictor of integration (Palak & Walls, 2009)
--RESEARCH: Two types of beliefs related to tech integration, capacity & context (Lumpe & Chambers, 2001).
--Capacity beliefs - relate to self-efficacy
--Context beliefs - external factors and support that are provided to a teacher
and whether or not one of those or all of those are likely to occur.
1. Basic skills do not include troubleshooting technology.
--Technology saturation point (troubleshooting no longer needed or they now
can do it). May cause further barriers when they can't get to that point.
2. Some teachers may not be able to see past their internal barriers to be able to
identify essential skills needed.
3. Actual use of technology leads to increased technology integration ideas.
--initial ideas were vague but final interviews contained ideas that were all
aligned with or a step toward student-centered technology
--initial: record TV shows, email addresses, internet access
--final: PBL, technology centers, authentic assessments
3. All three teachers preferred the DIPD model but saw some key
elements to a traditional professional development model that they
liked as well.
1. TPD discussed in a negative light while DIPD in a positive one.
--TPD: "throwing everyone in," "doing a broadcast," "holds teachers back,"
"here's what you could do if you ever got to hold it."
--DIPD: "specific to my needs," "got what I wanted," "helped me master the
--Faye and Ann grew within the study, but Donna did not gain new knowledge
or improve, but notes that TPD holds her back and forces her to "sit
through stuff I already know."
2. Elements of TPD were included when teachers discussed their desired PD.
--Teachers that grew desired the collaboration and introduction of tools in
whole group setting with follow-up individualized trainings.
--Teacher that did not grow only wanted DIPD elements
3. Barriers overcome with DIPD can be quickly abandoned if training is stopped or
reverted to TPD.
--Two on same campus: less tech use due to "lack of assistance from
Instructional Specialist," "faulty equipment," "no technology professional
--How has technology professional development assisted you in
implementing technology this year? "It has SQUASHED it!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Implications of Study
1. Technology trainings should move to a more differentiated method
while still retaining some key features of a traditional approach.
--RESEARCH: PD not normally specific to teacher needs and does not typically
provide follow-up support. PD should:
1) be teacher-centered
2) be differentiated in regards to groupings of participants
3) hold teachers accountable
4) define clear goals for PD (Brinkerhoff, 2006).
--RESEARCH: PD goal should be to "move all teachers toward expertise in
teaching...must be designed to engage, challenge, and meet each teacher where
her or she is, then move the teacher forward. Once that is done, the goal
becomes to support and provide feedback. Just as students deserve teachers
very best each day, so do teachers who work hard to ensure student success."
(Flannagan & Kelly, 2009).
--RESEARCH: Kopcha (2010) model of PD: begin with a needs assessment
followed by developing vision for PD.
1) initial setup
2) teacher preparation
4) community of practice.
The final step in the process is a reevaluation of the plan and measures the
effectiveness of the plan.
2. Administrators need to support teachers with their use of technology,
not only by expecting to see it used, providing resources by way of
training by knowledgeable others, but also by providing plenty of
working equipment that is pertinent to the training they are providing
--RESEARCH: Just providing technology does not ensure integration (Hixon &
--Better PD produces better integration (Martin, Strother, Beglau, Bates, Reitzes, &
Questions & Comments
Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development
academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology
integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 39(1), 22-43.
Flannagan, J.S., & Kelly, M. (2009). Differentiated support. Principal Leadership,
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and
learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252. doi:
Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools:
Implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2),
130-146. doi: 10.1080/07380560902906070.
Kopcha, T.J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using
mentoring and communities of practice. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 58(2), 175-190. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9095-4.
Lowther, D.L., Inan, F.A., Daniel Strahl, J.J., & Ross, S.M. (2008). Does technology
integration “work” when key barriers are removed? Educational Media
International, 45(3), 195-213. doi: 10.1080/09523980802284317.
Lumpe, A.T., & Chambers, E. (2001). Assessing teachers’ context beliefs about
technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 93-107.
Martin, W., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T., & Culp, K. (2010).
Connecting instructional technology professional development to teacher and
student outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1),
Niederhauser, D.S., & Perkman, S. (2008). Validation of the intrapersonal
technology integration scale: Assessing the influence of intrapersonal factors
that influence technology integration. Computers in the Schools, 25(1/2),
98-111. doi: 10.1080/07380560802157956.
Palak, D., & Walls, R.T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A
mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
Stiggins, R. (2008). An introduction to student-involved assessment for learning.
Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Velazquez, C. (2007). Testing predictive models of technology integration in
Mexico and the United States. Computers in the Schools, 24(3/4), 153-173. doi: