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

Research Questions:
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?

Study Outline

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)
     affects motivation.

--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
     relationship, however)
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
               development trainings.
          --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
          3) curriculum
          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
     the teachers.

--RESEARCH:  Just providing technology does not ensure integration (Hixon &
     Buckenmeyer, 2009).
--Better PD produces better integration (Martin, Strother, Beglau, Bates, Reitzes, &
     Culp, 2010).

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,
     9(7), 28-30.

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,
     41(4).  417-441.

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:

Provide Feedback