Examining The Technology Integration Pla PDF

Examining the Technology Integration
Planning Cycle Model of Professional

Development to Support Teachers’
Instructional Practices
AMY C. HUTCHISON
George Mason University
LINDSAY WOODWARD
Drake University
Background: Presently, models of professional development aimed at supporting teachers’

technology integration efforts are often short and decontextualized. With many schools across
the country utilizing standards that require students to engage with digital tools, a situative
model that supports building teachers’ knowledge within their classrooms is needed.
Purpose of Study: The purpose of this study was to examine how teachers’ instructional plan-
ning and delivery, as well as their perceptions of their proficiency with technology integration,
changed when they participated in a model of technology-focused professional development
titled the Technology Integration Planning Cycle Model of Professional Development. The
researchers also examined the relationship between students’ (N = 1,335) digital literacy
skills and teachers’ participation in the Technology Integration Planning Cycle Model of
Professional Development.
Program: The TIPC Model of PD comprised whole-group professional development sessions,
long-range planning, access to instructional coaches, professional learning communities,
digital tool resources, observations with reflections, and a comprehensive project website.
Research Design: This mixed-methods study combined numerous quantitative and qualita-
tive data sources and data analysis techniques to answer the research questions. Pre- and
posttest comparisons were used to examine changes in students’ digital literacy skills and
changes in teachers’ perceptions of their pedagogical expertise for integrating digital tech-
nology. Daily diaries, classroom observations, interviews, and field notes were analyzed to
understand the role of the professional development in teachers’ instructional planning and
their perceptions of their proficiency.
Findings: Results indicate that students in classrooms with participant teachers performed
significantly better on a digital literacy assessment, the Survey of Internet Use and Online
Teachers College Record Volume 120, 100306, October 2018, 44 pages

Copyright © by Teachers College, Columbia University
0161-4681
1
Teachers College Record, 120, 100306 (2018)
Reading, than did control group students. Selective exposure to digital tools, professional
learning communities, and opportunities for reflection were the most transformative elements
of this model for teachers. Teachers were better prepared to envision their roles in the classroom
and the purposes for integrating technology because of the TIPC framework.
Conclusions: The results of this study provide important implications for professional de-
velopment, particularly in regard to (1) providing a model in which to ground discussion
and application of technology integration; (2) situating digital tools within context-driven
instruction; and (3) using multiple modes of teacher engagement.
The importance of technology in classroom instruction has changed

both the expectations for what students should know and be able to do,
and the learning experiences designed by teachers. With many schools
across the nation using standards that require students to develop and
demonstrate knowledge of how to create, communicate, and learn using
digital tools (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices
& Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), teachers’ preparation
to facilitate learning that meaningfully integrates technology becomes
even more critical. At present, much of this preparation for in-service
teachers has taken the form of short, decontextualized workshops that
are most often focused on the introduction and use of a specific digital
tool (Blocher, Armfield, Sujo-Montes, Tucker, & Willis, 2011; Lawless &
Pellegrino, 2007), not on how to use that tool to meet specific classroom
instructional goals. Further, current models of professional develop-
ment (PD) do not address important barriers that teachers experience
when seeking to use digital technology to facilitate learning (Ertmer,
1999; Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012;
Kopcha, 2012).
The changing role of teachers in the digital classroom may be a useful
foundation on which to build new PD models that meet the needs of prac-
ticing teachers. Shaffer, Nash, and Ruis (2015) suggested that teachers in
digital classrooms adopt new roles that connect to traditional teaching,
but that function to decentralize teachers in the learning process through
their work as coordinators, mentors, translators, learners, and experts.
Although recent research indicates that teachers do work toward shift-
ing their roles when they are integrating technology into learning experi-
ences (Dwyer, 2016; Hutchison & Woodward, 2014a; Tour, 2015; White,
2016), there is a paucity of research that explores how teachers can be
supported in these efforts. Therefore, this study explores a PD approach
that focuses on (1) building teachers’ knowledge about the pedagogy as-
sociated with using technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and (2) support-
ing teachers as they seek to overcome barriers to integrating technology
(Blocher et al., 2011).
2
TCR, 120, 100306 Examining the Technology Integration Planning Cycle Model of Professional Development
The PD approach explored in this study prioritized how teachers could

develop pedagogical knowledge of using digital technologies in their class-
rooms, rather than focusing exclusively on single digital tools. Teachers
were engaged in opportunities that supported a range of possible peda-
gogical approaches to using technology in their classrooms (Ertmer et
al., 2012; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996), as well as in how to plan instruction
that effectively utilizes digital tools to create meaningful learning experi-
ences for students. The Technology Integration Planning Cycle (TIPC;
Hutchison & Woodward, 2014b) was used as a framework for supporting
teachers’ planning efforts and also as a tool to foster an understanding
of the importance of the instructional goal when designing learning op-
portunities for students (Ertmer et al., 2012). The TIPC is a tool to guide
teachers in planning instruction that integrates technology through a
recursive process that directs teachers in identifying their instructional
goals before selecting their digital tools. This emphasis on identifying the
instructional goal is intended to ensure that teachers’ uses of technology
are aligned with their curricular goals. The TIPC also guides teachers
through a process in which they identify the contributions of the digital
tool, the potential barriers created by the tool, and other instructional
considerations that may change as a result of using technology, such as as-
sessment, physical space, and teacher role. Through exploring a new type
of PD on technology integration, the Technology Integration Planning
Cycle Model of Professional Development (TIPC Model of PD), a greater
understanding of the complexities of the roles that teachers take on when
teaching in a digital classroom and how those teachers are best supported
can be developed.
PERSPECTIVES
SITUATIVE LEARNING
A situative perspective of the teacher learning that takes place through

PD supports a focus on the individual teachers and their learning, as well
as the context in which they are learning, the structures and routines that
exist to either support or constrain teachers’ development, and the con-
text within which they are planning to use their new knowledge and ex-
periences (Borko, 2004; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Ertmer, 2005).
Borko (2004) called for using a situative approach to understanding
teacher learning because of the close connections between the knowledge
a teacher is gaining through PD and the context in which the teacher is
both learning it and will apply it. In this study, teachers participating in
PD were planning to meet instructional goals within their specific contexts
3
with a variety of supports designed to respond to specific barriers. These

practices were also embedded within their existing practice and were not
expected to be in addition to their existing work. Postholm (2012) noted
that although courses and workshops may be useful for teachers to acquire
content, that learning within one’s own school context may contribute
to the important exploratory and reflective work that is representative of
high-quality PD. Situative PD has important potential to develop sustained
changes in teachers’ practices and can be responsive to teachers’ needs
and the demands of their classroom contexts (Kopcha, 2012). Therefore,
situative perspectives of learning provide a lens for examining the mul-
tiple elements of the PD in the current study and how this PD informed
teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and classroom instruction.
EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION IN INSTRUCTION
Research on technology integration in instruction indicates that it is im-

portant for teachers to use pedagogically relevant digital tools rather than
focus on simply digitizing existing work or seeking exclusively to engage
students (Hutchison & Woodward, 2014b; Leu et al., 2015; Smolin &
Lawless, 2011). The TIPC Model of PD focuses on the selection of appro-
priate digital tools, which align closely with the articulated instructional
goal and the intended instructional approach. By situating PD within a
reflective cycle that prioritizes instructional goals and student outcomes,
and clarifies that technology is a possible tool to achieve that goal, tech-
nology integration can be much more effective in classroom instruction.
Specifically, this design allows teachers to see a variety of pedagogical possi-
bilities with each digital tool rather than designing lessons to incorporate a
specific tool (Ertmer et al., 2012; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Roblyer, 1993).
This approach becomes especially important when considering the
landscape of current digital tools used in educational settings. With more
than 720 iPad apps updated or released in the first half of 2016, teach-
ers are inundated with new and constantly changing possibilities for in-
structional technology in their classrooms. Leu and his colleagues (2015)
claimed that the importance is not using digital tools themselves, but rath-
er how the tools can be used to create meaningful learning experiences
for students and afford new and different ways to communicate, which
can better prepare them for their future lives. Although the tools them-
selves may change, the goal of technology integration remains the same:
to support teachers’ efforts to create meaningful and authentic learning
opportunities through technology (Ertmer et al., 2012). The focus of the
TIPC Model of PD on the instructional goal instead of particular digital
tools resonates with this aim.
4
Further, students can use technology to interact and communicate in

ways that support and extend existing instructional goals. For example,
Dalton (2012) discussed using a digital writers’ workshop to incorpo-
rate K–5 Common Core State Standards involving traditional writing
with those that call for an expanded understanding of communication
in multiple modes. Crippen and Archambault (2012) discussed the im-
portance of integrating technology, such as data mash-ups, into science,
technology, engineering and math (STEM) instruction to better sup-
port students’ understanding of the practical problems that can be ad-
dressed through STEM instructional goals. Finally, Miller (2013) found
that providing opportunities for secondary students to compose digital
videos in response to specific instructional goals resulted in the creation
of authentic spaces for learning, increased focus on the dimensions of
multimodal design, and collaboration for instructional purposes. The
importance of situating technology use within the classroom is further
supported by a recent study of fourth- and fifth-grade students that ex-
plored the types of digital activities they engaged in both in and out
of school. Hutchison et al. (2016) found that not only are preadoles-
cent students engaged in a wider range of digital tasks while in school
than out of school, but they also preferred to use digital tools, in spite
of believing that it was more challenging to learn from the Internet.
Supporting teachers in effectively integrating technology for instruc-
tional purposes benefits students not only in classroom settings but in
out-of-school contexts as well.
Although incorporating technology to support instructional goals is
a critical aim of technology integration, articulating specific goals for
using digital tools throughout the year can scaffold students’ abilities
to use digital tools in increasingly complex and robust ways. One im-
portant component of the TIPC Model of PD is the creation of a long-
range plan that reflects instructional goals and development of skills
with digital tools. The importance of sustained attention and reflection
on the integration of technology is highlighted by Mouza (2009) in her
longitudinal study of elementary teachers. The teachers in that study
reported envisioning sustained projects that involved supporting their
students in developing skills with multiple digital tools in order to ac-
complish multiple instructional goals, as well as affective goals such as
fostering self-efficacy, engagement, and increasing equitable access to
digital tools in the classroom. Thus, teachers need opportunity and
space to develop and reflect on their long-range goals for using digital
tools to accomplish multiple goals for supporting students.
5
Barriers to Technology Integration
PD in technology integration should be aimed at overcoming barriers that

may prevent teachers from being able to fully use PD experiences in their
classroom (Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer et al., 2012; Kopcha, 2012). The TIPC
Model of PD targeted specific barriers in order to support teachers in their
technology integration efforts. Ertmer (1999) discussed first- and second-
order barriers, in which first-order barriers are largely external and skill
based, such as operating a digital tool, while second-order barriers are in-
ternal and involve pedagogical and personal constraints. The TIPC Model
of PD attempts to provide a framework for addressing second-order bar-
riers, such as teacher beliefs and motivation to integrate, through help-
ing teachers see the value of technology-enabled learning and providing
support for them to integrate digital tools into their planning by using the
TIPC rather than just teaching them tools. This approach resonates with
the importance of inviting teachers to both recognize and confront their
perceptions and beliefs about technology integration in order to consider
how integrating technology into instruction is useful in their own contexts
(Ertmer, 1999). Ertmer recognized that “uncertainty about the relevance
of technology in their [teachers] prescribed curricula” can cause “cultural
incompatibility” (p. 51). Further, she noted that strong beliefs and peda-
gogical approaches to integrating technology into instruction can mini-
mize the impact of first-order barriers. Thus, providing opportunities for
teachers to recognize and overcome second-order barriers can reduce the
impact of first-order barriers.
TEACHERS’ ROLES IN DIGITAL CLASSROOMS
A specific element of supporting teachers’ abilities to conceptualize how

digital tools support their instruction is to identify and explore the role
that teachers take on in the classroom. Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, and
Henry (2013) argued that using digital tools fundamentally changes the
role of the teacher in the classroom and that PD is an important part of
helping teachers situate themselves in digital classrooms. Recent research
has explored the role that teachers take in classrooms where digital tools
are used for instructional purposes. Dwyer (2016) explored a classroom
in which students used specific strategies in an online inquiry environ-
ment and noted the importance of the teacher’s role in the classroom
as promoting mutual interdependence and respect between teacher and
student. White (2016) examined her own practice and how she posi-
tioned herself in the classroom when using Internet reciprocal teaching
and found that she needed to fluidly adapt from providing whole-class
6
direct instruction to individual support, and recognize the important part

she played in establishing a collaborative space within both the physical
space of the classroom and the digital spaces in which students were in-
teracting. Tour (2015) reported how three teachers’ digital mindsets dif-
ferently shaped their classroom instruction and beyond. Teachers who
viewed technology as superfluous to their daily lives approached technol-
ogy integration as a nonessential option for students, whereas a teacher
who valued technology personally integrated digital tools meaningfully as
the primary mode for accomplishing multiple instructional goals. Finally,
Hutchison and Woodward (2014a) examined the role of an English lan-
guage arts teacher as she sought to integrate technology instruction into
her sixth-grade teaching and how the different roles she took on in the
classroom were connected to whether or not her instruction involved a
digital tool. This growing body of research indicates that how teachers
orient themselves toward integrating technology influences how they posi-
tion themselves in the classroom. The TIPC Model of PD aims to support
teachers in understanding their role in the classroom when using digital
tools for instructional purposes and to provide opportunity for reflection
on the teachers’ roles in the classroom.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES
In addition to teachers’ roles in the classroom, professional learn-

ing communities (PLCs) were integrated into the TIPC Model of PD.
Drawing on the existing model of PLCs established in the participant
district (DuFour, 2004), our PD sought to support teachers’ efforts to in-
tegrate technology by situating specific elements of our PD model within
the PLC structure. Drawing on Fullan’s (2002) claim that teachers must
have opportunities to create dialogue to make meaning from new infor-
mation, teachers were supported in being able to use their time to meet
as a PLC to support their technology integration efforts. Specifically,
Green, Donovan, and Bass (2010) proposed four factors that influence
the success of technology-focused PLCs: school climate, communication,
collaboration, and progression of use. The design of PLCs in this proj-
ect provided opportunities for teachers to share and discuss first- and
second-order barriers and work together to plan instruction. Cifuentes,
Maxwell, and Bulu (2011) found that through participating in a larger
sustained PD project that included targeted PLC involvement, teachers
not only increased the digital tools they were using in the classroom but
also changed how they viewed their role in the classroom and a switch
from teacher-driven to student-driven instruction.
7
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION
Table 1 reflects how each of the elements of the TIPC Model of PD aligns
with the five characteristics of high-quality PD as described by Lawless and
Pellegrino (2007) in their discussion of PD in integrating technology into
instruction. They synthesized research that identified the following five
characteristics of high-quality PD: are longer in duration, provide access
to new technologies for teaching and learning, actively engage teachers in
meaningful and relevant activities for their individual contexts, promote
peer collaboration and community building, and have a clearly articulat-
ed and common vision for student achievement (Lawless & Pellegrino).
Table 1 highlights the situative nature of the TIPC Model of PD through
several outcomes and elements designed to respond to multiple factors
affecting the quality of PD.
Each of these elements of the TIPC Model of PD were intended to
contribute to our overarching goal of improving students’ digital literacy
skills. Figure 1 illustrates our theory of action for the TIPC Model of PD.
Figure 1. Theory of Action for the Technology Integration Planning
Cycle Model of Professional Development
8
Table 1. Technology Integration Planning Cycle Model of Professional Development Elements and Their
Connection to Quality Professional Development
Components TIPC Model of PD Elements Intended Outcomes
of Quality
Professional
Development
Duration: con- 1) Yearlong PD model Establish a common understanding of the purpose and possibilities of integrating tech-
tact hours and 2) Whole-group PD sessions nology into instruction through the use of the TIPC; Create a recursive process of using
follow-up 3) Participation in technology- the cycle to inform instruction as teachers’ skill with integrating technology increases;
focused professional learning Provide opportunities for teachers to reflect on and prioritize using relevant digital tools
communities (PLCs) for instructional purposes
Access: new 1) Weekly digital tool and les- Build teachers’ knowledge about different technologies and their instructional purposes;
technologies for son plan emails Model how to select an instructional goal and consider which tools may be appropriate;
teaching and 2) The Whole Shebang Provide a common space where teachers can access materials and connect with each
9
learning website other
Engagement: 1) Long-range planning Collaboratively establish yearlong goals that build students’ digital skills as situated within
meaningful 2) Lesson observation and planned instructional goals; Reflect on a lesson in which technology was integrated to
activities for indi- reflective session evaluate whether student instructional goals were met and instructional opportunities
vidual contexts 3) Monthly digital tools report were maximized; Explore existing practice to examine commonly used digital tools and
where instruction might be supported with alternative or additional tools
Collaboration: 1) Participation in technology- Connect teachers with other teachers within and outside their school who were develop-
among peers focused PLCs ing knowledge about integrating technology into instruction; Support teachers by pro-
and school 2) Instructional coaches’ viding a common language and clear outcomes for integrating technology; Establish how
community support existing systems of support can specifically serve technology integration efforts
3) Intra- and interschool
connections
Achievement: 1) Focus on the TIPC includ- Demonstrate how standards inform instructional goals through the use of a planning
common vision ed in all elements of model, model; Connect the TIPC to establishing clear goals, designing effective instruction, and
for student which prioritizes instructional assessing student learning; Explore and share how teachers are designing instruction to
outcomes goals meet specific instructional goals and the outcomes produced by students
METHOD
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The current study was designed to answer the following research ques-
tions (RQs):
1. How do teachers’ perceptions of their proficiency with integrating
technology into instruction change when they participate in the
TIPC Model of PD?
2. How do teacher instruction and instructional planning change as
teachers participate in the TIPC Model of PD?
3. What is the relationship between students’ digital literacy skills and
teachers’ participation in the TIPC Model of PD?
Table 2 provides an overview of the data sources that were used to answer
each research question and how data were analyzed for each question.
Table 2. Overview of Research Questions, Data Sources, and Analysis
Research Question Data Sources Data Analysis
How do teachers’ perceptions of their Survey of Technology Paired-sample t
proficiency with integrating technology Use, interviews (before, tests; qualitative
into instruction change as a result of par- during, and after PD), open coding
ticipation in the Technology Integration field notes
Planning Cycle Model of PD?
How does teacher instruction and Lesson observation ru- Descriptive
instructional planning change when brics, teachers’ reflective analysis; qualita-
teachers participate in the Technology analysis of lessons, daily tive open coding
Integration Planning Cycle Model of PD? diaries, PLC meeting ob-
servation notes, interviews
What is the relationship between stu- Survey of Internet Use ANCOVA
dents’ digital literacy skills and teach- and Online Reading
ers’ participation in the Technology
Integration Planning Cycle Model of PD?
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL
The Technology Integration Project was a yearlong PD project in

which teachers participated in the TIPC Model of PD for the course
of a school year. The purpose of the PD was to support teachers in in-
tegrating digital technologies into their literacy instruction to support
their instructional goals and to improve students’ digital literacy skills.
The authors both designed and implemented the PD and served as the
researchers who collected data on the various elements of the model.
10
Although previous research has been conducted to study how pre-

service teachers use the TIPC to plan instruction (e.g., Beschorner &
Kruse, 2016; Hutchison & Colwell, 2016), the current study represents
the first effort to study how teachers use the TIPC systematically over
the course of a year as part of a larger model of PD. The components
of the PD model included the following.
Whole-Group PD Sessions
The purpose of the whole-group sessions was to introduce the TIPC (see
Figure 2), which served as the foundation for the project. During these
sessions, teachers were introduced to the educational philosophies and
theories guiding the TIPC and given opportunities to practice using the
model with the support of peers and the session facilitators.
Figure 2. The Technology Integration Planning Cycle
11
Long-Range Planning
To encourage teachers to think about technology integration as an ongo-

ing, skill-building, and long-term activity, teachers were asked to develop
a long-range plan for introducing different skills and types of technol-
ogies into their instruction. The purpose of the long-range plan was to
guide teachers in gradually introducing technologies into instruction in
a way that would align with their instructional goals, systematically build
students’ digital literacy skills over time, build on what students already
knew, create variety in the types of tools students used, and ensure that
technology was integrated throughout the year. The long-range plans
were intended to be flexible and serve as a guide and a reminder to inte-
grate a range of tools over the course of the year and were not intended
as rigid plans to be followed. Even when using the long-range plan as a
guide, teachers were asked to continue using the TIPC to ensure that the
planned use of technology supported the teachers’ instructional goals. A
portion of a sample long-range plan, aligned with a teacher’s instructional
goals, is provided in Figure 3.
Access to Instructional Coaches for Support for Instructional Planning, Resources, Etc.
A key part of the TIPC is for teachers to carefully consider if and how their
use of instructional technology supports their instructional goals. Teachers
are encouraged to seek additional support and resources when they have
difficulty determining how technology may support their instructional
goals. Thus, an important part of this PD model was for teachers to have
access to instructional coaches to support their instructional planning.
The instructional coaches were employed by the district and would have
normally been available to the teachers even if they did not participate in
the PD study. However, to better support the teachers’ technology integra-
tion, these coaches also received PD on how to use the model and how
to support teachers in using it. The coaches were not considered to be
experts at technology integration. Thus, their primary role was to guide
teachers in asking important questions about their instructional planning
and instructional standards, and to guide them to relevant resources.
Teacher Participation in a Professional Learning Community
All teachers in the study participated in a PLC that was focused on integrat-
ing technology into literacy instruction. PLCs were made up of teachers
from the same grade level who worked in the same building. Thus, these
teachers saw each other daily and had shared standards and school guide-
lines. Each PLC also had an instructional coach who facilitated discussion
12
Figure 3. Sample Long-Range Plan for Integrating Technology Into Literacy Instruction
13
and served as a resource for the teachers. Each PLC met with his or her
coach twice weekly for 45 minutes. As a group, each PLC created goals to
address the question, “What do we want students to know and be able to
do?” Additionally, each week, every PLC was asked to address the ques-
tions listed in Figure 4. The purpose of these questions was to help teach-
ers assess their progress toward their goals.
Figure 4. Weekly Professional Learning Community Questions
In addition to the weekly PLC meetings with an instructional coach, we

also met with each PLC an average of three times throughout the year to
provide additional support and to gauge the needs of the PLCs as they
related to the project.
Weekly Digital Tool Resources With Accompanying Lesson Plan Examples
Each week, project participants received an Appy Friday email that in-
cluded an App Integration Snapshot with an accompanying lesson plan.
The App Integration Snapshots were documents that introduced a single
digital tool, provided comprehensive instructions on how to access and
use the tool, and included brief suggestions for how to integrate the tool
into classroom instruction (see Figure 5 for an example). Each snapshot
14
was accompanied by a lesson plan that was designed using the TIPC and
was aligned to Common Core English Language Arts standards. The les-
son plans were intended to serve as examples of how instruction could be
supported and enhanced through technology integration. Teachers were
encouraged to use the examples to create their own plans appropriate for
their individual contexts.
Figure 5. Example of App Integration Snapshot Sent With Appy Friday
Email
15
Teaching Observations With Individual Teacher Reflection and Reflective Feedback

Session With the Observer
Participating teachers were observed implementing a lesson they had

planned using the TIPC. All teachers were observed at least once, but
many were observed more frequently depending on scheduling availabil-
ity. During each observation, we used an observation protocol to look for
components of instruction related to the TIPC. At the end of each obser-
vation, we scored teachers’ lessons using a rubric. The teacher delivering
the instruction also evaluated his or her own lesson using the same rubric.
Teachers were then asked to explain why they rated the lesson the way
they did and to reflect on what they could change in future instruction.
Subsequently, the researcher who conducted the observation met with the
teacher to discuss the lesson and reflect on the instruction.
The Whole Shebang Website
A central website for the project, titled The Whole Shebang Website for its
comprehensiveness, was developed as the main hub for everything related
to participation in the PD project. The intent of creating the website was
to make it a centralized place that participants would visit often for project
resources, ideas, and social networking. Specifically, it included (1) digital
video recordings of the PD sessions that participants could access at any
time; (2) additional information about the TIPC; (3) copies of the weekly
App Integration Snapshots and lesson plans; (4) project documents and
handouts such as sample long-range plans, PLC questions, and planning
templates; (5) a digital signup sheet to invite us to join PLC meetings
or observe classroom instruction; (6) a link to the project Pinterest page
where we posted resources; (7) a running feed of Twitter posts made to
the project Twitter page or using the project hashtag; (8) links to a few
carefully selected digital tools and websites for locating digital tools, which
were intended to reduce the time teachers would need to spend looking
for resources; and (9) a social forum where participants could post ques-
tions, ideas, resources, and so on.
DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Numerous data sources and data analysis procedures were used to evaluate
the effectiveness of the PD model and are described subsequently. Figure
6 provides an overview of the relationship among the research questions,
the data, and the data analysis.
16
Figure 6. Description of the Relationship Among Data and Analysis
17
Teacher Pre- and Post-Questionnaire
Teachers completed a modified version of the Survey of Technology Use

in Literacy and Language Arts (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011) at the begin-
ning and end of the project to provide information about the extent of
their technology integration, their perceptions of the importance of inte-
gration, and their skill with technology use and integration. Results from
the first administration of the survey were used to design the whole-group
PD session. The session was designed with consideration of teachers’ prior
experiences integrating technology into instruction and to address bar-
riers to integration that teachers had identified in the survey. Wilcoxon
matched-pairs signed-rank tests were performed to determine if there
were significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of their proficiency
with integrating technology before and after participation in the PD.
Student Survey of Internet Use and Online Reading
To understand how teachers’ participation in the PD may have influenced

students’ digital literacy skills, fourth- and fifth-grade students in a control
group and fourth- and fifth-grade students in the participating teachers’
classrooms (experimental group) took the Survey of Internet Use and
Online Reading (see Hutchison & Henry, 2010; Hutchison et al., 2016).
Only fourth- and fifth-grade students were selected to complete the survey
because the majority of teachers in the study taught fourth or fifth grade,
and the digital skills assessment is most appropriate for those grade levels.
The Survey of Internet Use and Online Reading is a valid and reliable
instrument designed to measure the following three constructs related to
digital literacy: (1) Use of Internet Tools; (2) Online Reading Material;
(3) Internet-Based Literacy Skills. Originally developed in 2010, face va-
lidity for the instrument was established through a content validation pro-
cedure (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003) in which seven experts in
the field of new literacies evaluated the items and mapped each item to
the constructs to be measured. Principal axis factoring using oblimin rota-
tion was used to determine the factor structure of the instrument and test
for internal reliability. Item analysis was conducted to determine if item
difficulty was appropriate. Minor revisions to the instrument were made by
one of the original authors in 2016 to reflect changing technologies, and
internal reliability procedures were repeated. The revised version of the
survey was used in the current study.
The first construct of the survey, Use of Internet Tools, is designed to
identify the types of digital tools students use to read, write, and com-
municate online. The second construct, Online Reading Materials, is
18
designed to gauge students’ perceptions about reading online and their

self-perceptions of their skill at reading and writing digitally. The inter-
nal consistency of these items was evaluated because they were intended
to collectively provide an understanding of students’ perceptions related
to online reading materials. Cronbach’s alpha for these items was 0.82,
which confirms that the items are closely related and that the scale is reli-
able. The third construct, Internet-Based Literacy Skills, is designed to
measure students’ abilities to navigate digital environments and to locate,
evaluate, synthesize, and communicate digital information. Because the
third construct was slightly modified from the original version, a principal
axis factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted and led to the
identification of two factors within this construct. The first factor was la-
beled Vocabulary Knowledge of Digital Terms, and item loadings for this
factor ranged from 0.53 to 0.73. This factor includes items related to un-
derstanding of vocabulary terms related to working online, such as “URL”
and “PDF Download.” The second factor was labeled Internet Search,
Evaluation, and Communication Skills, and items loadings for this factor
ranged from 0.54 to 0.71. The second factor includes seven items related
to formulating questions to search online, locating relevant resources,
evaluating resources, and communicating information online.1
The first two constructs of the survey were analyzed descriptively to pro-
vide information to teachers participating in the study that could guide their
instruction. Item scores from the third construct of the survey were summed
to create a digital literacy skills score. The digital literacy skills scores were
analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests to determine if the
posttest means, adjusted for pretest scores, differed for the control and ex-
perimental groups. This analysis ensured that any difference in the posttest
means were not an effect of pretest differences between the groups.
Lesson Observation and Reflection Rubric
Every teacher was observed conducting a lesson that was planned using
the TIPC and evaluated with a common rubric. Teachers also completed
the rubric to evaluate and reflect on their own lesson. Our scores and
teachers’ rubrics were compared and discussed, and the conversation was
recorded and transcribed. Field notes were taken during observations.
PLC Observations
We attended one or more PLC meetings for each PLC to understand how
teachers were using the TIPC to guide their instruction and to observe
teacher interactions during the meetings. Field notes were recorded dur-
ing the meetings.
19
Interviews
Each PLC was interviewed at the beginning, middle, and end of the proj-
ect to learn about their initial goals and how those changed over time, to
gauge their progress toward their goals, and to assess their needs as they
related to the project.
Teacher Daily Diary Check-Ins
Teachers were asked to keep a digital daily diary for one week of the month
throughout the project period. Teachers were randomly assigned a week
each month in which they recorded all their uses of digital technology ev-
ery day for that week by clicking on a link sent to their email and complet-
ing a checklist to indicate which technologies they had used. The purpose
of the diary was to understand how teachers’ uses of technology changed
over time. Teachers completed the diary for a period of one week in the
months of October through April. These data were analyzed descriptively
to look for trends over time.
All qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive approach (Thomas,
2006). To facilitate this approach, we initially read all field notes, observa-
tion notes, teacher reflections, and interview transcripts. We then wrote
memos describing general impressions of the data relative to the research
questions. Next, data were split into segments and labeled to create cat-
egories related to the research questions. Segments were created around
complete thoughts or ideas and left in original thought segments to cre-
ate a context for each instance. Each category was then further reduced
and labeled with descriptive codes. Labeling continued until no new ideas
were found in the data. Descriptive codes were then again compared with
the research questions and conceptual framework and grouped to devel-
op themes related to each research question. This process resulted in 15
descriptive codes, which were grouped into six themes, described subse-
quently in the results section.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
The Technology Integration Project took place in a suburban school dis-

trict in a midwestern state in the United States. The school district was
selected because it had a new 1:1 laptop program through which many
students received a Chromebook for both in-school and out-of-school use.
Thus, the district identified a need for support for these teachers, many
of whom were transitioning to using technology in the classroom for the
first time. Thirty-three teachers completed the yearlong study, represent-
ing a range of teaching experience (2–28 years) and teaching assignments
20
(second through ninth grade). Teachers participated as part of a PLC,

and it is important to note that each PLC was diverse in the age and range
of teaching experience of the teachers. As such, teachers’ interest in and
experience with technology integration varied widely within and across
PLCs. Table 3 reports teachers’ ages and range of teaching experience
within each PLC.
Table 3. Teacher Participants by Professional Learning Community
Age Range Number of
Range of Teaching
PLC Type of Teachers Teachers in
Experience (years)
(years) PLC
2nd/3rd grade—Southern Elementary 15–24 35–55 2
3rd grade—Taylor Elementary 5–15 25–40 3
3rd grade— Plainview Elementary 16–28 36–51 3
4th grade—Taylor Elementary 7–16 29–40 3
5th grade—Echo Elementary 11–13 36–40 3
5th grade—West Elementary 8–19 30–46 3
5th grade—Noon Elementary 2–10 26–40 3
5th grade—Plainview Elementary 16–21 36–45 3
5th grade—Rover Elementary 4–22 25–45 3
5th grade—Taylor Elementary 11–13 36–40 3
8th/9th grade—Nova Middle 9–16 30–55 4
Though the PD was focused on the teachers, fourth- and fifth-grade

students in control and experimental classrooms completed the Survey
of Internet Use and Online Reading to determine if students’ digital lit-
eracy skills improved when teachers participated in the TIPC Model of
PD. Classrooms in the control group were identified by the school dis-
trict because students in those classrooms were the same grade level as
experimental group students and also had access to 1:1 Chromebooks.
Control group classes were in the same school district, but not the same
schools as teachers who participated in the PD. Table 4 provides a profile
of the student participants, including their access to digital devices out-
side of school. Students completed the survey in the fall (pretest) and
the spring (posttest). As a group, these participants were predominantly
White (86%), which is reflective of the school district as a whole. The
percent of students eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch ranged from
7.8% to 33.1% in the participating schools.
21
Table 4. Digital Profile of Pre- and Posttest Control and Experimental

Student Participants (total N = 1,335)
Control Experimental
Pre Post Pre Post
Gender
Male 370 376 193 229
Female 365 374 212 234
Grade
4th 439 424 126 154
5th 361 326 336 309
Race/Ethnicity
White (European American) 603 620 332 378
African American 23 23 8 17
Latino 12 13 13 15
Asian/Pacific Islander 17 24 4 8
Multiracial 17 19 18 14
Other 35 41 23 28
RESULTS
RQ 1: How do teachers’ perceptions of their proficiency with integrating

technology into instruction change when they participate in the Technology
Integration Planning Cycle model of PD?
Teachers were asked to rate their perceptions of their proficiency in teach-
ing with Chromebooks before and after participating in the PD. Wilcoxon
matched-pairs signed-rank tests were performed to determine if there
were significant differences in teachers’ perceptions before and after par-
ticipation. The PD that was provided did not formally offer any support
for becoming more technically proficient with Chromebooks, but rather
focused on helping teachers integrate technology into their instruction.
Table 5 reports pre- and posttest comparisons of teachers’ perceptions of
their proficiency with instructional uses of Chromebooks and indicates
that teachers’ perceptions of their proficiency with using Chromebooks
for instructional activities significantly improved in six out of eight areas.
To further understand teachers’ perceptions of their proficiency with
planning instruction into which technology is integrated, we examined
data from interviews, field notes from PLC observations, and field notes
from the reflection meetings that followed our observation of teachers.
Our open coding revealed the following two themes related to teachers’
perceptions of their proficiency: (1) Selective Exposure to Digital Tools,
and (2) The Professional Learning Community as A Support System. Each
theme is subsequently explained.
22
Table 5. Teacher Perceptions of Proficiency in Teaching With

Chromebooks Before and After Professional Development
To what extent do
you believe you are Before PD After PD Pre-Post Paired
t value p Cohen’s
proficient in using a M M Difference M
(df) value d
Chromebook in the (SD) (SD) (SD)
following ways?
Presenting informa- 3.50 3.83 -.33 -2.38 .029 .56
tion to students (.62) (.38) (.59) (17)
Assigning student- 2.89 3.61 -.72 -3.71 .002 .87
created projects (.76) (.60) (.83) (17)
Helping students 2.83 3.28 -.44 -1.64 .119 -
use instructional (.79) (.75) (1.15) (17)
apps
Sharing informa- 3.17 3.83 -.67 -3.37 .004 .79
tion with students (.71) (.38) (.84) (17)
Sharing student 3.17 3.67 -.50 -2.15 .046 .51
work (.71) (.59) (.99) (17)
Assessing student 2.72 3.39 -.67 -2.29 .035 .54
work (.83) (.69) (1.24) (17)
Fostering collabora- 2.83 3.56 -.72 -3.20 .005 .75
tive learning (.71) (.71) (.96) (17)
Engaging students 3.42 3.71 -.29 -1.57 .136 -
(.71) (.59) (.77) (16)
SELECTIVE EXPOSURE TO DIGITAL TOOLS AND RESOURCES
An important component of the PD that teachers reported as helpful for

improving their proficiency with integrating technology into their instruc-
tion was the ongoing exposure to carefully curated resources that they re-
ceived. Specifically, teachers received weekly emails that introduced them
to one new digital tool and a sample lesson plan that was designed with
the TIPC and aligned with the Common Core State Standards, which il-
lustrated how the tool could be used to support the selected instruction-
al goal. The weekly resources also aligned with the example long-range
plan for integrating technology into instruction; thus, the resources were
timely for teachers who were following the long-range plan. Additionally,
the project website archived the weekly resources and provided links to
a few carefully selected resources for identifying various types of digital
tools. Rather than external lesson plan sites, we guided teachers to sites
where they could learn about various tools associated with their goals so
that the focus remained on designing instruction around each teacher’s
23
individual instructional goals rather than simply finding existing lesson

plans to use. For example, if, by using the TIPC, a teacher determined
that the instructional goal could be supported by having students create
digital videos, the teacher could then access the resources we provided to
find an array of video recording and editing tools that might work for the
lesson. Further, teachers received updates on how other participants in
the project were integrating technology into their instruction, and numer-
ous classroom examples related to the digital resources were shared. This
selective exposure to resources was intended to provide a broad range of
high-quality and relevant examples without overwhelming teachers with
too much information. Analysis of our qualitative data indicates that this
selective exposure supported teachers in important ways. One example of
how the selective exposure helped was that the Appy Friday emails stimu-
lated conversations among PLCs and gave them a common idea to discuss.
A fifth-grade PLC explained this idea in relation to the Appy Friday emails:
John (all names are pseudonyms): The Appy Friday email encour-
aged self-reflective practice, and sometimes it stimulated
conversation in our PLC.
Chris: I agree. It [the Appy Friday emails] encouraged self-reflec-
tive practice, and sometimes it stimulated conversation in
our PLC about, “Did you see that one thing that we saw on
the Appy Friday?” Or “Hey, have you tried this?” Sometimes
it wasn’t even on Appy Friday, it was just about being mind-
ful of how technology becomes a way to enhance instruc-
tion and student learning.
John: Talking about these things with our PLC changed my mind-
set on it a little bit, or just helped keep that clear for me,
when I’m trying to think about what I want to teach and
how to teach it.
Another teacher explained that receiving the weekly Appy Friday re-
sources gave her PLC members a common language for discussing digital
tools and created a connection among her group. She stated, “It [Appy
Friday emails] gave us that connection. When you’re talking with them
about let’s collaborate, you could say, let’s use that app. I know you saw
it. It was in last week’s email or whatever. It gives you a common language
kind of thing” (Audrey, fourth-grade teacher, interview).
Further, in their final interviews, nearly every teacher reported on the
usefulness of the project website as a central hub for accessing project
resources and staying focused on the project. An important resource that
many teachers took advantage of was the online version of the face-to-face
24
PD sessions from the beginning of the project. Videos related to each in-
dividual component of the TIPC were available for teachers to access at
any time. Thus, teachers could watch short videos focusing on any com-
ponent of the planning cycle to refresh their understanding as needed.
Nearly all teachers commented on the usefulness of having the week-
ly lesson plans and App Integration Snapshots archived on the site to
access as needed. The site also contained digital sign-up sheets where
teachers could sign up to check out a set of iPads made available through
the project or invite us to come observe their classroom instruction or
visit their PLC meetings. The digital sign-up sheets were used regularly
and provided an additional way to inform us of happenings in teachers’
classrooms. In the following interview response, Ryanne, a fifth-grade
teacher, explained the value of the website for her, which was similar to
that of many teachers in the project:
I thought the website was good because if you went on it you see a
summary of all the projects and find out where the iPads are. Also,
I don’t feel like I would have done as much with the Chromebook
had I not had those emails every Friday, forcing me to look at
the different apps. Like Cara said, I didn’t use all of them, but I
know in the future, it’s just nice to have somewhere to look rather
than spending time searching. Sometimes when you just do the
Chromebook search for apps, they’re not very good ones—you
can’t find what you need. I could find everything I needed on
your website.
THE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY AS A SUPPORT SYSTEM
Another reason that teachers perceived they improved their proficiency

with integrating technology was that participation in their PLC provided
the support and encouragement they needed to consider technology in-
tegration. A fifth-grade PLC explained how they believed participating in
the project with their PLC was the most valuable aspect of the project and
that it gave them a sense of camaraderie and improved their perceptions
of what they could accomplish.
Christine: I would say as a PLC the most valuable thing is that we’re
all in the trenches together. It brought us all together
with some of the technology things and bringing us the
good and the bad. Like the things we liked about the pro-
gram we could all share that together. So I think when you
decide again or you offer this up again have it be a PLC
thing. PLCs are what you need because if you just have one
25
person doing it . . . if I was just doing it, it wouldn’t make

that big of a difference. Like I would have felt better about
trying things with a PLC, like that exiting thing [exiting
the planning cycle and not using technology if it does not
align to instructional goals]. But I don’t think I would have
gotten half as much out of it if. . .
Becky: Nobody to bounce ideas off of. . .
Lacey: Yeah!
Christine: And we push each other. Like, hey we should try this be-
cause this is something appropriate for our goals.
Another way that participation through a PLC helped is that it provided
teachers with peers whom they could ask questions. In some cases, these
were more knowledgeable peers who were able to play a mentoring role.
One of the groups that participated in the project was an unlikely pair-
ing of teachers with vastly different experiences. Jenni had extensive ex-
perience integrating technology into her instruction and had previously
taught in a district in which every student had a laptop, but she was new
to her current school and district. Kerri was a veteran teacher who be-
lieved that she needed to integrate technology into her instruction but felt
overwhelmed by the idea of learning how to do that. They explained how
working together was important for both of them:
Kerri: Jenni is very knowledgeable with technology, so I had her
in the pod to go to when I didn’t understand or when I got
stuck.
Jenni: I appreciate that you let us do this together because it was
good for me because she had the early childhood back-
ground, which I didn’t have. I came from One-to-One
[one laptop per student], but I did One-to-One at a middle
school and high school level. Bringing it down, it was like,
“Okay, do you think. . .?” . . . I need to rethink how I’m
going to approach this with younger students. I think it
helped to have a partner in it so you can talk through dif-
ferent things.
Kerri: And a partner that was close.
Jenni: Yeah, in proximity. . . . If I were to do it again, I would defi-
nitely partner up with somebody who has the strength in
an area that I don’t. I just felt like that was a great give and
take. I felt like that really grew me.
26
Kerri: I learned that this is a long process that takes continued

effort—it takes collaboration. One teacher working by him-
self or herself is not going to go as far as the team working
together can. It really takes time, it’s not even a one-year
experience, this is a career experience.
RQ 2: How do teacher instruction and instructional planning change as
teachers participate in the Technology Integration Planning Cycle model
of PD?
To address the second research question and understand the role of the
PD on teachers’ use of digital tools and instructional planning, PLC obser-
vations, meeting memos, interviews, daily diaries, and lesson observations
and reflections were analyzed.
RESULTS FROM PLC OBSERVATIONS, MEMOS, AND INTERVIEWS
An analysis of PLC observations, memos, and interviews revealed how

teachers used the TIPC in their instructional planning and its influence
on their thinking about integrating technology into instruction. This find-
ing is explained in the subsequently presented theme titled Using the
TIPC to Understand Instructional Planning.
Using the TIPC to Understand Instructional Planning
A component of the PD that teachers identified as changing their instruc-

tion and instructional planning was learning about the TIPC. In particular,
teachers indicated that it provided a starting point for conceiving how in-
struction could and should be designed when integrating technology. For
example, a fourth-grade teacher, Audrey, explained that integrating tech-
nology into instruction is not something that she thinks about or is naturally
inclined to do, and she needs a structure to help her do that. She stated,
I went to college when I didn’t have a computer in college. I’m
that old. Email wasn’t invented. We had no email when I was in
college. I mean, can you even imagine? Trying to intentionally
plan things like this, I need to be more deliberate about thinking
when I’m lesson planning.
She went on to compare herself to her colleagues, stating,
I would think, I guess, as you’re lesson-planning [referring to her
colleague], you would think, “Oh, this would be a great place to
throw in VoiceThread. Oh, this would be a great place to throw
in that.” My brain just doesn’t work that way yet. Probably it’s be-
cause I’m ancient too.
27
Audrey further explained that because teaching with technology was

new for her, and she was not accustomed to thinking about how to inte-
grate technology into her instruction, she appreciated having the TIPC
as a tool to support her planning. She explained that her exposure to the
TIPC helped her to feel more confident with technology integration. She
finished her final interview by saying “I would like to just say thank you
because I just think things like this have forced me to think about it [tech-
nology integration]. It’s what you need. A push.”
Other teachers explained that using the TIPC helped them to think
about integration differently and helped them to feel confident in the
ways that they were integrating technology into their instruction. For ex-
ample, in her final interview, Ryanne, a fifth-grade teacher, explained,
In the last few years, you know technology has been coming our way
obviously, but I’ve always kind of been looking at it like, “Oh, here’s
a fill in the blank.” Like Storyboard. Where can I plug it into my
day? Where this [the TIPC] was a shift in the mindset. . . . Yep, we
started with the standards. We looked at that standard, and then
we thought, “Now, what can we do for this project?”
Ryanne’s PLC members went on to explain how much more positively
they felt about the ways that they were integrating technology into their
instruction and how they were inclined to integrate technology more be-
cause they were now having successful experiences with integration.
Many teachers expressed how the exit points in the TIPC had improved
their perceptions of how they integrated technology into their instruction.
In the following exchange, Becky, Chris, and Lacey, members of a fifth-
grade PLC, are discussing how using the TIPC as a guide helped them un-
derstand that it was okay to exit the cycle if needed, but they also believed
that it encouraged them to continue thinking about their instructional
goal and how to best meet it.
Becky: The cycle helped us be more positive about, if we had to get
out. That it was okay to exit. We’re so like—push technol-
ogy, technology, technology. But, really, it’s okay to exit!
Chris: I think that’s the biggest thing for me . . . and you know,
trying to figure out another way to still come back to meet
that goal. . .
Lacey: End goal! Exactly, yeah.
Becky: That you’re still working on the same goal
Lacey: Yes.
28
Becky: That you don’t just abandon the whole thing.

Lacey: Exactly.
At another point in the TIPC, teachers are asked to consider possible
barriers they might encounter when they try to integrate technology in
the way they have planned, such as students needing individual accounts
and sign-in information to use an app or website. Teachers in the current
study explained how planning instruction with the TIPC helped them an-
ticipate barriers. For example, Sandy, a fourth-grade teacher, explained
how finding ways to overcome some of these barriers in advance gave her
the confidence to try something new:
So I did all the accounts beforehand. That was just another time
thing. But then we found that that went smoother for when kids
were rolling it out on their own. We had the address. This is your
login, password, and all that. I think with technology, there’s just
more opportunities to get sidetracked too with adding pictures,
or transitions, or different things like that, or noises. When I’m
like, all I really want right now is information, and then we can
put in some of the extras.
Sandy went on to explain that, for her, the best part of participating
in the PD was “just being brave enough to try to something new that you
hadn’t heard about or didn’t really know. Take a risk and try it. For the
most part, I think, kids were like, ‘Oh, that’s really cool!’”
Overall, there were many ways that teachers reported that their use of
the TIPC influenced their perceptions of their abilities to integrate tech-
nology into their instruction. Though teachers across all grade levels de-
scribed how they changed their instruction as they participated in the PD,
the fifth-grade teachers described the biggest changes. We hypothesize
that this difference may be because the fifth-grade teachers were already
using the Chromebooks more than teachers at other grade levels (based
on observations and meeting memos) and thus had more existing prac-
tices that could be changed. The kind of change that teachers reported is
best summed up by Ryanne, a fifth-grade teacher:
This was a change for me. Before, I was excited about having
Chromebooks . . . and taking the technology and then trying to
integrate it into instruction. Now, it’s more that you have your
expected outcomes and then you’re—“Oh, is there a way that
we could integrate the tech to meet our goals?” Not that the ex-
citement has died down, but the instructional goal for me is now
more in mind.
29
By using the TIPC as a guide for focusing on instructional goals rather

than just the digital tools they were using, teachers felt more confident
in the instruction they were planning and were able to increase the fre-
quency with which they integrated technology.
RESULTS FROM DAILY DIARIES AND LESSON REFLECTIONS
Results from the daily diaries, which were kept for one week of each month
throughout the project period, and lesson observations also informed our
understanding of how teachers’ instruction and instructional planning
shifted during the project. Figure 7 shows the trends in teachers’ technol-
ogy use at three different time periods (beginning, middle, and end) of
the project. The numbers on the left side of the figure indicate the num-
ber of responses for each activity during the period in which teachers’ use
was measured. Figure 7 indicates that, for most of the activities, teachers’
use of digital tools increased throughout the project.
Figure 7. Teachers’ Use of Digital Tools Over Time
The Unexpected Role of the Daily Diaries
An unintended outcome of using the daily diaries was that completing

them caused teachers to reflect on what types of technologies they were
using and challenged them to try new technologies. Although the pur-
pose of the diary was to track the extent and variety of teachers’ tech-
nology use over time, teachers reported that the assessment played a
direct role in helping them consider the types of technologies they were
using and might use in the future. Nearly every teacher in the project
commented on how completing the daily diaries caused them to reflect
on their technology use and consider making changes. Molly, a fourth-
grade teacher, stated,
30
I like the awareness I got from the survey [referring to the daily
diaries]. The awareness of what I’m doing and if I need to mix it
up, or some things that, there are some possibilities that I don’t
think of. Just the awareness, looking back it’s like, “Oh, I did that
three times this week. Am I going to do that same thing?” With
those surveys, it just kept me aware of what am I using. Is it apps?
Are they using it for research, or just simply for publishing, or
Google docs. . .
Other teachers commented on how the daily diaries encouraged them
to explore technologies that they were unfamiliar with or to find out what
they were. Becky expressed this idea in her final interview, stating:
When you go and you do the tech diary and you’re clicking on the
things that you’re doing and a lot of times you’ll be like, “What is
this fan fiction all about?” or “Oh, these are lots of things I wish I
could be doing that I didn’t get to explore.” Yeah, the fan fiction
thing always catches me when I’m recording my diary.
Although it was unintended, the daily diary assessment played an im-
portant role by reminding teachers of the types of digital tools they might
consider using and by providing an opportunity for them to regularly re-
flect on their instruction.
RESULTS FROM LESSON OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONS
Another source of information was direct observation of instruction fol-

lowed by a reflective feedback session with the researcher. The goal of the
observation was to determine the extent to which teachers were applying
the elements of the TIPC to their instruction. More important, the ob-
servation provided an opportunity for the teachers to reflect with us and
to discuss their instructional goal(s) for their lesson and their learning
regarding technology integration that might also inform their future prac-
tice. Figure 8 illustrates the percentage of teachers who scored not profi-
cient, proficient, or advanced for each component of the planning cycle.
As Figure 8 indicates, teachers’ proficiency varied for each component
of the instructional cycle. We analyzed the teachers’ written reflections
and the transcripts of the researcher-led reflective sessions to explore how
teachers recognized the strengths and weaknesses of their instruction
and instructional planning. The teachers’ reflections on their instruction
and instructional planning are explored through two themes that were
revealed through the analysis: (1) Intentional Alignment of the Digital
Tool and the Instructional Goal; and 2) Shifting Roles in the Classroom.
31
Figure 8. Percentage of Teachers Scoring at Each Level During

Instructional Observations
Intentional Alignment of the Digital Tool and the Instructional Goal
In their reflections, many teachers situated their integration of a digital

tool within the larger landscape of the TIPC Model of PD through at-
tending to their long-term goals for students’ digital literacy skills as well
as considering the constraints of the tool on instruction. For example,
Donna described her instructional goal and the multiple outcomes that
she believed were a result of integrating a digital tool:
I was using Padlet as I thought it would be an engaging way to
review, but also because they [students] will be going back to that
Padlet to review and decide on which text features they would like
to incorporate into their nonfiction magazine. I thought Padlet
would be a great way to be able to visualize different formats for
the same text features to inspire my young writers.
Ben also used a digital tool to build on his long-term goals of collabo-
ration and respectful disagreement through evidence-based discussion.
Reflecting on a lesson in which students worked together to create a pre-
sentation that highlighted the pros and cons of multiple topics, Ben stated,
The way the students used the technology allowed them to col-
laborate with their teammates, and it forced them to be respectful
of their opponents since both teams were using the same Google
32
Slide presentation. This is the first time I have tried to use the slide
program this way, by combining all group members. The students
had to “work it out” a few times, but in the end, the presentations
came out very well and enhanced their writing and their debate.
Other teachers were able to focus on the constraints they considered
before and after their instruction. Jeremy stated, “Initially, I had intended
to connect students through Symbaloo, but found I would have had to do
significantly more work to establish and maintain that. Listly seems to be a
much better fit for what I wanted to accomplish.” Symbaloo is a tool that
Jeremy had used previously for student conversations around text recom-
mendations, but he incorporated Listly, an app provided to him through
the Appy Friday emails, because he found it to be more relevant to his
instructional goal. He was able to recognize the potential constraints of
Symbaloo and instead made use of an app that had been shared with him
through the project. Similarly, Linda reflected on her future instructional
planning as a result of her instruction and stated, “I realized I need to
focus my thinking more on the standards and objectives more [sic] in my
planning stage to make sure I am utilizing the best methods and technol-
ogy to reach my ultimate goal for the lesson.”
Shifting Roles in the Classroom
Several teachers used the lesson reflection to consider how integrating

technology into their instruction shifted their traditional role in the class-
room and invited them to envision different approaches to student learn-
ing. Elizabeth discussed the importance of integrating technology into
her overall approach to instruction and the challenge of incorporating
technology meaningfully:
First of all, since this is my first year teaching fifth grade and my
first experience with 1:1 Chromebooks, I tend to not use them as
often as I should or would like to. It is very ingrained in me to use
traditional methods of teaching and student presentations that
I often forget to use them [the Chromebooks]. Having the end
result of this unit be a project using technology forced me to have
that part of the lesson in place.
Laurie focused specifically on her own role in the classroom and how
integrating specific digital tools on the iPad transformed her instruction.
She noted that integrating technology into her instruction not only al-
lowed for students to problem-solve independently, but also produced a
more sophisticated outcome than she had expected for her instructional
33
goals: “I learned that sometimes the students need to take the lead. I did
not plan for them to use their notecards to take a picture of but in the
end it saved time and added a lot more detail to the project.” Because she
had allowed for the potential for student-directed learning, she was able
to observe how they used and combined digital tools to enhance their
understanding of her instructional goals.
RQ 3: What is the relationship between students’ digital literacy skills
and teachers’ participation in the Technology Integration Planning Cycle
Model of PD?
Results from the pre- and posttest measures of students’ digital skills in-
dicate that students of teachers who participated in the PD (experimen-
tal group) performed better overall on the posttest than did students of
teachers who did not participate in the PD (control group). An overall
indicator of students’ digital skill is the digital literacy skills score from
the Survey of Internet Use and Online Reading. ANCOVA tests were con-
ducted to compare posttest means among the two groups, controlling for
the pretest scores to ensure that any difference in the posttest means are
not an effect of pretest differences between the groups. Results indicate
that the mean digital literacy skills score for students in the experimental
group (M= 14.00) was significantly higher than that of students in the
control group (M= 12.39), F(1, 839)=39.64, p<.001, p<.001, η2= 0.45. Table
6 reports individual pretest and posttest scores for each group.
Table 6. Differences Between Digital Literacy Skills Scores by Classroom
Type
Pre-Post Paired
Pretest Posttest t value (df) p value Cohen’s d
Difference M (SD)
Control 12.41 12.37 0.04 .22 .826 —
(4.32) (536)
Experimental 12.01 14.00 -1.98 -7.97 .000 .46
(4.35) (304)
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Overall, the results of the current study reveal our theory of action to be
correct. As teachers participated in a situative model of PD (Borko, 2004)
focused on supporting them in understanding and developing pedagogi-
cally appropriate uses of technology and overcoming traditional barriers
to effective technology integration, teachers shifted their perceptions of
their abilities to effectively integrate technology and the role of technol-
ogy in instruction, shifted their instruction and instructional planning,
34
and ultimately improved students’ digital literacy skills while also teaching
their existing (nondigital) standards. Teachers’ shifts in their perceptions
of the role of technology and their abilities to integrate technology in
pedagogically appropriate ways, as well as shifts in understanding of their
roles as teachers in digitally rich classrooms, led to new ways of design-
ing and delivering instruction. Most important, it led teachers to carefully
consider the purpose of technology integration and taught them to design
instruction in a way that used technology to support their instructional
goals rather than simply using technology for technology’s sake, which has
historically been problematic for teachers (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011).
This finding is particularly important given that teachers often perceive
PD on technology to be ineffective and irrelevant (Hutchison, 2012), and
the effectiveness of this model of PD is especially encouraging when con-
sidering that it helped to gain teacher “buy-in” from teachers who did not
have a lot of experience with integrating technology and were not par-
ticularly interested in technology integration. Gaining teacher buy-in for
technology integration has historically been one of the biggest challenges
to technology integration (Hew & Brush, 2007; Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector,
& DeMeester, 2013). Thus, that teachers voluntarily continued to engage
in the deep thinking necessary for effective technology integration and
increased their integration is an important development in regard to de-
signing PD aimed at technology integration.
This study also confirms findings that sustained PD implemented in
small steps (Kanaya, Light, & Culp, 2005) and over a long period of time
(Brinkerhoff, 2006) can improve teachers’ confidence toward using tech-
nology. These are particularly important aspects of the PD model because
they address broader issues in teacher PD. In her meta-analysis of teacher
PD studies, Avalos (2011) noted that the situated nature of teacher learn-
ing is widely recognized to be influenced by school culture. These factors
can include support and dispositions as well as time and space for collabo-
ration. Postholm (2012) elaborated on critical issues in teacher PD in an
additional meta-analysis that drew on Desimone’s (2009) five characteris-
tics of teachers’ learning (content focus, active learning, coherence, dura-
tion, and collective participation), as well as teacher dispositions, school
context, and the availability of internal and external resources. This study
highlights two particular aspects of the PD model that contributed specifi-
cally to addressing many of these critical issues: the approach to integrat-
ing the PD into PLCs and the role of the TIPC.
35
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES CHALLENGE TEACHERS

TO REFLECT AND INTEGRATE
The situated nature of the current study proved to be an important com-

ponent of its success. It provided teachers with the opportunity to reflect
on their instructional decisions, and they did so readily and voluntarily.
These reflective opportunities, which occurred both with us and within
PLCs, facilitated growth in both teachers’ perceptions of their own skill
and their understanding of pedagogically appropriate uses of technology.
The PLCs in particular provided opportunities for focused dialogue about
using technology to support grade-level standards and objectives. Green
et al. (2010) identified four factors that led to PLCs supporting teachers
in their technology integration efforts, which serve as a useful frame for
understanding how PLCs operated within the TIPC Model of PD.
School Climate
The school district had an existing model of PLCs that used instructional
coaches and guiding questions to facilitate teacher development (DuFour,
2004). Therefore, this model was integrated into the existing PLC con-
text by communicating with instructional coaches and providing targeted
questions designed to promote dialogue around the potential for technol-
ogy integration and identifying first- and second-order barriers to integra-
tion. Teachers incorporated this work into their existing PLC time and
were additionally supported by us throughout the project. Through ad-
dressing the PLC questions provided as part of the PD, teachers were able
to consider how to overcome first-order barriers, such as understanding of
standards and existing support for new digital tools, together as a group
and noted that this led to a feeling of support rather than one of isolation.
Communication and Collaboration
For the teachers in the current study, their dialogue and collaboration
were integrated within their PLCs; teachers noted they would bring goals
or obstacles for discussion, expecting the group to collaborate on solu-
tions. Teachers noted that scheduled and consistent dialogue with their
grade-level peers was essential to their successful integration of technol-
ogy. This is an important distinction from models that do not include
opportunities within PLCs for teachers to work together to continually
address goals and obstacles; several teachers noted they would not have
continued to work on developing their technology integration skills had
it not been for the support of their peers. Further, Smith (2001) found
that teachers’ confidence in their abilities to integrate technology can be
36
developed through positive experiences with technology, which can be

personally experienced or experienced vicariously through other teach-
ers. Thus, the sharing of their successful technology experiences within
PLCs may have played an important role in teachers’ perceptions of their
abilities to integrate technology.
Progression of Use
The guiding questions provided to PLCs who participated in the PD

project were focused on continually inviting teachers to reflect on what
obstacles they are encountering and how to overcome those obstacles in
order to move forward with their goals. These questions were situated
within teachers’ current practice and encouraged them to reflect on the
resources available to them. The reflective questions were integrated into
the long-range plans that teachers developed to guide their technology
integration efforts and were intended to facilitate reflection on their pro-
gression toward their goals. Questions such as, “How can I get what I need
to take the next steps?”; “What, if anything, is stopping me from moving
forward?”; and “Am I following my long-range plan meeting my integra-
tion goals?” were explicitly designed to support teachers in the necessary
reflection to overcome obstacles (Ertmer, 1999) and envision how to best
integrate technology into their existing context. The inclusion of PLCs
also allowed us to implement the PD in small steps and over an extended
period of time, both of which have been found as important for improving
teachers’ confidence toward using technology (Brinkerhoff, 2006; Kanaya
et al., 2005).
THE ROLE OF THE TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION PLANNING CYCLE
The TIPC also played an important role in supporting teachers’ develop-

ment because it provided an anchor that had previously been missing in
many technology integration efforts. Many technology integration efforts
focus on helping teachers understand the types of knowledge used to inte-
grate technology into instruction through tools such as the technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler,
2006) or focus on levels and types of integration based on ideas such as
the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model
(Puentedura, 2008). Though these models are useful for helping teach-
ers see how technology could and should transform learning, they do not
provide a method or approach for achieving integration. Results from the
current study illustrate the importance of providing teachers with a pro-
cess and common language around which to situate their planning efforts.
The planning cycle also played an important role because it privileges the
37
instructional goal over the technology by placing the identification of the

instructional goal at the beginning of the planning process and requiring
teachers to identify their instructional goal before selecting the technol-
ogy they will use. This planning approach played an active role in ensuring
that teachers were achieving true integration by not only exposing stu-
dents to digital technologies and new digital skills but also teaching their
content-area goals, or what Hutchison and Reinking (2011) called cur-
ricular integration. This shift in the teachers’ focus from using technology
to enhancing and transforming the teaching of their existing instructional
goals with technology is perhaps the most hoped for and best possible out-
come of technology PD. Thus, we believe that the emphasis on the TIPC
as a central focus of the PD is a key feature of the PD model’s success.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The results of this study provide some important implications for PD, par-
ticularly in regard to (1) providing a model in which to ground discussion
and application of technology integration; (2) situating digital tools with-
in context-driven instruction; and (3) using multiple modes of teacher
engagement. First, the TIPC was central to all the different activities in the
PD model. Thus, teachers had an opportunity to consider how the model
was useful in a variety of contexts depending on their needs. For example,
each digital tool and sample lesson plan presented to teachers included a
discussion of the elements of the planning cycle; discussion and feedback
after lesson observations centered on how the cycle illuminated lesson ele-
ments; and PLC questions were designed to support a deeper understand-
ing of how to use the cycle to effectively plan instruction using technology.
Using a consistent framework throughout all the PD activities fostered
a common language and approach among teachers, while also enabling
them to use instructional goals and digital tools that matched their spe-
cific classroom contexts and skill with integrating technology. Future PD
efforts around technology should include a consistent framework around
which to organize ideas and should promote common language around
which to situate discussions.
Another important facet of the TIPC Model of PD is that discussion of
digital tools was consistently embedded within specific instructional goals.
Teachers in the study, especially those with 1:1 Chromebooks, had previ-
ously had PD about digital tools without the opportunity to explore how
to situate the use of those tools in their own class’s instructional goals and
population of students. Activities that involved an explicit discussion of
digital tools in this PD model incorporated specific instructional goals,
which addressed potential affordances, constraints, and contributions
38
to instruction. The TIPC Model of PD, overall, was designed to support

teachers in adopting an approach that would lead to robust learning of
instructional goals using technology; therefore, ensuring that digital tools
were always discussed as situated within teachers’ potential practices was
critical and may be beneficial to future PD efforts.
Finally, rather than relying on a single mode of PD delivery, teachers
were invited to engage in multiple activities centered on the same goal.
This allowed teachers to find meaningful ways to engage in the PD through
discussion with PLCs and with us, self-reflection on practices and specific
lessons, reporting their perceptions and digital tool use, using the project
website, and interacting with social media posts. By providing multiple
opportunities to engage in the project and reflective thinking practices
central to the TIPC, teachers could engage in activities that best fit their
needs and experiences, while remaining engaged in the overall goals of
the project. Teachers’ experiences with the TIPC Model of PD highlight
the importance of, and potential for, situative PD that is intentionally de-
signed to overcome barriers and support teachers where they are.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
It is important to note that this study is limited by both the population

being studied and the broad scope of data being collected. First, although
participants represented a range of age and experience, the district itself
is socioeconomically advantaged and lacks significant diversity. Therefore,
it would be important to explore this PD model in a variety of contexts to
ensure that it engages teachers in different contexts and with different
characteristics in the same way. For example, exploring this PD model in
secondary schools where teachers have multiple sections of different stu-
dents throughout the day, and often varying access to digital tools depend-
ing on the time of day, will be important. Further, relevant elements of this
model, such as selected resources, the TIPC, and instructional observa-
tions and reflection, may be useful for instructors in preservice teacher
education programs. Hutchison and Colwell’s (2016) findings that pre-
service teachers are unable to skillfully use the TIPC to plan technology-
rich instruction suggest that such a model is needed in preservice teacher
programs. Finally, exploring the experiences of individual participants as
they engaged in the multiple activities of this PD would provide important
insights into the subtleties of how the activities worked together to support
teachers and potential adaptations that might be made to strengthen the
efficacy of individual PD activities.
This study provides a useful starting point for understanding situative
models of PD but also highlights many areas in need of further study. For
39
example, it would be illuminating to examine individual teacher cases and

instructional planning practices, to further explore which aspects of inte-
gration are most challenging for teachers even within successful models of
PD, and to understand if the success and challenges that teachers encoun-
ter differ according to the grade level taught. This study also highlights
the need for operationalizing existing research on supporting teachers’
technology integration efforts through PD that is designed to overcome
existing and perceived barriers to success. The TIPC Model of PD is an
example of how to begin this work and provides several essential elements
that may illuminate future PD design in technology integration.
NOTE
1. See http://bit.ly/2lUGCqw for the full survey.
40
REFERENCES
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in “Teaching and Teacher Education”
over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and
Studies, 27(1), 10–20.
Beschorner, B., & Kruse, J. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ use of a technology integration
planning cycle: A case study. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and
Technology, 4(4), 258–271. doi:10.18404/ijemst.73952
Blocher, J. M., Armfield, S. W., Sujo–Montes, L., Tucker, G., & Willis, E. (2011). Contextually
based professional development. Computers in the Schools, 28(2), 158–169. doi:10.1080/0
7380569.2011.577398
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
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, 22–43.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Cifuentes, L., Maxwell, G., & Bulu, S. (2011). Technology integration through professional
learning community. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 59–82. doi:10.2190/
EC.44.1.d
Crippen, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded inquiry-based instruction with technology:
A signature pedagogy for STEM education. Computers in the Schools, 29(1–2), 157–173. doi
:10.1080/07380569.2012.658733
Dalton, B. (2012). Multimodal composition and the Common Core State Standards. Reading
Teacher, 66(4), 333–339. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01129
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8),
6–11.
Dwyer, B. (2016). Engaging all students in Internet research and inquiry. Reading Teacher,
69(4), 383–389. doi:10.1002/trtr.1435
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for
technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–68.
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? ETR&D, 53(4), 25–39. doi:10.1007/BF02504683
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers
& Education, 59(2), 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Fullan, M. (2002). The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge management in
schools. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 409–419. doi:10.1080/135406002100000530
Green, T., Donovan, L., & Bass, K. (2010). Taking laptops schoolwide: A professional learning
community approach. Learning & Leading With Technology, 38(1), 12–18.
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.
Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy teachers’ perceptions of professional development that
increases integration of technology into instruction. Technology, Pedagogy & Education,
21(1), 37–56.
41
Hutchison, A., & Colwell, J. (2016). Preservice teachers’ use of the Technology Integration
Planning Cycle to integrate iPads into literacy instruction. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 48(1), 1–15.
Hutchison, A., & Henry, L. (2010). Internet use and online reading among middle-grade
students at risk of dropping out of school. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(2), 61–75.
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information
and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the U.S.
Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 308–329.
Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014a). An examination of how a teacher’s use of digital
tools empowers and constrains language arts instruction. Computers in the Schools, 31(4),
316–338. doi:10.1080/07380569.2014.967629
Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014b). A planning cycle for integrating technology into
literacy instruction. Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455–464. doi:10.1002/trtr.1225
Hutchison, A., Woodward, L., & Colwell, J. (2016). What are preadolescent readers
doing online? An examination of upper elementary students’ reading, writing, and
communication in digital spaces. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 435–454. doi:10.1002/
rrq.146
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as
cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications
and technology (pp. 693–719). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kanaya, T., Light, D., & Culp, K. M. (2005). Factors influencing outcomes from a technology-
focused professional development program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
37, 313–329.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2012.08.005
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and
practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers &
Education, 59(4), 1109–1121. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology
into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and
answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–610.
Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new
literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement
gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 37–59. doi:10.1002/rrq.85
Leu D. J., Kinzer C. K., Coiro J., Castek J., & Henry L. A. (in press). New literacies and
the new literacies of online reading comprehension: A dual level theory. In N. Unrau
& D. Alvermann (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of reading (6th ed.). Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Miller, S. M. (2013). A research metasynthesis on digital video composing in classrooms.
Journal of Literacy Research, 45(4), 386–430. doi:10.1177/1086296X13504867
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge:
A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Mouza, C. (2009). Does research-based professional development make a difference? A
longitudinal investigation of teacher learning in technology integration. Teachers College
Record, 111(5), 1195–1241.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/
social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
42
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Postholm, M. B. (2012). Teachers’ professional development: A theoretical review. Educational
Research, 54(4), 405–429. doi:10.1080/00131881.2012.734725
Puentedura, R. (2008). TPCK and SAMR—models for enhancing technology integration.
Retrieved from http://www.msad54.org/sahs/TechInteg/mlti/SAMR.pdf
Roblyer, M. D. (1993). Why use technology in teaching? Making a case beyond research
results. Florida Technology in Education Quarterly, 5(4), 7–13.
Shaffer, D. W., Nash, P., & Ruis, A. R. (2015). Technology and the new professionalization of
teaching. Teachers College Record, 117(12), 1–30. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org
ID Number: 18149.
Smith, S. M. (2001). The four sources of influence of computer self-efficacy. Delta Pi Epsilon,
45(1), 27–39.
Smolin, L., & Lawless, K. A. (2011). Evaluation across contexts: Evaluating the impact of
technology integration professional development partnerships. Journal of Digital Learning
in Teacher Education, 27(3), 92.
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation
data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.
Tour, E. (2015). Digital mindsets: Teachers’ technology use in personal life and teaching.
Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 124–139.
White, A. (2016). Using digital think‐alouds to build comprehension of online informational
texts. Reading Teacher, 69(4), 421–425.
43
AMY C. HUTCHISON is an associate professor in the School of Education

at George Mason University. Her scholarship centers on three primary
areas of inquiry: (a) understanding how digital technology can be used
equitably and to support diverse learners; (b) understanding and support-
ing the development of STEM literacy; and (c) understanding how digital
technology can support the development of literacy skills and how to sup-
port and prepare preservice and in-service teachers to effectively integrate
digital technology into instruction. She is the coauthor of a recent book
titled Bridging Technology and Literacy (Rowman & Littlefield) and many
related articles.
LINDSAY WOODWARD is an assistant professor in the School of

Education at Drake University. Her work focuses on exploring second-
ary students’ reading practices and beliefs in digital spaces and profes-
sional development in technology integration. She is the coauthor of
“Examining Adolescents’ Strategic Processing During Online Reading
With a Question-Generating Task,” in American Educational Research
Journal (in press), and “What Are Preadolescent Readers Doing Online?
An Examination of Upper Elementary Students’ Reading, Writing, and
Communication in Digital Spaces,” in Reading Research Quarterly (2016).
44

Examining The Technology Integration Pla PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examining The Technology Integration Pla PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examining the Technology Integration

Planning Cycle Model of Professional

Background: Presently, models of professional development aimed at supporting teachers’

Teachers College Record Volume 120, 100306, October 2018, 44 pages

The importance of technology in classroom instruction has changed

The PD approach explored in this study prioritized how teachers could

A situative perspective of the teacher learning that takes place through

with a variety of supports designed to respond to specific barriers. These

EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION IN INSTRUCTION

Research on technology integration in instruction indicates that it is im-

Further, students can use technology to interact and communicate in

Barriers to Technology Integration

PD in technology integration should be aimed at overcoming barriers that

TEACHERS’ ROLES IN DIGITAL CLASSROOMS

A specific element of supporting teachers’ abilities to conceptualize how

direct instruction to individual support, and recognize the important part

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES

In addition to teachers’ roles in the classroom, professional learn-

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL

The Technology Integration Project was a yearlong PD project in

Although previous research has been conducted to study how pre-

To encourage teachers to think about technology integration as an ongo-

Teacher Participation in a Professional Learning Community

In addition to the weekly PLC meetings with an instructional coach, we

Weekly Digital Tool Resources With Accompanying Lesson Plan Examples

Teaching Observations With Individual Teacher Reflection and Reflective Feedback

Participating teachers were observed implementing a lesson they had

The Whole Shebang Website

DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Figure 6. Description of the Relationship Among Data and Analysis

Teacher Pre- and Post-Questionnaire

Teachers completed a modified version of the Survey of Technology Use

Student Survey of Internet Use and Online Reading

To understand how teachers’ participation in the PD may have influenced

designed to gauge students’ perceptions about reading online and their

Lesson Observation and Reflection Rubric

Teacher Daily Diary Check-Ins

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The Technology Integration Project took place in a suburban school dis-

(second through ninth grade). Teachers participated as part of a PLC,

Though the PD was focused on the teachers, fourth- and fifth-grade

Table 4. Digital Profile of Pre- and Posttest Control and Experimental

RQ 1: How do teachers’ perceptions of their proficiency with integrating

Table 5. Teacher Perceptions of Proficiency in Teaching With

SELECTIVE EXPOSURE TO DIGITAL TOOLS AND RESOURCES

An important component of the PD that teachers reported as helpful for

individual instructional goals rather than simply finding existing lesson

THE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY AS A SUPPORT SYSTEM

Another reason that teachers perceived they improved their proficiency

person doing it . . . if I was just doing it, it wouldn’t make

Kerri: I learned that this is a long process that takes continued

RESULTS FROM PLC OBSERVATIONS, MEMOS, AND INTERVIEWS

An analysis of PLC observations, memos, and interviews revealed how

Using the TIPC to Understand Instructional Planning

A component of the PD that teachers identified as changing their instruc-

Audrey further explained that because teaching with technology was

Becky: That you don’t just abandon the whole thing.

By using the TIPC as a guide for focusing on instructional goals rather

RESULTS FROM DAILY DIARIES AND LESSON REFLECTIONS

The Unexpected Role of the Daily Diaries

An unintended outcome of using the daily diaries was that completing

RESULTS FROM LESSON OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONS