Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teachers’ perceptions of an online professional development

experience: Implications for a design and implementation framework
Cathy G. Powell*, 1, Yasar Bodur
Georgia Southern University, College of Education, Post Office Box 8013, Statesboro, GA, 30460, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

Teachers face challenges regarding access to quality professional development.

This study examined secondary teachers' perceptions of an OTPD experience.

OTPD is supported by adult learning theory and social constructivism.

This qualitative multi-case study utilized within-case and cross-case analysis.

Results included empirical evidence of six OTPD design and implementation features.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Teachers face multifaceted challenges regarding access to quality professional development. Although
Received 2 October 2017 technology is increasingly utilized to address this concern, access alone does not ensure effective OTPD.
Received in revised form Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine teachers' perceptions of the design and imple-
6 July 2018
mentation of a job-embedded OTPD experience. Supported by adult learning theory and social
Accepted 5 September 2018
constructivism, this qualitative multi-case study utilized within-case and cross-case analysis to examine
results. These findings, presented through teachers’ voices, included explicit and empirical evidence of
six OTPD design and implementation features that address multiple gaps in the extant literature and
Keywords:
Teacher professional development
contribute to an OTPD framework.
Online teacher professional development © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Professional development design
Adult learning
Qualitative research

1. Introduction teacher evaluation systems such as value-added measures

The importance of quality teaching and professional develop-
ment (PD) designed to promote student learning outcomes has
become especially significant in recent decades for teachers in the
United States who have faced increased pressures from high-stakes
testing, accountability, and the standards movement as they are
tasked with the achievement of all students in increasingly diverse
classrooms. Moreover, recent reform efforts underscore a
continued focus on teacher quality and PD, including changes in
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cgp483@aol.com (C.G. Powell), ybodur@georgiasouthern.edu
(Y. Bodur).
1
This research is based on data utilized in the first author's doctoral dissertation
during her candidacy in the College of Education at Georgia Southern University in
Statesboro, Georgia. Powell is currently a high school teacher with Bulloch County
(Georgia) Schools.
(Darling-Hammond, 2015; Goldhaber, 2015) that consider student
test scores to quantify teacher impact on student learning and
federal legislation such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
that promotes college and career readiness and includes high-
stakes tests. Likewise, countries around the world focus on
improving teacher quality and PD (Darling-Hammond, 2017;
Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009;
Easton, 2013; Stewart, 2011) to enhance student learning outcomes
necessary for a global society.
These challenges are exacerbated when access to quality PD is
impacted by time, financial, and geographic constraints (Blanchard,
LePrevost, Tolin, & Guitierrez, 2016; Duffy et al., 2006; Easton, 2013;
Huang, 2002; Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development [OECD], 2014; Ross, 2011) experienced by teachers
in the United States and internationally. Thus, online teacher pro-
fessional development (OTPD) is increasingly utilized to help

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.004
0742-051X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
20 C.G. Powell, Y. Bodur / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30
address such concerns through flexible, cost-effective, wide-scale
options on a myriad of educational topics. However, access to OTPD
does not ensure quality experiences or outcomes and may create a
false sense of effectiveness if technology is used merely as a de-
livery tool void of effective design or implementation principles.
Vrasidas and Zembylas (2004) asserted that technology alone does
not promote PD, yet can be utilized with constructivist principles to
enhance PD, and noted the lack of research-based frameworks to
support development and evaluation. This concern is intensified
when considering increased access to technology around the world
and its use in teacher PD (Burns, 2013). To promote efficacy of
online learning, standards emerged that incorporated tenets of
effective PD and addressed unique online environment
characteristics.
The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB, 2004) developed
a three-part guideline for online learning featuring context, pro-
cess, and content standards. Context standards address the roles of
learning communities, leadership, and resources, and process
standards examine the roles of data, evaluation, research, design,
learning, and collaboration, while content standards examine the
roles of equity and quality teaching. Similarly, the International
Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2008) published stan-
dards that guide teachers on effective uses of technology for in-
struction, assessment, and professional learning, and the
International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL, 2011)
created the National Standards for Quality Online Courses that
underscore the effective use of content, instruction, assessment,
technology, and evaluation in online learning.
Still, Ketelhut, McCloskey, Dede, Breit, and Whitehouse (2006)
were “dismayed by the dearth of empirical research into online
teacher professional development and by the lack of teacher voice
in its design, and yet impressed by the vast array of available,
exemplary programs based on many different approaches and
media” (p. 237). In fact, Dede, Ketelhut, Whitehouse, Breit, and
McCloskey (2009) posited a research agenda to address such is-
sues, asserting the need for rigorous OTPD research that is essential
for PD developers, educators, and funders.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine teachers'
perceptions of the design and implementation of a job-embedded
OTPD experience. As part of a larger study on teacher PD, the
OTPD experience under study was examined in the context of high
school social studies. Supported by adult learning theory and social
constructivism, this qualitative multi-case study utilized within-
case and cross-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to
examine results. These findings revealed explicit and empirical
evidence of six OTPD design and implementation features through
teachers’ voices that address multiple calls and gaps in the extant
literature and provide unique contributions to OTPD framework
research.
2. Review of literature
2.1. Effective teacher professional development
Despite concerns with the nature and scope of teacher PD, the
literature on effective PD revealed a consensus on tenets that
impact teacher practice and enhance student learning outcomes.
Learning Forward (2012), an association promoting teacher effec-
tiveness through professional learning and formerly known as the
National Staff Development Council, asserted effective PD includes
the use of learning communities, leadership, resources, data,
learning designs, implementation, and outcomes. Garet, Porter,
Desimone, Birman, and Yoon's (2001) study indicated effective PD
featured structural and core features including format of the ac-
tivity, collaborative participation by teachers, duration of the
activity, while the core features of effective PD included content
knowledge, engaging opportunities for teachers to learn, and
coherence with other PD activities. Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarlos, and
Shapely's (2007) study posited that participation in PD for
approximately 49 h can increase student achievement by about 21
percentage points after examining nine studies out of over 1300
that met standards of the What Works Clearinghouse, a United
States Department of Education program that examines high-
quality education research results. Kennedy's work (1998) exam-
ined impacts of teacher PD in mathematics and science revealing
teacher knowledge of how students learn is more effective than PD
that simply delivers content knowledge.
However, despite what is known about effective teacher PD, the
literature revealed ongoing concerns which included one-time
workshops with few opportunities for follow-up, collaboration, or
reflection (Joyce & Showers, 2002). A literature review (Powell &
Bodur, 2016) on the current state of teacher PD highlighted the
relationship between quality teaching and student learning out-
comes, noting concerns remain about the focus and extent of
teacher PD decades after landmark reports and seminal studies.
These ongoing concerns prompted a paradigm shift to job-
embedded PD (Ross, 2011; Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2010; Zepeda,
2015), which is defined by its routine use of follow-up, on-going
reflection, collaboration, and support for teachers, all of which
promote capacity-building PD and address pitfalls of traditional
teacher PD in face-to-face or online settings. Yendol-Hoppey and
Dana (2010) utilized four building blocks to examine job-
embedded PD including knowledge sources, knowledge types,
orientation, and learning needs. These building blocks support key
tenets such as knowledge for, in, and of practice (Cochran-Smith &
€n, 1983), and knowledge types such as
Lytle, 1999), reflection (Scho
content, pedagogical, student, curriculum, pedagogical content,
and context (Shulman, 1987).
Likewise, effective teacher PD around the world reflects these
characteristics and challenges (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Darling-
Hammond et al., 2009; Easton, 2013; OECD, 2014). Barber and
Mourshed (2007) conducted an international study that exam-
ined attributes of the worlds' top-performing schools and asserted
teacher quality, instructional improvement, and instruction that
promotes success for all students were the three most significant
success factors. The follow-up international study (Barber, Chijioke,
& Mourshed, 2010) examined school systems' improvement stra-
tegies and asserted the significance of teacher quality, instructional
practice, teacher collaboration, context, structure, and resources,
further underscoring the need for quality teacher PD. The Organi-
zation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2014)
administered the Teaching and Learning International Survey
(TALIS) in 34 countries and economies to examine the state of
global teaching and learning. The results included disparities about
the amount and effectiveness of teacher PD and barriers to
participation such as conflicts with teachers’ work schedules, lack
of incentives, cost, and relevancy, while highlighting the impor-
tance of collaboration, time allocation, and support that ranged
from financial support to release time for study. For instance,
Australia promotes teacher PD through routine collaboration with
colleagues, teacher-student teams, and high levels of participation
in subject-area teams (Easton, 2013; OECD, 2009). In Japan,
although teachers work more hours than teachers in other OECD
countries, they spend less time teaching to meet requirements of
working with administration and collaborating with colleagues
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD],
2017), time often devoted to lesson study. Burns and Darling-
Hammond (2014) noted that TALIS did not indicate whether the
impact of teacher PD was related to PD design and implementation.
 C.G. Powell, Y. Bodur / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30
2.2. Online teacher professional development (OTPD)
2.2.1. OTPD defined
OTPD refers to courses, workshops, or learning modules that are
delivered in an online format for teacher PD. However, such op-
portunities reflect a plethora of purposes, goals, subject areas,
pedagogies, and delivery methods (Dede, 2006; Ross, 2011) and
may be asynchronous, synchronous, or blended. Some feature ac-
cess to online resources such as videos and websites, while others
utilize interactive discussion through blogs, wikis, and podcasts
(Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2010) or are utilized in practitioner in-
quiry (Dana, Pape, Griffin, & Prosser, 2017) and flipped learning in
higher education (Lee, Lim, & Kim, 2017). Some assert social media
contributes informally to teacher learning. Such variations in the
nature and scope of OTPD may lead to concerns with its
effectiveness.
Specifically, video viewing has increased over the past decade
for teacher PD and teacher education across all subject areas and
grade levels around the world (Gaudin & Chalie s, 2015). Given
major goals of interpreting and reflecting on teaching situations
(Christ, Arya, & Chiu, 2017; Gaudin & Chalie s, 2015; Roth et al.,
2011) and enhancing knowledge about instructional best prac-
tices (Gaudin & Chalies, 2015; Marsh, Mitchell, & Adamczyk, 2009),
video viewing supports collaborative discussion and analysis
(Ramsdell, Rose, & Kadera, 2006; Roth et al., 2011) and offers the
convenience of viewing teaching episodes multiple times
(Ramsdell et al., 2006; Roth et al., 2011).
2.2.2. OTPD design and implementation features
The literature included key tenets of OTPD design and imple-
mentation. First, relevancy refers to addressing teachers' individual
professional learning needs (Farris, 2015) to help solve actual
problems (Ross, 2011) that can promote ownership as teachers
determine valuable content and reduce top-down approaches
(Darling-Hammond, Hyler, & Gardner, 2017; Macias, 2017) often
through needs assessments (Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2004). Rele-
vancy may also reflect teachers' career stages and students'
learning needs. Second, usefulness refers to the value and help-
fulness of OTPD through its ability to address teachers’ needs or
solve problems regarding practice, instruction, or student learning.
Usefulness is key in online learning because the experience should
have value by helping to meet the needs of adult learners and their
students. Booth and Kellogg (2015) examined online communities
and revealed that different perspectives and levels of expertise
among participants may be addressed through diverse activities.
Dede et al. (2009) noted that knowledge gained should be useful
and practical to inform teacher practice.
Third, interaction and collaboration (Huang, 2002; Ross, 2011;
Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2004; Whitehouse, Breit, McCloskey,
Ketelhut, & Dede, 2006) are key for adult learners because these
features promote social aspects of learning through engagement in
learning communities. Holmes, Signer, and MacLeod (2010)
explored teachers’ perceptions of structural effectiveness of an
OTPD experience revealing how teachers value multiple forms of
interaction with colleagues and learning communities. Open-
ended questions about improvement suggestions revealed the
significance of interaction, feedback, and synchronous discussions,
as teachers asserted the need for teacher, social, and cognitive
presence as well as multiple forms of interaction to promote
learning. Scott and Scott (2010) asserted that social aspects serve as
“glue” (p. 181) in PD communities. Interaction and collaboration
also promote engagement for all learners, a unique opportunity in
online environments for reluctant participants in face-to-face set-
tings. Moreover, a collaborative culture can promote school
improvement aimed at enhanced student outcomes (Donohoo,
21
Hattie, & Eells, 2018). Fourth, authentic tasks and activities
(Huang, 2002; Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2004) can enhance effective-
ness by reflecting context and relating directly to teacher practice
through real-world classroom situations. Thus, teacher PD is more
effective when it considers classroom realities including varying
student interests, learning styles, and motivation. Vrasidas and
Zembylas (2004) asserted teacher participation in the PD design
process can help ensure authenticity. Reeves and Pedulla (2013)
asserted teacher learning increases when OTPD content is readily
transferred to classroom environments.
Fifth, reflection (Huang, 2002; Scott & Scott, 2010) helps
teachers evaluate how newly-acquired information relates to their
practice and student learning outcomes and may occur throughout
the design process to promote capacity-building, ongoing PD.
Reflection refers to the intentional and systematic examination of
teaching and learning episodes to enhance practice and student
learning outcomes. Thus, reflection may occur in groups as peer
reflection in professional learning communities or individually as
self-reflection (Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2004). Regardless of PD
format, reflection supports continuous improvement and provides
opportunities to consider situated and contextual aspects of
teaching and learning. Sixth, the intersectionality of technology,
content, pedagogy, and learners is key for OTPD. Such intercon-
nectedness highlights the dynamic and synergistic nature of OTPD
as stakeholders navigate opportunities and challenges.
Whitehouse, McCloskey, and Ketelhut (2010) noted the role of
online pedagogies regarding OTPD design, asserting that if OTPD
content has merely “been digitized to function within the electronic
medium” (p. 250) and thus has been “transferred into, but not
transformed by, the new environment” (p. 250), disconnects may
occur between learners and technological milieus.
2.2.3. Effects of OTPD on teacher practice and student learning
outcomes
The literature also included studies about the effects of OTPD on
teacher practice and student learning outcomes, which are
important to examine, given that OTPD design and implementation
features may influence the extent to which experiences impact
teacher practice, and ultimately, student outcomes. Dash,
deKramer, O'Dwyer, Masters, and Russell (2012) examined the
impact of OTPD on 79 fifth-grade math teachers' pedagogical
content knowledge, pedagogical practices, and their students'
mathematical learning outcomes. Results revealed that experi-
mental group teachers experienced considerably more achieve-
ment in pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical practices
compared with control group counterparts, yet those benefits did
not result in significant differences in students' mathematics
learning outcomes. Dash et al. (2012) noted limitations may have
accounted for students' outcomes including a high rate of attrition
among participants that corresponded with OTPD readiness levels
that were lower than the readiness levels of teachers who
completed the PD and lack of opportunities for teachers to imple-
ment OTPD materials prior to the post-test. Furthermore,
deKramer, Masters, O'Dwyer, Dash, and Russell (2012) examined
effects of OTPD on 80, seventh-grade English language arts teach-
ers, revealing small to medium effect sizes that reflected statisti-
cally significant results on teachers' content knowledge, vocabulary
and writing practices, and student reading comprehension. Treat-
ment group teachers participated in approximately 100 h of OPTD
during three semesters and follow-up workshops with a learning-
community model that included activities for teachers and stu-
dents, classroom implementation, and collaborative discussion.
The literature noted a few studies that examined PD 360,
currently known as Eduvate, an online video library with over 2000
videos demonstrating classroom applications on more than 100
22 C.G. Powell, Y. Bodur / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30
education-related topics. Teachers in the current study utilized PD
360. Shaha, Glassett, and Copas (2015) conducted a multi-state
study that examined student learning outcomes two years after
an OTPD experience with PD 360 and Observation 360, yielding
collective gains for participating schools of 28.1% in mathematics
and 30.2% in reading. Shaha, Glassett, Copas, and Ellsworth, (2015)
examined the impact of OTPD including PD 360, Common Core 360,
and Observation 360 in a quasi-experimental study spanning
multiple states that yielded significant results including 4.8% gains
in reading and 7.3% gains in mathematics in Title 1 schools, a
designation that provides additional federal funding to promote
achievement for at-risk student populations. Shaha, Glassett,
Copas, and Huddleston (2016), also utilizing PD 360 as the OTPD
tool, asserted that coordinated efforts to combine OTPD and
traditional workshop models yielded significant student perfor-
mance increases.
Despite such potential, the literature revealed challenges and
myths associated with OTPD. Ketelhut et al. (2006) revealed con-
cerns about incremental learning versus transformation, stake-
holders’ agendas, customization versus generalizability, and
research versus program evaluation. Zygouris-Coe and Swan (2010)
examined the impact of a multi-state OTPD program on reading
research knowledge and effective instruction of PreK-12 teachers,
revealing challenges associated with design, implementation,
scalability, evaluation, and readiness for and participation in online
environments, while Downing and Dyment (2013) studied online
readiness and preparation for preservice teachers. Killion and
Treacy (2014) examined myths of OTPD such as access equals
learning, knowledge improves practice, and individualized learning
alone transforms schools.
2.3. Gaps in the literature
Analysis of the literature revealed several gaps, given that
studies focused primarily on elementary and middle school levels,
mathematics, science, and English language arts, and utilized
quantitative methods, while only several studies were found that
examined PD 360. Analysis also revealed a lack of teachers' voices
(Ketelhut et al., 2006) in OTPD, which is critical to develop an
effective design and implementation framework and to inform
practice as well as a lack of studies that examined design feature
effectiveness. Furthermore, Dede et al. (2009) asserted most OTPD
literature focused on program evaluation over empirical research
and called for more qualitative methods. Dash et al. (2012) noted
the need for “a more contextualized picture” (p. 23) of OTPD
effectiveness. These literature gaps are addressed through the
current qualitative study's purpose to examine teachers' percep-
tions of design and implementation features of a job-embedded
OTPD experience in the context of high school social studies.
3. Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework utilized in this study is adult learning
theory. Originally referred to as andragogy, adult learning theory is
attributed to renowned American educator Malcolm Knowles,
often considered the father of adult learning. Knowles (1984)
asserted five assumptions of adult learning including Self-
Concept: Adult learners are self-directed and autonomous; Adult
Learner Experience: Adult learners bring their life experiences to
learning situations; Readiness to Learn: Adult learners are moti-
vated by learning that addresses social roles; Orientation to
Learning: Adult learners seek immediate application for problem-
based concerns; Motivation to Learn: Adult learners often are
motivated by intrinsic rather than by extrinsic factors. Furthermore,
Knowles (1980, 1984) posited four implications of these
assumptions including adults need to participate in planning and
evaluating their learning experiences, life experiences help
contextualize adult learning, adults want learning experiences to
have immediate relevance for their professional or personal life,
and adults want opportunities with time to engage in problem-
oriented learning. This study's use of adult learning theory helps
to examine teachers' perceptions of an OTPD experience based on
the premise that teachers are adult learners with specific and
unique learning needs. This framework provides a lens through
which the researchers can examine the extent to which those
learning needs are operationalized, which holds potential to impact
OTPD design and implementation.
Likewise, research supported teacher PD and constructivism
(Eun, 2008; Keiny, 1994; Ruey, 2010). Eun (2008) asserted effective
teacher PD included constructivist principles such as social inter-
action, time, reflection, and ongoing support. Whitehouse et al.
(2006) asserted social constructivism influenced most of the 40
studies they examined, revealing the contextual significance of
social interactions that can enhance practice and support
constructivist pedagogies. Likewise, Duffy et al. (2006) utilized a
constructivist framework to develop over 60 inquiry-based, K-12
OTPD courses because it provided an “environment that is theo-
retically, pedagogically, and practically consistent” (p. 175) with
effective PD literature. This theoretical framework correlated to this
study because it provided a lens through which the researchers
could examine the extent to which the OTPD experience included
constructivist design and implementation features.
4. Methodology
4.1. Participants and data collection
The purpose of this study was to examine teachers' perceptions
of design and implementation features of a job-embedded OTPD
experience in the context of high school social studies. Participants
were selected from a medium-size, public school district in the
southeast United States which utilized PD 360, an online video li-
brary with over 2000 videos demonstrating classroom applications
on more than 100 education-related topics. The district selected
differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2001, 2014) as the PD con-
tent to enhance student achievement scores for all students, given
that differentiation enhances teachers’ abilities to meet learning
needs of diverse students by providing process, product, or content
choices. Teachers were required to view approximately 10 video-
based modules, approximately 25e30 minutes each, and respond
to three open-ended reflective follow-up questions per video. The
videos included examples of differentiation in classroom settings
and commentary from teachers and other leaders in the field. These
activities occurred online and took approximately 10 hour to
complete which were flexible due to the online format. School
administrators were able to monitor viewing and question
completion. The experience under study was touted as job-
embedded PD, although a district-wide schedule change resulted
in all teachers losing one-half of their daily planning, a 90-minutes
time period which was reduced to 45 minutes.
Following Institutional Review Board approval, participant se-
lection was conducted through purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002).
Selection criteria were established to include participants who
were teaching high school social studies at one of the two high
schools in the district that participated in the OTPD experience on
differentiated instruction and a willingness to participate in the
research study during non-instructional time without remunera-
tion or other compensation. Selection criteria did not include ed-
ucation level, length of teaching experience, or courses taught to
better understand nuances that may exist among perceptions of
 C.G. Powell, Y. Bodur / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30
teachers with a range of education, teaching experience, and
expertise. Administrators at both schools assisted in participant
recruitment by forwarding the invitation to participate in the study
to their school's social studies department. Participants included
six high school social studies teachers, three males and three fe-
males, who equally represented both of the district's high schools,
referred to in this study as Washington High School and Adams
High School. Glesne (2006) posited that interviewing teachers at
more than one site enhances theme trustworthiness during data
analysis.
The first author contacted each teacher individually to explain
the research purpose and protocol again and to schedule an inter-
view. To promote anonymity, each teacher was assigned a pseu-
donym from the six most frequently occurring surnames in the
2000 United States Census Bureau in the order in which interviews
were conducted. Thus, the teacher participants are referred to as
Mrs. Smith, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Williams, Mrs. Brown, Mr. Jones, and
Mrs. Miller. Table 1 provides individual teacher profiles including
years of teaching experience, school location, highest education
level, teaching certifications, and other credentials.
Individual, face-to-face interviews served as the primary data
collection method and underscored this study's qualitative meth-
odology and purpose. Fontana and Frey (2008) asserted that
interviewing is the preferred data-collection method when the goal
is gaining insight or explaining a particular event, while Moustakas
(1994) stated that “perception is regarded as the primary source of
knowledge, the source that cannot be doubted” (p. 52).
This study utilized an adaptation of Seidman's (1991) inter-
viewing approach. Although Seidman (1991) suggested three 90-
minutes interviews per participant, considerations regarding time,
travel, and the number of participant interviews led to conducting
one in-depth, face-to-face interview with each of the six partici-
pants that was approximately 60e90 minutes each as well as a
follow-up member check. Because this study examined teachers'
perceptions of a particular OTPD experience, it was not necessary to
conduct an in-depth interview solely for background and de-
mographic information which was collected at the beginning of
each interview to develop participant profiles.
Given the instructional context of the research, all six interviews
were conducted in the teachers' classrooms except one which was
conducted in a multi-purpose classroom due to summer scheduling
Table 1
Teacher profiles.
School (Pseudonym) Teacher (Pseudonym) Highest Education Level
Washington High School Mrs. Smith Masters
Washington High School Mr. Johnson Masters
Washington High School Mrs. Brown Masters
Adams High School Mr. Williams Masters
Adams High School Mr. Jones Masters
Adams High School Mrs. Miller Masters
a
Subject certification.
23
at one school. The multi-purpose space was not utilized during the
summer and was conducive to interviewing. The interviews fol-
lowed a semi-structured format (Patton, 2002) that utilized a set of
predetermined questions, yet provided opportunities to ask new,
follow-up questions. Open-ended questions were utilized to pro-
mote detail-rich responses to enhance the study's purpose and
contributions. Initial questions addressed teachers' professional
backgrounds including length of teaching career, subjects and
levels taught, degrees earned, certifications, and other credentials.
Teachers were also asked about the impact of the OTPD experience
on their use of differentiated instruction, design and implementa-
tion features, likes, dislikes, and improvement suggestions.
4.2. Data analysis
This qualitative multi-case study utilized within-case and cross-
case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Within-case analysis
viewed each teacher case individually. Data gathered from indi-
vidual teachers shaped teacher profiles which provided insight into
contextual characteristics to help explain teachers' nuanced re-
sponses. Cross-case analysis revealed themes present across all six
transcripts, helped reveal similarities and differences among
teachers, and highlighted teachers’ collective perceptions of OTPD
design and implementation.
Each of the six interviews was transcribed manually by the first
author to promote insight into and understanding of participants’
responses which promoted accuracy, analysis, and participant an-
onymity. A follow-up member check was conducted with each of
the six teachers that provided teachers the opportunity to review
and edit, if necessary, their interview transcript to promote accu-
racy. Participants were also provided an analysis of their own
transcript that could be reviewed to promote accuracy of researcher
interpretation.
The first author analyzed the six transcripts manually and
created minor and major codes (Glesne, 2006) that were further
analyzed and categorized into emerging themes (Marshall &
Rossman, 1999). The six themes included relevancy, authenticity,
usefulness, interaction and collaboration, reflection, and context.
For instance, the theme “usefulness” was formed from codes such
as provided useful reminders, gave me good ideas, not useful, and
didn't impact my use of differentiated instruction, while the theme
Years Teaching Certifications and Credentials
10 Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology
Gifted Endorsement
Social Studies (Grades 7e12)
18 AP United States History
AP World History
Social Studies (Grades 7e12)
5 American Governmenta (Grades 7e12)
United States Historya (Grades 7e12)
World Historya (Grades 7e12)
13 AP Psychology
School Social Work
Special Education (K-12)
Social Studies (Grades 7e12)
13 AP Economics
Social Studies (Grades 7e12)
30þ AP Economics
AP European History
AP World History
Middle School English-Language Arts
Middle School Mathematics
Social Studies (Grades 7e12)
24 C.G. Powell, Y. Bodur / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30
“relevancy” was formed from codes such as validated current
practice, lack of personalization, and good for Common Core, the
latter of which refers to a United States curriculum initiative in
which K-12 mathematics and English language arts/literacy stan-
dards are utilized nationally to promote college and career readi-
ness. The theme “authenticity” was formed from codes such as
differences between classroom videos and classroom realities,
grade level focus, and differentiation promotes effective teaching,
while the theme “context” was formed from codes such as conve-
nient, flexible, not enough time, and realities of high-stakes testing.
The theme “interaction and collaboration” was formed from codes
such as work with colleagues, work with experts, create our own
examples, and not engaging, while the theme “reflection” was
formed from codes such as suggestions for improvement, reflection
can reveal PD benefits, and reflection can improve instruction.
Evidenced by the teachers' perceptions, the themes were consistent
with terms utilized to describe PD characteristics and features in
the extant literature.
A peer review was conducted when the first author shared the
interview transcripts, a list of major and minor codes, and a list of
themes with the second author, who concurred with the coding
and themes. The discussion by the two authors regarding coding
and themes served as peer debriefing. The codes reflected cate-
gories that were represented by predetermined open-ended
interview questions and questions that emerged during the inter-
view. The questions utilized in the interview protocol were aligned
with the study's purpose. In short, the methodology underscored
the contextual nature of OTPD that helped situate teacher partici-
pants as adult learners and provided a lens through which results
were examined.
5. Results
The purpose of this multi-case qualitative study was to examine
teachers' perceptions of the design and implementation of a job-
embedded OTPD experience. Within-case and cross-case analysis
revealed unique insight into teachers’ nuanced perceptions about
their OTPD experience including improvement suggestions. These
results are divided into two sections. The first section includes re-
sults of cross-case analysis featuring six major themes: relevancy,
authenticity, usefulness, interaction and collaboration, reflection,
and context, each of which is described below with selected teacher
responses. The second section highlights within-case analysis re-
sults, represented by three teachers with a range of experiences
and expertise (see Table 1), including an early-career, mid-career,
and late-career teacher.
5.1. Cross-case analysis
5.1.1. Relevancy
Teachers reported positive responses about relevancy such as
the experience validated current practice and reminded teachers
about student-centered learning, while negative responses were
reported about relevancy, including a perceived lack of personali-
zation. Each of the teachers perceived the relevancy of using dif-
ferentiation based on their statements that they were currently
utilizing it in their classrooms. Mr. Johnson also expressed rele-
vancy of the OTPD experience to the Common Core initiative. He
explained:
It has been relevant in pointing out, you know, strategies in how
to cope with that … going to require how to educate children
into reading and writing proficiently, and they are not on [grade]
level … and now that we have this new Common Core, which is
setting a very high bar.
However, Mrs. Miller perceived a lack of personalization and
asserted the importance of addressing teachers’ professional needs
that consider teaching experience and content knowledge. She
stated:
You almost have to personalize, [uum] to some extent, profes-
sional development because people are in different places on
their professional career and their professional track, whatever
the case may be …. Well, why [emphasis added] are you
showing me the same stuff and things, and especially over 30
years, okay, been there, done that, still doing it … The profes-
sional development that I [emphasis added] may want is going
to be more content-specific, more content-rich than for a person
who's been a teacher for five years.
Additionally, Mrs. Miller asserted that such personalization
would help teachers meet their individual learning needs and those
of their students by referencing PD experiences with the College
Board, a United-States based, non-profit organization that pro-
motes college readiness with programs such as Advanced Place-
ment (AP) that provides opportunities for high school students to
enroll in college-level courses taught by AP-certified teachers and
earn college credit based on AP exam scores. Her reference to
reading exams reflects her role as a table reader, a College-board
selected high school or university faculty member who scores
students’ AP exams during a week-long summer session. She
shared:
We personalize students' instruction, but we don't do it for
teachers or come up with a plan or say, ‘Well what type of stuff
do you want to do?’ And then once you do, can you help to
redeliver or whatever, and I do [emphasis added] that with the
College Board with AP stuff and with all of the other work
because the professional development is very content specific. I
read exams. That's very [emphasis added] much professional
development because it's about what kids need to do, to be able
to know, and be successful. Well, coming back and working with
people, that's [emphasis added] a valuable piece, but yet we
don't encourage people or [pause] get people that are already
doing that to then bring it back and redeliver or to do things.
5.1.2. Authenticity
Teacher responses revealed insights into the authenticity of the
OTPD experience regarding student demographics and grade level
appropriateness. Mr. Johnson noted disparities between his own
classroom realities and examples featured in the online video
segments by referencing an award-winning and Emmy-nominated
1970s sitcom in the United States, Welcome Back, Kotter, which
featured Mr. Kotter, a teacher who returned to his inner-city high
school to teach and inspire an at-risk group of students known as
the Sweathogs. Mr. Johnson explained:
The people who presented it did an outstanding job … I don't
think the content really could have been improved except the
examples they used. They need to be more relevant to public
school, you know, when you see young 15-year-old boys in
three-piece suits with a little school logo like it's … Professional
Academy something, I'm going, ‘No, no, no, no no.’ I need to see
the Welcome Back Kotter Kids. I had the Sweat Hogs. Show me
Sweat Hogs! Don't show me prima donnas because it is totally
irrelevant, you know. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Show me how that really works in a real-life situation because
this one is not a prima donna, prissy outfit of well-behaved kids.
 C.G. Powell, Y. Bodur / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30
Although Mr. Johnson used the words “relevant” and “irrele-
vant” in his response, he addressed authenticity by contextualizing
relevancy to his own classroom situation.
Mrs. Miller shared her perception that video segments lacked
high-school focus. She noted:
The things that we were given to watch were middle-school or
elementary-school based. They were not high-school based. I'm
not going to watch things that have no connection whatsoever
… those types of things are not the things that these kids need,
and so there wasn't a suite, if you will, set aside for just high
school. The whole thing was lumped together.
5.1.3. Usefulness
Teacher perceptions revealed positive responses about useful-
ness including that the experience provided instructional ideas and
reminded them about effective instructional practice as well as
responses indicating the experience was not useful in learning new
information given prior and current use of differentiation. Mrs.
Smith stated that the experience provided her with instructional
ideas for special education students in her class, which she reported
as beneficial because the special education department at her
school was “very overworked.”
Mr. Johnson shared mixed thoughts on the usefulness of the
OTPD experience asserting that although the content had a been-
there-done-that feel, it was still valuable regarding how he
thought about classroom instruction. He shared:
As far as learning something new, not really …. However,
because they focused on things that I had thought and forgotten,
they reawakened an interest in experimentation, so it would
force me to rethink how to approach a classroom setting.
Meanwhile, Mr. Williams, Mrs. Brown, and Mrs. Miller stated
that the experience was not useful for learning new information
because they were utilizing differentiated instruction in their
classrooms prior to and after the OTPD experience. In fact, Mrs.
Brown stated she utilized differentiated instruction prior to
participating in the OTPD “to the same extent that I use it now.”
5.1.4. Interaction and collaboration
Mr. Williams offered an improvement suggestion, sharing that
professional development should include “somebody to come in
and work with me. I want somebody [pause] I would like a group of
us to get together and work on it.” Mr. Williams elaborated on his
suggestion to collaborate with colleagues:
If we're going to differentiate, well then, why don't you get me
with the Psychology teachers or why don't you get me with the
US Government teachers? Or why don't you get me with the US
History teachers, and why can't we come up with the tools of the
trade, a toolkit per se, of ideas and lessons …. How can I
implement that tomorrow [emphasis added]?
Mrs. Brown suggested improving the experience through
engaging, hands-on opportunities for teachers to interact, collab-
orate, process, reflect, and obtain feedback. She wished for PD that
allowed her to discuss what she learned, practice the ideas, and
obtain feedback from colleagues and experts. Mrs. Brown asserted
that it should provide teachers with opportunities for:
… finding, of a technique or a strategy, that we can utilize, that
we go in, we're taught how to use it, what it is, what are the
25
aspects, what are the different pieces, and then we are shown
examples, and we use those examples, manipulate those ex-
amples, and then we come up with our own examples. I think
that's really the only effective way. I think more teachers are
going to come away from that wanting [emphasis added] to use
it, than just going ‘Okay, check the box, I did that, that PL [pro-
fessional learning] today.’
5.1.5. Reflection
This particular OTPD experience seemed to provide little
reflection beyond the required follow-up video questions. The
teachers primarily discussed their use of reflection in general terms
of improving their instruction and assessment rather than as a
design component of the OTPD experience. However, Mrs. Brown
offered an improvement suggestion about the experience that
included her need for feedback and reflection:
I did not like, you know, watching a 30-minutes video or a 25-
minutes video and then answering three questions. I would
much rather have some hands-on activities that tell me I'm
doing it right or doing it wrong, just like we are using for our
kids, just like we are expected to use for our kids. I need that as
well.
5.1.6. Context
Teachers’ mixed and nuanced responses included references to
time, high-stakes testing, and budgetary concerns that reflected the
multiple contexts in which this OTPD experience occurred.
Mrs. Smith, Mr. Williams, and Mrs. Brown shared positive re-
sults about the convenience and flexibility of the OTPD experience
because they could work at their own pace. Mrs. Smith, who also
stated that she liked unlimited viewing to review video clips if
needed, shared that the online format provided convenience and
flexibility, and gave her a sense of control. She explained:
I personally would rather do that than have to go sit in a training
session for an hour because at least I could control when I did it,
if I wanted to do it at home or if I wanted to do it here or
whatever, so I never really minded that.
Likewise, Mrs. Brown favored the program's convenience,
especially given that the teachers at her school recently lost half of
their daily planning. She explained that she “liked that it was at a
time that was convenient for me … often it's during our planning
periods, and we only have 45 minutes now, so it's very crammed.”
However, Mrs. Miller expressed concerns about time to com-
plete the PD, given this loss of planning. Her school utilized a
modified block schedule that included 90-minutes block courses,
taught each day for one semester, and 45-minutes skinnies, which
were taught each day during both semesters. She explained:
People lost planning last year … so you would teach a full block
class plus [emphasis added] whatever combination of skinnies
or so on, so that you have a 45-minutes planning. Well, in a 45-
minutes planning, you're not going to do any professional
development during the school day, and, by the end of the day, I
doubt [emphasis added] there are going to be many people who
are going to sit there, with what time that they would have at
the end of the school day before four o'clock, that they're going
to sit at their desk, considering they only have 45 minutes of
planning, spend the time doing that.
26 C.G. Powell, Y. Bodur / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30
Mrs. Miller added that several teachers in her department have
afterschool duties such as coaching which created additional time-
related challenges.
Although Mr. Johnson acknowledged differentiation benefits, he
perceived a potential disconnect between differentiated instruction
and high-stakes test formats. He stated his concern that teachers
may “scrap differentiation in favor of direct instruction in order to
accomplish a maximum test score.” He noted this concern may be
intensified by the “expectation of differentiated instruction,”
acknowledging that addressing the needs of diverse learners can be
a considerable task, especially for his large classes. Mr. Johnson also
shared that the OTPD experience occurred during a challenging
time for teachers, given the “climate between furloughs and diffi-
culty in employment because of budgets,” referencing recent dis-
trict and national budget concerns that resulted in many teachers
experiencing furloughs, mandatory unpaid leaves of absence that
may last one day, several days, or more, to reduce budget costs.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Brown stated that utilizing differentiation is
necessary because “you have to have that engagement, and differ-
entiation allows you to have the engagement factor. That's the only
way the kids are going to learn the material to even have a chance
to pass the high-stakes test.”
5.2. Within-case
5.2.1. Mrs. Brown
Mrs. Brown was an early career teacher with five years of
teaching experience. Although she noted challenges of losing
45 minutes of planning daily due to the district-wide schedule
change, she shared her desire for PD that provided time to discuss,
practice, collaborate, and reflect with presenters and other col-
leagues to develop their own classroom exemplars. Mrs. Brown
reported liking the online convenience, yet she still wanted op-
portunities for collaboration, interaction and feedback. Mrs. Brown
shared differentiation promotes student engagement, which are
essential for student outcomes, including realities of high stakes
testing. The design and implementation feature on which Mrs.
Brown most frequently commented was context, referencing the
theme twelve times.
5.2.2. Mr. Johnson
Mr. Johnson was a mid-career teacher with 18 years of teaching
experience. He noted relevancy of the OTPD experience through his
perceived need for teachers to address the high standards of
Common Core to promote student learning for all students, spe-
cifically sharing that it would help his students who are below
grade-level in reading and writing proficiency. He also noted the
experience highlighted strategies to help all his students ranging
from below grade level to AP, acknowledging differentiation ben-
efits. However, he commented on differences between the student
groups featured in the video segments and students in his classes
and questioned whether teachers would utilize differentiation in
their classrooms due to high-stakes testing pressures. Mr. Johnson
most frequently commented on context, sharing 17 remarks about
this feature.
5.2.3. Mrs. Miller
Mrs. Miller was a late-career teacher with over 30 years of
experience. She acknowledged benefits of differentiated instruc-
tion, noting that she had been using differentiation across various
grades and subjects throughout her 30-plus teaching career,
including multiple AP social studies courses. Therefore, when Mrs.
Miller explained her vision of effective teacher PD, she specifically
addressed personalization and questioned, with emphasis, why she
was mandated to participate in the same PD as teachers with less
experience. She noted that personalization would address her
learning needs and those of her students. Mrs. Miller emphasized
the significance of other PD in which she had participated,
including multiple AP certifications and serving as a College Board
table reader. She emphasized that teachers who participate in PD
activities are not encouraged to share with colleagues through
redelivery. Mrs. Miller commented most frequently on relevancy,
making 14 remarks.
In sum, the results of teachers' mixed and nuanced perceptions
highlighted the multifaceted and complex nature of teacher PD, in
general, and OTPD, in particular. These results revealed themes of
relevancy, authenticity, usefulness, interaction and collaboration,
reflection, and context that underscored teachers as adult learners
with needs for interactive, engaging, content-specific, content-rich,
and personalized PD. The exploration and interpretation of these
results for patterns based upon social constructs (Merriam, 1990)
reflected the study's qualitative nature and provided a foundation
for discussion.
6. Discussion
Teachers' perceptions of their OTPD experience centered on
design and implementation features that can shape effectiveness.
The results suggested the experience featured an online format, but
it did not reflect a job-embedded PD experience, although touted as
such. The approach of this particular experience suggested that
mere access to PD and follow-up reflection questions in an online
format is inadequate. These results are especially significant given
the extent to which teachers’ perceptions of OTPD design and
implementation features hold the potential to impact teacher
practice, student learning outcomes, and future research. The
findings are discussed within the context of cross-case and within-
case results to promote understanding and analysis.
The literature indicated that knowledge gained should be useful
and inform practice (Dede et al., 2009). Given that all six teachers
reported they were already utilizing differentiated instruction in
their classrooms, the value of the OTPD experience for them was
more about validating their practices than learning something new
based on their needs. The literature also indicated that conducting
OTPD in a bottom-up fashion that is based on teachers’ needs is
more desirable than a top-down approach approaches (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2017; Macias, 2017). However, it appeared the
OTPD examined in this study was assigned in a top-down manner.
Thus, usefulness of the OTPD experience suffered. A better
approach could have been conducting a needs assessment with
teachers and offering personalized PD according to their learning
needs.
The findings also indicated that the relevancy of OTPD is
enhanced when design and implementation consider the contexts
in which teachers work because relevancy reflects value and
practicality. Given the importance of differentiated instruction
(Tomlinson, 2001, 2014) to help meet learning needs of diverse
students, it was no surprise that the six teachers already saw its
relevancy in their classrooms. Still, a needs assessment could have
enhanced relevancy by personalizing teacher PD based on experi-
ence and expertise to promote commitment and ownership
(Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2004) while addressing teachers’ individual
professional learning needs (Farris, 2015) and problem solving
(Barber et al., 2010; Ross, 2011).
Likewise, authentic tasks should consider context and directly
relate to practice (Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2004) to promote trans-
formative learning that impacts student learning outcomes. Reeves
and Pedulla (2013) asserted that “more teacher learning takes place
when OPD [online professional development] content can be
transferred easily to a classroom setting” (p. 62). However, the
 C.G. Powell, Y. Bodur / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30
disparity between the perceived classroom realities of teachers in
the study and online video segments resulted in negative percep-
tions. The participants in this study taught in high schools, but the
video examples they viewed were perceived to have been based on
elementary and middle school classrooms and featured student
demographics that differed from participants’ classrooms. There-
fore, the authenticity of the experience suffered.
The participants perceived the lack of social interaction and
collaboration in the OTPD experience as a weakness. However,
teachers’ responses about improvements echoed the literature on
the significance of interaction and collaboration (Burns & Darling-
Hammond, 2014; Darling-Hammond, 2017; Huang, 2002; Ross,
2011; Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2004; Whitehouse et al., 2006),
which can be utilized in ongoing, follow-up activities that comprise
learning communities. In fact, given the extent to which the
teachers mentioned the need for interaction and collaboration with
experts and colleagues, they echoed the assertion that social ele-
ments serve as a binding force of PD (Scott & Scott, 2010).
The literature supports reflection (Huang, 2002; Scott & Scott,
2010) as a key tenet of OTPD which may occur in groups or indi-
vidually as self-reflection (Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2004). Teachers
answered follow-up questions about the video clips they viewed
which suggested limited opportunities for reflection on the expe-
rience under study. The interview protocol provided teachers with
an opportunity to reflect on their experience including their of-
fering improvement suggestions for design and implementation
that underscored the interconnectedness of OTPD characteristics.
Teachers echoed the extant literature that reflection is important to
inform practice and enhance student learning outcomes.
Likewise, the teachers acknowledged that time was an impor-
tant factor in the OTPD experience, given the loss of half of their
daily planning due to a district-wide schedule change, afterschool
duties, and the need to differentiate instruction for large classes of
diverse learners. This suggested the need for innovative approaches
that allocate time for professional learning, a challenge addressed
in the teacher PD literature (Burns & Darling-Hammond, 2014;
OECD, 2014; Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2010; Zepeda, 2015) and
OTPD (Duffy et al., 2006; Ross, 2011). Furthermore, a closer look at
the three teacher profiles helps to interpret results, given that the
unique characteristics of adult learners and the contextual nature of
adult learning may have influenced teachers’ responses about the
OTPD experience.
One, Mrs. Miller's comment that this particular OTPD experi-
ence on differentiated instruction provided no new information
may not be surprising given that she was currently using differ-
entiated instruction in her classroom. It was not surprising, given
her 30 þ year teaching career and expertise, that she questioned,
with emphasis, why she was required to complete the same teacher
PD as teachers with much less experience. This suggested that Mrs.
Miller felt she would benefit from personalized PD that addressed
her learning needs. Mrs. Miller's teaching experience and expertise
influenced her concern over her perception of the lack of high-
school focus in the video clips because she stated that, since she
did not see a connection between her participation in the PD and
her students' learning outcomes, she questioned its benefit and was
not interested in participating. This was exacerbated by her concern
with time, a scarce resource for teachers, which became scarcer
when a district-wide schedule change reduced teachers' planning
by 45 minutes each day, compared with the previous year. Mrs.
Miller was willing to spend time on PD, as evidenced by certifica-
tion in multiple AP social studies courses and service as an AP table
reader, but she wanted to spend time on PD that she perceived
would address her professional learning needs and her students'
learning outcomes.
Two, Mrs. Brown had completed her fifth year of teaching and
27
was completing her master's degree in Curriculum and Instruction
the semester in which the interview was conducted. Mrs. Brown
stated that she previously used and was currently using differen-
tiated instruction in her classroom, so it was not surprising that she
shared the experience did not impact her instructional practice.
Coursework in her master's program may have heightened her
awareness of instructional best practices and teachers as adult
learners, which may have contributed to her desire for effective PD
and impacted her comments about OTPD design and imple-
mentation. Her graduate school experience may have heightened
her awareness of the importance of differentiation to help all stu-
dents in an era of high-stakes accountability. Mrs. Brown's state-
ment that she liked the online format, yet wanted opportunities for
collaboration, interaction and feedback, suggested that she may
favor using a blended model for OTPD. Mrs. Brown's response
revealed that she understood the multifaceted aspects of effective
PD to enhance practice by meeting her learning needs and those of
her students, which is especially beneficial for early-career
teachers.
Three, Mr. Johnson's mixed responses seemed to reflect the
context in which he taught. Given his 18 years of teaching, it is no
surprise Mr. Johnson reported he had previously used and was
currently using differentiated instruction, yet he still found benefits
in the experience, commenting that it reminded him about previ-
ous strategies that he had forgotten and renewed interests that
caused him to rethink his instructional practice. Thus, he saw the
relevancy of the content for his classroom instruction, but he
commented specifically on the disparity between demographics
and behavior of students in the video and some students in his
general classes, noting that he wanted to see a video example
featuring students who more closely mirrored his classroom reality.
Although Mr. Johnson stated he saw benefits of differentiation, he
questioned whether some teachers would use the strategy when
considering format differences between differentiation and high-
stakes testing. He also noted the OTPD experience occurred when
teachers were experiencing time and budgetary constraints that
could have impacted teachers' perceptions. These responses sug-
gested that, although Mr. Johnson was a mid-career teacher with 18
years of experience and was seeking his second AP certification, he
recognized complexities of multiple contexts and still valued PD,
but he wanted it to meet his learning needs and those of his
students.
The mixed and nuanced responses of the teachers indicated that
PD is not a one-size-fits all approach. These results suggested that
length of teaching experience, expertise, and context may have
played significant roles in teachers’ perceptions of the OTPD
experience, and moreover, influenced their design and imple-
mentation suggestions that echoed adult learning theory (Knowles,
1980, 1984) and social constructivism (Duffey et al., 2006; Eun,
2008; Whitehouse et al., 2006). These results were further
strengthened by the consistency between data collection sites and
among teachers with a considerable range of experience and
expertise.
6.1. Limitations
This study had several limitations. The first limitation was that it
featured six teachers whose perceptions are not generalizable to
other teachers in their departments, schools, district, or beyond.
These six teachers volunteered to participate, a characteristic that
may have shaped their perceptions, given that differences may
exist between the perceptions of teachers who volunteer and the
perceptions of non-volunteers. The second limitation was that all
six teachers reported that they were utilizing differentiated in-
struction, although at differing degrees, prior to the OTPD
28 C.G. Powell, Y. Bodur / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30
experience. This may have shaped their perceptions, especially if
their responses were based on their desire to acquire new infor-
mation. The third limitation was that, compared with the previous
year, teachers lost 45 minutes of their planning each day due to a
district-wide schedule change. This change suggested limited time
for teacher PD as teachers reported that the monthly PD meetings
they had previously held with administrators were also negatively
impacted. A fourth limitation was that the study examined a
particular OTPD experience that is not generalizable to online
learning, other PD 360 experiences, differentiated instruction, so-
cial studies teacher practice, or other professional learning prac-
tices of the participating teachers, schools, district, or PD provider.
A different OTPD experience may have revealed additional design
and implementation features that could further contribute to OTPD
framework research. Specific situations under study are often
shaped by the multiple and broad contexts in which they occur.
6.2. Implications and recommendations
The results of this study created several implications and shaped
recommendations despite its limitations. These implications and
recommendations hold potential to impact numerous educational
stakeholders, including current and pre-service teachers, teacher
educators, PD designers, building-and district-level administrators,
curriculum specialists, policy makers, and students. These impli-
cations and recommendations address the increased significance
and multifaceted aspects of OTPD.
Perhaps the most significant implication of this study is for the
design and implementation of OTPD. Although teachers responded
with nuanced and mixed perceptions about a particular OTPD
experience, their perspectives provided unique insight into six
design and implementation features that explicitly and empirically
contribute to OTPD framework research. Teachers' perceptions
revealed the importance of specific design and implementation
features including relevancy, authenticity, usefulness, collaboration
and interaction, reflection, and context, thereby extending much of
the current research from program evaluation to design and
implementation. This implication is especially significant because
the responses came from teachers, one of several literature gaps
this study addresses. Thus, it is incumbent upon educational
stakeholders to consider teachers’ responses when designing and
implementing OTPD to maximize its transformative power for
teacher practice and student learning outcomes.
Another implication is for the broader framework of teacher PD.
Whether online or face-to-face, teacher PD should be job-
embedded to promote continuous learning within teams, de-
partments, schools, and districts. The four building blocks of job
embedded PD including knowledge source, knowledge type,
orientation, and learning needs (Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2010)
support the literature on teachers as adult learners and construc-
tivism, while reflecting teachers’ responses about OTPD design and
implementation features. The on-going, capacity-building nature of
job-embedded PD helps to reduce concerns with traditional
workshops that may offer limited follow-up by providing essential
time and opportunities to model, practice, collaborate, obtain
feedback, and reflect (Joyce & Showers, 2002).
Additionally, an implication exists for stakeholders to consider
complex contexts in which PD occurs. The aforementioned design
and implementation features highlight unique challenges
regarding the intersectionality of technology, content, pedagogy,
and learners. Such complexities include teacher and student char-
acteristics, school climate, school and district leadership, as well as
local, state, and federal policy (Burns & Darling-Hammond, 2014;
Kragler, Martin, & Sylvester, 2014).
Furthermore, based upon the results and implications of this
study, the authors suggest several recommendations for future
research. One, we recommend additional research that compares
the results of face-to-face, online, and hybrid approaches to PD on
teacher practice and student learning outcomes across all grades
and disciplines. Two, we recommend additional research on those
same approaches to professional learning in teacher education,
given the increased use of online learning for undergraduate,
graduate, and endorsement programs. Three, we recommend
further research that addresses the aforementioned literature gaps,
including calls for additional quantitative and qualitative studies
that hold potential to shape effective PD design and implementa-
tion. Fourth, we recommend additional research that examines
aspects of Dede et al.’s OTPD research agenda (2009), such as
researcher and designer collaboration, scalability, and
sustainability.
7. Conclusion
The results of this study underscore the need to examine OTPD
design and implementation features to better understand their
impact on teacher practice and student learning outcomes. This
becomes especially significant as teachers around the world face
challenges accessing effective teacher PD and increasing achieve-
ment for diverse students. The nuanced results reveal unique
insight into teachers as adult learners as they echoed effective te-
nets and ongoing challenges of OTPD while addressing gaps and
calls in the extant literature. Despite several limitations, this qual-
itative multi-case study advances the field through empirical evi-
dence that contributes to an OTPD design and implementation
framework based on teachers' perceptions of relevancy, authen-
ticity, usefulness, interaction and collaboration, reflection, and
context. This contribution helps extend the theoretical knowledge
of OTPD as teachers' voices promote a contextual understanding of
their experiences that can inform future research and shape prac-
tical, capacity-building PD experiences that enhance teacher prac-
tice and student learning outcomes. In sum, we echo Whitehouse
et al. (2010) by encouraging educational stakeholders to recog-
nize that all teacher PD should consider teachers as professional
adults with unique learning needs, and, when OTPD is utilized,
stakeholders should consider technology, pedagogy, content, and
learners to ensure that these constructs align adult learners’ needs
with learning goals that promote quality teaching and learning.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Barber, M., Chijioke, C., & Mourshed, M. (2010). How the world's most-improved
school systems keep getting better. Washington, D.C.: McKinsey & Company.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world's best-performing school systems
come out on top. Washington, D.C.: McKinsey & Company.
Blanchard, M. R., LePrevost, C. E., Tolin, A. D., & Gutierrez, K. S. (2016). Investigating
technology-enhanced teacher professional development in rural, high-poverty
middle schools. Educational Researcher, 45(3), 207e220.
Booth, S. E., & Kellogg, S. B. (2015). Value creation in online communities for edu-
cators. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 684e698.
Burns, M. (2013). The future of professional learning. Learning and Leading with
Technology, 40(8), 14e18.
Burns, C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Teaching around the world: What can TALIS
tell us? Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Christ, T., Arya, P., & Chiu, M. M. (2017). Video use in teacher education: An inter-
national survey of practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 22e35.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249e305.
Dana, N. F., Pape, S. J., Griffin, C. C., & Prosser, S. K. (2017). Incorporating practitioner
inquiry into an online professional development program: The Prime Online
 C.G. Powell, Y. Bodur / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30
experience. Professional Development in Education, 43(2), 212e231.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Can value-added add value to teacher evaluation?
Educational Researcher, 44(2), 132e137.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we
learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3),
291e309.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher profes-
sional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
State of the profession: Study measures status of professional development.
Journal of Staff Development, 30(2), 42e50. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.
org/news/jsd/index.cfm.
Dash, S., de Kramer, R. M., O'Dwyer, L. M., Masters, J., & Russell, M. (2012). Impact of
online professional development on teacher quality and student achievement
in fifth grade mathematics. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1),
1e26.
Dede, C. (2006). Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and
methods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009).
A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of
Teacher Education, 60(1), 8e19.
deKramer, R. M., Masters, J., O'Dwyer, L. M., Dash, S., & Russell, M. (2012). Rela-
tionship of online teacher professional development to seventh-grade teachers'
and students' knowledge and practices in English language arts. The Teacher
Educator, 47(3), 236e259.
Donohoo, J., Hattie, J., & Eells, R. (2018). The power of collective efficacy. Educational
Leadership, 75(6), 40e44.
Downing, J. J., & Dyment, J. E. (2013). Teacher educators' readiness, preparation, and
perceptions of preparing preservice teachers in a fully online environment: An
exploratory study. The Teacher Educator, 48(2), 96e109.
Duffy, T. M., Kirkley, J. R., del Valle, R., Malopinsky, L. V., Scholten, C. M., Neely, G. R.,
et al. (2006). Online teacher professional development: A learning architecture.
In C. Dede (Ed.), Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models
and methods (pp. 175e197). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Easton, L. B. (2013). A global perspective: What professional learning looks like
around the world. Journal of Staff Development, 34(3), 10-13, 14, 16, 18, 20.
Eun, B. (2008). Making connections: Grounding professional development in the
developmental theories of Vygotsky. The Teacher Educator, 43(2), 134e155.
Farris, S. (2015). Think “e” for engagement: Use technology tools to design
personalized professional e-learning. Journal of Staff Development, 36(5), 54e58.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2008). The interview: From neutral stance to political
involvement. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting
qualitative materials (3rd ed., pp. 115e159). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915e945. https://doi.org/
10.3102/00028312038004915.
Gaudin, C., & Chalie s, S. (2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional
development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16, 41e67.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Goldhaber, D. (2015). Exploring the potential of value-added performance measures
to affect the quality of the teacher workforce. Educational Researcher, 44(2),
87e95.
Holmes, A., Signer, B., & MacLeod, A. (2010). Professional development at a distance:
A mixed- methods study exploring inservice teachers' views on presence on-
line. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(2), 76e85.
Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning
communities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27e37.
International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2011). National standards for
quality online courses (Version 2). Vienna, VA: Author.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). ISTE standards for
teachers. Retrieved from International Society for Technology Education web-
site http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Keiny, S. (1994). Constructivism and teachers' professional development. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 10(2), 157e167.
Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance in inservice teacher education. Research
Monograph No. 13. National Institute for Science Education. University of Wis-
consin-Madison.
Ketelhut, D. J., McCloskey, E. M., Dede, C., Breit, L. A., & Whitehouse, P. L. (2006).
Core tensions in the evolution of online teacher professional development. In
C. Dede (Ed.), Online professional development for teachers (pp. 237e264).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Killion, J., & Treacy, B. (2014). Myths about technology-supported professional
learning. Journal of Staff Development, 35(2), 12e14.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to
andragogy. New York, NY: Cambridge.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX:
Gulf Publishing.
Kragler, D. J., Martin, L. E., & Sylvester, R. (2014). Lessons learned: What our history
and research tell us about teachers' professional learning. In L. E. Martin,
S. Kragler, D. J. Quatroche, & K. L. Bauserman (Eds.), Handbook of professional
development in education: Successful models and practices, PreK-12 (pp.
29
483e505). New York, NY: Guilford.
Learning Forward. (2012). What we stand for: Definition of professional develop-
ment. Retrieved from http://www.learningforward.org/standfor/definition.cfm.
Lee, J., Lim, C., & Kim, H. (2017). Development of an instructional design model for
flipped learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research & Devel-
opment, 65(2), 427e453.
Macias, A. (2017). Teacher-led professional development: A proposal for a bottom-
up structure approach. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 8(1), 76e91.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsh, B., Mitchell, N., & Adamczyk, P. (2009). Interactive video technology:
Enhancing professional learning in initial teacher education. Computers & Ed-
ucation, 54(3), 742e748.
Merriam, S. B. (1990). Case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). Creating effec-
tive teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Retrieved
from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/43023606.pdf.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2014). TALIS 2013 Re-
sults: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/talis-2013-results.htm.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2017). Education at a
glance 2017. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/
education-at-a-glance-2017/japan_eag-2017-55-en.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Powell, C. G., & Bodur, Y. (2016). Professional development for quality teaching and
learning: A focus on student learning outcomes. In T. Petty, A. Good, &
S. Putman (Eds.), Handbook of research on professional development for quality
teaching and learning (pp. 652e677). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Ramsdell, R., Rose, R., & Kadera, M. (2006). PBS Teacherline and Concord Consor-
tium's seeing math secondary: Scaling up a national professional development
program. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online professional development for teachers: Emerging
models and methods (pp. 69e88). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Reeves, T. D., & Pedulla, J. J. (2013). Bolstering the impact of online professional
development for teachers. The Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 1,
50e66.
Ross, J. D. (2011). Online professional development: Design, deliver, succeed! Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. (2011).
Video- based lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student
learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117e148.
Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional technology strategies for
adult online learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 706e720.
Scho€n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Scott, D. E., & Scott, S. (2010). Innovation in the use of technology and teacher
professional development. In A. D. Olofsson, & J. O. Lindberg (Eds.), Online
learning communities and teacher professional development: Methods for
improved education delivery (pp. 169e189). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
Seidman, I. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Shaha, S. H., Glassett, K., & Copas, A. (2015). Sustaining student gains from online
on-demand professional development. Journal of International Education
Research, 11(3), 163e172.
Shaha, S., Glassett, K., Copas, A., & Ellsworth, H. (2015). Title 1 schools: The student-
based impact of online, on-demand professional development on educators.
Contemporary Issues In Education Research, 8(4), 227e234.
Shaha, S., Glassett, K., Copas, A., & Huddleston, T. L. (2016). Maximizing educator
enhancement: Aligned seminar and online professional development.
Contemporary Issues In Education Research, 9(1), 15e22.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1e22.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2004). Standards for online development:
Guidelines for planning and evaluating online professional development courses
and programs. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Stewart, V. (2011). Raising teacher quality around the world. Educational Leadership,
68(4), 16e20.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms
(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Vrasidas, C., & Zembylas, M. (2004). Online professional development: Lessons from
the field. Education þ Training, 46(6/7), 326e334.
Whitehouse, P. L., Breit, L. A., McCloskey, E. M., Ketelhut, D. J., & Dede, C. (2006). An
overview of current findings from empirical research on online teacher pro-
fessional development. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online professional development for
teachers: Emerging models and methods (pp. 13e30). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
30 C.G. Powell, Y. Bodur / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 19e30
Education Press.
Whitehouse, P., McCloskey, E., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2010). Online pedagogy design and
development: New models for 21st century online teacher professional devel-
opment. In J. O. Lindberg, & A. D. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities
and teacher professional development: Methods for improved education delivery
(pp. 247e262). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Yendol-Hoppey, D., & Dana, N. F. (2010). Powerful professional development: Building
expertise within the four walls of your school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Zepeda, S. J. (2015). Job-embedded professional development: Support, collaboration,
and learning in schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
Zygouris-Coe, V. I., & Swan, B. (2010). Challenges of online teacher professional
development communities: A statewide case study in the United States. In
J. O. Lindberg, & A. D. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher
professional development: Methods for improved education delivery (pp. 114e133).
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.