Introduction

In this professional development plan, we are focusing on different styles of technology

assessments for teachers to use. These assessments will include both formative and summative,

and will range from daily check-ins to unit assessments. The plan is for the teachers to learn

three different platforms for them to take back to their classroom and successfully use the next

time they want to assess their students.

This PD will be implemented at the lone middle school in the Sanger Unified School

District of Sanger, California. The mission and vision of Sanger Unified is: Students will learn in

a collaborative and caring culture that prepares them to be college and career ready. The

population of Sanger is 80% Hispanic/Latino, with small numbers of white and Asian residents.

There is a very small population of African-American residents. Most students in Sanger Unified

are the children of teachers, farmers, or minimum wage employees. Most parents speak English

at home with students, while a small population speak Spanish at home. Class sizes within the

district max out at 40 students. Due to an increasing population within Sanger, many classrooms

have the maximum number of students.

In terms of technology, Sanger Unified provides all students an Apple iPad when entering

the district. At the elementary level, students store their iPads in their classroom. Middle and

high school students are allowed to take theirs home. Prior to the pandemic, students did not

receive hotspots, leaving some without reliable internet access at home. Now, Sanger Unified is

offering hotspots to students without internet access or in households with four or more students

sharing the same internet connection. On a regular basis, students use Google Classroom or

Canvas (depending on teacher preference, which can be confusing for students) to access
materials, use the Google suite of products to engage with materials, and occasionally interact

with apps like Flipgrid, Nearpod, and Jamboard.

On the teaching side, educators in Sanger Unified are provided Apple iPads, Pencils, and

Macbook Pros. Teachers may bring these devices home. Most teachers use Google Classroom or

Canvas (depending on preference) to deliver materials, use the Google suite of products to create

materials, and sometimes use Flipgrid, Nearpod, and Jamboard to engage students in classroom

concepts. However, while technology is readily available, professional development

opportunities are few and far between. Tenured teachers are provided one PD day of technology

professional development. Departments that are seen as similar--for example, English and

history or math and science--attend the PD together to determine best ways to align their

curriculum and use technology to deliver instruction. Nontenured or new teachers are provided

three PD days of technology professional development at the beginning of the school year. These

days focus on how to deliver instruction with a variety of apps. However, the focus of these PDs

are on the elementary level, delivered by former elementary school teachers, despite teachers of

every grade level present in the PD.

Ultimately, this PD is designed for middle and high school teachers who are familiar with

the Google suite and occasionally use outside applications. These teachers often do not use

technology for assessments outside of state testing. Many deliver tests the old fashioned way:

paper and pencil, hand grading them at the end. Thankfully, most teachers are accepting of

technology support in small bursts. Our goal is to make professional development lessons on

using Flipgrid, Nearpod, and Jamboard to administer assessments into bite-size pieces teachers

will be able to master prior to exiting the PD.

 Needs Analysis

We created a short Google Form that asked teachers to rate their comfort level in using

Nearpod, Flipgrid, and GoFormative. Teachers were also asked to choose one of the three

platforms they would like to learn more about, and what they would like to learn at their PD.

This Google Form was administered prior to beginning the PD. This survey was administered to

seventh and eighth grade teachers in all departments at a middle school in the Sanger Unified

School District. Of the 85 teachers the survey was sent to, 24 responded. The survey determined

that teachers need more support in creating lessons using the three apps, as well as would

appreciate videos of those apps being used in the classroom. It also determined that teachers had

an interest in working with others to build lessons. However, when it came to participating in an

accountability group, teachers reported they were not interested in doing so.

See Figure 1 responses: It shows teachers are familiar with nearpod but need to know more

about flipgrid and go formative.

Figure 1
 After Viewing how comfortable teachers were with each of these platforms it was

apparent that Nearpod was the most comfortable platform. There is no consistency in comfort

with nearpod or Flipgrid and many teachers were uncomfortable with using GoFormative. Once

we asked teachers about how comfortable they were with these platforms we asked them about

which they would be most interested in. Figure 2 shows that most were interested in learning

what GoFormative is.

Figure 2

The last thing we asked the teachers was what they would like to see in their technology

based PD. Figure 3 shows that Majority of the teachers wanted to see pre-made lesson plans

using the 3 platforms and after that videos using the apps were thought to be helpful for PD.

Figure 3
 Lastly, many teachers wanted time to collaborate with other teachers when it comes to

using the technology. Small number of teachers wanted to set up virtual meetups or Q & A

sessions.

While we have overall needs for this PD there will need to be specific teacher goals in

order for it to run smoothly. Once we have accomplished the PD Teachers will need time to

practice what they have learned and be able to have feedback from one of the teachers running

the PD. They will have questions and they will need to have a point person to answer those

questions for them. During this PD another need for the teacher is going to be needing

information on how to better deliver summative assessment content digitally. Also they need

information on delivering digital formative assessments that scaffold skills needed for

summative assessments. Lastly teachers will need time to discuss and troubleshoot with

colleagues prior to the end of the PD.

Literature Review

Most teachers consider professional development (PD) seminars as trainings—one day

dedicated to learning a skill they might use in the future. However, research (Martinovic et al.,

2019;Ye et al., 2012) has shown that PDs need to evolve to become effective. From experience,

traditional PDs follow the format of a college lecture. They last a few hours, involve little

interaction between participants, and require the trust that those partaking will do the work

outside of class. Unlike a college lecture, there is no accountability. When the PD is over, the

training disappears with the professor, as does, more often than not, interest in using PD

teachings in the classroom. Moreover, as technology expands within classrooms, more PDs have

been offered for teaching with a variety of applications—Nearpod, Flipgrid, GoFormative,

Illuminate, EdPuzzle, Socratic, Listenwise, and the list goes on. Interestingly, it has been found
that teachers possess a wide range of technological skills (Liu et al., 2017). Some teachers,

especially those who have been in the classroom the longest, possess little to no proficiency with

technology, while others, usually those newest to the profession, enter the classroom with a high

level of technical skill (Liu et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2017). PDs involving technology often

provide insufficient technical support. Seminar leaders will assume an understanding of

technology that might not be present in all participants (Liu et al., 2017), making it difficult for

educators to fully engage in what the PD has to offer.

Thankfully, research (Ye et al., 2012) points to a better use of PD time and teachings, and

has found solutions to barriers in practicing PD learning. For example, Bostancioglu (2018) has

determined that providing teachers the space to exercise what they learn following the

professional development seminar solidifies PD instruction and encourages educators to use

those teachings in the classroom. Additionally, Liu et al. (2015) found that pairing differently-

skilled teachers in technology-based trainings has the potential to boost usability of the PD

learnings both during the professional development seminar and later in the classroom.

Ultimately, research suggests that while PDs have several challenges to overcome, the

opportunities to address those challenges are present and accessible to all professional

development leaders (Bostancioglu, 2018; Ye et al., 2012; Martinovic et al., 2019).

Literature Search Strategy

The purpose of this literature review is to help understand the research behind

professional development using technology. The literature was found using EBSCOhost and

ERIC databases through the California State University, Fullerton Polluck library and Google

Scholar was also used. The search was limited to articles after 2010 but most are after 2015 for

the most relevant and recent literature. Keywords to search were: SAMR, TPACK, technology
professional development, technology in the classroom, teacher professional development, and

k-12. After the research it was apparent the common themes found were (a) opportunities, (b)

obstacles and (c) the TPACK & SAMR models.

Opportunities for Create Better PDs

There are several available opportunities to improve teacher professional development

seminars. The first of those is an increase in interaction between participants. Educators who

partake in PDs need to communicate with others during the course of the seminar in order to

make meaning out of PD learnings. In a study conducted by Martinovic et al. (2019), it was

found that “professional learning is an activity that uses the intelligence of others–evident in

tools, discourse, and communal supports–as a lifeline” (p. 27). Martinovic et al. (2019) also

found that building relationships between educational “practitioners” (p. 28) better supported

teachers in understanding PD learnings. Ye et al. (2012) pushes this idea further by stating

teachers need more than simple communication. Instead, professional development learnings

could be cemented through the use of project-based collaboration. In the study by Ye et al.

(2012), teachers were asked to work together to “create instructional activities for their students

using online resources” (p. 512). By doing so, Ye et al. (2012) found that teachers “showed a

significant gain in knowledge” (p. 516) of PD learnings, and increased the usage of professional

development tools in the classroom (Ye et al., 2012).

However, to continue learning beyond the scope of the PD, further collaboration is

needed. A typical professional development seminar lasts anywhere from one to three days.

Traditionally, educators experience a professional development cliff where PD learnings soon

fall out of practice due to time or inconsistent use (Basarmak & Hamutoglu, 2020). To combat

this dropping off point, Bostancioglu (2018) and Martinovic et al. (2019) suggests creating an
online professional development community, where educators can share lesson plans and ideas

with others without fear of judgment. This environment can foster a sense of an ongoing PD,

where “collaboration, an opportunity for mentoring and coaching, and sustainability over time”

are at the forefront (Bostancioglu, 2018). In a study by Bostancioglu (2018), teachers

participated in an online forum created to share and improve technology curriculum content

following a professional development seminar. This study found that all participating educators

learned how to use technology tools beyond the initial scope of the PD, as well as used those

tools consistently throughout the year. Martinovic et al. (2019) echoes this sentiment by

suggesting social media websites such as Twitter might be an ideal place for teachers to provide

continued professional development support. Regardless of where these conversations take place,

Martinovic et al. (2019) claims “online repositories of educational resources should be utilized to

provide just-in-time support for teachers and teacher educators” (Martinovic et al., 2019, p. 32).

As such, teachers need a place to receive immediate feedback from peers in order to grow in

their profession.

Ultimately, professional development needs visual examples to make learning salient.

While discussions and accountability are great ways to improve PDs, meaning is lost if these

tools are not seen in action. As such, Liu et al. (2015) suggests adding the element of peer

observations to professional development learnings. This provides educators with the

opportunity to see technology used effectively in the classroom. Moreover, Liu et al. (2017)

found that peer observations have the potential to boost teacher confidence in using technology,

as viewing another provides an understanding of how to address the technical issues that can

arise. Additionally, pairing teachers with others of different skill sets has the potential to bolster

technology use in the classroom. In a separate study by Liu et al. (2015), it was found that
pairing teachers with high technology proficiency with those of low technology proficiency

provided the latter with ongoing peer support throughout the school year. These teachers were

able to observe one another, discuss ideas for technology use, and adjust instructional materials

based on feedback. Ultimately, it was found that the teachers of low proficiency improved their

comfort with and use of technology in the classroom. As such, peer observation, when coupled

with collaboration and accountability, increases the effectiveness of professional development

learnings.

Obstacles in Teachers Using Technology

There are a few obstacles to consider when implementing technology PD. Research

shows that even with being able to go through training in order to better their technology skills

teachers still lack the time to create, implement and reflect on technology integration in the

classroom (Kopcha, 2012; Wachira & Keengwe, 2010). Even with the optimal amount of

training given to teachers once that training is over they are constantly worried about the amount

of time they have. Kopcha (2012) states they were surprised that time management was a huge

concern throughout all teacher surveys. Also that it is based around technology, and even after

training technology takes a lot of planning, teaching, and classroom management in order to be

successful. Teachers are less likely to integrate technology into their classroom if they do not

have adequate time to prepare (Keengwe & Warchira, 2010). Teachers need more than just one

session of PD to create an actual plan to integrate technology in their classroom.

Liu et al. (2017) found that teachers' comfort and confidence level with technology play a

huge role in how successful integration will go. There is a wide range of teachers with a wide

range of comfort levels which creates a barrier in technology integration in the classroom.

Wachira and Keengwe (2010) found that teachers that lack confidence in technology have a hard
time making the move forward and sticking with integrating technology in their classroom.

Teachers with low confidence and comfort were negatively influenced by PD because they did

not have the confidence to bring it back to the classroom without complications (Lieu et al.,

2017). PDs need to address teachers' different levels of comfort and confidence in using

technology. This will ensure that all teachers will leave with something they can use in their

classroom right away no matter their technology experience.

SAMR/TPACK Models as Foundation

Integrating technology has become a very common practice in education. With 21st

century skills being needed in the classroom it is important that teachers look at their

pedagogical beliefs and set up a plan to integrate technology into their own classroom (Pamuk,

2011). Doering Et al. (year), states it is important to support teachers in their pedagogical shift

with technological professional development for technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPACK). Pumak (2011) states that in order to have success teaching with technology there must

be a strong foundation of understanding the core elements. Also, the core elements used together

appropriately will create successful integration of technology in the classroom. The TPACK

framework provides teachers a useful way to piece together their pedagogy style, content

knowledge, and technology skills all together (Pamuk, 2011). As there are many ways for

teachers to approach integrating technology in the classroom, TPACK is shown to be one of the

most helpful for teachers.

There are many approaches and models to look at when looking at technology

professional development. As TPACK focuses on the combination of teachers technology,

pedagogy and content where SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and

Redefinition) reflects on current use of technology integration (Drugova et. al, 2021). Research
shows, substitution is where instructional strategy are replaced with technology with no clear

functional change, augmentation is where technology is substituted in for student enhancement,

modification is when technology is used to transform the lesson into a deeper learning

experience for the student and redefinition is technology transforms the lesson in a way that is a

completely different positive learning experience for the student (Sadrone, 2019). Drugova

(2021), states that in order for teachers to have successful movement through the SAMR model

they must approach technology with no limitations. Through the study, Sadrone found that not

as many teachers made it through the modification and redefinition models of SAME as were

expected. This was because it takes more time and successful professional development in order

to successfully integrate technology. Professional development among teachers to integrate

technology is so important as Drugova (2021) says “The teachers are afraid that the technology

might replace them.”

Professional Development Approaches

Our professional development lessons will be delivered through a “Lunch and Learn”

approach. This will allow teachers to attend during their lunch break to pick up pedagogical tips

to bring back to the classroom. This was chosen due to teacher availability. We wanted to reach

the widest audience possible–teachers of all subjects and grade levels at the school site. As

teachers have varying prep periods, lunch is the only time all teachers are free. Additionally, we

will hold these Lunch and Learn meetings once a month so as not to overwhelm participants.

This will provide teachers with thirty minutes of information. This time constraint forces us, as

PD creators, to be concise with our information. It also pushes us to provide teachers with usable

lessons or ideas they can utilize immediately. Moreover, as lunch happens in the middle of the
day, teachers will be able to use what they learned within the next class period–or, at most, the

next day.

Within the first PD meeting, teachers will create accountability groups. These

accountability groups will log their work on a Google Doc provided by us. Following each PD

meeting, teachers will communicate with their accountability groups throughout the month, both

in person and on the Google Doc. Teachers within these groups will take back one idea from the

PD to practice in the classroom, then share with their accountability group the best practices for

using either Nearpod, Flipgrid, or GoFormative in the classroom as a formative assessment tool.

They will also be asked to create and share lessons with built-in formative assessment for other

teachers to use, which we believe will satisfy Ye et al. (2012)’s findings that teachers require

project-based learning in their PDs. Our goal is to, at the end, have a catalogue of best practices

that can be used and shared by both other accountability groups, as well as non-participating

teachers interested in the information. These Google Docs can also be used in following PDs or

as a resource for teachers in the next school year.

As mentioned previously, accountability groups are a key feature of a successful PD.

Bostancioglu (2018) found that teachers who participated in online forums were more likely to

make use of PD learnings, consistently used those learnings throughout the year, as well as

supported teachers who struggled with educational technology. While our PD will not have a

forum, but instead a Google Doc, we are hoping for the same outcome. Moreover, Martinovic et

al. (2019) found that an online repository of information was necessary for teachers to share and

reference throughout the year. This provides teachers a space to remember what had worked in

previous classes, as well as creates a space for other teachers to find resources. While our needs

analysis found that teachers are not interested in such a tool, the research states otherwise. We
believe that these accountability groups and Google Docs will foster the most growth in our

participating teachers as it creates an active learning environment.

Summary of the Literature Review

Ultimately, our PD will focus on using Nearpod, Flipgrid, and GoFormative as formative

assessment tools. When looking at the research (Lui et al., 2015; Kopcha, 2012; Wachira &

Keengwe, 2010), we have determined teachers have a wide range of technical skills, worry about

the time it takes to learn technology-based teaching strategies, and lack confidence in using

technology in the classroom. Research (Ye et al., 2012; Bostancioglu, 2018; Martinovic et al.,

2019) also states teachers need project-based professional development, require accountability

groups as a means of practice PD learnings, and benefit from a digital place to store their

technology-based teaching strategies. Our foundation for these PDs is the SAMR and TPACK

models, which will assist teachers in finding opportune ways to incorporate Nearpod, Flipgrid,

and GoFormative in their classrooms. Through our Lunch and Learns, we plan to provide

concise lessons on our formative assessment tools, assist teachers in using SAMR/TPACK to

create engaging lessons, and build a community of responsible, eager teachers.

Product Development

Goals

The purpose of this technology professional development is to focus on different styles of

technology assessments for teachers using three specific applications–Nearpod, Flipgrid, and

Formative. A goal of ours is for teachers to gain strong self esteem in using technology-based

assessments in their classroom. To accomplish this goal we will have sessions of professional

development focusing on the three platforms. Each session will include videos, hands-on
learning, and time for questions. As we go through different sessions and parts of the

professional development another goal is that teachers persevere through learning a new digital

platform in order to use assessments in the classroom. This goal will be accomplished by

working closely with the teachers and giving them a sufficient amount of time to ask questions.

Teachers will be able to use their previous knowledge and be able to build upon during

the professional development. They will be able to accomplish curriculum goals and specific

ISTE standards. The goals are:

● Teachers promote student self-reflection at the end of lessons

● Teachers learn to use technology to facilitate learning and assessment

● Teachers learn to use technology to create lessons that are culturally relevant

● Teachers learn to use technology to build student-centric units that engage students in the

learning process

● Teachers will build a community to support them in their use of technology

ISTE Educator Standards

● 3b: Partner with educators to identify digital learning content that is culturally relevant,

developmentally appropriate and aligned to content standards.

● 3d: Personalize support for educators by planning and modeling the effective use of

technology to improve student learning.

● 4a: Collaborate with educators to develop authentic, active learning experiences that

foster student agency, deepen content mastery and allow students to demonstrate their

competency.
 ● 4b: Help educators use digital tools to create effective assessments that provide timely

feedback and support personalized learning.

Learning Objectives

1. Teachers will be able to assess students' learning by using technology platforms.

2. Teachers will be able to create lessons where students record themselves for self

reflection and peer interaction.

3. Teachers are able to create formative assessments to deliver and watch students real time

during assessment on which problems they individually got wrong or as a class was

commonly missed.

4. Given technology-based assessment data, Teachers will be able to determine if their

students have met learning goals.

Scope and Sequence

● September (Objective 2 & 4)

○ Introduce Flipgrid and SAMR model

○ Show teachers how to use Flipgrid with I Do, You Do approach

○ Begin experimenting with the platform

● October (Objective 2 & 4)

○ Provide examples of implementation

○ Begin having teachers work in pairs to create a lesson using Flipgrid and

complete by next meeting [Flipgrid Assessment]

○ Forum for issues that might be encountered

● November (Objective 2 & 4)

○ Work with others to improve created lessons

○ Think-pair-share ways Flipgrid can be used in instruction or assessment

○ Create a Use Plan for their own classroom

○ Complete self-reflection questions

● December (Objective 1 & 4)

○ Introduce Nearpod and review SAMR model

○ Show teachers how to use NearPod with I Do, You Do approach

○ Begin experimenting with the platform

● January (Objective 1 & 4)

○ Provide examples of implementation

○ Begin having teachers work in pairs to create a lesson using NearPod and

complete by next meetings [NearPod Assessment]

○ Forum for issues that might be encountered

● February (Objective 1 & 4)

○ Work with others to improve created lessons

○ Think-pair-share ways NearPod can be used in instruction or assessment

○ Create a Use Plan for their own classroom

○ Complete self-reflection questions

● March (Objective 3 & 4)

○ Introduce Formative

○ Show teachers how to use Formative with I Do, You Do approach

○ Begin experimenting with the platform

 ● April (Objective 3 & 4)

○ Provide examples of implementation

○ Begin having teachers work in pairs to create an assessment using formative and

give before next meeting [Formative Assessment]

○ Forum for issues that might be encountered

● May (Objective 3 & 4)

○ Work with others to improve created lessons

○ Think-pair-share ways Formative can be used in instruction or assessment

○ Create a Use Plan for their own classroom or PLC

○ Complete self-reflection questions

● June (Objective 4)

○ TED Talk on technology in the classroom

○ Think-pair-share: How are we building a twenty-first century classroom?

○ All group reflection on year-long PD

■ What went well

■ What needed to be improved

■ How the implementation of platforms improved student learning

■ What platforms teachers would like to learn about in the future

■ How our mindset toward technology in the classroom has changed as a

result of this PD

Assessment/Evaluation

● Flipgrid Instructions (Objective 2 & 4)

 ○ Teachers will create a flipgrid assignment to use in their classroom that includes

formative assessment. At the end, teachers will complete a self reflection.

● Nearpod Instructions (Objective 1 & 4)

○ Teachers will create an interactive Nearpod slide deck to use during class that

includes formative assessment. At the end, teachers will complete a self

reflection.

● Formative Instructions (Objective 3 & 4)

○ Teachers will create a summative unit assessment for students using the web tool,

Formative. At the end, teachers will complete a self reflection.

Professional Development Timeline

This professional development is planned to take place during the course of one school

year. Our plan for this is to introduce 1 technology platform at a time. Each session will include

an introduction, time to experiment, provide examples, creation time, and troubleshooting help.

We will have 1 session a month starting with introducing nearpod in September and spending 2

sessions per technology platform. Each session of PD will be offered for 1 hour on the 4th

Wednesday of each month on our early release day. Once there has been a session to introduce

and give teachers a chance to create their own lessons, the teachers will be expected to have

implemented the platform in their class before the next PD. This gives us time to help each

individual with troubleshooting and any other issues they found when implementing the lesson.

Once we have had all 6 sessions of helping teachers creating and troubleshooting lessons, the

month of May PD will be for teachers to work with others in their content area and share the
lessons they have created. The last PD in June will focus on reflecting on what they learned,

what went well and what we could do to improve our year long professional development.

Professional Development Methods

We will be offering a couple other opportunities for PD during the year that are not the

face to face meetings. These include:

● ZOOM Office hours for questions

● Optional after school Q&A sessions

Professional Development Budget

Description Cost

Starbucks Traveler 10 months 1 per session: 250.00

Snacks 60.00

Office Supplies (assorted) 50.00

Notebooks 20.00

Total Cost: $380.00

Two-Hour Technology Professional Development Reflection

Reflecting on the two-hour synchronous PD, we feel as though the session went well.

This PD was held in Allison’s classroom from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM. Of the eighty teachers

invited, only five attended. For the session, we created a Google Slides presentation to structure

the PD. The presentation was structured into three parts, one for each app: Flipgrid, Nearpod,

and Formative. For each part, participants were introduced to the app, walked through using the

app, shown a video explaining how to use the app in the classroom, provided articles with more
ideas of how to use that app with students, then given time to work with a partner to create a

lesson using the app. As teachers worked on creating lessons, we moved around the room to

answer questions and fix technological issues. While walking around, we could hear teachers’

comments. Many of them were excited to use Flipgrid as an alternate presentation option or as an

exit ticket. Most were also eager to use Nearpod as a way to enrich lessons. We also heard great

things about the accessibility of Formative. These comments were encouraging as we were

initially nervous to present. A number of the teachers in attendance were veterans who, we

assumed, knew how to use apps such as these already. We quickly learned our assumption was

incorrect as most in attendance were only familiar with Nearpod–a finding which mirrored the

Google Form results.

At the end of the PD, teachers were asked to form an accountability partnership. Teachers

were asked to scan a QR code taking them to a Google Doc. This Google Doc asked participants

to share best practices in using Flipgrid, Nearpod, and Formative in their classrooms. We also

asked teachers to share out loud one thing they learned from the PD, one thing they wish they

learned, and one thing they will share with a colleague. As stated before, many teachers shared

that they enjoyed learning alternate ways for students to represent their learning via Flipgrid, and

that the app will be what they share with their colleagues. There was a theme in what teachers

wish they learned as well: how to effectively use Nearpod for extension activities. We have a

note to add this to a future PD, should we give it again. Overall, we believe this PD session went

well. We find that teachers were able to connect and share ideas they otherwise wouldn’t.

Despite the anxiety we felt going into it, we believe we provided an important resource. We have

even taken our own advice and used Flipgrid as an alternate submission method for our students’

final project–an argumentative presentation typically held in front of the class.

 Reflection

In the process of creating this Technology Professional Development Plan (TPDP), we

have grown as instructional coaches. We have since learned that the best way to build a PD is to

base it around the needs of the community. We have also learned that a PD plan needs to include

specific goals and objectives to drive learnings. By determining all three, a successful PD plan

can narrow in and bridge gaps in knowledge. Additionally, this process has fostered growth

within us as educators. Through the literature review, we learned that communication and

collaboration are the keys to making learning stick. This has translated to our classrooms, where

we have increased the use of both in our lessons.

In terms of assessing needs, this project has pointed out the importance of surveying

teachers to determine their desires for a successful PD. Without knowing what participants

would like to learn more about, we would not have been able to address their needs. The insight

we received from the Google Form showed us what apps (Flipgrid and Formative) we needed to

spend more time on and which we could spend less time with (Nearpod). Teachers also

expressed an interest in looking at lesson plans using those apps, seeing the apps in action, and

collaborating with colleagues to create lessons using the apps. While the literature review

mentions all options listed in the Google Form, without surveying teachers, we would otherwise

be unaware of which choices were preferred. Throughout the PD, we could tell teachers enjoyed

working with partners to explore the app and summon ideas that fit their students. Many used

suggestions from the provided videos to do so, which we believe helped increase interest in each

of the apps as they had a point of reference for what had been previously successful. Thankfully,
the needs analysis survey helped guide our PD session, which made building our TPDP

curriculum much easier.

However, that is not to say that our PD did not experience difficulties. While giving the

PD, we experienced technical issues. Some were easy to overcome (such as a colleague’s laptop

updating in the middle of the PD), while others were more substantial (such as the school

internet shutting down for ten minutes). While participants were willing to use their phones to

finish the PD, many quickly realized cellular service was just as unavailable. The part of campus

where we were located (Allison’s classroom) is notorious for connectivity issues. Thankfully,

participants were willing to stay and wait it out, and the internet reconnected shortly after.

Additionally, attendance was another issue we encountered. In the early weeks of March,

administration was willing to ask the district office that our PD be counted for Induction hours.

(Induction is a program new teachers with preliminary credentials must participate in to clear

their credential. This program requires “Inductees” to participate in forty-five PD hours.)

Unfortunately, the district did not approve the request. As such, participation was low. We will

continue to look for ways to incentivize teachers to participate in our PD sessions.

Ultimately, we believe there are many benefits to teachers participating in our PD

sessions. Provided that many participants reported positive results following the PD, we know

that our PD was effective in teaching new skills to veteran educators. Moreover, teachers have

later shared that their students have enjoyed interacting with the new apps, especially Flipgrid.

Many math teachers are now using the app to participate in “number talks” with their students.

Other subjects are now using it as a closing reflection exercise, where students share one thing

they learned in class that day. That change was spurned by five participants in one PD. We can

only imagine what would happen with more teachers and time.
 Overall, we enjoyed participating in the process of building our TPDP. As mentioned

previously, our colleagues understand the value of our PD, as well as have shared their learnings

with other teachers and departments. Students have also reported enjoyment in using the new

apps–though some, like their teachers, are still figuring out how to use it effectively. In the end,

we look forward to building our skills as instructional coaches, improving upon and expanding

our TPDP, and watching our colleagues grow as educators.

 References

Basarmak, U. & Hamutoglu, N.B. (2020). Developing and validating a comprehensive scale to

measure perceived barriers to technology integration. International Journal of

Technology in Education and Science, 4(1), 53-64. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1232798

Bostancioglu, A. (2018). Online communities of practice in the service of teachers’ technology

professional development: The case of webheads in action. TOJET: The Turkish Online

Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2). http://www.tojet.net/articles/v17i2/17210.pdf

Doering, A., Koseoglu, S., Scharber, C., Henrickson, J., & Lanegran, D. (2014). Technology

Integration in K–12 Geography Education Using TPACK as a Conceptual Model.

Journal of Geography, 113(6), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2014.896393

Drugova, E., Zhuravleva, I., Aiusheeva, M., & Grits, D. (2021). Toward a model of learning

innovation integration: TPACK-SAMR based analysis of the introduction of a digital

learning environment in three Russian universities. Education and Information

Technologies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10514-2

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014

Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A.D., & Dawson, K. (2017). Explaining technology integration in K-12

classrooms: a multilevel path analysis model. Association for Educational

Communications and Technology, 65, 795-813. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1148004

Liu, S., Tsai, H., & Huang, Y. (2015). Collaborative professional development of mentor

teachers

and pre-service teachers in relation to technology integration. Educational Technology &

 Society, 18(3), 161-172. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070041

Martinovic, D., Kolikant, Y.B.D., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2019). The usefulness of technology in

teacher professional development: Extending the frameworks. JISTE, 23(2), 21-32.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1241984

Pamuk, S. (2011). Understanding preservice teachers’ technology use through TPACK

framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 425–439.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00447.x

Sardone, N. B. (2019). Developing Engaging Learning Experiences in Preservice Education. The

Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 92(6), 235–245.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2019.1679070

Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2010). Technology Integration Barriers: Urban School Mathematics

Teachers Perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(1), 17–25.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9230-y

Ye, L., Walker, A., Recker, M., Robertshaw, M.B., Sellers, L., & Learly, H. (2012). Designing

for

problem-based learning: A comparative study of technology professional development.

US-China Education Review, 510-520. http://works.bepress.com/mimi_recker/91/