Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 33e42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

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

U.S. teachers’ perceptions of online professional development

Seth A. Parsons a, *, Amy C. Hutchison a, Leigh A. Hall b, Allison Ward Parsons a,
Samantha T. Ives a, Alicia Bruyning Leggett a
a
George Mason University, 4400 University Dr, MSN 4B3, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA
b
University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

A majority of teacher respondents had participated in online professional development.

A majority of respondents found online professional development experiences helpful.

Respondents who were required to participate in online PD found it less beneficial than those who chose to participate.

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 22 June 2018
Received in revised form
6 March 2019
Accepted 10 March 2019
1. U.S. teachers’ perceptions of online professional
development
Professional development (PD) is a vital part of teachers'
ongoing growth (Fischer et al., 2018; Wei, Darling-Hammond,
Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). Evolving technologies
allow for new and different forms of PD, and online PD is prolif-
erating (Bates, Phalen, & Moran, 2016; Fishman et al., 2013).
Scholars have argued that online PD has unique and substantial
potential to reach teachers across the globe (Dede, Ketelhut,
Whitehouse, Breit, & McCloskey, 2009; Robinson, 2008), and in-
ternational policy advocates the use of PD as a mechanism for
teachers’ continued professional learning (e.g., Jensen, Sonnemann,
Roberts-Hull, & Hunter, 2016; U.K. Office for Standards in
Education, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Teachers
have begun to create opportunities for their own informal profes-
sional learning through social media, such as Twitter (Carpenter &
Krutka, 2015; Colwell & Hutchison, 2018; Macia  & Garcia, 2016).
Educators report spending several hours a week in online learning
spaces like websites, forums, and social networks (Campana, 2014;
Trust, 2017).
Despite the growing interest in online platforms as venues for
professional learning, little is known about how teachers interpret
their online PD experiences, how they do and do not utilize what
they learn, and what kinds of experiences they do and do not prefer.
Research investigating these questions could provide insight into
and guidance for providing PD in online environments, which is
especially important given the current movement toward online
learning environments. Therefore, we considered the following
research questions:
1. What are teachers' reflections on their experiences with online
PD?
2. What are teachers' perceptions of different approaches to online
PD?
3. How are teachers' reflections on their experiences related to
their perceptions of different approaches to online PD?
2. Literature review
In this section, we first provide a brief synthesis of the research
on effective PD. Then we review the literature on technology-
enhanced PD, focusing on online teacher learning. This review
will ground what the field currently knows, and does not know,
about face-to-face and online PD, which informed the design of the
current study and our interpretation of the data.

2.1. Creating effective professional development

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sparson5@gmu.edu (S.A. Parsons), ahutchi9@gmu.edu
(A.C. Hutchison), lhall16@uwyo.edu (L.A. Hall), award12@gmu.edu (A.W. Parsons), Decades of research on teacher professional learning has
sives2@gmu.edu (S.T. Ives), abruynin@gmu.edu (A.B. Leggett). demonstrated that effective PD focuses on specific subject matter

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.006
0742-051X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
34 S.A. Parsons et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 33e42
content, is sustained over time, and allows for interactive partici-
pation (Amendum & Fitzgerald, 2013; Borko, 2004; Desimone &
Stuckey, 2014; Gersten, Dimino, Jayanthi, Kim, & Santoro, 2010;
Lindvall, Helenius, & Wiberg, 2018; Parsons, 2014; Penuel,
Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011; Yoon, Liu, & Goh, 2010). It is also
coherent in that it aligns with teachers’ knowledge and beliefs as
well as school and school system emphases (Desimone, 2009;
Fullan, 1993). A central component of achieving this coherence
relies on school culture and leadership (Geldenhuys & Oosthuizen,
2015; Parsons, (in press)). Teacher learning is socially and culturally
situated and best supported within a network, or community, of
other educators (Borko, 2004; Putnam & Borko, 2000).
Research is clear that one-time workshops are unlikely to
change teachers’ practice (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Desimone,
2009; Kragler, Martin, & Sylvester, 2014). Teacher learning should
be sustained over time given how long it takes to learn, internalize,
and apply new instructional methods (Rientes, Brouwer, & Lygo-
Baker, 2013). Exactly how many contact hours teachers need to
support their learning is up for debate as some studies have found
positive outcomes with as few as 11 contact hours (Piasta et al.,
2010) and studies with more than 65 contact hours (Garet et al.,
2010) did not find significant advances (Desimone & Stuckey,
2014). However, some researchers report that 14 h of contact
time may be the tipping point for finding positive effects
(Desimone & Stuckey, 2014). In their review, Darling-Hammond,
Hyler, and Gardner (2017) concluded, “Though research has not
yet identified a clear threshold for the duration of effective PD
models, it does indicate that meaningful professional learning that
translates to changes in practice cannot be accomplished in short,
one-off workshops” (p. 15).
Teachers also have ideas about what effective PD should look
like. Ingvarson, Meiers, and Beavis (2005) surveyed teachers and
found that teachers thought the following aspects of PD were most
helpful: (a) receiving feedback, (b) working with colleagues to re-
view student work, and (c) follow-up after the completion of the
program. However, teachers in the study reported that the PD
programs they participated in rarely included feedback or coaching
into their design. Considering how to create a feedback structure is
critical since PD plus coaching can significantly advance teacher
knowledge and practice (Bean & Morewood, 2011; Neuman &
Cunningham, 2009; Swan Dagen & Bean, 2014). It is through
these collective interactions that teachers have opportunities to
collaborate and learndan essential and critical feature of effective
PD (Duffy, 2004; Starkey et al., 2009).
2.2. Creating effective professional development in online spaces
Scholars contend that online learning is a subset of learning in
general (Anderson, 2004). While some similarities around effective
PD will transcend formats (Fishman et al., 2013), online PD provides
a unique context with particular qualities that must be attended to
and developed. Online PD can be synchronous, where learning
happens in real time, asynchronous, where teachers engage in their
learning on their own time, or a hybrid of both synchronous and
asynchronous (Elliott, 2017). How online PD looks and what
effective practices look like, can vary based on the format it utilizes
(Schlager, Farooq, Fusco, Schank, & Dwyer, 2009). Teachers can
participate in online PD that can include (a) the use of informal PD
networks (Schlager et al., 2009; Trust, Krutka, & Carpenter, 2016);
(b) interactive, live Webinars on a focused topic (Albers, Turnbull, &
Angay-Crowder, 2015); or (c) on-demand courses (Shaha, Glassett,
Copas, & Huddelston, 2016). Regardless of the format, to be effec-
tive, online PD must enable learners to have thoughtful, sustained
engagements (Albers, Cho et al., 2015). Teachers must be willing
participants, and they must have space to share both their
questions and expertise (Albers, Cho et al., 2015). Optimal learning
occurs when online PD is job-embedded and flexible with teachers
able to experience meaningful interactions (Rienties, Brouwer, &
Lygo-Baker, 2013).
Online PD can be effective in helping teachers reflect on their
practice and become less focused on knowledge transmission
(Rienties et al., 2013). It can also allow them to engage in discus-
sions that challenge their beliefs and create new understandings
(Rodesiler, 2017). When technological tools are used, it can support
participants’ development and knowledge of new skills (Rienties
et al., 2013). Because of the flexibility that online PD affords, par-
ticipants are able to process content at their own pace and revisit it
as needed (Wynants & Dennis, 2018).
Achieving the benefits that online PD affords requires attention
to how social presence and teacher presence are constructed and
enacted (Poquet et al., 2018; Smith & Sivo, 2012). Both components
engage teacher learners in the content and influences their learning
in different ways. Of the two, social presence is often cited as the
most critical for learning in an online environment (Oregon, McCoy,
& Carmon-Johnson, 2018). Social presence can be understood as
online interactions teachers have with each other in relation to PD
activities (Holmes, Signer, & MacLeod, 2010). Social presence in-
teractions can take many forms including sharing work, asyn-
chronous discussions, and real-time conversation through social
media. Through these interactions, teachers can develop relation-
ships with others online, expand their professional networks, and
foster learning. Collaborating and sharing are often valued by par-
ticipants and allow them to establish a greater support network
(Salmon, Gregory, Dona, & Ross, 2015). A lack of social presence can
have a negative effect on teacher learning and may discourage
teachers from engaging in online PD if they believe their peers are
unlikely to engage with them (Smith & Sivo, 2012).
Teacher presence refers to the role of the instructor or creator of
the online PD. It includes: (a) course design and organization, (b)
role as facilitator, and (c) direct instruction they provide (Wendt &
Courduff, 2018). Research on online PD has found that individuals
believe they are learning content and are more motivated to do so
when a positive, consistent teacher presence has been established
(Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Baker, 2010). Additionally, increased
amounts of teacher presence often leads to higher degrees of
satisfaction and overall sense of community on the part of partic-
ipants (Ladyshewsky, 2013).
However, the decision to enroll in online PD is often based more
on delivery format and accessibility than who the instructor is or
what they will provide (Mupinga, Nora, & Yaw, 2006). What is often
most important to individuals enrolled is that the teacher provides
clear requirements, feedback, and responds in a timely manner
(Preisman, 2014). Limited research suggests that teacher presence
has less impact on learning than social presence (Holmes et al.,
2010; Rodesiler, 2017). Therefore, researchers have suggested that
instructors in online PD place their efforts on design, facilitation,
and feedback (Cheawjindarkarn, Suwannatthachote, &
Theeraroungchaisri, 2012; Fetzner, 2013).
3. Theoretical perspective
Our research is informed by (a) social learning theories (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978) regarding learning generally, (b)
theories of learning in a mobile age (Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula,
2007) regarding learning online, and (c) motivation (Wigfield,
Tonks, & Klauda, 2016) regarding teachers' motive to engage in
online PD. Social learning theories describe how individual learning
occurs through social interactions with others and is situated in
one's context (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). From this
perspective, online PD can effectively support individual teachers'
 S.A. Parsons et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 33e42
professional learning if it allows for social educative engagement
with other professionals and if it is adaptable to the learner's spe-
cific context. Technological tools appear to be especially situated to
meet these aspects of professional learning. That is, online learning
supports multiple avenues for social interaction with other
educational professionals across the nation and, indeed, the globe
while allowing the individual learner to adapt the content,
methods, and strategies to her/his specific context.
Sharples et al. (2007) presented “a theory of learning for the
mobile age” (p. 221), which aligns with social learning theories
described previously. They explain that the Internet and mobile
technologies are making access to knowledge easy and ubiquitous.
Individuals now have the opportunity to access knowledge on-
demand across time and space, moving within and through con-
tent and revisiting it as needed. Learning now takes on a more fluid
approach that can be controlled and shaped by the individual and
not regulated into a narrow, singular path by any one person.
Additionally, the mobile age allows for more learning to occur
outside official spaces, such as classrooms, and can take place in
long, extended sessions or in brief chunks of time. Because mobile
learning can be interactive, individuals are able to create a path,
which in turn creates a network of ideas that is unique to their
learning (Simpson, Walsh, & Rowsell, 2013).
These scholars demonstrate that just as theories are moving
toward personalized, learner-centered, and lifelong views of
learning, technologies are moving toward personalized, supple,
user-centered, and durable formats. This theory, then, suggests that
learning and technology are dialectical in that each new develop-
ment in either compels advancement in the other. Therefore, PD
opportunities are inevitably moving in more technologically-
oriented directions, and it is important to understand more about
teachers’ perceptions of technology-enhanced PD formats.
Teachers' motivation to engage in online PD informed was an
important aspect of this study. We conceptualized motivation
through the lens of expectancy-value theory (Eccles et al., 1983).
Expectancy refers to one's expectation of success (Can I succeed at
this task?) and value refers to the value one places on engaging in a
task (Do I want to complete this task?). Value is the aspect that is
especially important in the current study. That is, what benefit do
teachers expect, perceive, or experience from engaging in online
PD? These expectations, perceptions, and experiences guide their
motives for engaging in online PD.
4. Method
We used survey methods to address our research questions.
Survey methods are appropriate when the research aims to capture
participants' characteristics or their perspectives about a topic or
phenomenon (Baumann & Bason, 2011; Berends, 2006; Bielick,
2016). In this study, we sought to explore U.S. teachers’ previous
experiences with online PD and their perceptions of different
possible formats for online PD, so survey methods were fitting.
4.1. Development of the survey
Development of the survey took place in several phases and was
guided by our research questions and theoretical framework. Based
on our research questions and theoretical framework, we first
identified four survey constructs or overarching areas of inquiry: (a)
teachers’ previous experiences with online PD, (b) their motivation
for participating in online PD, (c) their reflections on the usefulness
of online PD, and (d) their likelihood of participating in different
types of online PD. Next, we developed a series of items repre-
senting each survey construct. For each construct we included
items for both formal and informal online PD, such as personal
35
learning networks through platforms like Twitter (Macia  & Garcia,
2016), since informal online PD is increasingly undertaken by
teachers.
Survey item development began with a large pool of items that
were each identified as aligning with one of our four areas of in-
quiry to ensure construct validity. Each item was discussed by the
research team and some items were eliminated or refined based on
the extent to which they were aligned with our areas of inquiry,
informed by our theoretical framework, clear, appropriate, and
necessary for answering our research questions. Specifically, the
focus of the research team in this process was to (a) avoid jargon
and ambiguous terms, (b) remove double-barreled questions, (c)
provide mutually exclusive response options, (d) present appro-
priate context for items, and (e) avoid leading questions (Bielick,
2016). The items aligned with our theoretical framework in that
questions investigated (a) the extent to which teachers could
interact with other teachers in social PD environments, (b) the
degree to which teachers embraced various technological ad-
vances, and (c) teachers’ motivation to engage in online PD based
upon their expectancies and the value they placed on the PD. Once
all members of the research team approved a selection of items, the
survey was prepared in a digital format using Qualitrics research
software.
Next, cognitive interviews (Willis, 2005) were conducted with a
convenience sample of teachers at a partner school of our univer-
sity. According to Haeger, Lambert, Kizie, and Gieser (2012), “The
cognitive interview method has come to be viewed as an important
means to ensure the quality and accuracy of survey instruments
and is used to identify and analyze sources of response error in
survey questionnaires” (p. 2). Cognitive interviews focus on the
cognitive processes used by respondents to answer questions in a
survey or questionnaire to understand if and how they understand
the questions in the way intended by the researcher (Haeger et al.,
2012). This process enables the researcher to ensure that questions
can be easily comprehended, are interpreted in the way intended
by the researcher, and are answerable (Collins, 2003, pp. 229e238).
To conduct the cognitive interview, the lead researcher pre-
sented each item of the survey to three teachers since teachers
were the target population for our survey. The teachers read each
item individually and discussed what they thought each item was
asking and gave feedback on the content and presentation of the
items as well as the survey overall. The researcher probed their
responses and took notes on the teachers’ feedback. The research
team revised the survey accordingly, resulting in 44 items of
varying formats (4 open-ended questions, 10 Likert scale questions,
8 dichotomous response questions, 4 multiple choice questions, 13
ranking questions, and 5 demographic questions). Table 1 shows
the number of items associated with each construct of the survey
(the survey is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybqzrkxt).
4.2. Survey dissemination and participants
With survey research, a larger sample size is almost always
better since it increases the validity of the conclusions drawn from
the data and the probability that the sample is representative of the
population (Baumann & Bason, 2011). Therefore, we used multiple
sampling strategies to recruit a large number of teacher re-
spondents. First, we distributed the survey link to our professional
contacts working in schools and asked them to distribute it widely.
Next, we distributed the survey link to our professional networks
via social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn). We then
took a more systematic approach. Two graduate research assistants
conducted an online search to randomly select one elementary
school, one middle school, and one high school from each state in
the United States. The only requirement for selection was that the
36 S.A. Parsons et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 33e42

Table 1
Items associated with each survey construct.

Survey Construct Number of Sample Item

Items

Previous experiences with online PD 4 Have you ever participated in any formal professional development that was delivered at least partially online
(completely online, hybrid format, etc.)?
Motivation for participating in online PD 8 How important is it to have the following benefits when you participate in online PD?
Usefulness of online PD 14 What, if anything, primarily prevented you from applying what you learned from the online PD to your classroom
instruction?
Likelihood of participating in various 13 How likely would you be to engage in the following form of professional development?:
forms of online PD -An expert teacher app that allows you to ask a question of an educational expert

schools had to list the teachers’ email addresses online. The survey From this sample, 87.6% identified as female and 12.4% as male.
link was sent to each of the teachers in the identified schools. The Slightly over forty percent of respondents taught elementary
focus on recruiting U.S. teachers was based upon the design of the school, 13.9% taught middle school, 9.8% taught high school, and
survey, which was completed by researchers in a U.S. context. 36.1% taught other levels (e.g., positions that spanned these levels
Therefore, the questions were created based upon experiences in or pre-service teachers). Within these respondents, 10% were pre-
U.S. settings. service teachers, 26.3% had between 1 and 5 years of experience
A total of 380 individuals responded to the survey. However, we teaching, 14.3% had 6e10 years of experience, 17.5% had 11e15 years
chose to focus our analysis on the 258 participants who answered of experience, 13.1% had 16e20 years of experience, and 18.7% had
50% or more of the questions and did not indicate an international taught for more than 20 years.
location. Out of the 258 participants, only seven individuals failed
to answer all of the items. To determine specifically where partic- 4.3. Data analysis
ipants were from, we used location data collected during the sur-
vey. Location data for the final sample revealed responses from two All close-ended survey responses were analyzed descriptively
countries outside of the United States (one response from the and displayed in a variety of tables and graphs to allow the re-
Netherlands and one response from Algeria), and responses from searchers to see patterns in the data. The researchers collabora-
41 different states as well as the District of Columbia (D.C.). Because tively analyzed the displayed data to draw conclusions. The analysis
our population of interest is U.S. educators, two respondents were was driven by the research questions (What are teachers' re-
removed from the sample because they teach outside of the U.S. flections on their experiences with online PD? What are teachers'
Five responses did not contain location information. See Table 2 for perceptions of different approaches to online PD? How are teach-
response frequencies by state. ers' reflections on their experiences related to their perceptions of
different approaches to online PD?); the theoretical framework
(social learning, learning in a mobile age, and motivation); and the
Table 2 four areas of inquiry: (a) teachers’ previous experiences with online
Number of respondents by state. PD, (b) their motivation for participating in online PD, (c) their
reflections on the usefulness of online PD, and (d) their likelihood of
State n
participating in different types of online PD. Two open-ended re-
Virginia 116 sponses were analyzed using a content analysis approach
North Carolina 17
Maryland 13
(Neuendorf, 2002) in which we read through all the responses and
Oklahoma 7 created initial labeling categories based on our research questions.
Kentucky 6 Labeling categories were then grouped for similarity and final
New York 6 thematic categories were developed.
Iowa 5
Kansas 5
Michigan 5 5. Results
New Hampshire 5
Alabama 4
We present the results by research question. The survey soft-
California 4
D.C. 4 ware allowed us to direct respondents who indicated that they had
Georgia 4 previously participated in online PD to complete the entire survey,
Nebraska 4 which included items about their reflections on previous experi-
Utah 4 ences (research question 1) as well as items related to their per-
Idaho 3
Indiana 3
ceptions of proposed online PD formats (research question 2).
New Jersey 3 Respondents who indicated that they had not previously partici-
New Mexico 3 pated in online PD were directed straight to the items pertinent to
Tennessee 3 research question 2.
West Virginia 3
Wyoming 3
Illinois 2 5.1. Research question 1: what are teachers’ reflections on their
Missouri 2 experiences with online PD?
South Carolina 2
Texas 2
We first present teachers’ reported previous experiences with
Note. One participant responded for the following online PD. Next, we describe their reported motives for partici-
states: Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Min-
pating in the online PD. Then, we report on how useful teachers
nesota, Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, found the online PD.
Wisconsin. Teachers' previous experiences with online PD. Of the
 S.A. Parsons et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 33e42 37

teachers responding to the survey, 77.1% reported they had Table 4

participated in some form of formal online PD. An analysis of Teachers’ reasons for participating in online professional development.

teachers’ open-ended responses about the topic of the PD in which Response %

they participated resulted in 11 categories of online PD, which are It was more convenient to participate online 38.1
listed in Table 3. It was mandatory that I participate online 34.0
Teachers were also asked to provide an open-ended response There was no option to participate face-to-face 19.3
about how the PD was delivered. Analysis revealed that the most Other 6.1
It was less expensive to participate online 2.5
common experience with online PD was related to a content area.
Of 454 responses (teachers could list up to five), 34.8% focused on Note. N ¼ 213.
content area learning (i.e., PD on literacy, math, etc.). Next most
common (20.3%) was a focus on technology, followed by school
noted their PD experience was not beneficial (see Fig. 1). The ma-
safety and procedures (12.9%). School safety and procedures
jority of teachers said they were able to apply what they learned
included PD on addressing bullying or learning about student
from the online PD to their teaching.
confidentiality laws, for example. The next most common topic of
We ran a two-tailed independent t-test to investigate how
online PD experiences was a focus on instruction that was not
teachers' perceptions of the benefit of online PD related to the
content specific (9.7%).
reason they participated in online PD in the past. The data met the
Teachers were also asked about their experiences with informal
assumptions of normality, independence, and homogeneity of
online PD such as participation in a Twitter meetup, Facebook
variance. We compared teachers who engaged in online PD because
group, or anything online that was not part of an official PD offering.
it was mandated (n ¼ 104) to teachers who engaged in online PD
Only 5.4% of teachers reported that they had participated in
because it was convenient (n ¼ 80). Results indicated teachers who
informal online PD.
chose to participate in this type of PD because of convenience
Teachers’ motivations for participating in online PD. To un-
perceived the PD as significantly more beneficial (M ¼ 3.63,
derstand why teachers engage in online PD, we asked teachers to
SD ¼ 0.83) than teachers who participated in online PD because it
report on their reasons for participating or not participating on
was mandatory (M ¼ 3.18, SD ¼ 0.93), t(182) ¼ 3.34, p < .003,
online PD, as well as their expectations for participation in online
d ¼ 0.50. Based on Cohen's (1988) guidelines, this is a moderate
PD. Many teachers (38.1%) reported participating in online PD
effect size.
because it is more convenient than other forms of PD. Closely
Not only did a majority of teachers perceive that their partici-
following that response, 34% of teachers reported that their
pation in online PD was moderately or largely beneficial, but a
participation in online PD was mandatory. A full report of responses
majority of teachers also indicated that they were able to apply
is provided in Table 4.
what they learned through the online PD to their teaching. More
Regarding their reasons for not participating in online PD, a
than a third of teachers, 38.4%, indicated that they could apply what
majority of teachers who did not participate in online PD (63.8%)
they learned to their teaching to a moderate extent. Almost as many
reported that they were not aware of any online PD offerings, with a
teachers, 35.9%, believed they could apply what they learned to a
smaller percentage (27.6%) indicating that they preferred to
large extent, 20.2% thought they could apply the PD to a small
participate in face-to-face PD. None of the respondents attributed
extent, with only 3% of teachers indicating that they could not apply
their lack of participation to a belief that online PD would not be
what they learned to their teaching (see Fig. 2).
useful. A full listing of responses to this item is provided in Table 5.
We also asked teachers to report the barriers that prevented
Finally, teachers reported on the importance of receiving
them from applying what they learned from their participation in
particular benefits when they participate in online PD. They
online PD to their classroom instruction. Nearly half (45.4%) re-
perceived the ability to access materials anytime as the most
ported that they were able to apply what they learned and did not
important benefit of online PD and perceived the ability to connect
encounter barriers to application. Following this response, the most
with people outside of their immediate geographical area as the
common responses were that the PD was not relevant to their
least important benefit of online PD. See Table 6 for a full report of
teaching (14.8%) and that there was no time for teachers to plan
responses.
instruction based on what they had learned (13.8%). A full listing of
Perceived usefulness of online PD. Of the teachers who had
responses is provided in Table 7.
experienced a formal online PD offering, most found some benefit
In another item about teachers’ reflections on their online PD
to their experience. A total of 44.7% of teachers rated their experi-
experiences, we asked teachers who participated in online PD to
ence as largely or extremely beneficial; 39.1% indicated that it was
indicate if they had experienced seven specific benefits (e.g., ability
moderately beneficial, 14.2% found it slightly beneficial, and 2%
to proceed at your own pace, access anytime, connection with
people outside your area). Teachers confirmed that they had
experienced most of these benefits in their online PD (see Fig. 3).
Table 3
The reported topics of participants’ online PD experiences.
The most common benefits noted by the teachers were the ability
to work at their own pace, having access to PD materials at any
Code % time, and receiving the opportunity to reflect and discuss with
Content (e.g., literacy, math, science, history, etc.) 34.8 other teachers. The only benefit that the majority of teachers did
Technology 20.3 not receive from online PD was access to resources that were not
School Safety and Procedures (e.g., CPR, identifying child abuse) 12.9
available in their local area.
Instruction (e.g., co-teaching, differentiation) 9.7
Exceptionalities (i.e., special education or giftedness) 6.2
ELL, Culture, or Diversity 5.1
5.2. Research question 2: what are teachers’ perceptions of different
Assessment 3.7
Miscellaneous 2.6 approaches to online PD?
Classroom Management 2.0
Preservice Teachers 1.8 To gain an understanding of teachers' perceptions of different
Wellness (e.g., self-care) .9 approaches to online PD, we asked teachers to rate the likelihood
Note: N ¼ 454. that they would participate in different online PD activities (see
38 S.A. Parsons et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 33e42

Table 5
Teachers’ reasons for not participating in online professional development.

Response %

I am not aware of any online professional development offerings 63.8

I prefer to participate in face-to-face professional development 27.6
It is too expensive 3.4
I don't think I have the technical skills needed to participate in online professional development 1.7
I do not have the equipment I need to participate online 1.7
I do not receive credit from my school or district for online professional development 1.7
I do not think it would be useful 0.0

Table 6
Frequency of responses to survey questions on the importance of potential online PD benefits.

Potential Benefits Very/Extremely Important Somewhat/Moderately Important Not at all Important

Access anytime 90.9% 9.1% 0.0%

Real-time solutions 79.6% 20.4% 0.0%
Access to resources not available 77.2% 20.4% 2.3%
Ongoing support 72.7% 25% 2.3%
Opportunity to reflect and discuss 63.7% 31.8% 4.5%
Connection with people outside area 27.3% 65.9% 6.8%

Fig. 1. Participants' responses regarding how beneficial the online PD was to them.

Table 8). The most popular activities included access to a video li-
brary of exemplary literacy instruction, student profile videos in
which teachers work with students with diverse literacy needs, and
an online young adult literature/children's literature book club. On
the other hand, the least popular activities included earning badges
for participating in online PD, working in gamified PD in which
there are elements of games such as challenges and levels, and a
scavenger hunt where teachers share aspects of their teaching with
their online community.
5.3. Research question 3: how are teachers’ reflections on their
experiences related to their perceptions of different approaches to
online PD?
We ran a series of two-tailed independent t tests to determine if
there were differences in the likelihood of teachers participating in
various types of online PD based on their evaluations of past ex-
periences with online PD. For this analysis we compared teachers
who felt their participation in past online PD was largely or
extremely beneficial (n ¼ 86) with teachers who described their
experiences with online PD as moderately beneficial, slightly
beneficial, or not beneficial (n ¼ 107). The data met the assump-
tions of normality, independence, and homogeneity of variance. We
conducted 13 t tests to answer this question; because of this, and
because of the previous t-test used to help answer our second
research question, we used a Bonferroni correction in order to
determine the significance of the group differences. With the
Bonferroni correction, we considered differences statistically sig-
nificant if they had a p value less than .003.
Our analyses revealed significant group differences for two
types of online PD. First, teachers who had more positive experi-
ences indicated they were more likely to engage in an online
community of practice (M ¼ 3.79, SD ¼ 1.19) compared to teachers
who found online PD moderately, slightly, or not beneficial
(M ¼ 3.17, SD ¼ 1.35), t(191) ¼ 3.36, p < .003, d ¼ 0.49. Based on
Cohen's (1988) criteria, this is a moderate effect size. Second,
 S.A. Parsons et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 33e42 39

Fig. 2. Participants' responses regarding the extent to which they could apply what they learned in online PD.

Table 7 Table 8
Perceived barriers to applying information learned through online PD. Means and standard deviations for teachers’ ratings of likelihood they would
participate in different online PD activities.
Response %
Activity M SD
Nothing. I was able to apply what I learned 45.4
It was not relevant to my teaching 14.8 Video library 3.67 2.92
I did not have time to plan instruction based on what I learned 13.8 Student profiles 3.61 2.76
I did not have the tools/materials I needed 9.2 Online young adult literature/children's lit. Book club 3.39 3.09
Other 9.2 Online community of practice 3.37 1.32
I meant to implement what I learned, but never got around to it 6.1 Student perspectives 3.28 1.38
I was not allowed by my school's policies/curriculum 1.5 Online video lesson study 3.04 1.42
An expert teacher app. 3.02 1.49
Virtual reality 2.90 1.49
Teaching challenges 2.80 1.43
teachers who perceived past online PD as largely or extremely Real-time instructional feedback 2.48 1.49
beneficial rated themselves as significantly more likely to use a Scavenger hunt 2.46 1.44
video library of teachers working with students who have a variety Gamified PD 2.35 1.40
Badges for participation 2.30 1.43
of needs (M ¼ 3.92, SD ¼ 1.15) compared with teachers who found
online PD less beneficial (M ¼ 3.53, SD ¼ 1.29), t(190) ¼ 2.16, Note: 1 (unlikely) e 5 (very likely).
p < .003, d ¼ 0.31. Based on Cohen's (1988) criteria, this is a small
effect size.
6. Discussion

Professional development plays an important role in teachers'

Fig. 3. Participants' responses regarding the specific benefits of online PD.
growth, and advances in technology are facilitating new and
different forms of PD for teachers. In spite of the international
proliferation of online teaching and learning, limited empirical
work has explored teachers' perceptions of participating in online
PD or the efficacy of online PD. In the study reported here, re-
searchers conducted a survey to learn about U.S. teachers’ experi-
ences in online PD, their motivation for participating in online PD,
their reflections on the usefulness of online PD, and their likelihood
of participating in different types of online PD.
Results demonstrated that a majority of teachers in this study
(77%) had participated in online PD, and a majority of those
teachers found it either extremely (45%) or moderately (39%)
beneficial. Only 2% of participants expressed that the online PD was
not beneficial. From our motivational lens of expectancy-value, it
appears that the teachers in this study value online PD. Similarly,
most teachers in this study believed that they could apply what
they learned in the online PD to a large (36%) or a moderate (38%)
extent. Only 3% of teachers said they could not apply what they
learned. Teachers indicated that many factors made the online PD
beneficial, especially the ability to access the PD at any time and the
40 S.A. Parsons et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 33e42
ability to complete the PD at their own pace. Interestingly, we found
that teachers who chose to participate in online PD found it more
beneficial than teachers who were required to participate in the
online PD; these differences were statistically significant. This
result aligns with previous research on face-to-face PD, which has
found that voluntary participation supports teacher buy-in and
appears to lead to enhanced student outcomes (Desimone &
Stuckey, 2014).
The survey also asked teachers who had not participated in
online PD why they had not participated. A majority of those
teachers (65%) expressed that they were not aware of any online PD
offerings, and only 27% noted that they preferred face-to-face PD.
This finding suggests that the teachers in this study were open to
the idea of online PD, but they may not have been exposed to of-
ferings, indicating the need for more opportunities for teachers to
participate in online PD. We interpret these results with caution,
though, because as noted in the Limitations section, the re-
spondents to this survey may disproportionally include teachers
who have an interest in online PD given the self-selected nature of
participation.
An unexpected finding of the current research was that only
5.4% of the respondents mentioned participating in informal online
PD. Given the popularity of Twitter, for example, for online
educator PD (Carpenter & Krutka, 2015; Macia  & Garcia, 2016), we
were surprised that this percentage was so low. We wonder if
participants misunderstood what we meant by informal online PD
or whether we overestimate the number of teachers who engage in
such informal online experiences.
Proposed formats for future online PD that were notably
appealing to the teachers in this study included access to a video
library, student profiles, online children's book club, and an online
community of practice. These results align with the social learning
theories that guided this research in that a video library, an online
book club, and an online community of practice are all social ex-
periences. Watching a video of effective teaching embodies vicar-
ious learning that is central to Bandura's (1989) social cognitive
theory. An online book club and an online community of practice
align with Vygotsky's (1978) perspective that learning is an inher-
ently social activity and that it is through social interactions that
learning is crystalized. These results also align with previous
research on face-to-face PD that indicates that effective PD includes
collaboration (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009; Desimone & Stuckey,
2014; Duffy, 2004; Starkey et al., 2009) and they are similar to
professional learning communities, which have empirical support
in face-to-face (Prenger, Poortman, & Handelzalts, 2017; Vescio,
Ross, & Adams, 2008; Wood, 2007) and in online settings
(Schlager et al., 2009; Trust et al., 2016).
Yet, these findings could also be interpreted in ways that chal-
lenge current understandings of effective PD and social learning
theory. Teachers in the current study reported that the most
beneficial aspect of participating in online PD was the ability to
work at their own pace and access materials at any time. Similarly,
the opportunity to reflect and discuss ideas with other teachers and
the opportunity to connect with teachers outside their local area
were the least popular reasons for participating in online PD. Access
to an online video library and student profiles were reported as the
top two most desirable forms of PD for respondents. In regard to
teachers having access to an online video library and student pro-
files, although teachers would undoubtedly be learning from
others’ experiences, they would be doing it alone and according to
their own schedule.
These results force us to question the extent to which existing
social learning theories apply in online environments. Although it
seems that teachers want to learn from each other, in online en-
vironments that desire may be limited to vicarious learning
experiences rather than through direct interactions with other
teachers. Teachers in this study perceived that they would learn
from simply watching others’ practices even without the oppor-
tunity for discussion. Alternately, it may be that teachers perceive
that the benefits of working on their own and on their own
schedule outweigh the benefits potentially gained from discussion
with other teachers, which would require them to participate in a
designated setting and time. Certainly, these results give us many
points for consideration.
This alignment between social learning theories and teachers’
reported preferences for interactive online PD beseeches additional
theorizing and research related to how social learning theories
translate to technology-enhanced settings. These learning theories,
after all, were shaped before the internet was even available.
Sharples et al. (2007) suggest that these traditional learning the-
ories align with learning in a technological age. Our data support
this alignment as a preference. However, empirical research is
needed to further investigate this application of traditional theory
in new and ever-changing technological spaces.
In this study, we also examined the preferences in light of pre-
vious experiences with online PD. Were there differences in their
preferences if they perceived their previous experiences as more or
less beneficial? Of the 13 possible online PD formats we proposed,
only two of the options demonstrated statistically significant dif-
ferences and the effect sizes of those differences were moderate or
small. Therefore, for the teachers in this study, it seems that per-
ceptions of the benefit of previous online PD experiences does not
strongly influence teachers’ preferred format for future online PD.
In interpreting the results of this survey, we also looked for
patterns in the more and less appealing formats of online PD that
we proposed. One pattern we noticed was that none of the more
appealing formats included feedback. The video library, online
book club, and online community of practice are all opportunities
to learn from and with other education professionals, but none of
them includes receiving feedback on their instruction. This finding
is understandable. Proposed online formats such as the real-time
instructional feedback can be intimidating to teachers, especially
if you were receiving feedback from a stranger. Receiving feedback
from someone else can reduce one's expectation for “success,” and
from an expectancy-value perspective, may reduce motivation to
engage in the activity. Another pattern we noticed was that the
three least appealing proposed formats for online PD (badges for
participation, gamified PD, and scavenger hunts) may be perceived
as gimmicky. The teachers in this study did not appear to want
“fun” online PD; they seemed to be seeking new ideas and collab-
oration. We interpret this finding as the teachers taking their jobs
seriously and wanting to be treated as professionals. We know that
badges, gamified PD, and scavenger hunts are serious forms of PD,
but we do wonder if the seemingly gimmicky nature of these for-
mats negatively influenced respondents' perceptions of them.
This study seems to confirm that online PD is widespread in the
U.S., and results indicated that the teachers in this study tended to
find it beneficial. However, this study also shows that online PD can
take on many different formats, each of which necessitate addi-
tional study. Inquiry into online PD lacks a comprehensive empir-
ical base, and the studies that exist tend to focus on small-scale
initiatives in specific settings. These types of studies are important,
but the field needs many more of them, studying different formats
and structures of online PD. If we can accumulate a number of
rigorously conducted studies on the processes and outcomes of
online PD, the field can begin to look across studies to find patterns
in the aspects of online PD that are most advantageous for teachers
to further inform theory and practice. The research agenda moving
forward needs to include detailed descriptions of online PD
implementation and of teachers' experiences in and uses of online
 S.A. Parsons et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 33e42
PD. Especially needed are studies that track changes in teachers’
practice as a result of online PD. And as noted previously, this type
of study needs to be conducted repeatedly in different locations,
using different types of online PD formats. The results of this study
provide guidance in where to begin additional studies of online PD.
7. Limitations
Limitations of this study include its reliance on self-report data
and its sampling. Self-report data are limiting because they can
sometimes be influenced by social desirability, i.e., respondents
reporting what they think the researchers want to hear. We
attempted to offset this limitation by designing an anonymous
survey that was administered online and included a relatively large
number of participants. Another limitation is the potential partic-
ipation bias, i.e., that teachers who selected to complete the survey
may be particularly interested in online learning and, therefore,
may be more positive about its benefit given their interest. As we
note above in the Discussion section, we were surprised that few
teachers reported participating in informal online PD. This result
could be due to diverse interpretations of what we meant by
‘informal online PD,’ so respondents' interpretation of the termi-
nology we used is potentially another limitation of this study. This
study is also limited in the generalizability by the sample being
limited to U.S. participants. Therefore, the results do not represent
all teachers as data were not collected from teachers outside the
U.S. Teachers who work in different contexts have different cul-
tures, conditions, experiences, and perceptions. Nonetheless, this
study provides a good starting place for other researchers to
conduct a similar study in different contexts to build a collective
research base on teachers' perceptions of online PD.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.006.
References
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over
time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of
social, cognitive, and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Net-
works, 12(3), 3e22. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i3.66.
Albers, P., Cho, A. R., Shin, J. H., Pang, M. E., Angay-Crowder, T., Odo, D. M., &
Turnbull, S. (2015). Critical spaces for critical times: Global conversations in
literacy research as an open professional development and practices resource.
Global Education Review, 2(3), 46e67.
Albers, P., Turnbull, S., & Angay-Crowder, T. (2015). Questions of matter: Critical
conversations in online spaces. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2),
171e181. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.446.
Amendum, S. J., & Fitzgerald, J. (2013). Does structure of content delivery or degree
of professional development support matter for student reading growth in
high-poverty settings? Journal of Literacy Research, 45(4), 465e502. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1086296X13504157.
Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson, & F. Elloumi
(Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 33e60). Athabasca, Canada:
Athabasca University.
Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online stu-
dent affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online,
7(1), 1e30. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2010.1.2.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child devel-
opment. Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1e60). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Bates, M. S., Phalen, L., & Moran, C. (2016). Online professional development: A
primer. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(5), 70e73. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0031721716629662.
Baumann, J. F., & Bason, J. J. (2011). Survey research. In N. K. Duke, & M. H. Mallette
(Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (2nd. ed., pp. 404e426). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Bean, R. M., & Morewood, A. L. (2011). Best practices in professional development
for improving literacy instruction in schools. In L. M. Morrow, & L. B. Gambrell
(Eds.), Best practices for literacy instruction (4th. ed., pp. 455e478). New York,
NY: Guilford.
41
Berends, M. (2006). Survey methods in educational research. In J. L. Green,
G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in edu-
cation research (pp. 623e640). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bielick, S. (2016). Surveys and questionnaires. In D. Wyse, N. Selwyn, E. Smith, &
L. E. Suter (Eds.), The BERA/SAGE handbook of educational research (pp.
640e658). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the
terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3e15. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X033008003.
Campana, J. (2014). Learning for work and professional development: The signifi-
cance of Informal learning networks of digital media industry professionals.
International Journal of Training Research, 12(3), 213e226. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14480220.2014.11082043.
Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Engagement through microblogging:
Educator professional development via Twitter. Professional Development in
Education, 41(4), 707e748. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.939294.
Cheawjindakarn, B., Suwannatthachote, P., & Theeraroungchaisri, A. (2012). Critical
success factors for online distance learning in higher education: A review of the
literature. Scientific Research, 3, 61e66. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.38B014.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods
(Vol. 12). Quality of Life Research, 3.
Colwell, J., & Hutchison, A. C. (2018). Considering a Twitter-based professional
learning network in literacy education. Literacy Research and Instruction, 57(1),
5e25. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2017.1370749.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we
learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3),
291e309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher profes-
sional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
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), 8e9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108327554.
Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional develop-
ment: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher,
38(3), 181e199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140.
Desimone, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Sustaining teacher professional development. 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. 467e482). New York, NY: Guilford.
Duffy, G. G. (2004). Teachers who improve reading achievement: What research
says about what they do and how to develop them. In D. Strickland, &
M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Improving reading achievement through professional develop-
ment (pp. 3e22). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Eccles (Parsons), J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L.,
et al. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),
Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75e146). San Francisco, CA: W. H.
Freeman.
Elliot, J. C. (2017). The evolution from traditional to online professional develop-
ment: A review. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(3), 114e125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1305304.
Fetzner, M. (2013). What do unsuccessful students want us to know? Journal of
Asynchronous Learning, 17(1), 13e27. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v17i1.319.
Fischer, C., Fishman, B., Dede, C., Eisenkraft, A., Frumin, K., Foster, B., & McCoy, A.
(2018). Investigating relationships between school context, teacher professional
development, teaching practices, and student achievement in response to a
nationwide science reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 107e121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.011.
Fishman, B. J., Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B. W., Vath, R., Park, G., Johnson, H.,
et al. (2013). Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional
development in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher
Education, 64(5), 426e438. doi:201177/0022487113494413.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London,
UK: Falmer Press.
Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Walters, K., Song, M., & Warner, E.
(2010). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study: Find-
ings after the first year of implementation (NCEE 2010-4009). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from: https://ies.
ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104009/pdf/20104010.pdf.
Geldenhuys, J. L., & Oosthuizen, L. C. (2015). Challenges influencing teachers'
involvement in continuous professional development: A South African
perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 203e212. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.010.
Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Jayanthi, M., Kim, J. S., & Santoro, L. E. (2010). Teacher study
group: Impact of the professional development model on reading instruction
and student outcomes in first grade classrooms. American Educational Research
Journal, 47(3), 694e739.
Haeger, H., Lambert, A. D., Kinzie, J., & Fieser, J. (2012, June). Using cognitive in-
terviews to improve survey instruments. In A paper presented at the annual
meeting of the association for institutional research, new orleans, LA.
Holmes, A., Signer, B., & MacLeod, A. (2010). Professional development at a distance:
A mixed-methods study exploring inservice teachers' views on presence online.
Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(2), 76e85. https://doi.org/
42 S.A. Parsons et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 33e42
10.1080/21532974.2010.10784660.
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of pro-
fessional development programs on teachers' knowledge, practice, student
outcomes, and efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1e26.
Jensen, B., Sonnemann, J., Roberts-Hull, K., & Hunter, A. (2016). Beyond PD: Teacher
professional learning in high-performing systems. Washington, DC: National
Center on Education and the Economy.
Kragler, S., 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.
483e505). New York, NY: Guilford.
Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2013). Instructor presence in online courses and student
satisfaction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 7(1),
1e23.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Lindvall, J., Helenius, O., & Wiberg, M. (2018). Critical features of professional
development programs: Comparing content focus and impact of two large-
scale programs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 121e131. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.013.
Macia, M., & Garcia, I. (2016). Informal online communities and networks as a
source of teacher professional development: A review. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 55, 291e307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.021.
Mupinga, D. M., Nora, R. T., & Yaw, D. C. (2006). The learning styles, expectations,
and needs of online students. College Teaching, 54(1), 185e189. https://doi.org/
10.3200/CTCH.54.1.185-189.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Neuman, S. B., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of a practice-based approach to
professional development: Coaching makes a difference. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(2), 532e566.
Oregon, E., McCoy, L., & Carmon-Johnson, L. (2018). Case analysis: Exploring the
application of using rich media technologies and social presence to decrease
attrition in an online graduate program. The Journal of Educators Online, 15(2).
https://www.thejeo.com/archive/2018_15_2/oregon_mccoy_carmonjohnson.
Penuel, W. R., Gallagher, L. P., & Moorthy, S. (2011). Preparing teachers to design
sequences of instruction in earth systems science: A comparison of three pro-
fessional development programs. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4),
996e1025. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410864.
Piasta, S. B., Dynia, J. M., Justice, L. M., Pentimonti, J. M., Kaderavek, J. N., &
Schatshneider, C. (2010). Impact of professional development on preschool
teachers' print references during shared reading alouds: A latent growth curve
analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(4), 343e380.
Poquet, O., Kovanovic, V., de Vries, P., Hennis, T., Joksimovic, S., Gasevic, D., et al.
(2018). Social presence in massive open online courses. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(3), 44e68. https://doi.org/10.19173/
irrodl.v19i3.3370.
Parsons, S. A., Parsons, A. W., Nuland, L. R., Dodman, S. L., & Scales, W. D. (2014). Year
one of a longitudinal literacy professional development initiative in an urban
school. Journal of School Connections, 5(1), 29e57.
Parsons, A.W., Parsons, S. A., Dodman, S. L., Nuland, L. R., Pierczynski, M., Ramirez, E.
M. (in press). Longitudinal literacy professional development in an urban
elementary charter school. The Journal of Educational Research. doi:10.1080/
00220671.2018.1552915.
Preisman, K. A. (2014). Teaching presence in online education: From the instructor's
point of view. Teaching Presence in Online Education, 18(3), 1e16. https://doi.org/
10.24059/olj.v18i3.446.
Prenger, R., Poortman, C. L., & Handelzalts, A. (2017). Factors influencing teachers'
professional development in networked professional learning communities.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 77e90. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2017.08.014.
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4e15.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029001004.
Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional
development on higher education teachers' beliefs and intentions towards
learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29,
122e131.
Robinson, B. (2008). Using distance education and ICT to improve access, equity and
quality in rural teachers' professional development in western China. Interna-
tional Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1), 1e17.
Rodesiler, L. (2017). For teachers, by teachers: An exploration of teacher-generated
online professional development. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Educa-
tion, 33(4), 138e147. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1347535.
Salmon, G., Gregory, J., Dona, K. L., & Ross, B. (2015). Experimental online devel-
opment for educators: The example of the Carpe Diem MOOC. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 46(3), 542e556.
Schlager, M. S., Farooq, U., Fusco, J., Schank, P., & Dwyer, N. (2009). Analyzing online
teacher networks: Cyber networks require cyber research tools. Journal of
Teacher Education, 60(1), 86e100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328487.
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. https://doi.org/
10.19030/cier.v9i1.9546.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age.
In R. Andrews, & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning
research (pp. 221e247). London, United Kingdom: SAGE.
Simpson, A., Walsh, M., & Rowsell, J. (2013). The digital reading path: Researching
modes and multidirectionality with iPads. Literacy, 47(3), 123e130. https://
doi.org/10.1111/lit.12009.
Smith, J., & Sivo, S. A. (2012). Predicting continued use of online teacher professional
development and the influence of social presence and sociability. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 43(6), 871e882. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2011.01223.x.
Starkey, L., Yates, A., Meyer, L. H., Hall, C., Taylor, M., Stevens, S., et al. (2009). Pro-
fessional development design: Embedding educational reform in New Zealand.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 181e189. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2008.08.007.
Swan Dagen, A., & Bean, R. M. (2014). High-quality research-based professional
development: An essential for enhancing high-quality teaching. 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. 42e63).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Trust, T. (2017). Motivation, empowerment, and innovation: Teachers' beliefs about
how participating in the Edmodo Math Subject Community shapes teaching
and learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(1e2), 16e30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1291317.
Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). “Together we are better”: Profes-
sional learning networks for teachers. Computers & Education, 102, 15e34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.007.
U.K. Office for Standards in Education. (2006). The logical chain: Continuing profes-
sional development in effective schools: A report. London, United Kingdom:
Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning
powered by technology. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512681.pdf.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80e91. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2007.01.004.
Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., Souberman, E., & Trans. (1978).
Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher devel-
opment in the U.S. and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
Wendt, J., & Courduff, J. (2018). The relationship between teacher presence and
student course outcomes in an online international population. International
Journal on E-Learning, 17(1), 111e129.
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Klauda, S. L. (2016). Expectancy-value theory. In
K. R. Wentezel, & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd. ed.,
pp. 55e74). New York, NY: Routledge.
Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire
design.Thousand oaks. CA: SAGE.
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers' learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new
infrastructure for the status quo? Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699e739.
Wynants, S., & Dennis, J. (2018). Professional development in an online context:
Opportunities and challenges from the voices of college faculty. Journal of Ed-
ucators Online, 15(1), 1e13. https://doi.org/10.9742/JEO2018.15.1.2.
Yoon, S., Liu, L., & Goh, S. (2010). Convergent adaptation in small groups: Under-
standing professional development activities through a complex systems lens.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 319e344.