PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 1

Instructionaltechnologyhasbecomeafrequenttopicofdiscussionintheattemptsto improvestudentperformanceinourschools,butitcontinuestobeutilizedinfrequentlyand ineffectivelyinmanyclassrooms.Therearemanydefinitionsofinstructionaltechnology.Some approachthetermasafieldofstudywhileothersusethetermtodescribeasetoftools.The AssociationforEducationalCommunicationsandTechnologyDefinitionandTerminology Committeedefineseducationaltechnologyasthestudyandethicalpracticeoffacilitating learningandimprovingperformancebycreating,using,andmanagingappropriatetechnological processesandresources(Januszewski&Molenda,2008,p.1).LarryCuban(1986)defines thetermasanydeviceavailabletoteachersforuseininstructingstudentsinamoreefficient andstimulatingmannerthanthesoleuseoftheteachersvoice(p.4).Thoughthedevices classifiedasinstructionaltechnologyhavechangeddramaticallysince1986,thisdefinition,inits simplicity,remainsrelevanttodayandreflectsthedefinitionthatisappliedinthisreviewof literature.

Innovativeclassroomsareabuzzwithproductivediscussionandtheexcitementof learning.Studentsareworkinginteamsonchallengingprojects,askingquestionsof eachother,reviewingeachotherswork,andreferringeachothertonewsourcesof information...Theteamshaveaccesstotechnologyofvariouskinds,enabling themtoaccessworldsofknowledgebeyondtheclassroom,consultwithother experts,assembletheirwork,andshareitwiththeirteachersandclassmates.They alsoknowthattheaudiencefortheirworkliesbeyondtheirclassrooms,intheir families,thecommunity,andvisitorstotheirwebsite.

PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 2 Innovativeclassroomsarenotdefinedbyfixedplacesbutbytheirspiritofcuriosity andcollaborationamongstudents,teachers,andothersinatruelearning community(Chen,2002).

Whenusedinthisway,technologycanbeatransformativetoolforbothteacherandstudent.As thisdescriptionillustrates,itallowsustomoveawayfromteacherdirectedinstructiontoamore studentcentered,constructivistapproach(Liu&Szabo,2009). Constructivismisalearningtheoryfocusedonthelearnerscreationofknowledge throughinteractionswiththematerial.Itreliesuponreflectionandthebuildingofunderstanding throughexperiences(Bruner,1966Piaget,1977Vygotsky,1978).Instructionaltechnology enablesthecreationoflearningopportunitiesthatarestudentcenteredandoftenstudentdriven, elementsofconstructivism.Devicessuchascomputersandtablets,canbeusedtobring elementsoftheoutsideworldintotheclassroomandforthecreationofrealworldexperiences fromwhichstudentscanlearn.Itcreatesanaudiencebeyondthescopeoftheclassroom teacherandotherstudentswhichcanopenthedoortonewlearningopportunitiesthatcan motivateandengagestudentsinwaysthatwerenotpossiblebefore. Technologycontinuestobecomemoreprevalentanditsuseplaysamoreintegralrolein ourparticipationinmodernsociety.Thesedevicesshouldbeutilizedinourclassroomstooffer studentstheopportunitytoengagefullyinthesesocietalnormsthroughoutthelearningprocess. Bylimitingtheuseoftechnologyinschools,wearedeprivingourstudentstheopportunityto learnusingthetoolsthathavetheabilitytobringtheoutsideworldintotheclassroomandbringa newrelevancetotheirlearning.Inthisreviewofliterature,Iwillexploreteacherperceptions towardtechnologyintegrationandtherolethatamorepersonalizedapproachtoprofessional developmentcantakeinpreparingteacherstoutilizetechnologyininnovativewaysintheir

PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 3 classrooms.

TeachersandTechnologyIntegration

Technologyisatthecoreofvirtuallyeveryaspectofourdailylivesandwork,andwe mustleverageittoprovideengagingandpowerfullearningexperiences andcontent,aswellasresourcesandassessmentsthatmeasurestudentachievement inmorecomplete,authentic,andmeaningfulways.Technologybasedlearningand assessmentsystemswillbepivotalinimprovingstudentlearningandgeneratingdata thatcanbeusedtocontinuouslyimprovetheeducationsystematalllevels(National EducationTechnologyPlan,2010,p.ix).

Whileprofessionalsinareassuchasmedicineandlawenforcementhaveintegrated technologyintotheirpracticeinmeaningfulandtransformativeways(Ertmer& OttenbreitLeftwich,2010),todaysteachersusemanyofthesametoolsthatwereusedbytheir predecessors(Cuban,2001).Despitetheadvancesintechnology,itsincreasedavailabilityin schools,andthepotentialforcreatingstudentcenteredlearningintheclassroom,technology usageinclassroomsremainsdisproportionatelylow.Whenteachersdoutilizetechnologyin theirclassrooms,itisoftentoaccomplishlowleveltasksthatsupporttraditional, teacherdirectedinstruction(Ertmer&OttenbreitLeftwich,2010,p.256).Ina2009reportfrom theNationalCenterforEducationalStatistics(Gray,Thomas,&Lewis,2010),theresearchers foundthatwhile97%ofteachershadcomputersavailableintheirclassrooms,only40% indicatedthesewereusedoftenindailyinstruction.Oftheserespondents,teachers sometimesoroftenusedthefollowingforinstructionaloradministrativepurposes:word

PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 4 processingsoftware(96percent),spreadsheetsandgraphingprograms(61percent),software formanagingstudentrecords(80percent),softwareformakingpresentations(63percent),and theInternet(94percent)(p.4).Unlessthingschange,wewillcontinuetousetechnologyasa substituteforpriortechnologiesinsteadofutilizingittotransformthelearningprocessinour schools. ErtmerandOttenbreitLeftwich(2010)foundtheliteraturerelatedtoteacherchangein general,andtechnologyintegrationmorespecifically,hasfocusedextensivelyonthe variables:knowledge,selfefficacy,pedagogicalbeliefs,andculture(p.267).Thesefactorsget totheheartofthematter.Ifateacherdoesnothavethetechnologyskillsnecessary,ameasure ofconfidenceinusingdevices,abeliefsystemcompatiblewiththelearningopportunities technologycanprovide,orthesupportoftheirschoolordistrict,technologyintegrationmaynot seempossibleornecessary.Regardlessofthefactorscontributingtotheunderutilizationof technologyinclassrooms,muchoftheresearchersagreethatcontinuingprofessional developmentfortechnologyisakeycomponentinaplantoincreaseusageamongteachers(Liu &Szabo,2009Zhao,Pugh,Sheldon&Byers,2002Levin&Wadmany,2008). Forteacherstofeelpreparedtointegratetechnologyintotheirclassrooms,theymust receiveinstructiononhowtodoso.Unfortunately,thisisnotalwaysavailable,andwhenitis,itis notalwaysaneffectivelearningopportunity.Intheir1999report,NCESfoundthatonethirdof teachersreportedfeelingwellorverywellpreparedtousetechnologyintheirclassrooms. Whileteachersindicatedthattechnologycontinuingprofessionaldevelopment(CPD)onbasic computerandsoftwareskillswereavailable(forapproximately96%ofrespondents),followupto theseoradvancedtrainingwereofferedlessfrequently(lessthan60%).Thissamereportfound thatoverathreeyearperiod,mostteachers(77%)participatedinprofessionaldevelopment activitiesintheuseofcomputersortheInternetthatlastedtheequivalentoffourdaysorless

PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 5 (i.e.,32orfewhours)(Smerdonetal.,2000,p.51).Astheamountoftechnologyinourschools increases,onewouldassumethatteacherparticipationinCPDtargetingtechnologyintegration wouldalso,howevera2009NCESreportindicatedthat64%oftheteachersinthesample receivedlessthaneighthoursoftechnologytrainingduringtheprevioustwelvemonthperiod (Gray,Thomas,&Lewis,2010).Thedevelopmentandapplicationofadequatecontinuing professionaldevelopmentiscrucialtoempowerteachersintheirimplementationofeducational technology.

ProfessionalDevelopment Historically,teachersprofessionallearningactivitiesfocusedoncontentmaterial, instructionalstrategiesandlearningmodifications,butwiththeincreasedinclusionoftechnology inschools,anewemphasishasbeenplacedontechnologyrelatedcontinuingprofessional development(CPD).Inaliteraturereviewarticlepresentingtheframeworkandmain characteristicsforCPDmodels,Kennedy(2005),identifiesninecategories: training,whichemphasisesshortdurationgroupinstructionbyanexpertonanarrow topic awardbearing,whichemphasisesthecompletionofaprescribedprogramofstudy deficit,cascade,whichusesCPDtoremedyaperceiveddeficiencyinteacher performance standardsbased,whichscaffoldsprofessionaldevelopmentusingprescribedstandards createdtoimproveteacheraccountability coaching/mentoring,whichemphasisesaonetoonerelationshipbetweenindividualsto supportCPD communityofpractice,whichemphasisestherelationshipwithinalearningcommunityto

PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 6 supportCPD: actionresearch,whichemphasisestheteacherasresearcherwithinthecontextoftheir ownpracticeand transformative,whichemphasisesacombinationofpracticesandconditionsthat supportatransformativeagenda(p.246).

Theauthorfindsthatthetrainingmodel,alsoknownastheworkshopmodel,hasbeen,andoften stillis,thedominantformofCPDofferedtoteachers.Thisforminvolvesanexpertdelivering information,whichisdeterminedbytheexpert,toteacherswhoparticipateinthetrainingina passiverole.Thistrainingoftenoccursoffsiteandrarelylastsmorethanoneday.Itdoesnot activelyengageteachersintheprocess,andthestructuredoesnotofferopportunitiesfor teacherstoparticipateinmeaningfulwaysthatmighthaveapositiveimpactonteacher confidenceorgivethenecessarypracticeforthedevelopmentoftechnologyskills. TechnologyCPDhasoftenfollowedthetraditionalapproachtolearningopportunitiesfor teachersbyalsousingthetrainingorworkshopmodel.Theuseofthismodelofferslimitedtime forteacherstoexperimentwiththeuseofthetargetedhardwareorsoftware.Theselearning opportunitiesalsoofferlimitedcollaborationandsharingwithcolleaguesorfollowupwithexperts onceteachershaveanopportunitytoworkwiththetechnologythemselves.Intheirarticle,Zhao, Pugh,Sheldon,andByers(2002)find[m]anyinserviceworkshopsoftentaketheformatof motivationalspeechesbyaforwardlookingvisionaryplussessionsonhowtouseapieceof software(p.511).Teachersneedmorethananimpassionedspeakerandthebasicsofusinga technologicaldevicetosuccessfullyintegrateitsuseintotheirdailypractice.Effective professionallearningisintensive,ongoing,focusedontheclassroom,andoccursduringthe teachersworkday(DarlingHammond,2009).ResearchalsosuggeststhatCPDmodelsthat

PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 7 allowteacherstoroutinelycollaborateandsharewiththeircolleaguesaremoresuccessfulin effectingachangeintheirintegrationoftechnology(Levin&Wadmany,2008Niederhauser& Wessling,2011).

ProfessionalDevelopmenttoEmpower Traditionally,continuingprofessionaldevelopmenthasbeendevelopedwithout considerationoflearningtheory.Forittobeeffective,teachertrainingmustreflectthatinthese instancesteachersarelearnersandinstructionneedstobeplannedaccordingly.Ina professionaldevelopmentcompanionguidetotheLearningFirstAlliancereportonreadingand languageartsinstructionalpractices,Reading(2000)explainedtheneedforachangeinthe approachtoCPD:

Adultlearners,likechildren,needtoinquire,reflect,andrespondtonewideasiftheyare toembracethem.Makingsenseofexperienceandtransformingprofessionalknowledge intodailyteachinghabitstakestime.

Forateachertolearnanewbehaviorandeffectivelytransferittotheclassroom,several stepsareinvolved: 1.Understandingthetheoryandrationaleforthenewcontentandinstruction. 2.Observingamodelinaction. 3.Practicingthenewbehaviorinasafecontext. 4.Tryingoutthebehaviorwithpeersupportintheclassroom(p.8).

Thoughthisstudyfocusedonreadingandlanguageartsinstruction,thesesame

PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 8 recommendations,andamoreconstructivistapproachtolearning,areechoedinmuchofthe currentresearchontechnologyCPD(Zhao,Pugh,Sheldon&Byers,2002Levin&Wadmany, 2008Ertmer&OttenbreitLeftwich,2010Liu&Szabo,2009).Providingtechnologylearning opportunitiesthatarefocusedonapplicationintheclassroomandallowsteacherstoconstruct knowledgeforthemselvesiseffectiveinmakingasustainablechangeinteacherattitudes. AmentoringorcoachingapproachtoCPDallowsforamorepersonalizedapproachto technologyinstructionforteachers.Thiscollaborativeapproachtolearningopportunities emphasizesaonetoonerelationshipbetweenacoachormentorandtheteacher.Theresulting programcanbecomeapersonalizedexperiencebasedontheneedsandinterestsofthe individualteacher.InanarticleanalyzingandevaluatingCPDmodels,Fraser,Kennedy,Reid, andMckinney(2007)determinedthatopportunitiesthatallowgreaterownershipandcontrolof theprocessarelikelytoattendtomorefacetsofthepersonalandsocialaspectsoflearningand arethereforemorelikelytoresultintransformationalprofessionallearningforteachers(p.165). UnderstandingthattheprevalentpracticeinCPDisineffectiveinchangingteacher perceptionsoftechnologyintegration,leadstoaconsiderationofmodelsthatarefoundtobe moresuccessfulinchangingteacherattitudesinenduringways.Inanexploratory,longitudinal studyofsixteachersoverthreeyears,LevinandWadmany(2008)questionedtheeffectiveness oftheonesizefitsallCPDapproachtotechnologyintegrationthatisthebasisofmosttraining andworkshopmodels.Theauthorswentontodeterminethestudycallsfortechnologybased andschoolbasedreformerstoreachtherightbalancebetweenworkingwithteachers individuallyandworkingwithmeaningfulgroups/communitiesofteacher(p.255).Intheirarticle, ErtmerandOttenbreitLeftwich(2010)proposeaCPDthatdevelopsnecessarytechnologyskills whileaddressingtheindividualneedsofteachersbyincorporatingmentoringorcoachingintothe process.

PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 9 Personalizedlearninghasbecomeamuchdiscussedtopicineducation.Despitethe frequentuseofthetermincurrentdiscourse,thereisnouniversallyaccepteddefinitionfor personalizedlearning.TheU.S.DepartmentofEducation,intheir2010NationalEducation TechnologyPlandefinedpersonalizationas:

instructionthatispacedtolearningneeds,tailoredtolearningpreferences,andtailored tospecificinterestsofdifferentlearners.Inanenvironmentthatisfullypersonalized,the learningobjectivesandcontentaswellasthemethodandpacemayallvary(so personalizationencompassesdifferentiationandindividualization)(p.12).

Themajorityoftheresearchonpersonalizedlearningpertainstostudentlearningoutcomes throughitsuse.Referencestoprofessionaldevelopmentintheseinstancescentersonteacher trainingfortheuseofpersonalizedlearningintheirclassrooms.Whenpersonalizedlearningis discussedasamodelforCPD,itisasameansforteacherstodeveloptheirownlearning throughtheuseofonlineresources.Inabriefarticleoutliningthebenefitsofteacherchoicein CPDopportunitiesthroughtheuseofonlineresources,Foote(2013)explainsthatitisameans forteacherstocontroleverythingabouttheirownlearningopportunitiesincludingcontent, context,anddelivery.Anexaminationoftheapplicationofapersonalizedlearningapproachto CPDthatisdeveloped,focusedandmaintainedthroughacollaborativeonetoonerelationship withatechnologycoachormentorisanareathatappearstobelackinginthecurrentresearch.

Conclusion Theresearchshowsthattosuccessfullyintegratetechnologyintotheclassroom, teachersmustdeveloptheskillsandconfidencenecessarytoregarditasanaccessibletool.

PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 10 Thecurrentprofessionaldevelopmentmodelofonesizefitsallworkshopsfocusedon technologyinisolationisnotconducivetoaffectasustainablechangeonteacherattitudesinthis area.Forittobeeffective,teachertrainingmustreflectthatintheseinstancesteachersare learnersandinstructionneedstobeplannedaccordingly.Researchshowsthatcollaborative methodsofteachertrainingandpersonalizedapproachestoCPDofferahigherprobabilityof success.

PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 11
References

Chen,M.(2002).Edutopia:Successstoriesforlearninginthedigitalage.JosseyBassInc.,Publishers.

Cuban,L.(1986).TheClassroomUseofTechnologySince1920.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress, ColumbiaUniversity.

Cuban,L.(2001).Oversoldandunderused:Computersinschools19802000.

DarlingHammond,L.,Wei,R.,Andree,A.,Richardon,N.,Orphanos,S.(2009). Professionallearninginthelearningprofession:Astatusreportonteacher developmentintheUnitedStatesandabroad.NSDC.

Ertmer,P.A.,&OttenbreitLeftwich,A.T.(2010).Teachertechnologychange:Howknowledge,confidence, beliefs,andcultureintersect.JournalofResearchonTechnologyinEducation,42(3),255284.

Foote,C.(2013).FROMPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTTOPERSONALIZEDLEARNING.Library MediaConnection,31(4),3435.

Fraser,C.,Kennedy,A.,Reid,L.,&Mckinney,S.(2007).Teacherscontinuingprofessionaldevelopment: contestedconcepts,understandingsandmodels.Journalofinserviceeducation,33(2),153169.

Gray,L.,Thomas,N.,&Lewis,L.(2010).Teachers'UseofEducationalTechnologyinUSPublicSchools: 2009.FirstLook.NCES2010040.NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.

Januszewski,A.,&Molenda,M.(Eds.).(2008).Educationaltechnology:Adefinitionwithcommentary. Routledge.

PERSONALIZEDPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTANDTECHNOLOGYUSE 12

Kennedy,A.(2005).Modelsofcontinuingprofessionaldevelopment:aframeworkforanalysis.Journalof inserviceeducation,31(2),235250.

Levin,T.,&Wadmany,R.(2008).Teachersviewsonfactorsaffectingeffectiveintegrationofinformation technologyintheclassroom:Developmentalscenery.JournalofTechnologyandTeacherEducation,16(2), 233263.

Liu,Y.,&Szabo,Z.(2009).Teachersattitudestowardtechnologyintegrationinschools:afouryearstudy. TeachersandTeaching:theoryandpractice,15(1),523.

NETP(2010).NationalEducationTechnologyPlan:2010.U.S.DepartmentofEducation,Officeof EducationTechnology.EdPubsDivision,Alexandria,VA.Retrievedfrom http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.

Niederhauser,D.,&Wessling,S.(2011).ProfessionalDevelopment:CatalystforChange?.Learning& LeadingwithTechnology,38(8),3839.

Reading,E.C.(2000).AProfessionalDevelopmentGuide.Washington:LearningFirstAlliance. http://www.learningfirst.org/sites/default/files/assets/readingguideprofessionaldevelopment.pdf.

Smerdon,B.,Cronen,S.,Lanahan,L.,Anderson,J.,Iannotti,N.,&Angeles,J.(2000).TeachersTools. NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,2(4),48.Retrievedfromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001603.pdf.

Zhao,Y.,Pugh,K.,Sheldon,S.,&Byers,J.(2002).Conditionsforclassroomtechnologyinnovations.The TeachersCollegeRecord,104(3),482515.