Professional Development Integrating Technology: Does Delivery Format Matter?.

AbstractThe goal of the two Power of Data (POD) projects was to increase science, technology and math skills through the implementation of project-based learning modules that teach students how to solve problems through data collection and analysis utilizing geospatial technologies. Professional development institutes in two formats were offered to encourage teachers to implement the modules. We compared teacher learning, teacher implementation, and student learning from the two different professional development formats to examine how each format supported teachers to implement the modules, and, ultimately, improve student understanding. Teacher surveys, content and technology assessments, classroom observations, student assessments, and student work samples were analyzed for comparison between a two-week summer institute and monthly meetings held throughout the academic year. Teachers and students from both formats showed improvement in all areas assessed, yet there was not a large effect on student outcomes based on the delivery format between the professional development sessions.Keywords: professional development, technology, implementation, geospatial technology, project based instructionIntroductionA common goal of professional development (PD) is to improve student learning, but there are many mediating factors between teacher experiences during the PD, levels of implementation, and subsequent student learning in the classroom. Technology further complicates implementation due to factors such as teachers' content knowledge, support at the school site, and classroom resources (Mumtaz, 2000; Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011). The purpose of this study is to examine how two different PD formats support teachers to implement technology into classrooms to improve student understanding. The assumption is that changes in student understanding are only observed after teachers implement the professional development intervention, so if student understanding is to increase, we must first improve teachers' understanding and skills as needed to change classroom practices.The two Power of Data (POD) projects sought to increase science, technology, and math skills through learning modules that teach students how to solve problems through data collection and analysis utilizing geospatial technologies. The PD team included geology faculty, science teacher professional developers, geospatial technology experts, evaluators and science education researchers. The focus of the POD PD was to improve teacher pedagogy through the use of ArcGIS software technology, while purposefully alleviating barriers to implementation of new technology. During the PD institutes, time was spent emphasizing student projects related to claims and evidence, data collection, and presentation using geospatial technology. With equivalent information presented and resources afforded to each set of teachers during PD, the question remained: Did the delivery format of the teacher PD institute affect teacher and student program outcomes? To answer this question we compared teacher learning, teacher implementation, and student learning from two different PD formats. One form of the PD was provided through an intensive two-week summer institute (SI), and the other utilized monthly or bimonthly meetings throughout the academic year (AY). POD Professional Development ModelThe POD PD model was based on research on best practices in professional development for teachers in which technology is integrated into the classroom instruction (Flick & Bell, 2000; Kerski, 2003; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003; National Research Council [NRC], 2007; Parker, Carlson, & Na'im, 2007; Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002). Research on models of teacher change includes the following variables to account for levels of implementation: teachers' beliefs and attitudes (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Mumtaz, 2000), fears of failure (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Mumtaz, 2000), comfort level (Barnett & Mark, 2010; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Kubitskey, Fishman, & Marx, 2002; Trautmann & MaKinster, 2009), and pedagogical content knowledge (Gess-Newsome, 2002; NRC, 2007). …