Running head: IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Impact of Technology Professional Development on Teacher Self-Efficacy

Shavaun A. Mincey
Kennesaw University
Dr. Joanna Gilmore
April 26, 2015

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

2

INTRODUCTION
Orientation to the topic:
It is evident that the advancement of technology is responsible for a global face lift that
we see locally and nationally in the classroom. This change has affected the way we run
businesses, market product, communicate socially, and educate our children. In the school
system, it is pervasive that technology is linked to student achievement. For a long time, our
country has been trying to get to the root of the problem in our education system. We are being
out performed by many other countries. Gurria (2013) reports from the Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) that American fifteen-year-olds ranked seventeenth in reading,
twentieth in Science, and twenty-seventh in mathematics among the thirty-four countries of the
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). These rankings are lower
than the scores reported in 2009. Despite the increase of scores amongst subgroups like minority
groups and students from various socio-economic backgrounds, we are still being outperformed.
PISA (2013) reports, the top-performing countries are Korea, Japan, Switzerland, and Canada.
Advances in technology have sparked the latest trend in education, educational
technology. According to Grinager (2006), education technology typically refers to the use of
hardware, software, and other digital technologies to advanced learning, teaching and
administration in K-12 and post-secondary education settings. Grinager also reports educators
have identified links between technology and intermediate goals that lead to high achievement,
including improved student behavior, engagement and attendance; improved opportunities for
educator professional development; increased efficiency in classroom administrative tasks; and

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

3

improved communication among stakeholders, including parents, teachers, students and

administrators.
Although there is a preponderance of data that links technology to student achievement,
technology in the classroom is widely underutilized. According to a National Center for
Education Statistics 2009 survey, 97 percent of public school teachers had at least one computer
in their classroom. However, only 40 percent said that they or their students used computers
often during instructional time. The lack of resources in schools plays a huge part in the lack of
technology integration. However, based on the findings in the literature review, even if we found
the resources to put into all of our schools, this will not change the fact that students, the majority
of the time, will not have access to teachers who know how to use that technology well enough
to support current 21st-century teaching and learning. Beglaou (2010) suggests high-quality
professional development (PD) is central to any education improvement effort, particularly those
that seek to integrate technology in support of classroom instruction. A problem that is not
widely discussed is the shortage of self-efficacy amongst teachers as it relates to technology.
Bandora (2009) suggests, unless people believe that they can produce desired effects and
forestall undesired ones by their actions, they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the
face of difficulties. Many teachers view the advancement of technology and their lack of training
and skill for the new advancements as difficulties. Numerous teachers who believe they are far
from mastery of technology tools, often avoid introducing and/or using these tools with students.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to test whether on-going technology professional development has
an impact on teachers self-efficacy regarding technology integration.

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

4

Research Questions:
Does high-quality technology professional development affect how much teachers use and assign
technology-based activities in the intermediate elementary school classroom?
How does an immersion professional development model influence the frequencies of teachers
uses of technology-integrated instructional activities in the intermediate elementary school
classroom and affect their self-efficacy?
Is the under-utilization of technology in the classroom caused by teachers lack of skill or lack of
willingness to embrace change?
Importance of the Study:
The purpose of the study is to show the benefits of ongoing technology professional
development. It is well known that technology, when implemented effectively, will positively
impact student achievement. Grinager (2006) details several studies that support the impacts of
technology; one of which was a 2002 study of Cognitive Tutor Algebra 1 on ninth grade students
enrolled in algebra courses found that students who used the software tutor performed better than
those who did not. Additionally, those students were 69 percent more likely to pass traditional
geometry and 71 percent more likely to pass traditional algebra II.
`The most recent technology trend comes far behind a time when most of the current teachers
were being taught in college. Could it be that the absence of training in college effects how
teachers view their ability to evolve into technology practitioners? This study seeks to determine
if there is an impact on the underutilization of technology in the classroom and teachers self-

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

5

efficacy when educators are immersed in ongoing professional development around technology
integration.
Definition of Terms:
Self-Efficacy: Refers to an individual's belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviors
necessary to produce specific performance attainments. Self-efficacy reflects confidence in the
ability to exert control over one's own motivation, behavior, and social environment.
Technology Integration: Technology is not taught in a separate class, but integrated into the
classroom. Not only do teachers use technology in ways to disseminate information and enhance
engagement in the classroom, but students use technology to learn content and show their
understanding of content, not just their expertise with a tool.
High Quality Professional Development: Beglaou (2010) describes high-quality professional
development (PD) as long duration, follow-up support, active engagement in relevant activities,
access to new technologies, collaboration and community building among participants, and a
shared understanding of student achievement.
In-service: training intended for those actively engaged in a particular profession.
Literature Review
Our society has known for years that there is a stark connection between technology
usage and high engagement amongst children. Children can become entranced in a digital
activity for hours at the time without waver. Television, video games, and now the Internet
effortlessly captivates the attention of children and teens on a daily basis. With the advancement

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

6

of technology in our civilization, the entire world has evolved into a more tech-driven
environment. The American Psychologist Association (2009) states, although the pleasures and
frustrations of technology are now widely recognized in personal life, in the classroom, and in
the boardroom, technologys impact on social and organizational life is often not fully
appreciated.
Consequently, with the evolution of society comes the evolution of school systems. Many
teachers have eagerly embraced technology integration because of its impact on student
performance in the classroom. Grianger (2006) reports that educators have also identified links
between technology and intermediate goals that lead to high achievement, including improved
student behavior, engagement and attendance; improved opportunities for educator professional
development; increased efficiency in classroom administrative tasks; and improved
communication among stakeholders, including parents, teachers, students and administrators. If
teachers know the impact of educational technology, then one must ponder the reasons for lack
of participation in the classroom. The Greaves Group (2010) states that, schools are in a
technology implementation crisis. Although educational technology best practices have a
significant positive impact, they are not widely and consistently practiced. They go on to discuss
the complexities of technology implementation. Many factors are at play. Some of the mentioned
factors were insufficient bandwidth to support the increase in devices, high student-computer
ratios, and teacher knowledge of implementation best practices. The group also reports that even
in some schools where there is a 1:1 ratio of computers, consistency and usage is still low. The
study identifies nine key implementation factors that are linked most strongly to education
success. The four high-leverage implementation factors are intervention classes that use
technology daily, principal leading change management training at least monthly, online

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

7

collaboration among students daily, and core curriculum using technology at least weekly. TGG
(2010) properly implemented 1:1 schools are well positioned to enjoy substantial improvement.
According to Cuban (2001) observers of technology use in schools and classrooms have
long noted the relatively modest use of educational technology within most schools and
classrooms. Means (2010) adds despite decades of national, state and local promotion of
educational uses of technology, classroom practice in most schools has changed little from that
of the mid-20th century. While there has been an increase in teacher use of technology, there has
not been an increase of teacher-assignment of technology-based learning activities for students.
Some studies suggest that the implementation requires more than funding, equipment, and
resources but also ongoing effort and staff development. According to Yoon (2007), programs
with a minimum of 14 hours of professional development led to positive and significant effects
on student achievement.
Monica Beglau conducted a study on Connecting Instructional Technology Professional
Development to Teacher and Student Outcomes. Beglau (2010) suggests high-quality
professional development (PD) is central to any education improvement effort, particularly those
that seek to integrate technology in support of classroom instruction. She describes high-quality
PD as long duration, follow-up support, active engagement in relevant activities, access to new
technologies, collaboration and community building among participants, and a shared
understanding of student achievement. Beglau and her team created a two-year comprehensive
PD for 269 teachers consisting of 250 hours and support, including 10-12 classroom visits each
year. The study evaluated the relationship of student achievement with professional development
fidelity, lesson plan quality, and classroom visits. The studies found that students performance in
grade 3 was positively correlated to having a higher-quality lesson plan and there was a number

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

8

of positive relationships between student achievement and overall PD fidelity scores. The study
also found that with classroom visits there was a significant positive relationship between the
amount of time that instructional specialists spent engaged in lesson planning and student
achievement in grades 4 and 5, and a significant negative relationship between the amount of
time they spent modeling instruction and student achievement in grades 3, 4, and 5.
In the discussion, Beglau highlights important revelations of the study. Beglau (2010)
confirms of all the fidelity factors, technology utilization has the most consistent relationship
with student achievement across all grades. Teachers have different experiences based on their
coaching experiences. The most effective PD was connected to more time spent on lesson
planning, reflective practice, and problem solving, contrarily, less effective PD was linked to
technical assistance and modeling instruction. This study gives another perspective to the
stereotypical one-time technology workshops that are specific to software, hardware, or
resources. It displayed how instructional-technology PD, integrated into a comprehensive PD
program, can lead to higher student achievement as a result of effective technology integration.
Despite the fact that there are numerous resources and studies that link better student
performance to technology usage, there are times where teachers experience the opposite. In a
recent study, Chu (2014) reports that without proper treatment, the performance of students using
existing online learning strategies, known to be effective, might be disappointing or may even
negatively affect the students learning achievements. Chu and his team conducted a study with a
group of third, fourth, and fifth graders. In each grade level there was an experimental group and
control group that tested the impact of student achievement when students learned a skill through
a learning management system or the traditional way. The studies found that students who
learned through the learning system performed lower than their counterparts that received

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

9

instruction the traditional way. Through further inquiry researchers found that students had too
much of a cognitive load. The cognitive load is described in the article as a system of limited
capacity; therefore, only a limited number of elements can be handled at the same time (Chu,
2014). The learning system in this study required almost ten times as much mastery as the
traditional classroom; this also contributed to a significantly higher cognitive load than the
control group. According to Chu (2014), because the students were repeatedly asked to find
learning materials from both the real-world and the digital world environments in a limited
period of time and there were many learning tasks to be completed, students working memories
were likely to be overloaded. Other factors that negatively impacted the students included timed
assignments, which resulted in students rushing and marking random answers, anxiety from the
immediate feedback, and the pressure felt as they saw other students progress through the
program faster than them. Chu (2014) concludes that developing proper learning guidance
procedures or tools will help students improve their learning achievements in a mobile and
ubiquitous learning environment. That is, with a proper learning design and the decrease of the
cognitive load, the effect of mobile and ubiquitous learning can be much better than that of the
traditional approach.
There are many studies that show the positive impacts of technology integration on
student achievement. Cady & Terrell (2008) report that the integrated technology model of
instruction made a significant difference in female students feelings toward computer
importance; this led to higher levels of self-efficacy. In a study with 5th grade students and
technology integration with math and science the results are similar. Serin (2011) found that the
use of the interactive learning package assisted learners in increasing their achievement and
developing their problem solving skills in the fifth year science and technology section. There

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

10

was a study of 53 students that were involved in computer based learning scored in the 64th
percentile whereas the control group scored in the 50th percentile. The study also showed that
although the computers did not have a positive effect in every area, it was still noted that those
students learned more in less time and enjoyed their classes more. The Greave Group (2010)
reports the following data: tech-transformed classes saw an 81% increase with high stakes test
and all other schools that were not tech-transformed saw 65%. Tech-transformed schools saw a
63% decrease in disciplinary action and all other schools saw 51%. Tech-transformed schools
saw a 59% reduction in dropout rates and all other schools saw a 45% reduction. It is evident that
the benefits of technology integration outweigh the pessimistic views and negative research that
accompanies the widespread educational technology trend.
In a study on the effects of long-term technology professional development on teacher
self-efficacy, George Watson (2006), found numerous studies to support that ongoing technology
professional development increases teacher self-efficacy leading to positive student achievement
results in the classroom. Watson also discovered similar findings when he conducted research on
389 teachers in West Virginia who were surveyed before and after an ongoing professional
development. To measure self-efficacy, Watson used the Personal Internet Teaching Efficacy
Beliefs Scale. Teachers that participated in a week long summer technology PD and various
online courses during the year following were mailed a follow up survey six years later. 196 of
responses were deemed usable. The results were clear. The data indicated that teachers who
completed the workshop and follow-up courses had improved their self-efficacy. Watson (2006)
stated, this hints at the success of this type of professional programs in changing the classroom
teaching environment. The long-term contact between the in-service teachers and the project,
through the online courses, would appear to provide teachers with the extra help they need to feel

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

11

confident about the Internet in the classroom. This extra help seemed to have allowed to teachers
to better bridge the gap between using the Internet to simply receive information and the
classroom application of applying what they learned using a Web 2.0 tool.
Several conclusions about technology integration can be drawn from the literature. There
are many studies that deal with a type of technology integration (e.g. studies specific to gender,
content area, and teacher buy-in and student achievement). As society continues to advance
technologically, the need for technology implementation will grow. Three things will play a
crucial role in revamping our classroom: technology integration PD, effective learning systems
designs, and lower student to computer ratio. This research unveils two directions for further
inquiry: technology integration PD and effective learning systems, and resources. Bottino and
Robotti (2007) suggest that in order to bring meaningful innovation to teaching and learning
processes, changes are required in content, organization and management of classroom activity.
Many research studies reveal that it is pointless from a pedagogical point of view to make
computers and educational digital media available in schools, if their use is not properly
embedded in suitably articulated education itineraries in which the whole learning context is
taken into account (Dias De Figueiredo & Afonso, 2006). We change with the times. Thats the
crux of evolution and our animalist bend towards adaptations. Teachers are the key to the
change; teachers want to change. They always have, but with something new comes the need for
training. More study is needed in the area of educational technology professional development
and its impact on teacher self-efficacy. If we invest more resources and time into training
teachers in technology best practices, that learning could transfer into the classroom. If principals
lead the charge in technology PD, and give teachers time, training, and support, we could see the

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

12

change in teacher self-efficacy that will trigger the student achievement that weve been
awaiting.
METHODOLOGY
Design: I used a quantitative approach by comparing pre- and post- self-evaluation data received
from a survey that examines the impact of ongoing technology PD.
Participants: The participants consisted of randomly chosen elementary teachers of record that
attend the high-quality professional development. The professional development had several
components. Teachers attended monthly face-to-face time instruction on best practices of
technology integration, were required to implement what was learned in PD in their classroom,
engaged in group lesson plans for high engaging technology integrated lessons, and collaborated
in an online chat room about the progress and road blocks of the journey. Data was collected in
one form: survey data from the teachers given before training and after. The data was used to
determine if there was a relationship to teachers that receive high-quality professional
development and teacher self-efficacy. At the end, I compared the means of each question to
determine if there has been a significant change in how teachers view themselves and use
technology in their classrooms.
Data Sources and Collection: For data analysis I compared the scores using a paired samples ttest. This data was collected and analyzed through a Google forms survey. To address the
research questions I used pre- and post- data from a survey that addresses teachers attitudes
towards technology usage, professional development, how much they use technology personally,
how much they use technology in their lessons, and how frequently they assign technology based
lessons in the classroom. The quantitative survey questions are shown in the table below. The

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

13

survey will ask participants to rank themselves on a scale of one to five where 1 corresponds toineffective, 2 corresponds to-needs improvement, 3 corresponds to -developing, 4 corresponds to
-proficient, and 5 corresponds to-exemplary.
Rate yourselves on a scale of 1-5 where, 1-ineffective, 2-needs improvement, 3-developing,
4-proficient, 5-exemplary. Circle the score that applies to you.
How would you rate your overall skill in using technology?
1
2
3
4
5
How would you rate your comfort level of students bringing
1
2
3
4
5
their own devices into the classroom?
How would you rate how often you use technology as you
1
2
3
4
5
teach lessons?
How would you rate how often you integrate student-centered
1
2
3
4
5
technology into your classroom instruction?
How would you rate how you use technology it differentiate
1
2
3
4
5
lessons?
How would you rate how your students use technology to
1
2
3
4
5
create product that shows their learning?
Think about your students. How would you rate your students'
1
2
3
4
5
overall skill in using technology?
How would you rate your overall willingness to try new
1
2
3
4
5
technology devices and/or websites/apps in the classroom?
How would you rate your overall willingness to introduce
your students to new technology devices, websites, and/or
1
2
3
4
5
apps in the classroom?

Reliability/Validity: Because I compared a teachers pre-survey- data against their post-surveydata, I believe that the survey will lend itself to a deeper level of personal reflection since they
will not have to compare themselves to others. Validity may come into play because I am
researching a group of teachers that volunteer to attend the technology professional development
in the spring. Because I am already facilitating the professional development my hope is that my
current third-fifth grade teachers will continue to attend. When the current participants take the
survey halfway through the PD about their technology usage, their scores will probably be higher
than they would have been had they taken the survey in the beginning of the school year before

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

14

the staff development started. Additionally this may limit external validity if I attempted to
generalize the results of this study to a group of teachers who were NOT interested in
participating in PD.
RESULTS
Technology Integration Self-Evaluation Survey
Before
After
P-Value
Mean
Mean
Categories
2.36
4.09
0.00001536
Overall skill in technology
Comfort w/BYOD
2.00
3.36
0.001086
(bring your own device)policy
3.09
4.45
0.00008523
Use of technology when teaching
2.63
3.63
0.006891
Integrate student-centered technology
2.63
3.63
0.001185071
Use of technology to differentiate content
Assigning students tasks to create using
2.27
3.63
0.004669
technology with apps or 2.0 tools
2.36
3.90
0.000018470
8
Students overall skill in technology
3.18
4.54
0.001641
Teacher willing to use new technology
Teacher willing to teach students new
3.0
4.54
0.001961725
technology

t
Stat
5.3
5
3.5
1
4.6
0
2.6
9
3.4
7
2.8
7
5.2
7

T
Crit
1.72

3.3
3
3.2
5

1.72

1.72
1.72
1.72
1.72
1.72
1.72

1.72

In this survey, the pre-survey mean for all participants was 2.61 and the post-survey mean was
3.97, a significant increase. A paired samples t-test was performed using the pre- and post- data
to identify if ongoing technology professional development had an impact on teacher selfefficacy. The question that showed the most growth was teachers perception in their overall skill
in technology integration. For that question, the overall after mean was a 4.09, higher than the
before mean that was 2.36. This item showed a significant difference (df=20, p=0.00001). This

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

15

ostensibly has a direct correlation with the teachers belief of the students overall skill in
technology. That category showed the second highest increase, with the post data mean being
3.90 and pre data mean being 2.36; there was a significant increase base on the one tailed stats
(df=20, p=0.00001). Contrarily, the questions that had the least impact were, assigning students
tasks to create with technology, integrating student-centered technology, teachers willing to teach
students new technology, and teachers willingness to use new technology. The least impact of
them all was teachers integrating student centered technology (df=20, p=0.001). Although the
increase was not as great with the bottom four questions, all p values were significantly less than
0.05.
Discussion
The structure of this research was aligned with Beglaus research described in the
literature review. The design of this research differed in quantity of participants and hours of
professional development. Beglaus reseach consisted of 269 participants, 250 hours of support
that included 10-12 classroom visits. The structure of this research consisted of 17 particpants, 11
of which completed the survey, 30 hours of support, that does not include the 3-7 classroom oneon-one support sessions. Despite the difference in quantity of the participants and hours of
support, the results of both studies reported favorable results of how technology professional
development impacted teachers.
Furthermore, the data analysis of the information from the pre- and post- survey showed
an increase in teachers perception of themselves. Meaning, ongoing technology professional
development has a positive impact on whether teachers believe they can carry out the task of
technology integration. There were some interesting implications based on the data. The under-

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

16

utilization of technology integration was not based on teachers willingness to learn new tools or
teach students new tools. Those questions were not impacted by the professional development. In
fact based on the mean averages of the post data, most teachers were already willing and using
technology while they were teaching. Where teachers scored lowest in the pre- data was how
they perceived their overall technology skills and how they viewed their students overall
technology skills. The willingness was there, and combining that with the ongoing technology
professional development, teacher self-efficacy increased.
Because of time limitations, it was difficult to determine how teachers defined student
centered technology, and student created product (scored on the higher end). I would recommend
that before beginning research on the topic of technology integration, the researcher needs to
define key vocabulary terms associated with technology integration. Technology integration
looks different from school. I would also recommend exposing teachers to the TIMs Matrix or to
LoTi levels. These two resources will help teachers understand what the different levels of
technology implementation in the classroom look like.
Consequently, this means that when designing PD on tech integration, the focus does not
need to be on teacher buy-in, because the willingness of teachers is already present. Once a
teacher has set a goal of integrating technology, learning the new tool and how to effectively
teach with it should be the primary goal. The National Staff Development Council recommends
that 25% of professional development time be devoted to learning and collaborating with
colleagues. Technology PD needs to be on-going, and include direct training on the tool,
coaching support in the classroom, and one-on-one sessions of reflection. This study, along with
the research highlighted in the literature review suggests that the effects of good professional
development alone are reason enough to provide training whenever possible.

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

17

References
Bandura, A. (2009). Self-efficacy:The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.
Beglau, M. (2010). Connecting instructional technology professional development to teacher
and student outcomes. Journal of Research in Technology Education, 43(1), 53-74. (2010,
September 1). Retrieved September 21, 2014, from Galileo.
Bottino, R., & Roboti, E. (2007). Transforming classroom teaching & learning through
technology. Educational Technology and Science, 10(4), 174-186. (2007, January 1).
Retrieved September 21, 2014, from Eric.
Cady, D., & Terrell, S. (2007). The Effect of the Integration of Computing Technology in a
Science Curriculum on Female Students' Self-Efficacy Attitudes. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 36(3), 277286-277286. (2007, January 1). Retrieved September 1, 2014,
from Eric.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Dias De Figueiredo, A., & Afonso, A.P. (2006). Managing learning in virtual settings: the
role of context, Hershey, PA, USA: Information Science Publishing
Grinager, H. (2006). How Education Technology Leads to Improved Student
Achievement.Education Issues, 1-12.
Greaves, T.; Hayes, J. Wilson, L.; Glelntak, M. & Peterson, R., The Technology Fractor:
Nine keys to Student Acievement and Cost-Effectiveness, MDR 2010.
Gurria, Angel. PISA 2012 Results in Focus. 1st ed. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2015
How Technology Changes Everything (and Nothing) in Psychology. (2009). American
Psychologist, 64(5), 454-463. (2009, July 1). Retrieved September 21, 2014, from Eric.
Hui-Chun Chu, C. (2014). Potential Negative Effects of Mobile Learning on Students'
Learning achievement and cognitive load. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society,17(1), 332-344. (2014, January 1). Retrieved September 21, 2014, from Galileo.
Means, B. (2010). Technology and Education Change: Focus on Student Learning. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285-307. (2010, March 1). Retrieved
September 21, 2014, from Galileo.

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

18

Serin, O. (2011). The effects of the computer-based instruction on the achievement and
problem solving skills of the science and technology students. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 10(1), 1-19. (2011, January 1). Retrieved September 22, 2014, from
Eric.
Watson, G. R. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher
self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 151-165. (2006).
Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K.L. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues and
Asnswers Report, REL 2007 No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Reigional Education Laboratory Southwest.

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

19

Appendix

Technology Integration
Think about the Technology Professional Development you've received all year. How has
it impacted your technology integration in the classroom? Rate yourselves "before" the
Professional Development if you are taking this in January youve received this year, and
after" if youre taking this in April on a scale of 1-5 where 1 is ineffective and 5 is
exemplary.
* Required
How would you rate your overall skill in using technology?
1-ineffective, 2-needs improvement, 3-developing, 4-proficient, 5-exemplary

Beginning of the year prior to 20142015 Technology Professional

Development

Now, end of the year, after receiving

Technology Professional Development
in 2014-2015

1
2
3
4
5
How would you rate your comfort level of students bringing their own
devices into the classroom?
1-ineffective, 2-needs improvement, 3-developing, 4-proficient, 5-exemplary

Beginning of the year prior to 20142015 Technology Professional

Development
1

Now, end of the year, after receiving

Technology Professional Development
in 2014-2015

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

20
Beginning of the year prior to 20142015 Technology Professional
Development

Now, end of the year, after receiving

Technology Professional Development
in 2014-2015

2
3
4
5
How would you rate how often you use technology as you teach
lessons?
1-ineffective, 2-needs improvement, 3-developing, 4-proficient, 5-exemplary

Beginning of the year prior to 20142015 Technology Professional

Development

Now, end of the year, after receiving

Technology Professional Development
in 2014-2015

1
2
3
4
5
How would you rate how often you integrate student-centered
technology into your classroom instruction?
1-ineffective, 2-needs improvement, 3-developing, 4-proficient, 5-exemplary

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

21
Beginning of the year prior to 20142015 Technology Professional
Development

Now, end of the year, after receiving

Technology Professional Development
in 2014-2015

1
2
3
4
5
How would you rate how you use technology it differentiate lessons?
1-ineffective, 2-needs improvement, 3-developing, 4-proficient, 5-exemplary

Beginning of the year prior to 20142015 Technology Professional

Development

Now, end of the year, after receiving

Technology Professional Development
in 2014-2015

1
2
3
4
5
How would you rate how your students use technology to create
product that shows their learning?
1-ineffective, 2-needs improvement, 3-developing, 4-proficient, 5-exemplary

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

22
Beginning of the year prior to 20142015 Technology Professional
Development

Now, end of the year, after receiving

Technology Professional Development
in 2014-2015

1
2
3
4
5
Think about your students. How would you rate your students' overall
skill in using technology?
1-ineffective, 2-needs improvement, 3-developing, 4-proficient, 5-exemplary

Beginning of the year prior to 20142015 Technology Professional

Development

Now, end of the year, after receiving

Technology Professional Development
in 2014-2015

1
2
3
4
5
How would you rate your overall willingness to try new technology
devices and/or websites/apps in the classroom?
1-ineffective, 2-needs improvement, 3-developing, 4-proficient, 5-exemplary

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

23
Beginning of the year prior to 20142015 Technology Professional
Development

Now, end of the year, after receiving

Technology Professional Development
in 2014-2015

1
2
3
4
5
How would you rate your overall willingness to introduce your students
to new technology devices, websites, and/or apps in the classroom?
1-ineffective, 2-needs improvement, 3-developing, 4-proficient, 5-exemplary

Beginning of the year prior to 20142015 Technology Professional

Development
1
2
3
4
5

Now, end of the year, after receiving

Technology Professional Development
in 2014-2015