Running head: TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education and Administrative Leadership

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Lisa J. Manzo
California University of Pennsylvania
July 2020

i

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

© Copyright by
Lisa J. Manzo
All Rights Reserved
July 2020

ii

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

iii

California University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership

We hereby approve the capstone of
Lisa J. Manzo
Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Education

(DEFENSE DATE, SIGNED)
_____________________

__________________________________________
Dr. Peter Aiken
Doctoral Capstone Faculty Committee Chair

_____________________

__________________________________________
Dr. Susan Kandianis
Doctoral Capstone External Committee Member

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

iv

Dedication
I dedicate this body of work to those who have supported me along my academic,
personal, and professional journey. My parents, Peter and Helen, have provided me with
a great deal of love and support throughout my lifetime. They engrained the importance
of a strong work ethic, flexibility, humor, and perseverance within our family. I thank my
siblings, nieces, and nephews for their support. I am grateful for the constant presence
that my sable fawn chihuahua, Lexie, has provided throughout this experience.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

v

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge Christine Klynen, Senior Apple Professional
Learning Specialist, who assisted in conducting the study with the Apple Cohort during
the 2019-2020 school year. I would also like to acknowledge the members of the Apple
Cohort for their outstanding attitudes and mindset. I thank Mrs. Anne McEntire, Dr.
Frank D’Angelo, and Mrs. Jean D’Angelo for their academic, personal, and professional
support. Thank you to Ms. Jennifer Gray for assisting in the editing process. I also thank
Dr. Aiken and Dr. Kandianis for their invaluable contributions, support, and feedback
throughout this research process.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

vi

Table of Contents
Dedication

iv

Acknowledgements

v

Abstract

viii

List of Tables

ix

List of Figures

x

CHAPTER I. Introduction
CHAPTER II. Literature Review
Teacher recognition systems in relation to technology

1-5
6-32
6-11

professional development
Teacher perceptions regarding preparedness for technology integration

11-18

Teacher perceptions regarding student engagement and the ability to

18-24

create quality content
Teacher perceptions of preparedness to design innovative learning

24-31

experiences
Summary
CHAPTER III. Methodology
Introduction

31-32
33-52
33

Purpose

33-37

Settings & Participants

37-39

Intervention & Research Plan

39-42

Research Design, Methods, & Data Collection

42-46

Validity

46-51

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Summary
CHAPTER IV. Data Analysis and Results

vii
51-52
53-72

Introduction

53

Data Analysis

54

Results

54-68

Discussions

69-71

Summary
CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendations

72
73-88

Conclusions

73-84

Future Direction for Research (Recommendations)

84-87

Summary/Concluding Statement

87-88

References

89-91

Appendix A: Apple Cohort Welcome Letter
Appendix B: APLS Survey
Appendix C: IRB Approval Form
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form
Appendix E: CITI Basic Course Certificate
Appendix F:

CITI Conflicts of Interest for Project Personnel Certificate

Appendix G: CITI RCR Basic Course Certificate

93
94-95
96
97-98
99
100
101

Appendix H: IRB Review Process Feedback

102-105

Appendix I:

106-114

IRB Checklist

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

viii

Abstract
The purpose of this Capstone Research Project was to determine whether targeted
technology professional development increased communication, employee engagement,
beliefs about change, and strategic planning among teachers. These four areas of growth
were named in a survey disseminated to all staff members within the study site’s district
during the 2018-2019 school year by an independent education consultant. The
intervention, including a cohort-based sampled, which allowed teachers to engage in coplanning, co-teaching, and sharing days was designed after reviewing previous studies
that showed promising results with in-person support. Surveys created by Apple,
interviews conducted by the researcher, and informal conversations were data sets that
showed the following: teachers’ perceptions of recognition (communication, employee
engagement, beliefs about change), teachers’ perceptions of technology (communication,
employee engagement, and strategic planning), elements of student learning (beliefs
about change and strategic planning), and the frequency of student product creation
(beliefs about change and strategic planning).

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

ix

List of Tables
Table 1. Teacher Preparedness and Technology Integration

59-60

Table 2. Teacher Learning Desires, Student Engagement & Artifacts

63-64

Table 3. Interview Data from Cohort Members

67-68

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

x

List of Figures
Figure 1. APLS Statement Survey

56

Figure 2. Apple Teacher Certification Status

57

Figure 3. Teachers’ Perceptions of Preparedness for Teaching with Technology

58

Figure 4. Student Product Frequency

61

Figure 5. Daily, Often, and Occasionally Frequency

62

Figure 6. Frequency of Student Learning Elements

66

Running head: TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

1

Chapter 1: Introduction
The study site’s district invested approximately $2.8 million on iPad leases over
the course of three academic school years. When making the decision to lease iPads, the
district focused on factors such as return on investment, the capabilities of various
devices, and the ability of the device to support the district’s vision in accordance with
the 21st Century Learning Plan, which laid the foundation for the district’s education
technology program.
Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, students and teachers at study site’s high
school were provided 5th Generation iPads as a means of enhancing equitable
opportunities and learning experiences. Teachers received minimal training; however, in
accordance with the 21st Century Learning Plan, a team of teachers who were either
Google or Apple Teacher certified was elected to become “techsperts” in the building.
The role of the techspert was created to encourage teachers looking to effectively
integrate technology into their lessons, to assist with the development of professional
learning opportunities for staff members, and to support students on an on-demand basis
in a central location.
The 2018-2019 school year marked the rollout of iPad integration at the
elementary level; there were approximately 25 techsperts spread throughout seven
elementary schools who provided the same support to their colleagues and students as the
high school techsperts provided. Unlike their peers, elementary techsperts were not
housed in a central location in each school; their designation as full-time teachers
stipulated that they did not have a duty period in their schedule. During this time, centraland building-level administrators supported the need for techsperts to receive additional

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

2

training to continue their professional learning. The district had been able to send a small
percentage of teachers to trainings at the local intermediate unit, an equity consortium,
and various technology conferences at both the state and national levels.
Through the use of feedback surveys and informal conversations, the Supervisors
of education technology and other administrators noted that teachers were in favor of
greater time allocated to professional learning opportunities based upon choice. The
Supervisors of education technology and techsperts provided a variety of learning
opportunities; teachers were allowed to choose various apps or platforms of interest to
incorporate into their classrooms. However, discussions regarding expectations and the
continuum and progression of digital learning for both teachers and students did not
occur on a regular basis, which led to a lack of buy-in from all staff members.
A climate survey conducted by an independent educational consultant was
conducted in August 2018; the results were released in February 2019. Approximately
48% of employees participated in the survey. The survey results yielded responses, which
acted as an impetus for this research project. The survey identified four major areas of
concern in relation to professional learning opportunities: communication, employee
engagement, beliefs about change, and a focus on strategic planning. When reflecting
upon the investment that the district made for the lease of devices, several issues became
apparent:
1. The district did not allocate time to review and assess the 21st Century
Learning Plan.
2. There had not been an adjustment of the plan by a team based upon the
district’s mission and vision.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

3

3. Choice-based professional development did not always correlate with
increasing student agency and the ability to create.
4. Scaffolded expectations were not presented to teachers regarding
technology integration.
5. Coaching and mentoring was optional at all schools
6. Teachers who utilized technology to allow for greater student agency and
creativity were infrequently recognized.
7. Solid pedagogical lessons that utilized technology were not shared due to
a lack of co-planning time or hesitancy.
Prior to signing the 2019-2020 lease for the middle school, building
administrators and supervisors shared some implementation concerns with the central
office team, who in turn shared them with the vendor, Apple. The result was a cohort of
20 individuals based upon application who were guided by Senior Apple Learning
Specialist, CK, and me, the Supervisor of education technology, 6-12. Included in this
cohort were one principal from the middle school, two elementary teachers, two high
school teachers, and 15 middle school teachers. The rationale was to incorporate other
members of the school community who could assist in replicating the experience in their
own schools. There was no cost to this service; the only financial obligation that the
district experienced involved hiring substitute teachers to cover cohort teachers’ classes
during the showcase days, which were split into two sessions. While this was not a cost
attributed to the research, it could be a cost in the future.
As I formulated the project, I focused on communication, employee engagement,
beliefs about change, and strategic planning. I created a website for each of the schools

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

4

that I managed in order to share when teachers earned Apple Teacher certifications. A
hashtag was created and utilized for teachers and administrators to share lessons that
incorporated technology; the district’s homepage was altered to integrate a platform,
Juicer.io, that aggregated the hashtag to highlight teacher and student work. I created an
audio podcast, which was shared through social media and the district website; episodes
highlighted teachers who took risks and utilized engaging technology practices in their
classrooms. Finally, Apple administered survey to teachers, which focused on their
perceptions regarding recognition, preparedness to integrate based upon professional
learning opportunities, student engagement and creation, and teacher preparedness to
design innovative lessons. The research in which I engaged relied upon a mixed methods
research design that provided the district with valuable information to drive future
professional learning opportunities. The research questions on which I focused were:
1. How are teachers recognized for what they’ve learned in regard to education
technology? Do teachers feel engaged in the professional learning that they have
taken part in, and will a formalized recognition system within the school district
help to better engage teachers?
2. How do teachers’ perceptions affect how they feel regarding preparedness and
professional learning and the integration of technology within their schools?
3. What are teachers’ perceptions about the integration of technology into their
classrooms upon student engagement and the ability of students to create relevant,
product-based artifacts of learning?
4. What are teachers’ perceptions of their own preparedness to design innovative
learning experiences with the elements of student learning (teamwork, critical

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

5

thinking, personalization of learning, communication/creation, real-world
engagement)?
Over the course of my administrative career in the study site’s district, there were three
waves of iPad rollouts at the three building levels (elementary, middle, and high school).
The climate in the district was influenced by a number of factors including: negative
feelings toward administrators, negative perceptions regarding mounting professional
responsibilities, and negative sentiments about the quality and amount of time spent
engaged in professional development.
I desired to implement an intervention that would impact teacher attitudes through
ongoing administrative support, continued collaborative opportunities with peers and
trainers, and integrated professional development meant to enhance student learning
outcomes that provided teachers with real-life application opportunities that focused on
student learning elements, student engagement, and student production. Prior to forming
the research questions, I reviewed literature that focused on technology professional
development. A variety of studies were utilized and informed the creation of the research
questions that guided this project. The research presented in the literature review focused
on global implementation and veered into fields beyond education.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

6

Chapter 2: Literature Review
Teacher Recognition Systems in Relation to Technology Professional Development
Badge systems and correlating certification programs have grown in the field of
professional development options afforded to educators in recent years. These systems
have allowed educators to learn, practice, and demonstrate skills and be recognized
through earning and displaying the badge. Badging systems are reminiscent of the Boy
and Girl Scout programs in the United States (Abramovich et al., 2013).
A driving force behind online badging systems was the open learning
environment afforded to educators. Unlike traditional professional development, the
majority of badging systems were available on-demand and asynchronously; however,
some required synchronous participation to take place in order to earn a badge. The
majority of models did not require the participant to directly interact with other learners
or an instructor to earn a badge. A widely used model was the Apple Teacher program,
which was free to educators; educators were able to earn badges in various platforms:
iOS, MacOS, and Swift Playgrounds. The Apple Teacher certification program provided
simple tutorials for learners to engage in either online or offline; participants answered a
series of assessment questions to demonstrate mastery and earn badges. The majority of
skills practiced on the iPad or computer did not require the use of the Internet; however,
Apple Teacher certification assessment required the Internet. When the learner did not
earn the badge, Apple provided opportunity to retake the assessment.
Zhong and Feng (2019, p. 1764) conducted research on a blended model of the
Apple Teacher program in China:

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

7

The “Apple Teacher” program is a teacher training program cooperated by The
Modern Education Technology Center of Nanjing Normal University and Apple,
and the course is mainly for the in-service teachers or future teachers. The
purpose of “Apple Teacher” is to help teachers master the way to acquire digital
information resources, apply modern teaching methods to classroom teaching
activities, and ultimately find innovative ways of classroom teaching.
Unlike the traditional online format of Apple Teacher, this cooperative program
blended online learning with face-to-face learning. Within this specific blended learning
model, three essential components existed: (a) basic knowledge of learners, (b) theme
learning, and (c) summary and reflection (Zhong & Feng, 2019). In the three stages of
learning, a teaching assistant was available to teachers for support, which was a variation
from the traditional Apple Teacher certification areas that were offered by the
corporation. In effect, teachers demonstrated proficiency to the teaching assistant prior to
taking the online assessment through the Apple Teacher portal (Zhong & Feng, 2019). In
the next component, the teaching assistant took learners to an Apple Store to gain
experiential learning; Apple offered free sessions at all their stores. This particular
program upheld that within “this process, learners can further pool their knowledge and
skills and improve and perfect their cognitive structure by communicating with lecturers
and peers. In the part of self-creation, learners practice by themselves to realize the
externalization of knowledge” (Zhong & Feng, 2019, p. 1767). Finally, learners
experienced deep learning through reflection and shared their experiences with other
teachers, which could have been a driving external motivator. Sharing their learning
experiences with others allowed teachers to better internalize their own learning (Zhong

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

8

& Feng, 2019). In Zhong and Feng’s study (2019), six blended training courses were
administered with 176 participants. The support of a teaching assistant seemed to have a
positive correlation on the overall achievement of those enrolled in the program; 90.3%
of participants earned the badges they attempted and were awarded Apple Teacher
certificates. No data was available to demonstrate how many teachers did not initially
earn badges on the first attempt, so a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn.
Abromovich et al. (2013) researched the psychological theories behind learner
motivation and focused upon the achievement goal theory. Within the same research,
Abromovich et al. cited educational psychologist Dr. Elliot, who identified types of
learner motivation. The two types that were most relevant to this project included mastery
approach, which was based on one’s personal interest, and performance approach, which
was based on the learner’s goal of performing better (2013). The motivation behind
earning badges was not solely learner based. For instance, recognition from school
administrators may have acted as an impetus to earn digital badges and certifications.
According to Jones et al., however, recognition was often placed upon hours spent on
professional development rather than the skills that were acquired during that time
(2017). According to this research, it was imperative that administrators comprehended
and recognized the value of the badges. It was of greater importance for teachers to
demonstrate their abilities after earning badges to show transformational learning and the
ability to apply said learning to classroom instructional practices. Jones et al. (2017) cited
Lev Vygotsky’s research to conclude:
Attaching symbolic importance of an artifact, such as a digital badge, then allows
the artifact to influence others’ perceptions of the individual possessing the

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

9

artifact. Thus, recognition of artifacts by others shapes an individual’s identity. …
Digital badges can act as symbolically important mediating devices that allow
others to recognize the new roles being assumed by the learners. (p. 430)
When comparing digital badges to traditional badges and certificates, there seemed to be
a disparity in the way that participants displayed or shared the newly acquired badge.
Jones et al. found that the majority of participants did not share their badges through
social media because they did not want to call attention to themselves or intertwine their
personal and professional lives (2017). Jones et al. found that some participants utilized
badges in their email signatures but expressed frustration with the inability to manipulate
or modify the badge. They were more likely to share their digital badges with
administrators to demonstrate competency. The majority of the participants reported that
they would not be motivated to engage in professional development where there was no
relevant connection simply to earn a badge (2017). There were no studies that mentioned
whether teachers were more apt to display badges if they had a separate social media
account that was utilized only for professional purposes; a number of educators have
begun the practice of separating their personal and professional accounts in order to
communicate with other educators, find and share best practices, and communicate with
stakeholders via social media. Researchers may wish to consider how professional social
media accounts may influence an individual’s willingness to display a badge or
credentials.
Online badging systems allowed for continued professional development
opportunities for educators. Jones et al. noted that the participants in their study cited a
lack of understanding of the badging system by the administrators in their schools.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

10

According to the same study, administrators embraced digital badging systems because
they placed greater visibility and transparency on the professional learning and overall
development of the teachers in their buildings (2017). Diamond and Gonzalez focused on
the American Social History Project (ASHP), a well-known provider of professional
development to New York City public schools. The organization planned a free, online
badging program to note the achievements of teachers who met the requirements during
professional development (2014). The badge system used in within the ASHP framework
was unique in comparison to other badging systems in that teachers were awarded badges
for fulfilling simpler prerequisites while other badges necessitated that teachers
demonstrated mastery (Diamond & Gonzalez, 2014). Another distinction within the
ASHP badging system was that all badges were interrelated. Each badge represented a
part of a larger contextual framework that the creators intentionally built to ensure that
participants were engaged in meaningful professional development that was not
perceived to be a stand-alone learning experience for the educator (Diamond & Gonzalez,
2014).
Jones et. al found that teachers were often unsure of how to utilize the badges.
The team conversed with participants, received feedback, and then informed participants
how digital badges could be used and displayed (2017). Diamond and Gonzalez
suggested that teachers utilize digital badges as components of their teaching portfolio
(2014). Teaching portfolios acted as a means for reflection by both the administrative
evaluator and teacher, which assisted the teacher in growing professionally in the areas of
instruction and pedagogical skills. Within their research, Diamond and Gonzalez
compared the badging system created by ASHP with the National Board Certification

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

11

program, which focused upon “high-quality ... competency-based targets because they are
tied to widely recognized competencies” (2014, p. 13). The Diamond and Gonzalez study
(2014) made the recommendation to have greater support in the online platforms for
teachers who attempted to earn badges. Allowing for greater interaction between an
instructor or the individual authorizing the badge was a recommendation at the
conclusion of the study.
When creating or utilizing a digital badging system, the research from the
aforementioned studies suggested that badges should be carefully chosen or created to fit
the school system’s vision and mission. Otherwise, digital badges may be perceived by
teachers as stand-alone professional development that does not directly impact their daily
teaching practices. Teachers should be able to demonstrate competency at various levels
to earn badges; they should relate what has been learned to their teaching practices.
Administrators should have knowledge of the purpose of digital badges and be able to
identify the minimum requirements needed to earn a digital badge. Offering online or
face-to-face support to teachers who attempted to earn digital badges seemed to be
beneficial. Otherwise, teachers faced frustration with the experience, which could have
led to diminished learner motivation.
Teacher Perceptions Regarding Preparedness for Technology Integration
Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs greatly impacted their perceptions regarding their
own preparedness to integrate technology. Engagement in professional learning
opportunities decreased in teachers who viewed technology as a hindrance in comparison
to “tried and true” teaching methodology, and these teachers may have perceived
themselves as being underprepared to integrate technology. This teacher-centered

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

12

approach may have emphasized “discipline, subject matter, and moral standards. The
teacher acts as an authority, supervising the process of learning acquisition and serving as
the expert in a highly structured learning environment” (Tondeur, vanBraak, Ertmer, &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2016, p. 557). The likelihood that an individual perceived
technology integration as being impactful in the classroom decreased when a teacher
perceived the “sage on the stage” as the best instructional model, and the teacher’s
perception of their own preparedness and the need for technology may be correlated.
Tondeur, vanBraak, Ertmer, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich “suggested that because most
teachers’ personal learning experiences were predominantly through direct instruction,
they believed that technology was not essential to teaching and learning” (2016, p. 562).
The authors go on to posit that “teachers with student-centered beliefs tend to emphasize
individual student needs and interests, and typically adopt classroom practices associated
with constructivism and/or social constructivism” (Tondeur, vanBraak, Ertmer, &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2016, p. 557). A contrasting conclusion can be drawn using this
pedagogical belief: The relationship between interest in professional learning and
integration increased if teachers believed that students were interested in technology and
believed that technology stimulated a classroom based upon the principles of
constructivism.
Brown Mayo et al. conducted a three-year longitudinal study of pre-service
teachers at the University of Houston and the University of Texas. They noted a shift
from utilizing technology as a means to increase teacher productivity to utilizing
technology to engage learners and construct meaningful lessons. Researchers measured
participants’ comfort levels with technology, frequency of technology use, and efficacy,

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

13

including teaching efficacy and teaching and technology efficacy (2005). Pre-service
teachers’ perceptions of their comfort level with technology increased after being able to
integrate specific technology into the classroom. The ability to take risks without fear of
damaging equipment or software played an integral part in the teachers’ ratings of their
own comfort level (Brown Mayo et al., 2005). Over the course of the same study,
respondents demonstrated growth in their mindset regarding technology. The focus
shifted from teaching their students technology to using technology to support student
learning. From the first to second year of this study, there was a 53% increase in the
frequency teachers used technology as well as an increase in the role technology played
in the classroom. (Brown Mayo, et al., 2005). Finally, qualitative data collected from the
sample found that the more exposure and integration that a pre-service teacher had in
utilizing technology, the more positive a correlation developed in regard to the
individual’s feelings of teaching and technology efficacy.
Tondeur, van Braak, Siddiq, and Scherer focused on pre-service teachers and their
perceptions regarding their abilities to effectively integrate technology into the classroom
as a first-year teachers (2016). Similarities existed between research by Tondeur, van
Braak, Siddiq, and Scherer (2016) and Brown Mayo et al.’s (2005) because both focused
on pre-service teachers and their perceptions regarding their abilities to effectively
instruct students in general terms in comparison to experienced teachers.
The research aims of Tondeur, van Braak, Siddiq, and Scherer (2016) were to:
•

develop a self-report instrument based on a theoretical model to measure preservice teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which they experience the necessary
support and training in order to integrate technology into classroom activities

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
•

use Item Response Theory (IRT) to establish a reliable scale

•

explore the item difficulties of strategies to prepare pre-service teachers for

14

technology use, which will lead to a better understanding of the support future
teachers need for the use of technology in education
In comparison to veteran teachers, pre-service teacher programs placed greater focus on
21st century learning, digital citizenship, and creating authentic learning experiences
utilizing technology (Tondeur, van Braak, Siddiq, & Scherer, 2016). In their meta
analyses research, Tondeur, van Braak, Siddiq, and Scherer (2016) referenced other
researchers and stated:
There was a clear discrepancy between what pre-service teachers are taught in
their courses and how teachers actually use technology in a real classroom …
[Pre-service instruction] should not only focus on how to use technology but also
how technology intersects with pedagogical and content knowledge … [and that]
technology should be infused into the entire curriculum (p. 4).
In lieu of using a Likert-like scale for their research purposes, Tondeur, van
Braak, Siddiq, and Scherer, utilized the Rasch model, which allowed for greater
independent analysis between individuals and their perceptions of technological difficulty
and ability to effectively implement their technology-based training (2016). In this
particular study, the questionnaire was disseminated to 684 pre-service teachers; 74.1%
of them were female, and the average age was 25. In regard to technology education,
respondents were asked to rate themselves in the following areas (Tondeur, van Braak,
Siddiq, & Scherer, 2016): reflecting on attitudes about the role of technology in
education, learning technology by design, and scaffolding authentic technology

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

15

experiences. Pre-service teachers reported the greatest difficulty in providing electronic
feedback to students and creating technology-rich lessons; this research demonstrated that
more time should be spent allowing pre-service teachers to prepare, implement, and
reflect on lessons involving rich technology in authentic settings such as the student
teaching environment (Tondeur, van Braak, Siddiq, & Scherer, 2016). Furthermore, it can
be implied that new teacher induction programs should allocate time for collaboration
with veteran teachers who exemplify the use of technology in the classroom. Ongoing,
structured professional development for novice and veteran teachers based upon their
perceptions must be a focal point of school districts.
Ham (2010) identified four factors that participants found relevant in their
perceptions of professional development: (a) formal organization, (b) content, (c) myriad
of professional development strategies employed by the professional development
facilitators, and (d) interpersonal dynamics and interactions. These factors directly
impacted the teachers’ outcomes in their perceptions of knowledge, attitudes,
instructional practices, and instructional relationships (Ham, 2010).
Cervera and Cantabrana researched the impact of professional development on
teachers’ perceptions of their own digital competencies (2015). In their study, 22 teachers
participated (Cervera & Cantabrana, 2015):
•

The majority of teachers were female (86%).

•

The majority of teachers were between the ages of 36-45 years old (54%).

•

The teachers with the most years of experience taught between 13-20 years
(41%).

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

16

Akin to the factors that Ham (2010) identified, Cervera and Cantabrana (2015) focused
on the following factors in their study:
•

professional development’s organization (including management, educational
project and curriculum development, and relationship with surroundings)

•

training design (needs analysis) and methodology (collaborative groups that
analyzed, reflected, and designed educational lessons)

•

impact of training (whether the trainings were observed to be carried out in the
classroom)

When evaluating the efficacy of the program that was implemented, Cervera and
Cantabrana utilized a questionnaire to gauge teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness.
The professional development plan yielded positive results from the teachers. Their
perceptions of their own competencies in integrating technology were based on the
following aspects (2015):
•

identification of the objectives and content of the different curricular areas related
to digital competence (DC) work
o 85% of the teaching staff stated they were quite competent or very
competent, while only 15% answered somewhat competent.

•

design of teaching-learning activities and situations for the DC work
o 79% of the teaching staff claimed to be quite competent or very
competent, while only 21% answered somewhat competent.

•

selection of adequate resources and tools for teaching-learning activities
o 79% of the teaching staff said they were quite competent or very
competent, while only 21% responded somewhat competent.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
•

17

sharing experiences and working collaboratively with other teachers at the school
in relation to DC
o 64% of the teaching staff answered that they were quite competent or very
competent, while only 36% answered somewhat competent.

•

application of new methodologies for DC work
o 93% of the teaching staff claimed to be quite competent or very
competent, while only 7% responded somewhat competent.

Although these results yielded positive data about teachers’ perceptions of their own
abilities, teachers also noted that they needed greater time to collaborate with other
teachers in their schools (Cervera & Cantabrana, 2015). Further research should be
conducted regarding contractual obligations and scheduling, both of which may impede a
district from creating an environment where in-person collaboration on a frequent basis is
possible.
Tondeur, van Braak, Siddiq, and Scherer cited other constraints that may have
influenced teacher preparedness regarding technology integration (2016):
•

Teachers felt that they did not have adequate time to plan and collaborate with
colleagues.

•

Technology-integrated lessons consumed too much class time and interfered with
the teaching of standards.

•

Teachers felt as though they were not covering content and curriculum that may
be tested on state or national exams.

The aforementioned studies demonstrated that teachers’ perceptions regarding their

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

18

preparedness to integrate technology into the classroom was impacted by: (a) their
pedagogical preferences, (b) pre-service programs, (c) perceptions of time constraints, (d)
the ability to collaborate with peers, and (e) pressures associated with curriculum and
standardized testing.
Teacher Perceptions Regarding Student Engagement and the Ability to Create
Quality Content
The following research examined the perceptions teachers held regarding their
ability to translate learning and create quality content correlated directly to the training in
which they had engaged. Other factors that seemed to contribute to teacher perceptions
were: socioeconomic status, availability to technology, resources, infrastructure, and preservice instruction.
“Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Use in Schools” analyzed “teachers’
perceptions of technology use in the classroom by surveying those who participated in
the TeachUp! technology empowerment program created and developed by Digital
Opportunity Trust USA (DOT USA)” (Mundy et al., 2012, p. 1). Additionally, Mundy et
al. examined how factors such as: (a) teacher training, (b) socioeconomic status, (c)
accessibility and availability to technology and associated resources, and (d) the
infrastructure to support the technology influenced teacher perceptions concerning their
own abilities to create quality content and engage students.
Teacher perceptions were affected by the abilities of teachers to readily utilize
technology within their classrooms and knowing that students were able to access
materials and lessons outside the school setting. For instance, educators who taught in
areas of higher socioeconomic status felt greater confidence in integrating technology

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

19

because of the students’ abilities to access materials (Mundy et al., 2012). Socioeconomic
status generally correlated with the strength of the school’s technology infrastructure as
well as the infrastructure that existed in the surrounding area. When teachers could not
reliably depend on the school’s infrastructure or were unsure if students could complete
assignments outside of school, it impacted their perceptions of the use of technology in
the classroom and their willingness to create content. Another area that affected teachers’
perceptions of student engagement was grade level. Mundy et al. researched secondary
school teachers who integrated technology and found that they perceived themselves to
be more successful in engaging students. Teachers perceived students to find web-based
learning more engaging than traditional learning because it allowed for a more active way
of thinking (2013). Barriers to the study included giving greater definition to the
integration of content versus the quality of content and the experience and training of the
teacher. Much of the research available compared the perceptions of the abilities of preservice to in-service teachers in creating quality content.
Teachers who did not receive pre-service training in technology education tended
to focus on the drawbacks of technology integration rather than the possibilities. In
Baran’s research, “a number of challenges related to mobile technology integration were
reported, including ethical issues, lack of support, accessibility and technical limitations,
insufficient experience, mobile phone bans in schools, and curriculum adaptations”
(2014, p. 9). Baran described a survey administered to 467 in-service teachers regarding
their positive perceptions toward mobile learning; teachers found technology and mobile
learning relevant for their own learning due to its ability to assist them in accessing
resources and collaborating virtually (2014). Although the perception of the sample

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

20

regarding mobile education was positive, the data does not effectively demonstrate a
relationship between positive perception and the comfort levels of teachers in regard to
their abilities to create quality content and further engage students. “Another survey with
in-service teachers revealed that iPads helped them access learning materials, collaborate
in online forums, and access email” (Baran, 2014, p. 27). Again, Baran’s research did not
demonstrate a correlation between the teachers’ abilities to create quality content and
student engagement. It merely demonstrated positive perceptions of teachers toward the
integration of technology in general.
Teachers’ confidence in their abilities in relation to the training that they received
was a theme that appeared several times throughout the research. Mundy et al. (2002)
cited a study conducted by Ertmer et. al (2007), which found that “in a study of teacher
perception of the values that are needed to be an ‘exemplary’ user of technology in the
classroom, it was found that teachers believe that a person has to be confident in his or
her ability to use technology and committed to its use” (p.3).
Tom Fullerton of McGill University conducted a self-case study in which he
reviewed his experiences delivering professional development in various capacities to
teachers. Fullerton analyzed the perceptions teachers had when leaving his training
sessions (2013). His experiences highlighted various growth models that influenced
teachers’ perceptions of being exemplary users and gaining more positive feelings about
their abilities to create quality content and further engage students. One of the first
experiences that Fullerton described was the train the trainer model, which is frequently
utilized in school systems. Fullerton stated that “there was little gain in moving teacher
practice forward. Not all teachers who participated felt comfortable sharing, and there

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

21

was not enough buy-in from non-participating classroom teachers” (2013, p. 444).
Although it is not explicitly stated, it can be inferred that teachers’ perceptions of their
own capabilities in transferring the professional development they received into their own
classrooms was not strong. In another position, Fullerton helped create pedagogically
sound curricular materials, which were housed in an online platform and coupled with inperson workshops similar to those of the previous experience. Fullerton found that
teachers were not creating new quality content of their own. Rather, teachers recreated
the lessons that were available to them in the online platform and shaped them to meet
their classroom contexts (Fullerton, 2013). Lastly, Fullerton discussed the utilization of
school-based teams. Fullerton invited an administrator and “ped-tech” leaders,
pedagogically-sound teachers who had been trained in technology, to each team. The key
differences in this model compared to the others are that Fullerton required each team to
form its own vision for technology integration. Teams identified their own challenges
and needs and suggested ways in which the team could support technology within their
schools. The teams then presented their visions to their schools (Fullerton, 2013).
Fullerton utilized an inquiry-based approach instead of explicit technology instruction;
his research informed the following (2013):
I began to ask more questions than I answered. What are you trying to do or what
problem are you having? What have you tried so far? I shifted the burden of
teaching from me to a shared responsibility for learning. I changed my workshops
from a stand and deliver model to conversations and explorations with teachers …
I gave them tasks and had them work together to explore the new technology.
This did frustrate some teachers who wanted quick answers, but it helped to build

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

22

capacity as I helped them to troubleshoot on their own, to learn how to use the
technology more independently (p. 445).
Fullerton found that this model increased engagement in co-planning, co-teaching,
sharing, and taking risks in the classroom. In essence, to engage learners, Fullerton
modeled for teachers an inquiry-based, student-centered approach that the teams wished
to create in their own schools. The teams’ perceptions surrounding their own learning and
student learning shifted from teacher-centered to student-centered. The teams analyzed
areas of need and constructively found ways to fill those gaps; they quickly became
empowered problem solvers who were shifting school culture surrounding learning and
its correlation with technology (Fullerton, 2013). Building a support system for teachers
seemed to increase their perceptions of autonomy and abilities to create quality content
based upon the needs of their learners (Fullerton, 2013).
Fullerton (2013) and Dexter et al. (2002) had similar conclusions. Dexter et al.
studied the integration of computers into the classroom during the rise of educational
technology (2002).
Focusing on the teacher as a learner and as an instructional designer suggests
what the school setting must provide teacher both as a workplace and as a place of
learning … If teachers do not yet recognize how to operate technology and use it
to leverage learning gains, they should have opportunities to learn to do so ...
balanced with their other work demands and allow for them to socially construct
understandings of these instructional tools … This would support their applying,
in their own instructional style, educational technology to their classroom

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

23

situation and trusting that they are making sound decisions about the use of
students’ precious learning time when they do so (p. 279).
“Understanding the Relationship Between Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs and
Technology Use in Education: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence” (2016) by
Tondeur, vanBraak, Ertmer, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich synthesized findings from various
studies. The researchers examined learner agency with the teacher being the learner in
technology professional development. Tondeur, vanBraak, Ertmer, and OttenbreitLeftwich found that successful models included: (a) individualized mentoring, (b)
teacher-led teams focused upon student-centered learning, (c) collaboration between
teachers, and (d) time to reflect. This model positively bolstered teachers’ perceptions of
self-efficacy and their abilities to create content (Tondeur, vanBraak, Ertmer, &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2016).
Nonprofit entity The Digital Opportunity Trust USA, (DOT USA) created and
implemented a technology program for teachers in areas considered to be “high need;”
this program was available to 250 K-12 public schools in Mississippi and New Orleans
and provided “teachers in high need schools with one-on-one coaching and training
through an intern system to accelerate teacher proficiency in the use of education
technology in the classroom to boost student engagement, success, and retention”
(Mundy et al., 2012, p. 3). The data collected as part of the DOT USA program
demonstrated the following (Mundy et al. 2012):
Teachers that were part of DOT USA’s TeachUp! program perceived a significant
increase in the areas of student engagement, student excitement, student
acceleration of learning, and student proficiency with computer technology after

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

24

the completion of the program in which they received training, coaching, and
assistance in increasing the use of technology in the classroom to make their
lessons more engaging and provide successful learning experiences (p. 6).
The findings of Mundy et al. reinforced previous research studies that focused on the
teacher as the learner (2012).
The research regarding teachers’ perceptions of student engagement and their
abilities to create quality content identified several factors to consider when developing
training. In order for a teacher to positively perceive their ability to create quality content,
they must feel as though they are competent and have had adequate training. Their
professional learning experiences should:
•

be sustained over time and should not focus upon stand-alone sessions

•

be inquiry-based and not be based on a direct instruction model

•

involve teachers and administrators working together to create a vision for
success and identify challenges and work collaboratively to solve them

•

allow teachers to collaborate with colleagues and reflect upon their experiences
within a school culture that does not punish those who take pedagogically sound
risks when integrating technology

Teacher Perceptions of Preparedness to Design Innovative Learning Experiences
Creating innovative learning experiences for students has been perceived as a
daunting task by most teachers. School systems are created with reporting measures such
as standards, numerical grades, and other normative systems. Innovation has not typically
correlated with traditional grading procedures.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

25

When researching innovation, I expanded my search outside of the realm of
education into the business world. I located examples of how businesses cultivated
environments that fostered innovation. In an article for the Harvard Business Review,
Greg Satell (2017) stated
There is no one “true” path to innovation. Yet all too often, organizations act as if
there is. They lock themselves into one type of strategy and say, “This is how
we innovate.” It works for a while, but eventually it catches up with them. They
find themselves locked into a set of solutions that don’t fit the problems they need
to solve (p. 2).
School districts have not been immune to the problem that Satell (2017) cited; school
leaders and stakeholders may have been drawn to new educational trends that did not
meet the needs of the students and were not utilizing the right tools to allow for
innovation to take place. According to Satell, innovation should be treated “as a set of
tools that are designed to accomplish specific objectives… we need to build up a
portfolio of innovation strategies designed for specific tasks” (2017, pp. 2-3). When
schools seek to prepare teachers to create innovative learning experiences, school leaders
must be prepared to model innovating practices to their staff members. Satell discussed
Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen who formed the Christensen
Institute, which has an area of focus on K-12 education and offers a number of free
resources to educators. Christensen advised businesses that innovating products hasn’t
always worked; instead of innovating the product, the companies should have been
innovating the business model (2017). When applying this concept to a school system,

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

26

districts need to be prepared to innovate in a variety of ways starting first and foremost in
their delivery of professional learning.
Netcoh et al. described how technology changed professional development in
school districts (2017). The rapid and ever-changing evolution of technology created an
environment where teachers “often find themselves needing to develop and continually
refine responsive strategies while teaching. The nature of this work, essentially building
the plane while flying it, calls for an interactive and iterative approach to professional
development (Netcoh et al., 2017, p. 25)”. Netcoh et al. worked with over 25 schools and
300 educators and partnered with collegiate professional development programs and the
respective middle schools that teachers worked in over a multi-year period (2017). In
their graduate-level courses, teachers designed an action research project relevant to their
classrooms and schools; the projects continued the teachers’ professional growth and
created flexibility for the integration of innovative teaching practices in their associated
classrooms. Similarly, in his research, Roland vanOostveen (2017) detailed the
importance that action research has had in impacting professional development amongst
teachers in regard to technology education. Both Netcoh et. al (2017) and vanOostveen
(2017) worked with local universities and developed teacher teams that created
purposeful, inquiry-based action research plans. Pierson and Bothwick suggested that in
order to facilitate change and integrate action research, “school–university partnerships
can create the framework for ongoing co-research habits that will continually inform
classroom practice and research alike” (2010, p. 129).
vanOosten’s teams worked collaboratively, which enabled them to make
appropriate decisions for their school, classrooms, and students (2017). The research of

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

27

Netcoh et al. (2017) and vanOosten (2017) began with a focus on a seemingly small-scale
issues that translated to the entire population of the school. This model helped to create
an environment of innovation in both studies. Satell referenced Christensen in his article
for the Harvard Business Review; Chistensen noted that it was important to first identify
the problem to be solved rather than the solutions and be open to innovation; the research
of Netcoh et. al (2017) and vanOosten (2017) demonstrated these principles.
vanOosten referenced Burnaford’s principles of professional development that
implied improvement in teaching. The principles are as follows (2017, p. 4):
•

offers meaningful intellectual, social, and emotional engagement with ideas,
materials, and colleagues.

•

takes explicit account of the contexts of teaching and the experience of teachers

•

offers support for informed dissent

•

places classroom practice in the larger contexts of school practice

•

prepares teachers (as well as students and parents) to employ the techniques and
perspectives of inquiry

•

involves governance that ensures a balance between the interests of individuals
and the interests of the institution

Two of these principles aligned closely with Satell’s and Christensen’s statements and
seemed to be imperative in creating an atmosphere of innovation and are rooted in the
business world: “offers informed dissent” and “prepares teachers (as well as students and
parents) to employ the techniques of perspectives and inquiry” (vanOosten, 2017, p. 4).
Netcoh et al. (2017) cited three specific examples in which teachers empowered
students to have greater accountability within their classrooms and within the larger

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

28

school context. One case study focused on the implementation of iPads into the
classroom. The teacher attempted to individualize education at a higher level; students
tracked their own progress, completed daily feedback forms, and assessed their own
engagement. By empowering students to have greater accountability and agency within
the classroom, the teacher’s perception of her own capabilities grew (Netcoh et al., 2017).
In another case study, Netcoh et al. (2017) cited two teachers who felt that students were
disengaged in their classrooms; the teachers created a student leadership council and
asked for feedback regarding content and curriculum, teaching, and the classroom
environment. The teachers shared the data garnered from the student leadership council
to an online platform to spur discussion with other educators in the building. One of the
issues that arose through these discussions was the students’ desires to be able to utilize
technology more readily within the classroom; technology was a part of their daily lives,
but it was not frequently used. The teachers in charge of this specific action research
project realized that there was a disconnect between students’ in and out of school lives;
this realization allowed them to respond more effectively and spurred them to create a
culture of mutual respect between students and teachers (Netcoh et al., 2017). vanOosten
did not cite any specific case studies that involved data, but he related several examples
of collaborative teams and the problems that they attempted to solve. The findings were
similar to that of Netcoh et. al. (2017) in that vanOosten’s (2017) research pointed to the
role that collaboration and teamwork had in cultivating an atmosphere of innovation and
change. The following is a valuable statement in reference to the research that vanOosten
(2017) conducted and points to the validity of utilizing action research plans within
schools.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

29

This action research project offered these teachers opportunities to discuss and
critique their science and technology programs in professional ways. Katy built on
the idea, saying that she felt "as a first-year teacher, I didn't think I would have
taken the chances, the things that I have done, go for it. What have you got to
lose? Just my job." The support and encouragement of the teachers in the group
gave her a sense of acceptance and freedom to attempt some non-traditional
teaching methods and techniques (pp. 10-11).
Creating a culture in which teachers felt freed to transform and utilize less traditional or
teacher-centered approaches was an integral component in creating an environment of
innovation and building positive perceptions amongst teachers. Pierson and Borthwick
stated that focusing solely on professional development activities was erroneous on the
part of schools; instead, school systems should focus on building a school culture focused
on collaboration and problem solving (2010).
Providing students with innovative learning experiences cannot occur unless
teachers have been provided with the same authentic learning experiences. The research
demonstrated a clear link between embedded action research and the teachers’
perceptions of their abilities to problem solve and innovate. Synthesis of the research
demonstrated that problems should have an appropriate scope and are not too widespread or systemic in nature for an individual or small team to solve. Netcoh et al. (2017),
Pierson and Bothwick (2010), and vanOosten (2017) agreed upon the importance of
pairing with knowledgeable outside resources such as universities in order to better assist
teachers through the process. Furthermore, vanOosten (2017) cited the importance of

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

30

having a knowledgeable facilitator. In collecting qualitative data from teachers,
vanOosten (2017) found the following:
Per the teachers, the facilitation of the project was essential…the facilitators,
among other things, provided access to resources and individuals that were not
usually readily available to classroom teachers. The resources (articles and other
materials) provided at the meetings and through the WebKF forum were also
noted as being of assistance (p. 13).
Within a school system, a knowledgeable facilitator may not exist in order to guide the
process; schools should adequately assess their resources, including technology and
human capital.
I was not able to locate quantitative data or research regarding teachers’
perceptions of preparedness to create innovative learning experiences in the classroom;
there was a great deal of qualitative data that points directly to the use of action research.
Business models and educational models that utilized a team approach in identifying
problems, collaborated to find and implement solutions, reviewed data, and iterated when
necessary, were most likely to utilize the same approach in their classrooms with greater
confidence. While this was not stated in quantitative data, it was inferred through
qualitative statements that were made throughout the research. There were several clear
examples in the research of Netcoh et al (2017) and vanOosten (2017) in which the
teachers’ abilities to problem solve bolstered their self-efficacy and self-perception
regarding their abilities to create innovative practices within their classrooms. By starting
on a small scale and identifying a problem that was of a more personal nature to the
classroom teacher or school, the team was more likely to be able to work together

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

31

collaboratively, analyze data, reflect, and iterate until the problem was solved through the
action research process. To reiterate, the process worked best when there was
administrative support and a strong, knowledgeable facilitator.
Summary
I reviewed literature that demonstrated a need to further research the impact of
technology professional development upon teaching practices and how those practices
influence student learning outcomes. For many educators, the influx of technology and its
evolving nature may be intimidating. Over the course of an educator’s career, technology
may have evolved from pre-service training that included using a mimeo-graph machine
to integrating a flipped classroom in a 1:1 environment. Adequately preparing teachers
for the insertion of new technology can be challenging. Many of the studies cited that
teachers felt disconnected from the professional development their districts presented. A
lack of continuity and of vision from the district to tie professional development to the
vision of learning for students remains a problem; this directly impacts teachers’
perceptions of their own preparedness to integrate technology effectively within their
classrooms. Districts should prioritize inquiry-based learning that allows for collaboration
amongst peers when creating a professional development program focused on technology
integration. Introducing apps or platforms without continued practice seems to limit
technology integration and the impact upon transforming student engagement, learning,
and production. The climate in the building must be supportive; the professional
development must be targeted; the trainers must be knowledgeable and promote
innovative practices. It is clear from the literature review that teachers’ perceptions of
their own abilities directly impacted their willingness to integrate new technology, allow

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

32

students greater autonomy, and provide students the ability to create product-based
artifacts.
When creating the intervention for this project, the lack of quantitative data was
apparent. Although qualitative data is useful, I wished to implement a mixed methods
research model to demonstrate change over time. The ability to examine various data sets
over time more effectively demonstrates change. The lack of studies that utilized
quantitative data far outweighed those that utilized qualitative data; I considered a
weakness of the previous studies in respect to technology professional development. The
long-standing relationship that study site’s district had with Apple afforded the district
with the ability to utilize teacher surveys, obtain a knowledgeable facilitator, and develop
sustainable integration plans. The Apple and Apple Professional Learning surveys were
chosen as quantitative data points; these surveys and the data that they yielded
supplement previous research that had limited quantitative data.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

33

Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
A mixed methods approach was utilized in this study; I wished to analyze
quantitative and qualitative data from a sample of teachers at a suburban middle school,
which will be named as the “study site”. I used surveys, interviews, and informal
conversations to collect data. The two quantitative data surveys administered were
created by Apple and Apple Education; qualitative data was collected from the Apple
Education survey and an interview I created and administered to members of the cohort.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine whether targeted technology
professional development increased communication, employee engagement, beliefs about
change, and strategic planning amongst teachers. The climate survey was conducted by
the independent education consultant, hired by the study site’s district. The survey
identified four major areas of concern in relation to professional learning opportunities:
communication, employee engagement, beliefs about change, and a focus on strategic
planning. The research questions were informed in part by the climate survey responses;
the questions for the intervention are as follows:
1. How are teachers recognized for what they’ve learned in regard to education
technology? Do teachers feel engaged in the professional learning that they have
taken part in, and will a formalized recognition system within the school district
help to better engage teachers?
2. How do teachers’ perceptions affect how they feel regarding preparedness and
professional learning and the integration of technology within their schools?

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

34

3. What are teachers’ perceptions about the integration of technology into their
classrooms upon student engagement and the ability of students to create relevant,
product-based artifacts of learning?
4. What are teachers’ perceptions of their own preparedness to design innovative
learning experiences with the elements of student learning (teamwork, critical
thinking, personalization of learning, communication/creation, real-world
engagement)?
In reaction to the literature review and the independent education consultant’s
findings, it became my desire to create a targeted technology professional development
model to employ at the study site. The desired outcome of the study was to show
improvement in the four targeted areas surrounding the research questions. The goal of
the research plan and ensuing intervention was to increase:
•

teacher engagement through the implementation of a formalized recognition
system

•

teacher perception regarding their own preparedness and ongoing professional
learning in regard to technology integration

•

teacher perception of their ability to prepare and design innovative lessons that
will allow for greater student engagement, production, and learning

•

teacher focus on the elements of student learning
A total of 20 individuals were chosen to be a part of the Apple Cohort through the

use of an application system. The application process took place during the first week of
May 2019. Teachers completed a Google Form that contained the following messaging:

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

35

If you are interested in joining a cohort of teachers from [the study site] who will
engage in professional development led by CK, Senior Apple Professional
Learning Specialist, please complete this form. By joining this cohort, you will
engage in PD that will allow you to focus on using the native Apple iPad apps to
engage your students in the classroom through hands on practice, collaboration
with your peers, and guidance from CK and myself.
This is an incredible opportunity; CK will be coming to the study site each month
from August through January to work with this cohort. We thank the [Board of
Education] BOE and administrative team for supporting this endeavor for study
site.
By joining this cohort, you will be helping to expand the possibilities for both you
and your students, and we ask that you be open to helping your colleagues
through short mini PD sessions similar to what has been led here [the study site]
by high school teachers. We believe that teachers sharing ideas and teaching each
other is the best possible model for educational technology professional
development.
Please complete this form if you are interested by Friday, May 10, 2019.
Within the form, teachers listed their name, identified their department, and explained
their rationale for wishing to join the cohort.
Teachers were notified of membership in the cohort through a personalized letter
(Appendix B); cohort teachers were provided an environment focused on professional
learning with a Senior Apple Professional Learning Specialist, CK, and me, who served
as the Supervisor of education technology for grades 6-12 in the study site’s middle and

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

36

high schools. Membership in the cohort provided teachers the ability to co-plan with the
Senior Apple Professional Learning Specialist and me, the chance to co-teach with one or
both of us, and the opportunity partake in a reflection day to share their lessons with
peers. This approach allowed the teachers in the cohort to reflect on their own teaching
practices as well as the newly acquired lessons from their peers on the sharing day.
Allowing teachers the ability to reflect was an integral component of the targeted
technology professional development model at study site; the reflection day provided
teachers the opportunity to analyze: (a) their own perceptions of technology, (b) the
elements of students learning, (c) the elements of student engagement, and (d) student
product creation. The cohort provided professional development based upon individual
goals; teachers were recognized for the attainment of their goals using the following
systems:
•

the district's and school website, which used a hashtag aggregator

•

social media, including Twitter and Instagram accounts

•

district technology hashtag decals

•

Apple Teacher certification, including the ability to display their status in
their email signature or published materials

In order to gauge perception of teacher preparedness, teachers within the study
site’s district took surveys, which were created and disseminated by Apple, Other
sources of information regarding teacher perceptions of their own preparedness came
from the Senior Apple Professional Learning Specialist’s surveys as well as personal
interviews that were conducted with participants. This information allowed the Senior
Apple Professional Learning Specialist and me to further analyze goals and progress in

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

37

meeting those goals and to adjust the goals if necessary. Lastly, the targeted technology
professional development gave the ability to further analyze teacher perception regarding
student engagement and the ability of students to create quality content.
At the onset of the research plan, I was employed by the study site’s district as the
Supervisor of education technology, 6-12. However, beginning on March 2, 2020, I
officially began a new position with another local district as the Director of information
and instructional technology. Through an agreement with both school districts, I was
granted access to teachers, data, and other resources necessary to complete this research
plan. I do not have access to the original Google Form used to select participants because
my account was deactivated due to my departure from district.
Setting & Participants
The setting of the study was a middle school in Pennsylvania, which is located in
suburban township. According to PowerSchool, the student information system, the
school was comprised of approximately 2,200 students in grades 6, 7, and 8. The student
population was comprised of the following demographics: 56% Caucasian, 20%
Hispanic, 17% African American 4%, Asian, 2% Multi-racial, and 1% identified as other.
The study site has been a convergence point for seven elementary schools, which have
had a range in socio-economic status, demographics, and developed environments (rural,
suburban, and urban). During the course of the study, several administrative changes
were made, including the hiring of an interim Superintendent, the hiring of a
Superintendent, the realignment of administrators within the building, including changing
the head principal and reassigning administrative duties to Central Office staff to oversee
the building. Through informal conversations and survey responses, teachers noted the

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

38

effects that administrative changes had upon the climate in the building and their
perceptions of their own agency and responsibilities. One of the cohort members, who
was an administrator in the building, took a less active role within the cohort due to her
changing administrative duties.
Fifteen teachers and one administrator from the study site participated in the
study. Two teachers were from the study site’s high school, which is located in nearby
suburban township and educates approximately 2,800 students. The school has similar
demographics to that of the study site. Two teachers were participants from the
elementary level; one teacher was from district elementary school “A”, and the other
teacher, who split her schedule, taught in elementary schools “A” and “B”. The decision
to include teachers outside of study site was meant to build capacity across the school
district, share ideas with colleagues among different grade levels who taught different
content areas, and encourage a sense of connectedness amongst staff members. The
cohort members represented various content areas and grade levels at study site as well as
years of teaching experience, level of education, and gender.
The Senior Apple Professional Learning Specialist, CK, was the sole collaborator
in this study. CK and I collaborated to create a plan for the cohort, which included
teacher-centered coaching and mentoring. Our initial conversation occurred in June 2019
with a follow-up meeting in person later that month. Within these conversations, we
chose dates for coaching and discussed how to attract applicants to be a part of the
cohort, how to choose members, and what methods to employ to encourage collaboration,
recognition, and reflection. CK met with and provided initial training to the
administrative team in August 2019. In this session, active engagement as administrators

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

39

was discussed, and team expectations for the staff and students were created. Beginning
in August 2019, CK and I met with the cohort during professional development days and
conducted initial trainings, which oriented the cohort members with their devices,
allowed them the time to create and plan, and began the reflective process through
sharing products with their peers.
Intervention & Research Plan
After conducting the initial literature review, it became apparent that the majority
of studies conducted involved synchronous or asynchronous online professional
development for teachers and administrators. The results contained great variability and
oftentimes did not include perceptual data. As I created my research plan and the ensuing
intervention, I collaborated with CK to include a period for both personal and collegial
reflection among members of the cohort. It was determined of utmost importance to
create an atmosphere of encouragement for teachers where their boundaries regarding
teaching and learning were extended. Teachers were given opportunity to pre-plan
lessons with CK or me in person, through e-mail, or any other electronic means.
Additionally, an alternating schedule for teachers was implemented - half of the cohort
signed up during one month, and the other half of the cohort signed up for the following
month. Optimally, the entire cohort would have co-planned, co-taught, and participated in
the reflection day in one cycle. However, due to budgetary constraints and the inability to
acquire substitutes, it was necessary to make some modifications to the initial plan. The
study site’s Apple Cohort typical monthly schedule included nine to 10 teachers who
signed up for a period of co-planning for day one, co-teaching for day two, and reflection
for day three. Due to a substitute shortage, further splitting the cohort to meet in smaller

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

40

groups became a necessity. One substitute teacher covered half of the members during
the morning session on the reflection day, and the same substitute teacher covered the
remaining members of the afternoon session on the reflection day. This constraint, mainly
monetarily driven, limited the teachers’ abilities to further enhance cross-curricular
brainstorming. However, the experience had been well-received by the teachers.
Substitute teachers are required on only the reflection day; they were not required on
other days because teachers used their lesson preparatory period to co-plan a lesson with
CK and me in order to co-teach a lesson during a period of their choice.
The plan for targeted technology professional development focused on the four
main research questions, and as collaborators, CK and I pushed teachers to move outside
their comfort zones. At the onset of our first coaching cycle, as the Supervisor of
education technology, I found it necessary to brainstorm, create, and share a number of
initial templates. When she came to co-plan with teachers, CK and I often revised the
initial concept and allowed teachers to further explore their own perceptions of
technology, student engagement, and learning. By providing teachers with ongoing
support and recognition, teachers felt more comfortable in expanding their boundaries.
Generally, the focus was on the built-in applications on the iPad and did not veer away
from the creation tools that came pre-installed. The applications included: Classroom,
Clips, Numbers, iMovie, GarageBand, Notes, Keynote, and Pages. We also placed great
emphasis on the accessibility and productivity tools that the iPad had so that students and
teachers could fully engage in learning. These tools included split screen, voice dictation,
and reader view.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

41

Fiscally speaking, the only cost to the training that the district incurred was that of
daily substitute teachers on the reflection days. Our services with Apple Professional
Learning were a cost that was included in the implementation of the 1:1 program at the
study site. The district of the study site had a goal to create collaborative relationships
between educators, administrators, and professional trainers such as CK so that the
district would be able to replicate similar experiences in the future with other cohorts at
the elementary and secondary level. Another financial implication from the intervention
and ensuing research plan was the ability of the district to curb spending on unnecessary
or underused applications, platforms, and programs. All the lessons planned and executed
were done so using the native apps and tools found on the iPad. The only other monetary
investment made was the purchase of four Apple TVs and HDMI cables for the cohort to
share. This purchase allowed teachers and students to project their screens. The
projection system at study site was composed of a majority of wall mounted televisions
with VGI cables that plugged into a teacher’s laptop. The teachers needed to plug their
iPad into the laptop using the lightning cable and used QuickTime to project their iPad
screen, which in turn kept the teachers tethered to their desk and laptop. The Apple TVs
connected to HDMI-ready projectors that the district had in stock, which allowed the
teachers to have mobility in the classroom and utilize the iPad as a true mobile device.
The Apple TVs also allowed teachers to display exemplars of creativity and ingenuity
with immediacy during the class period. Each Apple TV had a cost of $149, and each
HDMI cable costs approximately $10. The district made a $640 investment, which is set
to be utilized during the 2020-2021 school year. Another investment that the district

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

42

made into the recognition system was paying for a yearly subscription to Juicer at a cost
of $228 and paying for 500 hashtag decals at a cost of $238.
Research Design, Methods, & Data Collection
In order to answer the four research questions posed, I utilized a mixed methods
research design. Quantitative data was collected primarily through a survey distributed by
Apple and through surveys that CK administered as part of her work with Apple
Professional Learning. The data from CK’s surveys were both quantitative and qualitative
in nature. Finally, interviews were conducted with members of the cohort in order to gain
greater qualitative data regarding their experience with the targeted technology
professional development executed by CK and me.
The surveys administered by Apple were of the company’s own creation and were
administered three times to the entire staff at study site as well at other schools in the
study site’s district. For the purpose of this research study, I examined the results from
study site during its first year as a 1:1 iPad school. On average, the survey took between
15 and 20 minutes to complete. Although I did not know the exact questions that were
asked within the survey and cannot publish them, the results implicated what was being
asked within the survey itself. Due to the global pandemic, COVID-19, the data may be
skewed, as the third survey may not have had as much bearing as the coaching and
mentoring cycle, and the recognition system had been disrupted. Professional learning
could not take place in person or synchronously. Prior to the administration of the survey,
I contacted the Apple Sales Executive who coordinated with the Apple Development
Executive to provide secure links to the survey, which were opened for a period of 14
days. Since the survey was property of Apple, I was not allowed to copy or replicate it,

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

43

but I had access to the survey results due to the nature of my job and their awareness of
my research plan and study. The Apple survey provided information regarding the
number of teachers who became Apple Teacher certified during the course of the 20192020 school year. This data was utilized as part of the established recognition system.
Each time a teacher became Apple Teacher certified, I asked the teachers to notify me. I
then tweeted the information and shared it on the study site’s district Instagram account;
the information was also displayed on the study site’s 1:1 website. Since my departure
from the district of the study site, these responsibilities became that of my successor.
There was a lapse in coverage of duties due to board approval and the inability to crosstrain. My successor was not a collaborator in the study, which may ultimately affect the
data from the intervention.
The surveys administered by Senior Apple Professional Learning Specialist, CK,
were given at the end of each intervention cycle. There were monthly survey results from
August through January. The survey was created by Apple Education and was
administered by the Apple Professional Learning Specialist after each of the training
sessions (Appendix A). The survey used mixed methods in order to gain quantitative and
qualitative data regarding the training rigor, relevance, and experience of the participant.
The survey allowed participants to give anecdotal, narrative feedback to the trainer that
was used to adapt or alter future trainings to best suit the needs of the participants.
Participants were asked to rate the professional learning experience based on the
following scale: 6 – very informative and useful to 1 – not of value to me as a
professional. At the conclusion of each session, respondents were provided with a QR
code that led to an online survey with the following prompts:

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
•

Participant Role

•

Learning Design

44

o The Specialist created an active, hands-on learning experience for me.
o The activities suggested provided engaging ways to use Apple technology
to meet curricular goals.
o I felt I had ample opportunity to dialogue with the Specialist about
learning with technology.
o The Specialist provided time and structure for me to reflect on and discuss
how I might continue to use Apple technology in my teaching and
learning.
•

How do you plan to incorporate what you have learned?

•

The next time I'm with an APL Specialist, I hope to learn more about these topics:

•

Please share additional comments, reflections, or ideas that would improve your
next experience.

There were no additional costs incurred to the district to administer the Apple
Professional Learning. The number of participants varied according to the number of
individuals present at each reflection day. The administrator in the cohort did not
participate in any of the cycles except the administrative day in August 2019;
additionally, two members of the cohort took sabbaticals mid-year, which may account
for varying participation results in the data. The final source of qualitative data was an
interview that took place between each of the cohort members and me; informed consent
was obtained from each cohort member. The interview questions were approved by the
International Review Board (IRB) in September 2019 (Appendix C). There was no cost

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

45

incurred to interview the participants in the cohort; they voluntarily completed interviews
during their preparatory time, lunch, or before or after the school day. I recorded the
conversations on a personal device and then transcribed them. The interview questions
asked were the following:
1. What did you like most about the training? Please explain.
2. What aspects of the training could be improved?
3. How do you intend to change your practice as a result of this training?
4. How did this training compare to other trainings as far as relevancy?
5. Please share other comments or expand on previous questions if you would like.
Baseline quantitative data was available from the May 2019 survey administered by
Apple. The survey directly addressed the four research questions utilized to formulate
this research plan and intervention. The baseline results included quantitative data
regarding the following:
1. How are teachers recognized for what they’ve learned in regard to education
technology? Do teachers feel engaged in the professional learning that they have
taken part in, and will a formalized recognition system within the school district
help to better engage teachers?
2. How do teachers’ perceptions affect how they feel regarding preparedness and
professional learning and the integration of technology within their schools?
3. What are teachers’ perceptions about the integration of technology into their
classrooms upon student engagement and the ability of students to create relevant,
product-based artifacts of learning?

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

46

4. What are teachers’ perceptions of their own preparedness to design innovative
learning experiences with the elements of student learning (teamwork, critical
thinking, personalization of learning, communication/creation, real-world
engagement)?
The midpoint data was collected in February 2020, and the final data set was collected in
May 2020. Due to various unforeseen circumstances, which will be discussed in the
following section, the results may have yielded unreliable.
Other baseline quantitative and qualitative data was collected in August 2019
from the surveys administered by Senior Apple Professional Learning Specialist. The
survey was administered to the entire cohort in September 2019; in the October 2019,
November 2019, December 2019, and January 2020, survey participation varied due to
the coaching and mentoring cycle for that particular month. One of the cohort members,
an administrator in the building, did not participate in any of the trainings after August
2019, while two other members of the cohort left on medical sabbaticals prior to the end
of the cohort; each of the participants was present for the at least one coaching and
mentoring cycle and the initial trainings in August and September 2019. This attrition
impacted the data collected as the full range of participants did not respond.
Validity
Within this research study, a mixed methods approach was used. I obtained both
qualitative and quantitative data to better answer the four research questions posed. The
mixed methods approach was used to better explain the quantitative data that was
obtained.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

47

The data sets in this study may be considered a weakness to the research study
itself for reasons outside of my control. During March 2020, the Corona Virus (COVID19) affected school districts in Pennsylvania, in the nation, and around the world. For the
majority of schools in the study site’s area, including the study site’s district, brick-andmortar school buildings closed on March 13, 2020, for a period of 10 days. At the
conclusion of this two-week period, an indefinite closure of schools was issued by the
Governor Tom Wolf (Levy & Scolforo, 2020). School districts were tasked with
determining a continuity of education plan since face-to-face, synchronous teaching and
learning could not take place due to the restrictions of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and recommendations from the World Health Organization and the Centers
for Disease Control. Virtual teaching and learning were thrust upon school districts, many
of which were unprepared or underprepared for the call to action to implement online,
virtual instruction. Additionally, during this time period, I departed the study site’s
district as the Supervisor of education technology, 6-12, to become the Director of
information and instructional technology with another local school district. Although I
was able to collect qualitative and quantitative data, the final quantitative data point may
be skewed due to the COVID-19; I did not have the ability to have a face-to-face
presence with the staff at the study site. To ensure that teachers had access to and took the
Apple survey, I presented in a large group setting such as during a faculty meeting or at
the start or finish of a professional development session. For the May 2020 administration
of the survey, I needed to rely on my successor and the administrative team at the study
site to distribute the link for the survey, which was a part of the service agreement offered
by Apple Education in collaboration of the 1:1 iPad lease. The research question

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

48

responses may have been impacted by the nature of the continuity of education plan upon
which the study site’s district decided, which included a pass/fail option for the fourth
marking period. Weaknesses that confounded the data include: (a) access to WiFi or a
reliable hotspot, (b) inability to travel to access free WiFi or hotspots in safe locations, (c)
economic and health hardships, and (d) other socioeconomic and familial issues that
caused a disruption in the normative engagement teachers had observed in the brick-andmortar setting. An unplanned variable was being thrust into a virtual environment to
instruct and receive professional development. This variable may have affected that
reliability of the collected data.
The quantitative data collected from the Apple survey and by the Apple
Professional Learning Survey contains content validity. Both surveys were taken
anonymously by participants. The Apple survey directly provided results from the
population regarding the four main research questions that were posed while the Apple
Specialist’s survey contained even greater item validity. Although I was unable to see the
actual Apple survey administered, there were results in the collected data referencing
teacher roles including: subject area that the teachers instructed, level at which the
teacher taught, Apple Teacher certification progress, and percentage of teachers who
taught coding within the building. CK’s survey contained one question regarding
participant roles.
Within the Apple survey, questions were asked regarding the teachers’ sense of
preparedness for teaching with technology. Nine questions were asked within this
category, which included data with the following prompts:
•

designing lessons that engage students in the real world

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
•

students creating products to demonstrate and share their learning

•

fostering creativity and enhancing productivity

•

making learning personal for every student

•

managing iPad devices during student learning experiences

•

using problem solving to support critical thinking

•

building foundational skills around using technology for learning and teaching,

•

designing teamwork lessons beyond simple collaboration

•

integrating coding into your curriculum

Within CK’s survey participants rated their professional learning experience, which had

49

criterion validity with the topic of teacher preparedness.
The next section of the Apple survey detailed teacher perception of technology
and included eight data points including the following prompts:
•

Technology makes it easier to manage my students’ grades.

•

Students create more professional-looking products with technology than with
other traditional media.

•

Technology makes it easier to manage my classes’ assignments and projects.

•

Students put more effort into their assignments when they use technology.

•

Technology helps students to grasp difficult concepts in your curriculum area.

•

Students are more likely to remain on task if they’re using technology.

•

Students are able to manage their own learning with technology.

•

Students interact with each other more while working with technology.

CK’s survey included the following rated responses regarding learning design:
1. The specialist created an active, hands-on learning experience for me.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

50

2. The activities suggested provided engaging ways to use Apple technology to meet
curricular goals.
3. I felt I had ample opportunity to dialogue with the Specialist about learning with
technology.
4. The specialist provided time and structure for me to reflect on and discuss how I
might continue to use Apple technology in my teaching and learning.
The next section of the Apple survey detailed teacher perception of elements of
learning by frequency. The five elements of learning are teamwork, critical thinking,
personalization of learning, communication and creation, and real-world engagement.
The final area of the Apple survey provided data regarding the frequency of
product-based learning. Product-based learning included:
•

pictures or artwork

•

multimedia presentations

•

multimedia reports, term papers, and eBooks

•

graphs or charts

•

videos or movies

•

web-based publications

•

physical products such as 3D printed objects

•

webpages, apps, or other projects requiring coding
CK’s survey and my interviews contained descriptive validity and evaluative

validity. I conducted the interviews with the cohort. To avoid any bias in the future and to
have greater interpretive validity, I would recommend that another individual conduct

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

51

interviews with the participants in the study. The qualitative questions and statements
included in CK’s survey were:
1. How do you plan to incorporate what you have learned?
2. The next time I’m with an APL Specialist, I hope to learn more about these
topics.
3. Please share additional comments, reflections, or ideas that would improve your
next experience.
During my interview, I asked participants to respond to the following prompts that were
approved by the IRB:
1. What did you like most about the training? Please explain.
2. What aspects of the training could be improved?
3. How do you intend to change your practice as a result of this training?
4. How did this training compare to other trainings as far as relevancy?
5. Please share any other comments or expand on previous responses.
Summary
After examining the quantitative data from the Apple survey, there appeared to be
a positive correlation between the intervention conducted and the data; the intervention
created and implemented was based upon the literature review and research. The
preliminary qualitative data also appeared to show a positive correlation between the
intervention and teacher perception; however, there was no baseline qualitative data with
which to compare teacher responses with from May 2019.
In May 2019, study site had 101 respondents to the Apple survey: 2% were Apple
Teacher certified, 7% were working on their certification, and 91% had yet to begin the

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

52

certification process. In March 2020, the study site had 94 respondents to the Apple
survey: 21% were Apple Teacher certified, 21% were working on their certification, and
57% had yet to begin the process. Over the course of 10 months, there was a 19%
increase in Apple Teacher certification, and there was a 14% increase in teachers who
had begun the process to become Apple Teacher certified. When comparing the results
regarding teachers’ sense of preparedness for teaching with technology from May 2019 to
March 2020, there was a slight increase. The data from the March 2019 survey
demonstrated that approximately 67% of the 101 teachers responded that they felt
moderately to very prepared. The data from the May 2020 survey demonstrated that
approximately 70% of the 94 teachers felt moderately to very prepared.
The ensuing data and its analysis accounted for a number of unplanned variables
that confounded the data. During this time period, I dislocated my elbow and was unable
to work for several weeks in a face-to-face format or virtually under medical advisement.
I departed the study site’s district as the Supervisor of education technology, 6-12, to
another district as the Director information and instructional technology. Finally, the
global COVID-19 pandemic ensued, which has impacted schools across the study site’s
region, state, nation, and world. These variables will be discussed in greater depth in the
final section of the paper in the data analysis.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

53

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results
Introduction
The results from the study came from a number of sources and included
qualitative and quantitative data sources. The mixed methods approach was effective in
this particular study in order to provide better insight into the responses from the
respondents and to explain change over time. The four research questions were addressed
by the multiple sources of data, including the Apple survey, the Senior Apple Learning
Specialist survey, and an interview that I conducted. The four targeted research questions
that I addressed in this project are as follows:
1. How are teachers recognized for what they’ve learned in regard to education
technology? Do teachers feel engaged in the professional learning that they have
taken part in, and will a formalized recognition system within the school district
help to better engage teachers?
2. How do teachers’ perceptions affect how they feel regarding preparedness and
professional learning and the integration of technology within their schools?
3. What are teachers’ perceptions about the integration of technology into their
classrooms upon student engagement and the ability of students to create relevant,
product-based artifacts of learning?
4. What are teachers’ perceptions of their own preparedness to design innovative
learning experiences with the elements of student learning (teamwork, critical
thinking, personalization of learning, communication/creation, real-world
engagement)?

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

54

Data Analysis
I utilized the quantitative data results from the Apple and Apple Professional
Learning Specialist’s surveys. The Apple survey was useful in providing data regarding
the population but was limited in producing data specific to the intervention group
because the survey was completed anonymously. I compared the data points for
correlational statements or questions. This allowed me to make inferences from the data
regarding the intervention. I found the quantitative data to be useful, but the qualitative
data further explained the success of intervention. As the timeline progressed, qualitative
data from cohort teachers referenced the expectation, support, and recognition systems
created and implemented.
Results
In comparing the data points from the three Apple surveys administered at the
study site, the data demonstrated positive trends regarding teacher recognition. Over the
course of one year (May 2019-May 2020), the teachers at the study site showed an
increase in Apple Teacher recognition. Within the course of the year, the amount of
Apple Certified teachers grew from 2% (May 2019), 21% (March 2020), to 29% (May
2020). As a form of recognition, teachers were able to add their Apple Teacher status to
their school email addresses and social media accounts. While employed with the district
of the study site, I recognized teachers on social media accounts (Twitter and Instagram)
as well as the district and study site’s websites. The number of respondents varied per
survey; the following indicate the number of respondents who took the Apple survey: 101
(May 2019), 94 (March 2020), and 76 (May 2020). The variance in results will be
discussed in the conclusion section.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

55

The qualitative data suggests that the teachers felt engaged in professional
learning opportunities. CK, the Senior Apple Learning Specialist, administered a survey
at the conclusion of each session she had with teachers. The surveys were administered in
August 2019, September 2019, October 2019, November 2019, December 2019, and
January 2020. The number of respondents varies due to the type of training offered:
whole group cohort or split cohort. Teachers ranked the following statements from 1 to 6
(not helpful to me at all to very informative and useful):
•

S1) The Specialist created an active, hands-on learning experience for me.

•

S2) The activities suggested provided engaging ways to use Apple Technology to
meet curricular goals.

•

S3) I felt I had ample opportunity to dialogue with the Specialist about learning
technology.

•

S4) The Specialist provided time and structure for me to reflect on and discuss
how I might continue to use Apple Technology in my teaching and learning.

Figure 1 shows cohort responses over the course of the six engagements with CK and
served as a data point for the second part of the first research question regarding whether
teachers feel engaged in the professional learning that they had taken part. In August and
September 2019, the whole cohort met for training; in the following months, October
2019-January 2020, the cohort met in smaller, split groups. The data regarding
professional development administered by CK yielded positive results by those in the
cohort. The lowest data point within the set of statements was 80% for the fourth
statement in December 2019; incidentally, the number of cohort members that met during

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

56

this cycle was significantly smaller than other cycles. Teachers cited the timing of CK’s
visit to the study site as a deterrent for signing up for that cycle.

APLS STATEMENT SURVEY: Figure 1
Aug-19

Sep-19

Oct-19

Nov-19

Dec-19

Jan-20

93.3

Statements from Survey

Statement 1

86.7
87.5

Statement 2

87.5

100
100
92.9
93.3

91.7
92.9
87.5

Statement 4
80

100
100
100
100

92.9

83.3

Statement 3

100

100
100
100
100

91.7

Affirmative Response Rate

Data from the Apple survey helped to answer the final part of the first research question
regarding a formalized recognition system, which was meant to better engage teachers. In
May 2019, prior to the start of this research project, there was no formal recognition
program in place for teachers who had completed Apple Teacher certification or any
other technological certification; social media and the website were primarily used to
feature student accomplishments. With the implementation of the intervention, social
media and website recognition, the number of teachers within the study site who
completed and started the Apple Teacher certification program demonstrated growth. At
the start of the 2019-2020 school year, teachers were encouraged to complete their Apple

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

57

Teacher certification for their professional learning. This intervention demonstrated a
decrease in teachers who had yet to begin from 91% in May 2019 to 54% in May 2020.

Apple Teacher Certification Status: Figure 2

Pprogress in AT Certification Process

May-19

Mar-20

May-20

2
% Complete

21
29
7

% on the way

21
17
91

% Yet to Begin

57
54

Percentage Complete

The second research question involved teachers’ perceptions regarding
preparedness and the integration of technology within their school. The May 2019 and
March 2020 survey data demonstrated little variance. Of the entire population at study
site, 16% of teachers felt very prepared in May 2019, 15% of teachers felt very prepared
in March 2020, and 20% felt very prepared in May 2020. Figure 3 demonstrated the
teachers’ perceptions of their own preparedness for teaching with technology according
to the Apple survey. The overall change in teachers’ perceptions of their own
preparedness (very prepared to moderately prepared) increased from a total of 67% (May
2019) to 70% (March 2020) to 87% (May 2020). The incidence of COVID-19 could have
affected teachers’ sense of preparedness for teaching with technology in the May 2020
responses in comparison to earlier responses.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

58

Teachers' Perceptions of Preparedness for Teaching with
Technology: Figure 3
Percentage of Prepareness

80
67

70
60

55

51

50
40

26

30
20

22

16

20

15
7

10

7

11
3

0
May-19

Mar-20

May-20

Levels of preparedness over time
Very Prepared

Moderately Prepared

Moderately Unprepared

Very Unprepared

The results from the Apple Professional Learning Survey, which was
administered to cohort teachers, reflected growth in comparison to population of teachers
at the study site. The specific intervention of targeted technology professional
development with a trained professional seemed to have impacted their perceptions
regarding their preparedness, professional learning, and integration of technology into
their classrooms as evidenced by the responses provided. The Apple Professional
Learning Survey asked teachers, “How do you plan to incorporate what you have
learned?”. This question correlated to their self-perceptions and feelings of preparedness
regarding technology integration. Below are some sample responses from the survey.
There was a noticeable change from August 2019 when teachers focused upon
exploration, baby steps, and implementing technology into small sections of their lessons
to January 2020 when teachers speak of moving out of their comfort zone and using
technology on a regular basis within their classrooms. Some of the responses touched

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

59

upon the third research question regarding teachers’ perceptions about technology
integration, student engagement, and student creation.
Table 1
Teacher preparedness and technology integration
Qualitative Result
September 2019
When the role of the teacher
was solely that of a learner,
their perception of their own
preparedness to implement
technology took a more teachercentered approach.

October 2019
After having one experience
with the intervention (coplanning, co-teaching, and
reflecting with peers), teachers’
perception of their preparedness
to implement technology took a
more student-centered
approach.

November 2019
After having one experience
with the intervention (coplanning, co-teaching, and
reflecting with peers), teachers’
perception of their preparedness
to implement technology took a
more student-centered
approach.

Example Quotes
I will implement what I learned through direct,
hands-on technology project work with my students.
Creating books to teach as well as having my
students use it to share they learn.
Making books for every unit, creating templates for
student projects.
I want to make some templates in Pages to have
students show their mathematical thinking process
for decimals.
I plan to continue the project I started with my class
and even expand the lesson into other areas. I also
learned a lot of new tips and tricks as well as
incredible ideas to incorporate into my classroom.
I will continue to incorporate the ideas we learn
about. I’m so excited to start the My Country book
with my students. I’ll be using a Pages template. I
feel inspired.
Using Clips as a tool to do quick introductions,
delve into kids’ prior knowledge, and see where they
want to go in the future.
To plan lessons focused on student thinking and not
on time constraints.
I’m ready to try it more and more. That is big for me
to start planning new ideas of using these new tools
in my classroom.
I would like to have more self-discovery with my
students and allow students to understand what they
are learning and why without always being graded.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Qualitative Quote
December 2019
After having two experiences
with the intervention (coplanning, co-teaching, and
reflecting with peers), teachers’
perceptions of their
preparedness to implement
technology continued to grow;
teachers expressed the desire to
take more risks with technology
integration.

January 2019
After having two experiences
with the intervention (coplanning, co-teaching, and
reflecting with peers), teachers’
perceptions of their
preparedness to implement
technology continued to grow;
teachers expressed the desire to
take more risks with technology
integration.

60

Example Quotes
Hoping to continue with new ideas and new
projects.
I use the application for meaningful instruction
while eliminating the need for traditional supplies.
After our time-sharing ideas with each other, I feel
much more comfortable trying new ways of
presenting, discovering, and learning using the
iPads.
I plan to use the ideas presented by other teachers
and [CK] into my curriculum. I hope to use AR
Makr for a student-created scavenger hunt for
geometric shapes.
Love the ideas and outside the box thinking.
I now know how to use the iPad to its fullest
potential and plan to use Apple native apps with my
students on a regular basis. I did not know how to
use many Apple apps until this cohort and mostly
stuck to Google.
I’m much more comfortable using the iPad now and
Apple products. I was reluctant at first because it’s
out of my comfort zone.
Our specialist not only shared information, she made
it come alive. She personally connected with each
person and made sure it was useful ad not only
applicable but fit into your teaching style. She
encouraged growth through challenging each of us
to step out of our comfort zone. I have been able to
try so many new things each and every day.
Create learning opportunities for my students that
not only increase their knowledge, but also lead to
their exposure to and finesse with technology. In this
way, I hope to inspire them to continue to integrate
technology into the products that they create that
demonstrate their understanding.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

61

The third research question focused on teachers’ perceptions and how they
affected their feelings regarding their own preparedness, professional learning, and the
integration of technology within their schools. The data compiled by the Apple survey
focused on the frequency with which students produced certain products within their
classroom, which directly correlates to the teachers’ own comfort levels and preparedness
to incorporate such experiences into their classrooms. Abbreviated titles of the five
categories which are compared in Figure 4 were:
•

Category 1: Pictures or Artwork

•

Category 2: Videos or Movies

•

Category 3: Web-based Publications

•

Category 4: Multimedia Presentations

•

Category 5: Multimedia Reports

Student Product Frequency: Figure 4
Daily

Category

Pictures (May 2019)
Pictures (March 2020)
Pictures (May 2020)
Videos/movies (May 2019)
Videos/movies (March 2020)
Videos/movies (May 2020)
Publications (May 2019)
Publications (March 2020)
Publications (May 2020)
Presentations (May 2019)
Presentations (March 2020)
Presentations (May 2020)
Reports (May 2019)
Reports (March 2020)
Reports (May 2020)

Often

Occasionally

2
27.7
2.1
26.6
5.3
28.9
3 15.8
4.3 12.8
3.9
19.7
2 12.9
14.9
1.1 8.5
16
1.3 11.8
14.5
2
17.8
3.2 14.9
1.3
22.4
2
17.7
2.1 16
1.3
22.4

Infrequently

Not at all

27.7
19.8
22.8
36.2
17
18.1
32.9
21.1
11.8
22.8
28.7
29.7
30.9
21.3
30.9
32.9
19.7
23.7
21.8
48.5
17
57.4
22.4
50
24.8
30.7
24.8
31.9
20.2
29.8
30.3
25
21.1
24.8
30.7
24.8
25.5
17
39.4
30.3
25
21.1

Percentage of frequency

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

62

The schoolwide results from the Apple survey demonstrated focus upon using visual
mediums to allow students to have greater choice in exhibiting their knowledge and
creativity within the classroom.
The results demonstrated that certain products were used at a higher frequency
than others as inferred by the professional learning opportunities offered to the staff.
When tallying the daily, often, and occasionally student frequency of the aforementioned
categories, there seemed to be an apparent comfort level of teachers, which appeared in
the data displayed in Figure 5.

Daily, Often, and Occasionally Frequency: Figure 5
May-19

Student Product

Web-based Publications
Multimedia Reports

Mar-20

May-20

29.8
25.6
27.6
44.5
43.6
46.5
50

Multimedia Presentations
Videos or Movies

41.6

48

54

54
56.5
57.4

Pictures or Artwork

64.9
67.1

Percentage used

The Apple Professional Learning Survey asked teachers to share what they would
like to learn the next time they meet with the Apple Professional Learning Specialist.
Their responses showed a correlation between their own learning and wishing to keep
students engaged in class to create artifacts of learning. Some of the answers in Table 1
demonstrated perceptions regarding student engagement and creativity in addition to the
responses found in Table 2.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Table 2
Teacher Learning Desires, Student Engagement & Artifacts
Qualitative Statement
Example Quotes
August 2019
Apply more to content.
When the role of the teacher was
solely that of a learner, teachers
tended to focus upon their own
teaching rather than student
engagement and creativity.

I would like to learn more about the
specific Apple apps and how to easily
incorporate them into my classroom.
More project-based ideas

Clips, iMovie, providing information to
students.
September 2019
Just using all these awesome tools in my
math classroom and enhancing the
After having one experience with students’ learning.
the intervention (co-planning,
co-teaching, and reflecting with
iMovie and more ways to integrate into
peers), teachers focused more on the classroom.
apps and began to focus on
student learning.
Other ways to implement this technology
into the ELA classroom.
More about various apps and tools to use
specifically in history/geography
classrooms.
October 2019
After having one experience with
the intervention (co-planning,
co-teaching, and reflecting with
peers), teachers continued to
focus on apps and began to focus
on student learning.

Keynote!
Animating in Keynote and other real-life
applications.
Screen recording and new apps I do not
currently use.
Besides templates and books, how else can
I use Pages in my classroom. What are
other easy ways to incorporate them
More about Keynote and Pages; I’m a
little inept with Apple products.
Continue sharing ideas with colleagues.

63

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Qualitative Statement
November 2019
After having one experience with the
intervention (co-planning, co-teaching,
and reflecting with peers), teachers
continued to focus on apps and began to
focus on student learning.

December 2019
After having two experiences with the
intervention (co-planning, co-teaching,
and reflecting with peers), teachers began
to focus on application, out-of-the-box
thinking, and real-world engagement.
January 2019
After having two experiences with the
intervention (co-planning, co-teaching,
and reflecting with peers), teachers began
to focus on application, out-of-the-box
thinking, and real-world engagement.

64

Example Quotes
Continued growth of utilizing technology
in the classroom.
New ways to incorporate the iPad to
engage and enhance student learning.
Additional apps or ways to integrate. At
this point, I have a pretty good
understanding of many apps, but always
looking for creative exercises and ideas of
how to incorporate.
Anything, I love the new ideas and
outside the box thinking.
Screen recordings for student instruction.
I wish she wasn’t leaving us.
I would like to continue learning how to
use programs like Clips, Pages, and
Keynote so that I can lead students in
using them.
Familiarize myself more with Pages;
using GarageBand to podcast.
Keynote and numbers and how I can use it
more in my lessons.
I’m still trying to master Google products,
Pages, and Clips. I’m not sure what else is
out there, but I’m excited to learn.
3D printing, CAD, cam applications that
are applied to reality.

The survey responses demonstrated the teachers’ desires to learn about specific apps and
platforms, and some teachers referenced their own comfort level regarding their ability to
lead instruction with their students. The teachers’ perceptions of their mastery of skills
correlated to the frequency in which they created lessons that were focused upon student

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
engagement, which provided opportunities to students to create relevant, product-based
artifacts of learning.
The final research question focused upon the teachers’ perceptions of their own
preparedness to design innovative learning experiences with the elements of student
learning. The Apple survey directly provided quantitative data regarding teacher
perception of the frequency of student learning concerning the five aforementioned
elements of learning. There was a correlation between the teachers’ perception of
preparedness in designing an innovative lesson and the frequency in which students’
learning of said elements was reported. The five measured categories were:
•

Category 1: Real-world engagement

•

Category 2: Communication and creativity (name is shortened in Figure 6)

•

Category 3: Personalization

•

Category 4: Critical Thinking

•

Category 5: Teamwork

65

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

66

Category

Frequency of Student Learning Elements: Figure 6
Engagement (May 2019)
Engagement (March 2020)
Engagement (May 2020)
Communication (May 2019)
Communication (March 2020)
Communication(May 2020)
Personalization (May 2019)
Personalization (March 2020)
Personalization (May 2020)
Critial Thinking (May 2019)
Critical Thinking (March 2020)
Critical Thinking (May 2020)
Teamwork (May 2019)
Teamwork (March 2020)
Teamwork (May 2020)

6.9 15.2
29.7
21.6
26.5
22.1
3.2 14
23.6
25.1
34
17.2
4.5 17.9
24.2
28.9
24.5
22.4
5.7 23.8
32.1
20.2 18.2
29.5
4 18.9
30
18.1
28.9
22.9
4.7 26.3
27.6
21.8
19.5
31
10.7
31.3
29.7
19 9.3
42
11.6
33
29.9
15.5 10
44.6
16.9
35
27.4
12 8.6
51.9
17
34.9
29.3
12.46.4
51.9
16.3
36.6
25.8 11.110.2
52.9
17.5
41
24.4 10.56.6
58.5
18.8
36.1
30.2 10.94
54.9
17.6
38.6
30.6
9.83.5
56.2
28.3
35.5
27.3 5.93
63.8

Percentage used
Daily

Often

Occasionally

Infrequently

Not at all

Column2

Many of the responses listed in Tables 1 and 2 reflect the teachers’ perceptions of their
preparedness to create innovative lessons. Although qualitative data was not available
from the entire school, the cohort provided a great amount of information about their
sense of preparedness with the intervention of targeted technology professional
development. Surveying the teachers individually allowed each member to more fully
express their experiences as compared to completing a Likert-like scale survey.
Prior to leaving the study site’s district, I collected informal data from the teachers
in the cohort as well as from those who were not. The teachers appreciated recognition,
time to collaborate, feedback, in-class support, and the ability to work with a
knowledgeable professional. Additionally, meeting with each teacher in the cohort to coplan their lesson provided a unique opportunity to communicate, problem-solve, create,
and empower teachers. I met with the majority of the teachers in the cohort prior to
leaving the district; there were some circumstances that made it impossible to collect data

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

67

from all members. Two teachers took sabbatical; the principal stopped participating after
the August training; two teachers had scheduling conflicts that precluded them from
completing the interview. Table 3 is synopsis of the responses that teachers provided to
interview questions regarding their experience with the cohort. Teachers emphasized
feelings of apprehension, excitement, preparedness, and level of confidence in the
training that they received.
Table 3
Interview data from cohort members
Question
Responses
What did you
Participant 1: Stepping out of my comfort zone, but with support from
like most about everyone.
the training?
Please explain. Participant 4: Working in small groups allowed [the researchers] to
focus on individual needs. This was especially important since many
were at various levels of understanding and using the iPad.
Participant 11: Collaboration with [the researchers]. [They] both gave
amazing feedback and gave me a direction that worked so much better.
Also, the in-class support was very beneficial. I especially loved the
sharing session on the third day.

Question
How do you
intend to
change your
practice as a
result of this
training?

Participant 15: Having the opportunity and time to collaborate with
colleagues, being able to learn and practice using the iPads before
“going live” with students.
Responses
Participant 6: Making my technology integration meaningful and using it
to connect my kids with resources they wouldn't normally get to use.
Participant 8: I have learned to trust both myself and the kids, and to not
be afraid to take risks.
Participant 10: I am feeling more comfortable with the idea of
integrating technology more and more into all that I do, and I continually
look for ways to accomplish that daily.
Participant 15: The training eased a lot of the nervousness I felt about
using technology and gave me confidence to try new things. This has
been really beneficial with the switch to online learning currently in
place, as my students and I are very comfortable using technology
already.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Question
How did this
training
compare to
other trainings
as far as
relevancy?

Please share
other
comments or
expand on
previous
responses if
you’d like to.

68

Responses
Participant 2: This training allowed me to apply everything I learned
directly to my content and my students every time I attended.
Participant 5: Much better! I loved the experience.
Participant 7: It was extremely relevant since our students are 1:1 iPad.
How can we teach our students to use their iPads to their fullest
capabilities if we are not proficient in using the Apple Apps ourselves?
Participant 13: This was one of the most useful trainings I have been part
of in 17 years of teaching.
Participant 1: I think that empowering teachers gives way to a better
climate in the building… I have seen a change from teachers coming to
me all of the time with questions to feeling more comfortable with
technology because they know they have peers for guidance.
Participant 3: I've been teaching for 21 years, and this was the best
program I've ever participated in. You created an environment that
encouraged teachers to be different and aim high. The best part was the
unintended directions you'd find yourself going in once creativity took
hold.
Participant 8: I enjoyed learning how some of the simplest tools can be
used in new ways. I would love to be able to continue to learn new
things and benefit from our sharing sessions.
Participant 10: This type of training, learning the effective
implementation of technology, would be good for more staff to be a part
of. I think they would be as happy about the learning as I was.

The qualitative data provided from these interviews demonstrated a correlation between
the teachers’ sense of preparedness in creating high-quality, innovative lessons focused
on student engagement, product-based learning, and the elements of student learning. The
intervention of the cohort will be discussed in the conclusion and reflective planning
portion of the paper.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

69

Discussion
The data analysis was a lengthy process that involved the reliance upon outside
sources such as Apple and CK. My position as the Supervisor of education technology, 612, in the study site’s district, afforded me the ability to view and analyze the data. After
my departure, I made an agreement with the district to access materials pertinent to this
study.
When analyzing the data, I was primarily looking at anonymous survey results.
Although the quantitative data was helpful and demonstrated trends in both the sample
intervention group and population at study site, it could have been useful to differentiate
cohort data from population data in both the Apple and Apple Professional Learning
Surveys. As the researcher, I found myself interested in this information because I
wanted to gain even greater perceptual data and attain greater buy-in from staff. I
recognized that the likelihood of teachers honestly reporting may have diminished if they
were to attribute their name to the surveys. Two primary factors in the study that allowed
for participant safety were informed consent (Appendix D) and anonymity. All members
of the cohort signed and returned the informed consent forms. Teachers were not fearful
and seemed as though they shared their opinions honestly in the qualitative feedback. The
CITI coursework (Appendixes D, F, and G) pertained to the study and helped shape the
outcomes of the study through the structure and guidance provided. Additionally, The
IRB review process (Appendixes H) and checklist (Appendix I) provided structure to the
research study. The initial study was to include a badging system based upon a
professional development program created in coordination with the local intermediate
unit for secondary teachers. Planning for the professional development platform began at

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

70

the end of the 2018-2019 school year. I worked with a local intermediate unit Supervisor
of education technology to an online space where teachers could choose their own
learning goals for the year that could be used as a part of their professional growth
portfolio. The local intermediate unit’s Supervisor of educational technology created a
course in Schoology, a learning management system (LMS) where the areas of focus
were: (a) creating a classroom culture, (b) creating a community of learners, (c)
increasing student agency, (d) utilizing instructional models that support a studentcentered classroom, and (e) creating a passion project expo within one’s classroom.
Within these modules, educational technology tools were demonstrated, and teachers
were to choose at least two of the tools to learn and utilize within their classroom to
affect student growth. Examples of tech tools included: iMovie, Keynote, Clips, Photos
(iOS based), Canva, Google Slides, Google Docs, Flipgrid, Scratch, EdPuzzle, paper
slide videos, and digital choice boards. Teachers were allowed to choose a third option to
demonstrate professional growth. The building administrators and I encouraged teachers
to earn their Apple Teacher certification through the online badging system due to the
integration of iPads in their schools. The principal in the cohort wished to create an
online or tangible badging system for teachers but lost interest as the school 2019-2020
school year began.
Another component of the collaboration included starting a “Junior Techspert”
program at the study site where the local intermediate unit Supervisor of education
technology and a member of the cohort would act as co-facilitators in an advisory class
focused on technology integration. The idea was formulated with the Supervisor of
education technology from the local intermediate unit because of similar work she had

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

71

conducted successfully at other schools; the administrative team believed that the
presence of knowledgeable, empowered students would add another layer of support
within the building. The Supervisor of education technology from the local intermediate
unit and I planned to have students create online tutorials for other students to recognize
their achievements and share best practices with their classmates at the study site.
Ultimately, the efforts with Supervisor of education technology and the local
intermediate unit were not used as data points in the intervention due to a lack of
involvement and waning interest from the administrative team. The climate in the
building seemed to impact many staff members, including administrators. The badging
system utilizing the online platform was on the initial proposal to the IRB; I quickly
realized it would be unmanageable to track alone and focused solely on the cohort.
Summary
The data from the intervention demonstrated that targeted technology
professional development had a positive correlation on the four research questions. After
each intervention, teachers provided qualitative data that demonstrated a shift from a
teacher-centered approach to a student-centered approach. Several teachers noted that
they enjoyed the collaborative time with their peers and wished they had more time to
share lessons. Cohort teachers remarked that they were less afraid to take risks and move
outside of their comfort zone. For instance, an elementary teacher co-planned and taught
a lesson with students where they utilized several tools in order to demonstrate their
geography skills. The product-based lesson incorporated Apple Maps, Sketches School,
Keynote animation and voiceovers, and the creation of a movie using Keynote. When
sharing the teacher’s lesson, many of the other cohort members were extremely

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

72

impressed with the capabilities of the students and wished to learn more about the lesson.
The vast majority of these teachers were middle school teachers, and two were high
school teachers. This demonstrated the importance of cross-curricular sharing and sharing
across school levels. When departing from study site, several cohort members expressed
fear that the momentum they experienced in the building would end. I encouraged them
to continue on their learning journey and to support their peers as they had been
supported. This intervention was successful due to the atmosphere that was created, the
support that was offered, the recognition that was applied, and the growth in the teachers’
sense of self-efficacy that impacted their willingness to take greater chances in the
classroom that allowed for student engagement, student learning, and student production.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

73

Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
The research questions determined the impact that targeted technology
professional development had on educators. Often, professional development is
considered in isolation of curricular and learning goals. Technology specialists are given
minimal time to present professional learning opportunities; other pressing school or
district matters such as curriculum revision or social emotional learning training are
deemed of greater importance. Technology training is viewed as a showcase or an
isolated event where teachers have minimal time with a trainer; teachers do not have time
to engage in the learning, fully investigate the app or platform, discuss best practices with
the trainer or their peers, and receive recognition for their attempts at integration. The
fear of failure acts as an inhibitor for many teachers; they do not wish for their lesson to
go awry in front of their evaluator or students. Teachers prefer to see concrete examples
or lessons directly tied to their curriculum that integrate technology. Providing a
“canned” lesson can inhibit student empowerment. The teacher’s locus of control
precludes them from considering student learning outcomes, student engagement, and
specific elements of learning.
The efficacy of the intervention is apparent in the qualitative and quantitative data
from the sample group, the study site’s Apple Cohort. In comparison to the data from the
population, the rest of the teaching staff at study site, the cohort’s results showed greater
growth in a number of areas, and the qualitative data helps to support this claim. Cohort
members express that the targeted technology professional development was the best
experience of their career; many of the respondents were in their second decade of

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

74

teaching and received innumerable hours of professional development that left little
impact upon them and had no change upon their practice, according to their responses.
Participant 1 remarked in her interview that “very often, we have trainings that do not
help me grow professionally. Most I could have read an article and got it.” Perceptual
data from the start of the intervention in August 2019 through January 2020 demonstrates
growth. Quantitative data collected from their experiences with the trainer does not
demonstrate a great deal of variance; the qualitative data demonstrates that the cohort’s
perceptions and thinking changed over time.
Two major weaknesses that impact the effectiveness of the intervention include
COVID-19 and my job transition. Due to COVID-19 educators were forced to alter their
vision of education and lesson planning. Technology is a driving force in education, and
the need for technology training is evident. As educators struggle to design effective
lessons for students in a completely remote environment the need for targeted technology
professional development is in greater demand.
My transition as the Supervisor of education technology, 6-12, in the study site’s
district to the Director of information and instructional technology in another local
district is unique. As I transitioned into my new role, I met with Central Office staff
members and technology integration specialists (coaches) and shared my vision for
coaching and mentoring. The desire to implement a program of targeted professional
development in the district that I am currently employed as the Director of information
and instruction is stronger based on the cohort intervention, and the clear lack of focus
that I witnessed during the following weeks of school closure in regard to technology
training. Although technology coaches offer choice to teachers regarding technology in

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

75

hopes that teachers model choice to their students, there has not been a consistent focus
on product-based learning, student engagement, or the elements of student learning. As I
work collaboratively with district stakeholders, a more consistent focus on recognition,
student engagement, product-based learning, and the elements of learning must be
evident in the combining technology and curricular goals.
Planning for the future during a pandemic is difficult. The teaching staff in my
current district took a wage freeze, which resulted in taking away two professional
development days. As we implement new systems in my current district, SeeSaw (K-5)
and Schoology (6-12), curricular and programmatic changes, and a new schedule at the
high school, meaningful technology training is not at the forefront planning.
Overwhelming feelings of anxiety and fear are abundant in the field of education. Board
and parental pressures contrast to guidelines from the medical world, the vast majority of
our time after the school closure is spent creating scenarios for our eventual re-opening
with extremely limited focus on professional development.
Within my current district, I will visit each school to speak with the building
leadership in person regarding our shared instructional and technology goals for the
students and staff. Ideally, we will create a recognition system together that highlights the
efforts of teachers on the growth spectrum regarding the implementation of technology
into the classroom. It is important to highlight small strides as well as large achievements
so that teachers across the district are able to identify with their peers. Consistently
highlighting the proverbial standout in each school is not the most effective means to
garner buy-in and to create a supportive atmosphere. Is important to recognize staff who
provide the greatest reluctance to implement technology due to their fear of failure or

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

76

self-perceptions of technology inferiority. As the staff member and their colleagues gain
confidence the atmosphere in the school changes.
Future plans to implement the intervention in my current district include
continued professional learning opportunities for the coaches such as virtual planning and
training sessions with Apple Learning Specialists, including CK. Additionally, coaches
will have time to meet with me to collaborate, discuss best practices, and discuss the
aspects of learning on which we plan to focus. As the coaches provided professional
development to teachers at the start of the school closure in March 2020, they
successfully filled knowledge gaps so theirs peers had the ability to communicate with
students via Google Meet, Google Classroom, Flipgrid, and SeeSaw. They continued to
offer targeted one on one coaching to teachers who needed additional assistance. As we
proceeded further into the school closure, the coaches were able to build resources for
students and families. Although the elements of learning and product-based learning were
not at the forefront of their professional development opportunities, the coaches were
able to strengthen relationships with the staff. Teachers who did not wish to integrate
technology into their lessons were suddenly thrust into a fully online teaching and
learning environment bringing the need for technology coaching and mentoring to the
forefront. The coaches became an integral component in making the district’s virtual
learning environment functional. Moving forward a goal of great importance is the focus
on student outcomes, including engagement, product-based learning, and elements of
learning, rather than apps and platforms. Apps and platforms are useful tools in achieving
outcomes, but if the connection is not made by the coach or the teacher, the training is
neither targeted nor relevant.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

77

Another successful aspect of the intervention is that teachers are able to engage
with a trained professional whom they view as knowledgeable, flexible, and has the
ability to support them in the planning and co-teaching the lesson. Budgetary, health, and
safety concerns make it difficult to acquire a highly-qualified, on-site trainer. The
intervention can be replicated very closely within my current district on a small scale in
person or online. In order to do so, teachers will apply for the cohort using a Google
Form. Within the form, an explanation of the model will be explained including the
following components: a period of co-planning, a period of co-teaching, and a day of
collaboration and sharing with peers. This cohort will run twice a year with five meetings
per cohort. Ideally, it will include 10 elementary teachers per cohort, 5 middle school
teachers, and 5 high school teachers. This will provide intervention to a total of forty
teachers for the 2020-2021 school year. In a district that serves over 8,700 students over
ten buildings, the intervention could have a far-reaching impact in one year and will help
to build capacity within buildings.
The new cohort one [in current district] schedule is as follows:
•

August 2020: announce the cohort, meet to explain the set up and purpose of
the cohort, and set forth goals for the upcoming months.

•

September 2020: co-plan, co-teach, and collaboration/sharing days

•

October 2020: co-plan, co-teach, and collaboration/sharing days

•

November 2020: co-plan, co-teach, and collaboration/sharing days

•

December 2020: co-plan, co-teach, and collaboration/sharing days

The new cohort two [in current district] schedule is as follows:

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
•

78

January 2021: announce the cohort, meet to explain the set up and purpose of
the cohort, and set forth goals for the upcoming months.

•

February 2021: co-plan, co-teach, and collaboration/sharing days

•

March 2021: co-plan, co-teach, and collaboration/sharing days

•

April 2021: co-plan, co-teach, and collaboration/sharing days

•

May 2021: co-plan, co-teach, and collaboration/sharing days

Due to the fact that my current district is a dual device district, the cohort will be further
split on sharing days from 20 to 10 teachers during each cycle; each device and the
associated tools have varying capabilities. To have teachers share lessons and best
practices on two separate devices seems impractical since the district has no intention in
becoming a single-device environment from K-12.. Should the district ever change, it
would require a K-12 committee with a variety of stakeholders present. Any change
would likely occur over time in a methodical manner and would coincide with the refresh
cycle that the district has decided on.
In my current district, grades K-2 operate on a shared iPad system, grades 3-5
have an in-class 1:1 iPad system, and grades 6-12 have a true 1:1 Chromebook system
where the devices go home with the students. Due to COVID-19, the district is
purchasing an additional 470 iPads to create a 1:1 iPad environment for elementary
students to eliminate the sharing of devices. The devices will not remain within the
elementary environment after the pandemic and its aftermath have cleared; however,
when the intervention occurs within my current district, it will be in a complete 1:1
atmosphere in all grades.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

79

After conducting some brief classroom walkthroughs prior to the COVID-19
school closure in in my current district, I was able to observe some classrooms at the high
school and one of the middle schools. The 2019-2020 school year marks the first year of
full 1:1 integration in my current district. The plan for device rollout was as follows:
phase one occurred at the end of the 2016-2017 school year, phase two occurred at the
start of the 2017-2018 school year, and phase three commenced in the 2018-2019 school
year. At the start of the rollout, the district had one technology coach; during each
concurrent phase, an additional technology coach was hired. The coaches have been led
by a member of the Office of Teaching and Learning until July 2020; from this point
forward, they will be under my direction.
As we forge ahead in my current district, it is important for coaches to understand
the ecosystem that they are creating. Students need time to practice and master a skill to
construct quality products. Teachers must be afforded the same opportunity to practice
and master their skills in order to produce quality lessons that focus on student
engagement, student production, and the elements of student learning. An environment in
which teachers are not inundated by apps and platforms will provide greater support to
teachers. A frequent complaint from both teachers and students is that there are far too
many app and platform options; teachers are used to being the knowledgeable individual
in the classroom. By reviewing the apps and platforms that the district recommends, we
are presenting the best quality tools rather than an overwhelming quantity of tools.
Assessing the tools that we are utilizing (either for fee or for free) via usage reports will
provide us indicators of what should be made available to students and teachers.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

80

Being pushed out of one’s comfort zone in isolation is not easy for everyone;
instead, having continued support through meaningful coaching, mentorship, and
recognition assists in moving teachers from a structured industrial age teaching
environment to one where students are allowed to engage in and enjoy their own learning
process.
In order to conduct the same program within my current district, the costs will be
similar to those where the intervention occurred. The district is purchasing 470 iPads,
cases, and JAMF software management for a cost of $165,886.50; this is a one-time cost
that will be paid with Federal Emergency Funds. An additional cost is for $8,250.00
through Apple; this cost will cover the rebuild of our JAMF management system to create
a more use-friendly iPad experience. As the 1:1 rolled out in my current district, the
mobile enrollment process and student configurations were determined solely by the
previous Director of technology without consultation with teachers or students. As I
observed a lesson in an elementary classroom during my first week at my new district, it
became evident that the rebuild of JAMF was necessary for better back-end management
and to make the user experience a more seamless one. Another observation I had is that
iPads are used as consumer product more so than as educational tools. As my team and I
sat and restored hundreds of iPads for handout to students, we realized that the students
had very little product saved on their iPads, in their iCloud accounts, or in their Google
Drives. Rather, students are using iPads to take Ready Math assessments and to go on
various websites. When I inquired with the coaches in my current district if we could
hand out Chromebooks to elementary students in lieu of iPads due to the time-consuming
nature of having to restore them and ready them for handout, they affirmed that we could

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

81

in fact do so. This demonstrates to me that teachers are not utilizing the iPads for
product-based learning and are not focused on the elements of learning. Although I can
highly encourage coaches, teachers, and building principals to engage in free online
virtual coaching with Apple Professional Learning Specialists, I cannot mandate it; I can
do little more than encourage teachers to earn either Apple or Google Teacher
Certifications either. Teachers in my current district do not have to complete personal
professional growth plans, which I leveraged within the study site’s district as a means of
teachers continuing on their own professional learning journey. Additionally, within their
contract, teachers and coaches have been paid for engaging in additional planning and
professional development outside of the school day. At an hourly rate of over $40, the
district cannot commit to offering professional development over the summer or during
the next school year due to the cost it will incur.
Although there will be some fiscal implications including the purchase of
additional iPads, the cost to re-engineer our JAMF software management system, and
paying for daily subs for the sharing days, the cost is a minimal investment in comparison
to the results that the intervention may accrue. My current district cannot afford to hire
another coach at this time and will be unlikely to do so in the future. By implementing
this intervention, we build capacity in teachers so that the coaches will be able to support
a larger number of their peers. The cohort helped to change the climate in the building;
all members of the cohort won an award from the local intermediate unit for their efforts
to support their peers and students.
Although there were a number of strengths to the intervention, there are some
obvious data gaps. I will create a survey and provide it to cohort and non-cohort members

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

82

to differentiate their level of satisfaction with their training, perceptions, and student
learning outcomes. By creating my own surveys, I would have access to the data and
would be able to better show a direct correlation between targeted technology
professional development and a la cart professional development offered within the
district.
Another issue with my research study is my departure from the study site’s
district. Shortly thereafter I dislocated my right elbow, which left me unable to report to
work. If any teachers received additional Apple Teacher certifications after the start of
February 2020 to June 2020 I am unaware. The data in the survey shows an increase,
however, there was a shortage of participants in the final administration of the survey due
to COVID-19. Teachers were asked to take the survey during a Zoom faculty meeting;
however, there is 25% dip in participation. The third Apple survey data may not be as
reliable as the others due to the lack of participation and surrounding events. There are a
variety of reasons that the data may have increased, but the confounding nature of the
pandemic can point the data in a number of directions that will never be answered.
Another interesting data point in the survey is the elements of student learning by
frequency. Although teachers’ perceptions of their own preparedness to teach with
technology increased between the March 2020 and May 2020 administrations, the five
elements of student learning decreased in the same time period. There are a number of
reasons this would occur: the teachers may have assigned work that students did not
complete, the students may not have access to the WiFi, and the grading system may
have decreased student motivation. When comparing the frequency of student productbased learning, there is an increase between the March 2020 and May 2020

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

83

administrations of the Apple survey. It is interesting to note that although the frequency
in which teachers responded that students were engaging in said products (a) pictures or
artwork, (b) videos or movies, (c) multimedia reports, (d) multi-media projects and (e)
web-based publications, they did not feel that the elements of student learning increased.
This may point to the fact that they were assigning projects and not receiving quality
work back from students due to the pass/fail nature of the grading or any other number of
confounding variables that cannot be clearly identified.
Another weakness of the study was the abrupt end of the cohort; members of the
cohort had expressed interest in continuing the process without CK. They felt that the
experience was beneficial, especially the showcase day where they were able to learn
from each other’s lessons, synthesize information, and further create. During my injury, I
was unable to arrange for a cohort cycle to take place; after my resignation, a replacement
was not hired until after the start of the pandemic and school closure, which effectively
ended the cohort and the intervention.
As of March 2, 2020, I became the Director of information and instructional
technology in a local district. Although I knew the decision was the best for me
personally, I worried about the impact that the change in position would have upon the
cohort and my Capstone project. Several members of the cohort expressed that they were
fearful that the momentum that had been created would end with my departure; however,
I did my best to empower them and handed off my podcast to two of the strongest
members of the cohort and entrusted the remaining members to continue to support each
other, their colleagues, and the students. I provided them with my contact information
and have kept in touch with many of them. Additionally, one of the cohort members was

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

84

hired as my replacement and would like to keep the coaching and mentoring model in
place within the secondary schools that she oversees. Although this former cohortmember is an excellent replacement, the participant had the unenviable task of both
teaching and acting as the Supervisor of education technology, 6-12 for a period of time.
Our transitions into our new positions paralleled each other as we both assumed our new
roles in the midst of a pandemic; COVID-19 prevented my successor from continuing the
work of the cohort. Additionally, I recognize that my successor is an individual and
professional who has her own goals for the staff and students that she serves. Being thrust
into the position in the manner that she was made it impossible to continue a coaching
and mentoring cycle.
Future Implications and Directions for Research
Although there are a number of confounding variables within this research study,
there are definitive results that demonstrate the need for targeted technology professional
development. The quantitative and qualitative data that the cohort provided demonstrates
their growth over time, and their attitudinal changes regarding their perceptions of their
own preparedness and willingness to change their teaching practices to become more
student-centered, choice-based, and allow for creativity within the classroom. The
recognition system implemented with the staff at the study site indicates that more
teachers earned their Apple Teacher certification in May 2020 than in May 2019.
The same recognition system and Apple survey were administered to the staff at
study site’s high school. In May 2019, 10% of teachers had completed their Apple
Teacher certification and 2% had started it; in May 2020, 21% of teachers had completed
their Apple Teacher certification and 10% had started it at the high school. Although the

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

85

number of respondents from May 2019 to May 2020 dropped by 16%, the increase is still
large enough to demonstrate growth.
I was employed in the study site’s district for 14 years and keep in contact with
my successor and elementary counterpart. One Supervisor of education technology was a
member of the cohort while the attended many of the co-teaching and reflection days. I
have shared these recommendations to the Supervisors of education technology. The
coaching and mentoring model can be implemented seamlessly as a part of the
Supervisor of education technology’s job requirements within study site’s district.
Although each Supervisor of education technology is responsible for the same number of
students and staff members, the elementary Supervisor of education technology covers 7
schools, while the secondary Supervisor of education technology covers 2 schools.
Having an additional supervisor or formal coaches would be optimal, but it is not
impossible to mimic the same coaching and mentoring cycle throughout the study site’s
district. For instance, across the study site and the additional eight schools within the
district, the Supervisors of education technology can ask teachers to apply to be part of a
coaching and mentoring program based on the 1:1 iPad initiative in grades K-12 in the
school district. If 50 teachers were chosen, and coached and mentored on a rotating basis,
a large number of the teaching staff would be affected. Greater participation by the
administrative team will also help to bolster teacher perception regarding their own skills
and the abilities of their students to be engaged in class and create high level products.
Study site cohort teachers anecdotally mentioned how pleased they were when central
and building administrators would come to see their lessons and participate in the
reflection day. However, as the year progressed, administrative changes occurred, and

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

86

there seemed to be less of an administrative presence during co-teaching and reflection
days. Again, fiscally speaking, this targeted technology professional development seems
to be a sound investment than paying for online professional development modules where
the teachers experience very little engagement, receive no additional credentials, and
demonstrate little to no change in their teaching practices.
The recognition of being featured on the district website and district social media
seems to have impacted the rate of Apple Teacher certified teachers in the study site’s
district. As previously described in the literature review, Jones, et. al cite how badges can
impact others’ perceptions of the badge holder (2017); it can be inferred that having the
words “Apple Teacher” under one’s email signature can boost confidence within the
person who earned the certification as well as those who view the email signature.
Having a formal recognition system in place is a necessary component in created an
environment where teachers feel open to meaningfully integrating technology into their
lessons. Building trust and rapport with knowledgeable trainers is another essential
component of the success and future implementation of this intervention. The study site’s
cohort believed in the intervention because of the no fail attitude and support that was
provided to them. Every perceived failure was viewed as an opportunity for growth.
Finally, the focus on student engagement, student choice, student production, and student
learning have to be the focal points of coaching and mentoring. Technology is merely a
tool; technology coaches must work side by side with building leaders and curriculum
specialists to determine student learning outcomes. Technology should not be used as a
time filler; technology training should not simply be a time for show and tell. If
implemented correctly, targeted technology professional development will help meet

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

87

student learning outcomes, teachers’ lesson goals, and provide opportunities for growth
for students and staff. Engaging students in their own learning must be modeled to
teachers; this intervention gives teachers the opportunity to become engaged learners who
create products and also engage in the five elements of student learning (teamwork,
critical thinking, personalization of learning, communication and creation, and real-world
engagement). In this particular intervention, the targeted professional development
models to teachers what they can replicate in the classroom. Teachers wish for students to
be engaged, but offering limited to no choice inhibits student learning. The qualitative
data provided by the teachers demonstrates that the personalized nature of the cohort
allowed engaged them in their own learning and made it meaningful to them; for some it
was the most meaningful professional development that they had ever engaged in because
of the personalized nature of the training. Having the ability to co-plan and co-teach with
knowledgeable trainers who are in class as supports and cheerleaders provided the
teachers with a sense of confidence. Co-planning with an outside entity helps to push
teachers outside of their comfort zone as well; engaging with others who are not familiar
with your content area but are focused on student learning can challenge a teacher to
think in new ways.
Summary
If implemented properly, targeted technology professional development can assist
in changing attitudes, school climate, and culture. Offering insight to alternative methods
of employing technology professional development will allow teachers to integrate
curriculum, define personal goals, and focus on student learning. Although there may be
an initial sense of hesitancy or feelings of anxiousness, the end results of a replicated

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

88

intervention will result in greater individual and schoolwide professional learning and
recognition, increased teachers’ perception of their ability to integrate technology,
increased student learning utilizing authentic product-based learning, and greater focus
upon the elements of student learning. CK, the Senior Apple Professional Learning
Specialist, had a favorite saying, which was to “move toward the fear”, and many of the
cohort members took that to heart. They took risks because they knew they were being
recognized, supported, and were growing as professionals to best support the students and
community that they serve.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

89

References
Abramovich, S., Schunn, C., & Higashi, • R. (2013, March 11). Are badges useful in
education?: It depends upon the type of badge and expertise of learner. Retrieved
from http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/22973/
Baran, E. (2014). A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education.
Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 17–32. Retrieved from
https://www.jets.net/ETS/index.html
Brown Mayo, N., & Kajs, L. (2005). Longitudinal study of technology training to prepare
future teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 3–15. Retrieved from
http://erquarterly.org/
Cervera, M. G., & Cantabrana, J. L. L. (2014). Professional development in teacher
digital competence and improving school quality from the teachers’ perspective:
A case study. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 4(2), 115–
122. doi: 10.7821/naer.2015.7.123
Dexter, S.L., Anderson, R.E. & Ronnkvist, A.M. (2002). Quality technology support:
what is it? who has it? and what difference does it make?. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 26(3), 265. Retrieved November 16, 2019
from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/57247/.
Diamond, J., & Carmina Gonzalez, P. (2014, November). Digital badges for teacher
mastery: an exploratory study of a competency-based professional development
badge system. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561894.pdf

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

90

Fullerton, T. (2013). A reflection on my experiences engaging teachers in professional
development on the integration of technology into their practice. McGill Journal
of Education, 48(2), 443. doi: 10.7202/1020981ar
Ham, V. (2010). Participant-directed evaluation. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 27(1), 22–29. doi: 10.1080/21532974.2010.10784653
Jones, W. M., Hope, S., & Adams, B. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of digital badges as
recognition of professional development. British Journal of Education
Technology. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12557
Levy, M., & Scolforo, M. (2020, March 13). Governor shutters pennsylvania schools for
at least 2 weeks. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/beststates/pennsylvania/articles/2020-03-13/coronavirus-concerns-shutter-schoolsacross-pennsylvania.
Mundy, M.-A., Kupczynski, L., & Kee, R. (2012, March 13). Teacher's perceptions of
technology use in the schools. Sage Journals.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244012440813.
Netcoh, S., Olofson, M. W., Downes, J. M., & Bishop, P. A. (2017). Professional
learning with action research in innovative middle schools. Middle School
Journal, 48(3), 25–33. doi: 10.1080/00940771.2017.1297665
Pierson, M., & Borthwick, A. (2010). Framing the assessment of educational technology
professional development in a culture of learning. Journal of Digital Learning in
Teacher Education, 26(4), 126–131.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

91

Satell, G. (2018, August 1). The 4 types of innovation and the problems they solve.
Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2017/06/the-4-types-of-innovation-and-the-problems-they-solve.
Tondeur, J., Braak, J. V., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2016). Erratum to:
understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 577–577. doi:
10.1007/s11423-016-9492-z
Tondeur, J., Braak, J. V., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2016). Time for a new approach to
prepare future teachers for educational technology use: Its meaning and
measurement. Computers & Education, 94, 134–150. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.009
vanOostveen, R. (2017). Purposeful action research: reconsidering science and
technology teacher professional development. College Quarterly, 20(2). Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1142550.pdf
Zhong, W., & Feng, Y. (2019, August 5). The research of blended learning model of the
"apple teacher" program. Retrieved from
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=94160.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

APPENDICDES

92

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix A
Apple Cohort Welcome Letter

93

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix B
Apple Professional Learning Survey

94

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix B (continued)
Apple Professional Learning Survey

95

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix C
IRB Approval Correspondence

96

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix D
Informed Consent Form

97

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix D (continued)
Informed Consent Form

98

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix E
CITI IRB Basic Course Certificate

99

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix F
CITI Conflicts of Interest for Project Personnel Certificate

100

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix G
IRB RCR Basic Course Certificate

101

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix H
IRB Review Feedback

102

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix H (continued)
IRB Review Feedback

103

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix H (continued)
IRB Review Feedback

104

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix H (continued)
IRB Review Feedback

105

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix I
IRB Checklist

106

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix I (continued)
IRB Checklist

107

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix I (continued)
IRB Checklist

108

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix I (continued)
IRB Checklist

109

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix I (continued)
IRB Checklist

110

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix I (continued)
IRB Checklist

111

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix I (continued)
IRB Checklist

112

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix I (continued)
IRB Checklist

113

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Appendix I (continued)
IRB Checklist

114