This article was downloaded by: [Michigan State University]

On: 10 March 2015, At: 21:19

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe20

Teacher professional development for

technology integration in a primary
school learning community
a
Shih-Hsiung Liu
a
Center for Teacher Education , National Changhua University of
Education , Taiwan
Published online: 26 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Shih-Hsiung Liu (2013) Teacher professional development for technology
integration in a primary school learning community, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22:1,
37-54, DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2012.719398

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.719398

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2013
Vol. 22, No. 1, 37–54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.719398

Teacher professional development for technology integration in a

primary school learning community
Shih-Hsiung Liu*

Center for Teacher Education, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan

(Received 21 July 2011; final version received 6 December 2011)
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

Teacher professional development (TPD) can benefit teachers in classrooms. This

study contributes to an understanding of TPD processes where there is sufficient
technology integration through teacher participation in a school-based community.
It assesses the effectiveness of TPD and its potential problems. Qualitative
research methods are used to collect data during the instructional practice process
and interactions among participants. The origins and outcomes of TPD-induced
changes in technology integration are examined. Changes to teacher technology
integration resulting from instructional observations, teacher self-reflection with
little stress researcher coordination, and the principal’s support for innovative
teaching. However, anxiety existed due to classroom observations. Moreover,
teachers were not willing to provide comments to other teachers in ideas and
practices of integrated teaching. The conclusions of this study can be a basis
for future studies of TPD for technology integration and facilitate continuous
development of teachers’ teaching ability. Additionally, arranging an adequate
coordinator for a TPD professional learning community is recommended.
Keywords: teacher professional development; technology integration; learning
communities

Introduction
Technology can benefit student learning when teachers use it effectively in the class-
room (Gülbahar, 2007; Kim & Hannafin, 2011). Over the last two decades, Taiwan’s
central government has invested large amounts of money in constructing technological
environments in primary schools, and provided many training opportunities to equip
in-service teachers with the required technological skills (Ministry of Education,
2007). However, as Cuban (1986) stated, constructing technology-rich environments
or providing access to new technology does not mean that teachers will enhance stu-
dent learning; rather, teachers will likely just deliver knowledge via technology.
Empirical evidence, including that for Taiwan and other nations, indicates that
teachers still lack the ability to integrate technology into instruction effectively (Chen,
2008; Gorder, 2008; Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008). Studies have
demonstrated that most Taiwanese teachers only use computers to access the Internet
for lesson preparation or use word-processing programs (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007)
and PowerPoint for presentations while lecturing to students (Chen & Chen, 2008),
resulting in ineffective integration of pedagogy and technology. Chen (2008)

*Email: [email protected]

Ó 2013 Association for Information Technology in Teacher Education

 38 S.-H. Liu

demonstrated that Taiwanese teachers had a limited or inadequate understanding of

technology integration. According to Liu’s (2011) survey of Taiwanese primary school
teachers relating to technology use during teaching, roughly 80% of teachers use lec-
ture-based teaching with technology. Moreover, Eteokleous (2008) identified ways of
expanding the experiences of teachers using technology in primary schools in Cyprus,
and demonstrated that teachers favoured traditional teaching methods. Hayes (2007)
explored by observation the ways in which teachers, in six Australian public schools,
utilised technology in their classrooms to mediate student learning experiences. The
teachers were slow to adopt technology and incorporate new technologies into teach-
ing practices. Hinostroza, Labbé, Brun, and Matamala (2011) analysed via a national
survey teaching and learning activities in state-subsidised schools in Chile and deter-
mined that few schools used technology in classrooms. Gülbahar (2007), via a survey
and interviews, examined perceived computer literacy and issues related to technology
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

usage in a private K–12 school in Turkey. Even though teachers and administrators
felt competent in using technology, students reported that technology was not utilised
sufficiently in their classes. These studies reveal that technology use in classrooms
was characterised by traditional lecture methods, slow adoption, low use frequency,
and insufficient implementation.
Many current learning environments are based on the idea that technology use
should support constructivist learning. Moll (1997) suggested that an effective plan
for integrating technology into the classroom should be based on an accepted defini-
tion of educational goals, and on how technology will affect and restructure learn-
ing environments and processes rather than being based on how good technology is
as a teaching tool. Jonassen (1999) claimed that technology can facilitate students’
higher order thinking and learning. From a pedagogical point of view, van Braak
(2001) argued that technology use in educational settings fosters collaborative learn-
ing, provides flexible learning opportunities, and facilitates learning independent of
time and place. Thus, teachers must be equipped with the abilities to construct col-
laborative and active learning environments that enhance student learning.
Taiwan’s Ministry of Education developed several programmes related to teacher
professional development (TPD), facilitating the implementation of innovative
teaching activities that use technology (Ministry of Education., 2011a). However,
over the last two decades, traditional TPD methods have used top-down training.
‘Seat time’ activities that largely occur outside the teaching day were common
modes of TPD. These activities have been criticised as being isolated from daily
instructional practices (Yang & Liu, 2004) as well as being ineffective (Díaz-Maggi-
oli, 2004; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001) in fostering meaningful
changes in teacher classroom practices. Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, Lüdtke, and
Baumert (2011) suggested that providing opportunities for experienced teachers to
share and learn from each other can be extremely useful. Many studies have indi-
cated that professional development activities based on long-term, collaborative,
school-based peer coaching and student learning may alter teaching practices, and
should be responsive to student needs for effective learning (Cohen & Hill, 2001;
Garet et al., 2001; Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002).
Thus, to promote the ability of teachers to effectively integrate technology and
instruction to enhance student learning, TPD for technology integration using a
school-based collaborative method is worthy of exploration. However, few studies
have examined the effectiveness of school-based TPD for technology integration.
This study advances the understanding of how teachers participate in school-based
 Technology, Pedagogy and Education 39

collaborative communities in schools and further identifies the effectiveness and

potential problems related to TPD for technology integration.

Literature review
Teacher professional development through learning communities
Eteokleous (2008) indicated that teachers typically lack the knowledge and resources
needed for successful innovation, and recommended that TPD should be utilised. Spe-
cifically, TPD comprises methods that enable educators to develop the knowledge and
skills to implement what they have learned, to track student learning, and to modify
learning environments on the basis of rating results (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Eteokl-
eous indicated that TPD should be at the school level, not at the district or national
levels. School-level training directly addresses teacher needs in collaboration with
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

their colleagues. Teachers have an opportunity to be involved in training by identify-

ing areas of weakness. School support is also a key facilitator of innovative teaching
(Drent & Meelissen, 2008; Hinostroza et al., 2011). According to Zhao (2010), school
leadership can provide teachers with a knowledge management framework and strate-
gies needed for TPD. Thus, school-based TPD with school support can help teachers
change their traditional beliefs about technology use in classrooms.
Learning communities for TPD have been recognised for many years (Butler, Lau-
scher, Jarvis-Selinger, & Beckingham, 2004; Chen, Chen, & Tsai, 2009; Wray, 2007).
A professional learning community (PLC) is a proven organisational strategy that pro-
motes staff collaboration and reflection, with the final goal of improving student
achievement (e.g., Roberts, 2010). Members of a PLC share their perspectives and
typically seek to learn collectively and collaboratively to achieve desirable student
achievement results through dialogue, consensus, and sharing information (Mullen,
2009). Stevenson (2004) argued that creating a collaborative culture or environment
that encourages informal collaboration is effective in supporting TPD. Recently, a
model of school-based, peer-to-peer and long-established professional development
for teachers, called Research Lesson Study (RLS), was proposed. Between three and
five teachers work together, focusing on the needs and learning of real pupils and try-
ing to solve a teaching- or learning-based problem which is affecting pupils’ progress
(Dudley, 2008). These teachers design lessons, observe the others’ instruction and
analyse their work with a view to improving practice (Galanouli, 2010). For teachers
to improve instructional practice, sharing and collaboration on teaching experiences
would be critical in a cooperative learning community.
Avalos (2011) proposed that the traditional master role of researchers, such as
university professors, has been transformed into a co-researcher working with teach-
ers, reducing the traditional separation between academic researchers and profes-
sional teachers. Thus, collaboration among teachers and professors in a learning
community can benefit TPD. Moreover, Bredeson and Johansson (2000) demon-
strated that school principals, as instructional leaders and learners, have a substantial
impact on delivery, content, assessment and outcomes of TPD. Kursunoglu and
Tanriogen (2009) also indicated positive relationships between instructional leader-
ship of school principals and teachers’ attitudes towards change. The school princi-
pal’s attitude towards TPD is critical to success.
Other factors also influence TPD effectiveness. Avalos (2011) conducted a meta-
analysis of studies published in the journal of Teaching and Teacher Education over
a 10-year period, and demonstrated contextual factors including culture, the policy
 40 S.-H. Liu

environment, and conditions. Yang and Liu (2004) assessed the value and effective-
ness of online workshops as a tool for creating a PLC for 128 pre- and in-service
teachers of mathematics. Most TPD participants reported that they benefited emo-
tionally and intellectually. Although their participation was not highly interactive,
positive learning effects on teachers were satisfactory. In summary, TPD through a
professional learning community can benefit teachers in promoting new teaching
practices in supportive environments.

Teacher professional development for technology integration

Harris and Hofer (2011), who explored TPD for instructional plans by comparing
interview data and planning products before and after teachers took part in a TPD
programme, demonstrated that teacher selection and use of learning activities and
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

technology became more conscious, strategic, and varied than before. Moreover,
teachers’ instructional plans also became more learner centred, focusing primarily
upon students’ intellectual development. Overbaugh and Lu (2008) investigated the
impact of a TPD programme on participant self-efficacy in learning and implement-
ing instructional technology. They demonstrated that the programme increased par-
ticipant confidence and competence in technology integration regardless of teacher
demographic characteristics. Inan, Lowther, Ross, and Strahl (2010) demonstrated
the effectiveness of a TPD programme in which teachers observed experienced
teachers and then practised exercises. Classroom practices were typically student-
centred when students used technology as a learning tool. Inan et al. argued that
teacher training should focus on how technology helps teachers implement student-
centred learning, which is characterised by collaborative learning, higher order ques-
tioning, student independence, and facilitating student learning. These studies
proved that TPD programmes can promote effective technology integration.
Stein, Ginns, and McDonald (2007) applied a theoretical model of professional
development, framing a series of professional interactions between researchers and
inexperienced teachers on new technology, to develop their understandings of tech-
nology and technology education. Stein et al. indicated that professional develop-
ment experiences for teachers who are new to technology could be organised and
implemented to support their developing technology practices and understandings.
Matzen and Edmunds (2007) employed a professional development programme that
models the connection between instructional practices, the curriculum, and the use
of computers to analyse the relationship between the professional development and
teachers’ use of technology in their classrooms. The results indicated that teachers
increased their use of technology in ways viewed as more constructivist, regardless
of their broader instructional practices. Based on the above studies, a TPD pro-
gramme is helpful for teachers to understand new technology or conduct student-
centred teaching activities with technology.
Additionally, Gaytan and McEwen (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of 20 stud-
ies assessing professional development for technology integration and then devel-
oped a model for evaluating the impact of TPD by analysing selected studies. The
model consisted of five evaluation levels – feedback from participants, participant
learning, organisational support, changed instructional practices, and student impact.
Gaytan and McEwen illustrated the focuses for evaluating the effectiveness of a
TPD programme.
 Technology, Pedagogy and Education 41

In Taiwan, the government has continually encouraged teachers to innovate

through TPD programmes since 2006 (Ministry of Education., 2011b). However,
the practical side of professional development, especially for technology integration,
has many challenges because initiatives involve participant collaboration, sharing,
feedback, instructional practices, technology utilisation, and the school culture as
well as the ultimate goal of enhancing student learning. Ideally, teachers participat-
ing in professional development can alter teaching practice in which they move
from one stage to the next within different contexts. Moreover, continuous TPD for
technology integration is necessary if the teaching profession is to focus on student-
centred practices by providing technology-rich environments. Thus, TPD conducted
with school-based, collaborative, and experience sharing within a community can
promote the integration of technology and instruction.
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

Research methodology
To advance the current understanding of TPD for technology integration, a school-
based PLC was organised to examine TPD effectiveness. Hawkes (1999) suggested
that evaluations of TPD for technology use should focus on the process of improv-
ing instructional practices rather than relying primarily on questionnaire responses
and techniques that have been proven inadequate to uncover practical knowledge.
Thus, qualitative research methods were used in this study. Instructional observa-
tions and focus group interviews (FGIs) were the primary evaluation methods in
this study. All data were used to analyse what was occurring during TPD for tech-
nology integration, and examine the causes and outcomes of changes in teachers’
performances for technology integration.

Participants
Teachers at an urban elementary school, a local government priority for technology
integration, were invited to discuss this project with the researcher. Finally, the prin-
cipal, administrative director, and six teachers were willing to participate in this pro-
ject. Thus, the PLC was composed of the principal, an administrative director, six
teachers, and the researcher.
The principal, a female, had 23 years of educational experience – 18 years as an
elementary school teacher and five as a principal. She typically expected teachers to
innovate during teaching. In this study, the principal played the role of a facilitator
and assisted teachers in generating perspectives about technology integration.
The administrative director, a female, had 21 years of educational experience,
and mainly created the teaching schedule for the six teachers and provided them
with the resources needed.
Teacher A, a male, was a Grade 6 social studies teacher. Teacher B, a female,
taught Chinese language arts to Grade 4 students. Teacher C, a female, was a Grade
2 life curriculum teacher. Teacher D, a female, taught Grade 5 social studies. Tea-
cher E, a male, taught Chinese language arts. Teacher F, a female, taught English
language arts. The average age of the six teachers was 36 (range 32–45). Their
average number of years of teaching experience was 11.5 (range 5–24). Two teach-
ers had a Master’s degree, and four held Bachelor degrees. No teacher had gradu-
ated from a technology-related university department.
The researcher was from a teacher education university, had worked for 17 years
as an elementary school teacher, had spent six years evaluating technology-related
 42 S.-H. Liu

education projects, and was the coordinator in this study. During TPD, when teach-
ers failed to generate thoughts regarding student-centred teaching with technology,
the researcher provided examples. Except for facilitating interaction and collecting
data, the researcher did not help in designing actual teaching methods.

Practice model relating to PLC

In this study, a designed practical model relating to PLC helped teachers change
their traditional perspectives on technology use during instruction and in developing
teacher knowledge. Shulman (1987) asserted that the process of developing peda-
gogical content knowledge (PCK) may pass through comprehension, transformation,
instruction, evaluation, reflection, and new comprehension. Thair and Treagust
(2003) indicated that TPD must focus on social interaction among teachers, princi-
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

pals, and education department personnel – even the entire school environment – to
positively reinforce intended outcomes of professional development. Thus, this
designed model, integrating Shulman’s PCK development process and social inter-
action from the work by Thair et al., has six stages – comprehension, transforma-
tion and lesson design, instruction and observation, interaction, self-reflection, and
group interviews. To obtain sufficient information from the PLC for TPD, the last
five stages were repeatedly implemented to identify processes related to teaching
and technology integration.
First, all members participated in a workshop to generate student-centred con-
cepts about technology use. After obtaining these concepts, each teacher was asked
to generate one thought about technology integration.
Second, each teacher designed a lesson for technology integration, and uploaded
this lesson information to a website for review by the other teachers. Each teacher,
the principal, and researcher could offer suggestions about any lesson on the web-
site. The lesson designer could then revise the lesson.
Third, teachers implemented the revised lesson in their classroom and were
observed by other teachers. The teacher’s instructions were recorded by digital video
camera, providing the researcher and teachers with an opportunity for observation.
Fourth, each observer was encouraged to make field notes about technology
integration and post these notes on a discussion forum on the website. Informal dis-
cussions, such as face-to-face discussions and through email, were also encouraged.
Each instructor needed to respond to observer comments.
Fifth, each teacher reflected on his/her teaching processes and, combined with
the reflections of other members, these responses were posted on the self-reflection
section of the website. These reflections provided real-time insights into teacher
reactions to specific professional development activities.
In the final phase, an FGI was held. All members repeated the last five stages
four times between October 2010 and June 2011.

Instructional observations
Teachers implementing designed lessons were observed. These observations were
used to collect data about teacher instruction practices and to identify changes as
teachers moved from lecture-based to student-centred teaching by comparing each
recorded lesson. Differences between designed lessons and practical implementation
of each lesson were also a concern.
 Technology, Pedagogy and Education 43

Each teacher was asked to observe other teachers teaching, including their util-
isation of technology, instructional strategies, and behaviours. To avoid adversely
affecting daily teaching, observations were also made by watching the video on the
website. Teachers’ observations, comments, and responses were the primary sources
of teacher interaction and self-reflection.
Instructional observations in each class were video-recorded for subsequent anal-
ysis and were documented by the researcher using field notes consisting of a gen-
eral description and the researcher’s interpretation. Analysis of the researcher’s
observations began with data collection. Emerging themes about changes in instruc-
tional strategies, interaction among participants, and behaviours when using technol-
ogy in classrooms were confirmed or reconstructed with new data until data
repeatedly confirmed the themes. The researcher also compared similarities and dif-
ferences in technology integration among all teachers via cross-case analysis.
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

Focus group interview

In terms of TPD, focus group interviews can identify how professional development
was organised and coordinated, what was covered during the professional develop-
ment, and what changes were reported to school and teaching practices as profes-
sional development outcomes. Focus groups included a range of subject specialists
to ensure the breadth of opinion. In the study, the purpose of the FGI was to collect
qualitative data in a school-based TPD setting which allows each participant teacher
in interactive group settings to offer their opinions, to compare and contrast their
views with those of others, and further develop a broad and deep understanding of
technology integration to identify their change in instruction. Thus, all participant
teachers needed to take part in the FGI.
Furthermore, the FGI was held prior to the first teaching and after each lesson.
The initial questions were based on a study of pocket PC implementation teaching
by Ng and Nicholas (2009) and were reviewed by five professors to improve clarity
and content validity. The revised questions were as follows: (a) How did the teacher
integrate technology into classroom instruction? (This question was only used in the
first FGI.) (b) Describe what you saw during instruction and compare this with your
instruction. (c) What changes have you made to lesson plans and teaching practices
in this lesson period? (d) What worried you most during technology integration? (e)
What were the highlights and challenges you experienced when using technology
while teaching?
The FGIs were semi-structured and video-recorded. After each FGI, data were
analysed. Analysis of the FGIs involved transcript reviews to determine what the
group said about each issue and to draw conclusions. As recommended by Bloor,
Frankland, Thomas, and Robson (2001), indexing was the analytical method used
for FGIs. Indexing increases data manageability for analysis. The FGIs were used
to investigate teacher perspectives on TPD and technology integration. When a pat-
tern emerged, the researcher reviewed it again to identify relationships and trends
among various comments and discussion data.

Results
The TPD processes were described by time-stamp narratives that can illustrate
continuous and significant events and further indentify decision points at which
 44 S.-H. Liu

perspectives changed (Sisk-Hilton, 2009). This study identified the causes of these
changes and emerging themes by creating relationships between TPD activities
and technology integration.

Instructional practice in technology integration

Prior to teaching
Prior to teaching, the researcher analysed the record of the first FGI and examined
lesson information on the website. Analytical results reveal that teachers assumed
technology did not necessarily need to be used in classrooms, even though teachers
acknowledged that technology had influenced school education for years. Teachers
felt that abstract subject matter was best suited to technology use, particularly when
students have difficulty understanding abstract material.
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

In general, if teachers feel the subject matter may be difficult for students to under-
stand, they would search relevant images and then present this digital material on an
electronic interactive whiteboard (IWB) during teaching. (Administrative director)

I think students were interested in digital material. For example, the first lesson in
social studies was related to basins and hills. According to my observation, students
understood this content when I used 3D pictures. (Teacher A)

Almost all teachers designed digital materials for abstract subjects, indicating
that teachers have the abilities to search for and design simple digital materials that
help students understand a subject.
However, a review of lessons indicates that all teachers implemented lecture-
based teaching activities, regardless of subject. Teachers typically design simple dig-
ital materials and then lecture to students in Taiwanese primary schools. According
to Liu (2011), roughly 80% of Taiwanese primary school teachers use lecture-based
teaching with technology. This phenomenon was a starting point for TPD for tech-
nology integration in this study.

The first lesson period

After teachers finished teaching practice of the first lesson, the FGI data were ana-
lysed to confirm observations and website records. The source triangulation result
shows that teachers’ interest in technology increased gradually.

I think I will use an IWB more often than before after seeing teacher E show students
animated pictures on an IWB. (Teacher B)

A projector with a camera can help a teacher show pictures in books without scan-
ning. This may be convenient for me. (Teacher A)

After instructional observations, teachers perceived that technology is beneficial to

teaching and further wanted to understand and use technology in classrooms. Class-
room observations generated positive outcomes. However, teachers continued using
teacher-centred activities and technology remained a tool for presenting materials.
Website data revealed that teachers felt lacking in confidence about how to
design a student-centred teaching lesson that used technology. Teacher B also
expressed this in an FGI.
 Technology, Pedagogy and Education 45

It was difficult to determine which instructional strategy can be integrated with tech-
nology. I always feel that student behaviours are difficult to control in such situations.
I am afraid I will do something wrong.

During the first lesson period, teachers were concerned about combining subject
content and technology, and ignored integration of instructional strategies. Liu
(2011) indicated that fewer than 20% of Taiwanese teachers implement the con-
structivist teaching method with technology. A lack of teaching experience may
result in poor confidence. Thus, the researcher, as a coordinator, provided demon-
strable examples such as asking students to present their homework to their class,
assigning students to search for information about a subject, and providing students
with peer discussion opportunities. Moreover, the researcher encouraged teachers to
construct their own student-centred model for TPD.
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

The second lesson period

During the second lesson, Teacher E asked his students to complete an assignment
about Chinese sentences by searching for relevant data. Five students presented
their learning outcomes on an IWB. Teacher D guided her students to create a traf-
fic time schedule in the lab using the Internet. An example question on the work-
sheet was as follows: ‘Your father needs to leave for Kao-Hsiung City for a
meeting at 10 am in the morning. How does he start his journey from Chia-Yi
City? What kinds of vehicles are on the road? When should he leave? Explicitly
describe the journey.’ Each student used a computer to create a vehicle time sche-
dule, including that for regular trains, high-speed trains, and a bus. Teacher D per-
mitted students to discuss the questions. Student responses varied. However, the
other teachers utilised lecture-based teaching with digital material.
Teacher E noted that teaching activities took more time than before due to the
student presentations. Teacher D also indicated she had not used this teaching activ-
ity before, because it took considerable time to guide students. However, she asked
students to present their work in the lab. Students were highly interested in technol-
ogy utilisation.
Students were extremely interested in utilising a computer for an assignment
and presentation. However, limited available time and student interests were in con-
flict. This issue was confirmed by other observations during the third FGI. A con-
versation was described as follows.

I was curious when I saw Teacher E teaching. Students had a high level of learning
motivation, but I doubted whether the lesson could be finished … I considered your
method but I gave up because many works had to be done before students presented
their work. (Teacher B)

I acknowledge that it is impossible for each lesson to implement student-centred teach-

ing with technology due to limited class time. However, I am happy with what I did,
which was exactly the same as in constructivist literature I have read. (Teacher E)

In the second FGI, the principal approved of students using a computer for
learning. She proposed perspectives suggesting that technology integration fosters
student abilities to learn with technology. The principal’s opinion may have influ-
enced teachers to follow the teaching methods of Teacher D and Teacher E.
 46 S.-H. Liu

The third lesson period

During the first class of the third lesson period, digital material was presented as
the initial teaching method. Teachers asked students questions related to the subject
matter, facilitating student thinking.
However, after class time, similar to acts by Teachers D and E, Teachers C, B,
and F had students present their works. Additionally, Teacher D conducted an activ-
ity that utilised the computers in the lab. Classroom observations, peer interaction,
and the principal’s opinions began influencing teachers’ perspectives.

I observed Teacher D last week. Teacher D told me that student-centred technology

integration was easy as long as you were well prepared. I tried assigning presentations
to students in the classroom. The students were very willing to participate in the class.
Students loved using the IWB. (Teacher C)
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

I teach English language arts. I did not know how to implement student-centred teach-
ing activities. Before, most of my teaching activities were reading and repeating. How-
ever, since group discussion was highly effective for all students, I designed an
activity to ask students to explain the meanings of digital images. Most students could
describe the picture in English. (Teacher F)

Additionally, Teacher D took students to the lab and asked them to complete a
problem-based assignment. She guided students in how to evaluate the accuracy of
data prior to searching. She divided students into six groups and encouraged them
to discuss worksheet questions. Moreover, she asked students to design reports in
PowerPoint. Finally, she assigned a presentation activity for the classroom.
Teacher peer mentoring was clearly effective. All teachers agreed that student
presentations facilitated learning. During this lesson period, students finished paper-
and-pencil assignments, and the teachers then scanned the students’ assignments so
the students could present them during the next class.
Searching for data, publishing reports, and presentations have increasingly become
the primary teaching activities used with technology. Although teachers perceived
time consumption as a critical problem influencing the entire lesson, they started con-
sidering methods to save time and for student-centred teaching with technology.

The fourth lesson period

During the fourth lesson period, four of the six teachers assigned student presenta-
tions, three of which helped students use computers to browse instructional materi-
als, search for information, and complete group tasks in the lab. Notably, all
teachers utilised group discussions. Experienced teachers provided other teachers
with concepts related to technology integration, especially for student-centred activi-
ties with technology.
Similar to a study by Matzen and Edmunds (2007) who indicated teachers
increased constructivist teaching with technology in a TPD programme placing
technology in the context of student-centred instructional practices, two programme
models are proposed in this study. The first model demonstrates lecturing to stu-
dents using digital material, posting questions, discussing these questions with stu-
dents, developing an open-ended worksheet related to instructional material, and
having students complete the worksheet, and was used by Teachers A, B, and F.
Another model, used by Teachers C, D, and E, comprises lecturing to students
 Technology, Pedagogy and Education 47

using digitised material, utilising software or hardware to obtain or identify informa-

tion, and having students present their work.
Notably, Teacher D designed a collaborative learning activity with technology
and guided students in collaborative learning during teaching. In the first class, she
presented several photographs of a community with beautiful homes. She then
divided students into groups and helped them use digital cameras to take photo-
graphs of the community surrounding the school. Teacher D described her belief
about teaching on the website as follows.

I do not like the same method of teaching. Thus, I try to add hardware to teaching
activities with collaborative learning. This study motivated me to think about how to
integrate technology and teaching.
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

All teachers stated that student-centred teaching with technology required time
to design lessons, assign work, and process technology. They also acknowledged
that not all classes can use innovative teaching due to a lack of sufficient time.
After the fourth lesson, teachers recognised that technology integration in pri-
mary school should focus on instructional strategies using technology to provide
learning opportunities for students. Teacher C expressed this as follows.

Prior to the study, I always considered technology’s capacity as the main component
in using technology with instruction. I cannot identify which teaching method is best
for technology integration in the current educational environment. After the professor’s
and my principal’s approval, I finally know which strategy is constructivist teaching
with technology.

Teachers increasingly grasped the design and practice of student-centred teach-

ing activities with technology. Teachers also understood that the initial design of
innovative teaching lessons needed to consider many facets, including time invest-
ment. However, as Teacher D said: ‘Students had high levels of participation, moti-
vation, and interaction as well as high achievement levels. Those would increase
teachers’ gratification for technology integration.’

Main themes emerging in TPD

Except for the processes associated with implementing technology integration, data
from the PLC can be used to confirm the causes and outcomes of TPD-induced
changes in technology integration. Two main themes emerged from the TPD sessions.

School climate and few actual teaching observations

All teachers recognised that TPD does not end. The principal insisted that profes-
sional development is every teacher’s responsibility. The principal strongly stated
that teachers should work together to enhance their skills, and believed that she
should be a facilitator and supporter. The principal’s opinion affected the teachers’
technology implementation, as mentioned in one of the FGIs.
Moreover, the principal stated that she was happy to participate in the teachers’
instructional meetings held once monthly. During these instructional meetings,
teachers share their teaching perspectives and sometimes request resources from the
principal, even though many teachers recognise that the school’s budget is limited.
 48 S.-H. Liu

Thus, the school’s climate, especially for instruction, was based on positive interac-
tions between teachers and the principal. The principal’s role is to create a school
climate conducive to teacher learning. As a perspective from Bredeson and Johans-
son (2000), the school principal’s opinion has a substantial impact on TPD by creat-
ing a learning environment, facilitating thought, and reinforcing teachers’
confidence in technology integration. The school’s culture was reflected in the prin-
cipal’s perspective and the teachers’ perceptions.

I was a primary teacher for 18 years. I will likely return to teaching when my princi-
pal duties end. Thus, I hope to maintain my enthusiasm for teaching …. I enjoy
observing teachers, even though some may be reluctant to have me in their class-
rooms. However, my teachers are aware of my beliefs, and they are willing to express
their perspectives. (Principal)
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

School principals are accountable for the curriculum. Generally, a principal gives
teachers instructional recommendations after classroom observations. However, this
principal rarely responded with substantive recommendations to teachers.

I believe all teachers are knowledgeable and professional. I sometime enter their class-
rooms to observe their teaching …. I think each teacher has his/her own belief about
teaching with technology. If I were asked to give a recommendation, I would say that
learning from others and advancing the collective understanding of technology use are
important. (Principal)

Even though the principal believed that she did not stress teachers, most teach-
ers felt anxiety when observed, regardless of the observer’s status. The study con-
firms the perspective of Danielson (2008), indicating that participant teachers felt
anxiety when they saw the principal observing their teaching. The following is a
conversation that took place in the fourth FGI.

Researcher: Did you feel anxiety when the principal or other teachers entered your
classroom and observed you teaching?
Teacher F: I am a little worried when the principal enters my classroom because I
may pay attention to the principal while teaching. I know the principal has
not given me any negative feedback about my teaching, but someone
standing at the back of my classroom is distracting.
Teacher A: I do not like being observed, because student behaviour that interferes with
teaching activities must be dealt with. This takes a lot of time and may
look bad to observers, especially to the principal.
Researcher: Did you rarely observe other teachers because you experienced anxiety
when you were observed?
Teacher A: I’m afraid so.

Based on the literature mentioned previously, a supportive school environment

benefits TPD for new teaching practices. During the practice process of the PLC,
the principal and teachers shared TPD goals of creating and implementing innova-
tive teaching with technology. In such a positive climate, instructional observation
ideally shows effective teaching methods to other teachers. However, entering a
classroom to observe teaching seldom occurred because teachers did not want to
make other teachers anxious. Instead, most teachers watched video-recordings.
 Technology, Pedagogy and Education 49

Lack of responses to instructional strategies and classroom activities

The lack of discussion regarding instructional strategies for technology integration
was obvious. Teachers were willing to share instructional information and watch
video-recordings; however, they rarely gave meaningful responses to instructional
strategies and classroom activities. Instead, responses were generally questions
regarding the capacity of technology. The following sentences are extracted from
the website forum.

How did you make the animation pictures? I heard students cry ‘wow’ in your class-
room and noticed that students paid attention to the screen. (Teacher F)

When students clicked on a sentence on the IWB, an English voice read the sentence.
These skills could be used in my instructional materials, and for student self-learning
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

after classes. (Teacher B)

Even though the researcher constantly encouraged teachers to comment on the

instructional strategies of other teachers, teachers only gave positive short responses
such as ‘It is a vivid representation’ and ‘Great! I appreciated your demonstration.’
The phenomenon of lack of deep interaction was formed as a question during an
FGI. As Teacher E stated:

Trust! Trust! I mean every teacher should believe that other instructors have good ideas
about designing instructional activities. Maybe differences existed between our own idea
and those of others, but giving a recommendation seemed to be an advisement.

The teacher community in this study provided opportunities for teacher interac-
tion and reflection and promoted effective instruction. Few meaningful responses
regarding instructional strategies during TPD sessions were identified. Interaction
was unexpectedly limited to simple conversations about technology capabilities or
personal enhancement rather than deep reflection about technology integration. In
sum, the learning community in this study did not practise collaborative profes-
sional development as defined in the literature, but rather provided opportunities for
teachers to share and learn from each other. However, the analytical result is consis-
tent with the perspective of Richter et al. (2011), in that the opportunities were
extremely useful for TPD for technology integration.

Outcomes of TPD-induced changes in technology integration

An analysis of teachers participating in the community identified changes. Teachers
were initially concerned with subject matter and exhibited lecture-based teaching
activities using digital media due to lack of confidence in innovative teaching.
However, after practising the four lessons, teachers gradually developed student-
based teaching methods with technology.
Teacher reports about professional development with technology, teaching obser-
vations, comparisons with colleagues during FGIs, and further examining their own
teaching methods are crucial components of teacher change.

Prior to participating in this study, I believed that technology integration was just a
way teachers presented something on a screen and lectured to students. However, I
obtained inspiration after group interviews and teaching observations. When I wanted
 50 S.-H. Liu

to move away from traditional teaching but lacked feasible ideas, I would watch video-
tapes of other teachers. After observing Teacher D’s extended activities with technology
(taking students to a computer lab and guiding them in searching for answers to work-
sheet questions), I thought that that is what I want to do. (Teacher E)

… group interviews were helpful in designing innovative teaching lessons. I think just
observing instruction rarely results in new perspectives. Instead, I generated innovative
ideas during group interviews. I think that listening to other teachers during interviews
and comparing their perspectives with mine helped me develop advanced technology
integration methods. … the professor’s example also facilitated my instructional strate-
gies. (Teacher D)

Notably, mental stress from participating in a learning community is also a key

factor. All teachers reported they were stressed to some degree. However, this stress
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

came from the teachers themselves, not from the principal or administrative
department.

I do not want to say that no stress existed while participating in the study. However,
this stress was from myself. When I saw other teachers constantly change their
instructional strategies, I was nervous and further thought immediately about what I
can change in my instructional strategies. (Teacher D)

A comparison of teacher reports from each period indicates that teachers

changed their perspectives on technology integration and finally practised stu-
dent-centred teaching with technology. Additionally, stress resulted in profes-
sional growth; that is, stress caused teachers to think more innovatively than
before.

The effects of TPD on technology integration

As mentioned, TPD evaluation involved feedback from participants, organisational
support, changing instructional practices, and student impact (Gaytan & McEwen,
2010). All teachers were satisfied with their development in technology integration.
Teachers reported that they practised student-centred instructional strategies with
technology and were satisfied with the TPD.

I was satisfied with my ability to design instructional material with the IWB. I think I
did it and got it …. The problem of time consumption can be resolved by practice.
(Teacher D)

I was satisfied with my innovative teaching approach. Prior to participating in this

project, I always doubted the feasibility of constructivist teaching in an actual
classroom. Most teachers lecture to students. However, after study processes, I
finally realised that my teaching activities is constructivist teaching …. (Teacher E)

Through student presentations in my classroom, I gradually integrated technology into

instruction. I was satisfied with this change. (Teacher B)

Teachers altered their instructional strategies with technology and performed

well. The effectiveness of TPD for technology integration can be identified.
 Technology, Pedagogy and Education 51

Conclusions and discussion

The study findings reveal that teachers changed their perspectives on and methods
for technology integration from lecture-based teaching to student-centred teaching
via processes of teacher professional development. Moreover, analytical results
demonstrate the effectiveness of TPD in technology integration. Effectiveness
resulted from teacher self-reflection with little stress from sharing teaching informa-
tion, including instructional observations and group interviews, and providing inno-
vative and feasible instructional strategies using technology. Additionally, the
researcher and school principal played critical roles in TPD. The researcher pro-
vided timely teaching ideas for teachers when innovation was lacking. The principal
created a positive school climate and lauded teacher performance when teachers
used an innovative teaching method with technology. The study concludes that the
change in technology integration resulted from instructional observations and
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

teacher self-reflection during TPD along with researcher coordination, and the
principal’s support.
However, two TPD problems existed. Most teachers felt anxiety when being
observed, regardless of the observer’s status, and rarely gave meaningful comments
and responses to instructional strategies and classroom activities. The phenomenon
of lack of deep interaction may limit teacher reflection about the instructional merits
and disadvantages of technology integration. Additionally, teachers also reported
mental stress arising from comparing innovative teaching by other colleagues with
their own teaching. Notably, stress seemed to cause teachers to think more innova-
tively than before.
The teachers in this study, as mentioned, lectured to students using digital mate-
rials during the initial lesson period, as teachers do in several countries such as Tur-
key (Gülbahar, 2007) and Cyprus (Eteokleous, 2008). Based on the studies by
Eteokleous (2008) and Hinostroza et al. (2011), most in-service teachers should be
equipped with the ability for technology integration, especially for student-centred
teaching with technology, via TPD. Notably, TPD has been practised for many
years in Taiwan to improve the ability of teachers to integrate technology into
instruction, however school-based TPD for technology integration was not preva-
lent. This study, situated within a school-based professional development pro-
gramme for teacher technology integration, is a milestone for Taiwanese teachers.
Based on the studies by Harris and Hofer (2011) and Overbaugh and Lu (2008),
a TPD programme increases participant competences and confidence in technology
integration. Initially, the student-centred activities with technology were difficult for
teachers to understand by merely participating in college education courses, confer-
ences, and workshops. The reason might be similar to a study by Brody and Hadar
(2011) in which, despite high awareness of TPD, the teachers expressed uncertainty
in practising teaching activities due to lack of innovative teaching experiences.
However, through the four lessons with researcher coordination and the principal’s
promotion, teachers developed technology integration via observations and group
interviews. This study confirms that school-based TPD through PLC is more effec-
tive in improving teacher technology integration than lectures provided for teachers.
Instructional observations, comparison with colleagues during group interviews, and
examining one’s teaching are crucial components of teacher change. As in a study
by Inan et al. (2010), teachers examined the relationships between computer appli-
cations and classroom practices after observing their colleagues teach with technol-
 52 S.-H. Liu

ogy and practise innovative teaching in their classrooms. This study further indi-
cated that the researcher’s coordination and the principal’s approval also have
marked influences on TPD for technology integration.
As in the literature, TPD for technology integration has many challenges due to
teacher inexperience and barriers to teacher collaboration. During this study, teach-
ers were willing to share experiences and reflect; however, meaningful comments
were lacking and some teachers felt anxiety. This anxiety about instructional obser-
vations can be reduced by having teachers watch video-recorded lessons. However,
the lack of meaningful comments about a teacher’s instruction methods is problem-
atic in the educational context. In traditional Taiwanese schools, teachers typically
focus on their own teaching in the classroom; few voluntarily practise instructional
observation or send comments to other teachers for professional development. As
evidenced by Yang and Liu (2004), most teachers reported that they benefited emo-
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

tionally and intellectually from TPD and support. The school in this study was char-
acterised by positive relationships between the principal and teachers; however,
teachers were not used to commenting on their colleagues’ performance. Thus,
teachers did not entirely practise collaborative professional development.
In Taiwan, technology integration in classrooms is characterised by traditional
lecturing, slow adoption, low use frequency, and insufficient implementation. The
conclusion of this study can be a basis for future studies of TPD for technology
integration and facilitate continuous development of teachers’ teaching ability in
schools. This study assessed the ability of teachers to integrate technology into
instruction. I conclude that school-based TPD is necessary for teachers in technol-
ogy-rich environments. Notably, teachers have raised their awareness of the poten-
tial to change their teaching styles and methods, but they feel that it is difficult to
overcome a few mental obstacles. In a school-based TPD community, a coordinator
such as school principal or university professor plays a critical role to facilitate
innovative thinking and reinforce teachers’ performance. Thus, arranging an ade-
quate coordinator for a professional learning community for TPD is recommended.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the National Science Council of the Republic of China,
Taiwan, for financially supporting this research under Contract No. NSC-99-2410-H-018-
012-. Ted Knoy is appreciated for his editorial assistance.

Notes on contributor
Shih-Hsiung Liu is a professor and the Director of the Center for Teacher Education at
National Chang-Hua University of Education in Taiwan. He has worked at the university
since 2005. Before that, he was a primary school teacher for 17 years. Dr Liu’s research
focuses on pre-service and in-service teacher education, especially for technology integration
during instruction.

References
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education
over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10–20.
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social
research. London: Sage.
Bredeson, P., & Johansson, O. (2000). The school principal’s role in teacher professional
development. Journal of Service Education, 26, 385–401.
 Technology, Pedagogy and Education 53

Brody, D., & Hadar, L. (2011). ‘I speak prose and I now know it’. Personal development
trajectories among teacher educators in a professional development community. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 27, 1223–1234.
Butler, D.L., Lauscher, H.N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration
and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 20, 435–455.
Chen, C.-H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology
integration? The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 65–75.
Chen, Y., Chen, N.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). The use of online synchronous discussion for web-
based professional development for teachers. Computers & Education, 53, 1155–1166.
Chen, Y.-C., & Chen, Y.-C. (2008). Teachers’ characteristics and advanced technology profi-
ciency. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 2, 49–61.
Cohen, D., & Hill, H. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

Danielson, C. (2008). The handbook for enhancing professional practice. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Díaz-Maggioli, G. (2004). Teacher-centered professional development. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to
use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51, 187–199.
Dudley, P. (2008). Improving practice and progression through Lesson Study. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/2428/96714
Eteokleous, N. (2008). Evaluating computer technology integration in a centralized school
system. Computers & Education, 51, 669–686.
Galanouli, D. (2010). School-based professional development: A report for the General
Teaching Council for Northern Ireland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2428/96693
Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. Ameri-
can Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
Gaytan, J.A., & McEwen, B.C. (2010). Instructional technology professional development
evaluation: Developing a high quality model. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 52(2), 77–94.
Gorder, L.M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration
in the classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63–76.
Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration
in schools. Computers & Education, 49, 943–956.
Harris, J.B., & Hofer, M.J. (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related
instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43, 211–229.
Hawkes, M. (1999, November). Teacher professional development, technology, and evalua-
tion: A dubious trio. Paper presentation at the American Evaluation Association Confer-
ence, Orlando, FL.
Hayes, D.N.A. (2007). ICT and learning: Lessons from Australian classrooms. Computers &
Education, 49, 385–395.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school
teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Educa-
tion, 51, 1499–1509.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J.W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profes-
sion: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5),
3–15.
Hinostroza, J.E., Labbé, C., Brun, M., & Matama, C. (2011). Teaching and learning activities in
Chilean classrooms: Is ICT making a difference? Computers & Education, 57, 1358–1367.
Inan, F.A., Lowther, D.L., Ross, S., & Strahl, J.D. (2010). Pattern of classroom activities
during students’ use of computers: Relations between instructional strategies and com-
puter applications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 540–546.
Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Computer as mindtools in schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd
ed.). Colombus, OH: Prentice Hall.
 54 S.-H. Liu

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kim, M.C., & Hannafin, M.J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced
learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers
& Education, 56, 403–417.
Kursunoglu, A., & Tanriogen, A. (2009). The relationship between teachers’ perceptions
towards instructional leadership behaviors of their principal and teachers’ attitudes
towards change. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 252–258.
Lawless, K.A., & Pellegrino, J.W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technol-
ogy into teaching and learning knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions
and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575–615.
Liu, S.-H. (2011). Factors related to pedagogical beliefs of teachers and technology integra-
tion. Computers & Education, 56, 1012–1022.
Matzen, N.J., & Edmunds, J.A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 417–
430.
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 21:19 10 March 2015

Ministry of Education. (2007). Technology education white book for secondary and elemen-
tary school. Retrieved from http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0010/97-100year.pdf
Ministry of Education. (2011a). Sample dissemination plan for technology integration in ele-
mentary and secondary school. Retrieved from http://ict100.hc.edu.tw/
Ministry of Education. (2011b). Teacher net: Professional, evaluation, and growth. Retrieved
from http://teachernet.moe.edu.tw/MAIN/Know/index.aspx
Moll, M. (1997). Information technology in the classroom: pits and pendulum: A poe-esian
look at planning. Education Canada, 37, 6–9.
Mullen, C.A. (2009). Introducing collaborative communities with edge and vitality. In C.A.
Mullen (Ed.), The handbook of leadership and professional learning communities (pp.
1–10). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ng, W., & Nicholas, H. (2009). Introducing pocket PCs in schools: Attitudes and beliefs in
the first year. Computers & Education, 52, 470–480.
Overbaugh, R., & Lu, R. (2008). The impact of a NCLB-EETT funded professional devel-
opment program on teacher self-efficacy and resultant implementation. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 41, 43–61.
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2011). Professional
development across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learn-
ing opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 116–126.
Roberts, M.L. (2010). Improving student achievement through professional learning commu-
nities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Sisk-Hilton, S. (2009). Teaching and learning in public schools: Professional development
through shared inquiry. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Stein, S.J., Ginns, I.S., & McDonald, C.V. (2007). Teachers learning about technology and
technology education: Insights from a professional development experience. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17, 179–195.
Stevenson, H.J. (2004). Teachers’ informal collaboration regarding technology. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 37, 129–144.
Thair, M., & Treagust, D.F. (2003). A brief history of a science teacher professional devel-
opment initiative in Indonesia and the implications for centralised teacher development.
International Journal of Educational Development, 23, 201–213.
van Braak, J. (2001). Factors influencing the use of computers mediated communication by
teachers in secondary education. Computers & Education, 36, 41–57.
Wray, S. (2007). Teaching portfolios, community, and pre-service teachers’ professional
development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1139–1152.
Yang, S.C., & Liu, S.F. (2004). Case study of online workshop for the professional develop-
ment of teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 733–761.
Zhao, J. (2010). School knowledge management framework and strategies: The new perspec-
tive on teacher professional development. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 168–175.