Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Professional Development for Educational Technology
Transcript of Professional Development for Educational Technology
for Educational Technology
1. Subject area content focus.
2. Active learning v. passive.
3. Coherence with beliefs and policies.
4. Duration of 20 hours over a semester.
5. Teams by subject and grade level.
“To be effective…technology must be used to promote new learning goals and teaching strategies that are student-centered, collaborative, engaging, authentic, self-directed, and based on development of higher-order thinking skills” (p. 1).
Honey, McMillan-Cult, & Spielvogel, (2005)
p. 287 "for information to be useful,
it needs to be interpreted in context.”
Knowing how to use technology is not knowing how to use the technology in their classrooms (Earle, 2002).
“Teaching with technology requires teachers to expand their knowledge of pedagogical practice across multiple aspects of the planning, implementation, and evaluation processes” (p. 260).
Five Core Features
"...with little follow up" (p. 287)
As opposed to...
"this is the technology and here is how to use it workshop” (p. 139).
Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010)
Knowing how to use a technology is not the same as knowing how to teach with it.
Move from quick, "how to" workshops to a model that leads to systemic teaching changes.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Fletcher, D. (2006). Technology integration: Do they or don’t they?
A self-report from PreK through 5th grade professional educators, AACE Journal, 14(3), 207-219.
Hochberg, E. D., & Desimone, L. M. (2010). Professional development in the accountability context: Building capacity to achieve standards. Educational Psychologist. 45(2), 89-106.
Jensen, J., Lewis, B., & Smith, R. (2002). No one way: Working models for teachers’ professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 10(4), 481-496.
Wright, V. H. (2010). Professional development and the master technology teacher: The evolution of one partnership. Education, 131(1), 139-146.
(Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Butler & Sellbom, 2002; Fletcher, 2006)
Lack of time.
Lack of support
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546.
Butler, D., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, (2), 22-28.
Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Kappan, 92(6) 68-71.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
Earle, R.S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. ET Magazine, 42(1), 5-13.
“plays an integral role in standards-based accountability by building teacher’s capacity for addressing both basic content knowledge and higher order thinking and problem-solving skills”
(Hochberg & Desimone, 2011, p. 89).