What are We Learning About Integration and Professional Development? SUMMARY UFT Teacher Center conducted a Technology study, through an independent evalua- How well is technology- integration in today’s tor, to examine the impact of instruc- focused professional classrooms is essential to prepare our tional technology professional development helping teachers and their students to compete in an increasingly development on teaching and learning students in integrating digital society. As professional devel- at schools with site-based UFT technology into the opment providers in the field of Teacher Centers in New York City educational process? instructional technology, how can we (Measurement Incorporated, 2010). A recent study by the UFT Teacher Center continue to support teachers and stu- This article presents results from this provides some answers. dents in achieving the goal of seamless- study and their implications for future ly integrating technology into the edu- professional development. cational process? What are the chal- lenges we face? These are some of the The UFT Teacher Center, now in its questions that led to a recent study of 32nd year, is a comprehensive profes- the relationship between professional sional development program operating development practice and technology throughout New York City’s five bor- integration involving teachers, profes- oughs in more than 200 school-based sional developers and school leaders in sites. This is a collaboration of the a group of New York City schools. United Federation of Teachers, the New York State Education Since little research is available on the Department, New York City impact of technology-focused profes- Department of Education, schools, sional development on teacher learn- districts, and school support organiza- ing and practice (Mouza, 2009), the tions. In participating schools, the

Nancy A. Mazzella, an instructional technology coordinator with the UFT Teacher Center, brings more than 18 years of teaching experience to support New York City educators. She is an adjunct professor for the New York Institute of Technology and serves on the New York State Teacher Center Technology Committee.

E d u c a t o r ’ s V o i c e n V olume I V n P age 4 2 Nancy A. Mazzella, United Federation of Teachers

UFT Teacher Center partner schools receive the support of a full-time coach who provides a wide range of job-embedded professional UFT Teacher Center staff support n investigate the impact of development opportunities — teaching and learning by providing a technology professional develop- such as one-on-one coaching, wide range of job-embedded profes- ment on the instructional practices in-classroom support, dem- sional development opportunities such onstration lessons, co-teach- of participating teachers, and ing, professional study groups as one-on-one coaching, in-classroom and work sessions. support, demonstration lessons, co- n investigate the impact of technology teaching, professional study groups, professional development on student and work sessions. Additionally, the learning. UFT Teacher Center provides a vari- ety of citywide networks, conferences, Three surveys were used to gather and seminars — open to all New York data. One survey was administered to City educators. teachers who received a significant amount of technology-related profes- This study analyzed data collected sional development from UFT from surveys administered across all Teacher Center staff. It assessed the grade levels at 40 UFT Teacher types of instructional technology pro- Center partner schools that received fessional development received by instructional technology professional teachers, teacher satisfaction and development and support. The main changes in knowledge, skills and purposes of this study in relation to instructional practice as a result of exploring teacher, Teacher Center UFT Teacher Center professional staff, and administrator perceptions, development. Teachers were also were to: asked about the perceived impact of on student n examine the type, amount and learning. quality of educational technology professional development in pre- A second survey, administered to paring teachers to integrate technol- UFT Teacher Center staff, collected ogy into their instructional practice, on the instructional technology professional development n investigate the use of technology provided to teachers. It also addressed to differentiate instruction for the effectiveness and relevance of the students, continued on following page

E d u c a t o r ’ s V o i c e n V olume I V n P age 4 3 What are We Learning About Technology Integration and Professional Development?

While it is professional development and support overwhelming 94% of respondents UFT Teacher Center staff received who were UFT Teacher Center staff important to from the UFT Teacher Center to pre- reported that access to the in provide training pare them as providers of technology their school was “moderate to great.” professional development. More than 80% reported that access to sessions to help desktop and printers was teachers learn how A third survey was administered to “moderate to great.” On the other school leaders. It assessed the impact hand, the results were less promising to use specific of the program from the perspective of when asked about web-based video hardware and soft- school leadership. resources, digital recording devices and licensed copies of instructional ware, professional Preparing Teachers to Integrate Technology software. Only 59% reported that development must access to Web-based video resources The goal of successful technology pro- was “moderate to great.” Slightly more go further and fessional development is its integration than half indicated access to digital into teaching to impact student learn- provide ongoing recording devices was “moderate to ing. Before we can begin to discuss great,” and 60% indicated access to support. technology integration, however, licensed copies of instructional soft- we must consider its definition. ware was “moderate to great.” In other “Technology integration” can, and words, access was reported to be often does, mean different things to greatest for basic Internet access, com- different people. For the purposes of puters and printers, but these do not this report, we will use the definition reflect the types of many offered by the Intel Teach Program students actually use in their everyday (Intel Teach Program, 2009), which lives, such as handheld devices and defines technology integration as the Web 2.0 tools. As technology evolves, process of teachers and students rou- we must continue to examine not only tinely and seamlessly using technology the amount of technology accessible to resources and technology-based prac- teachers and students, but the type of tices to enhance learning. technology as well. For teachers to integrate technology Once teachers have access to technolo- routinely and seamlessly, they must gy, such as interactive whiteboards, have access to technology. As one they need to know how to use the UFT Teacher Center staff member technology before they can begin to stated, “Teachers must feel they have integrate it into their teaching. Helping access to technology on a regular basis teachers learn how to use specific to plan it into their lessons.” An

E d u c a t o r ’ s V o i c e n V olume I V n P age 4 4 hardware and software tends to be the focus of short-term workshops or training sessions. While it is important Figure 1 to provide training sessions to help Effectiveness of Teacher Center professional development and support structures in teachers learn how to use specific helping teachers implement instructional technology in the classroom hardware and software, professional 100% development must go further and pro- 80% vide ongoing support. As Fishman (2006) noted, learning how to use 60% technology is not the same as learning 40% how to teach with technology — and Principals’ Report of PD Effectiveness 20% Teachers’ Report of PD Effectiveness the findings of this study are consistent Teacher Center Staff Report of PD Effectiveness PERCENTAGE RESPONDING PERCENTAGE with this understanding. MODERATE TO VERY EFFECTIVE 0% Coaching In-class Modeling Co-teaching Work Study Courses Assistance in Classroom Sessions Groups and Figure 1 illustrates the effectiveness of Labs Networks support structures in helping teachers Type of Teacher Center Support Structures implement instructional technology in the classroom as reported by teachers, principals and UFT Teacher Center of teachers indicated they needed staff. More than 80% of respondents additional support and professional who were teachers rated modeling as a development to further implement “moderate to very effective” way to technology practices in their class- help them implement integration of rooms. These findings confirm the instructional technology into the class- need for ongoing professional develop- room. This was followed closely by ment, and are especially noteworthy in work sessions, study groups, coaching, tough economic times when profes- and in-class assistance — in terms of sional development may seem like a percentage of respondents rating the luxury rather than a necessity. approach as “moderate to very effec- tive.” It is noteworthy that a fairly high The study’s results also indicate some percentage of all three groups (i.e., interesting differences in the percep- principals, teachers, Teacher Center tions of teachers and principals con- staff) rated the following as “moderate cerning the impact of professional to very effective”: coaching, in-class development activities on the level of assistance, modeling, work sessions, teacher preparedness to integrate tech- and study groups. nology (see Figure 2).

It should be noted that even with the support they have received, two-thirds continued on following page

E d u c a t o r ’ s V o i c e n V olume I V n P age 4 5 What are We Learning About Technology Integration and Professional Development?

reported that as a result of the instruc- tional technology support and profes- Figure 2 sional development provided by UFT Teacher Center staff, they are now: Level at which TCS professional development and support prepared teachers n creating new and different ways for students to take in information; 33% 34% 47% 14% 10% n differentiating for readiness levels 3% Teacher Principal 0% Teacher Center 0% Staff and creating materials that match 49% 17% 36% both readiness levels and interests; 57% n differentiating for interest; and

Not at all Somewhat well Moderately well Very well n creating alternate ways students can demonstrate what they know and have learned. While 36% of the teachers surveyed believed they were “very well” pre- Although these results indicate that the pared to integrate instructional tech- professional development provided by nology into their classroom practice, UFT Teacher Center staff helped 57% of the principals believed that teachers differentiate instruction, both teachers were “very well” prepared. A teachers and UFT Teacher Center possible explanation for these differ- staff overwhelmingly report the need ences might be that teachers and prin- for additional professional develop- cipals have different definitions of ment in this area. This makes sense technology integration. Further con- since new technologies — assistive versations among teachers and admin- technologies in particular — are being istrators might lead to a common introduced at a rapid pace. definition, which could help establish clear expectations and guide future professional development. Impact on Instructional Practices The study asked teachers, principals and UFT Teacher Center staff to con- Using Technology to sider technology implementation Differentiate Instruction across six skill levels from beginning to The data suggest that teachers are more advanced stages (see Table 1). focused on new and improved ways of Most teachers reported that they were implementing differentiated instruc- in the early to middle levels of technol- tion. More than 70% of the teachers ogy implementation; others reported a

E d u c a t o r ’ s V o i c e n V olume I V n P age 4 6

Table 1 Skill level in implementing instructional technology in the classroom

Skill Level Level of Implementation % 1 Level Teachers are still learning about ways of using technology for instruction; 8 they have not yet used it. 2 Level Teachers have begun using technology for instruction, but usage is uneven 28 as they have not yet mastered all components. 3 Level Teachers are using technology for instruction routinely and have 25 encountered minimal implementation problems. 4 Level Teachers’ technology knowledge is fully integrated in the instructional program. 18 It is a normal, ongoing part of the way teachers teach. 5 Level Teachers are now exploring ways of refining their use of technology 14 to increase impact on students (e.g., differentiate instruction). 6 Level Teachers are collaborating with other teachers to expand the impact 7 of technology on all of our students. higher level of implementation. This appear to have altered the way they outcome has implications that are assess and monitor student progress, important for the design of profession- have changed the way they group stu- al development. Clearly, professional dents for instruction and have altered development needs to be differentiated the content of their instruction — to a to accommodate teachers at the begin- “moderate or great extent.” Also, 77% ning stages of implementation as well of Teacher Center staff reported that as those at the more advanced stages. the way teachers feel about professional growth opportunities was affected (in a When Teacher Center staff were asked positive way) to a “moderate or great to reflect upon the extent to which tech- extent.” These results imply that nology-related professional develop- instruction will be influenced when suf- ment appeared to affect the way ficient support is given. teachers instruct, assess and think about their teaching, the results were surpris- Nearly 60% of teacher respondents ing. More than 70% of Teacher Center reported an increase in grouping for staff reported that, as a result of technol- differentiated activities. Fifty-four ogy professional development, teachers continued on following page

E d u c a t o r ’ s V o i c e n V olume I V n P age 4 7 What are We Learning About Technology Integration and Professional Development?

A successful percent of teachers reported an relate their learning to real-world appli- increase in the use of project-based cations. These outcomes are important professional learning to monitor student progress. to follow and increase, since these areas development In fact, the only teacher-led activity are directly related to effective teaching that did not show an increase was in general, as well as attaining Common program must using lecture (which many would Core State Standards — that is, to bet- consider not only argue is overused). ter prepare students for college and careers. how to facilitate While these findings are promising, change in teachers’ even more promising are the results The study also considered the amount indicating that a high percentage of of technology-related professional knowledge and teachers are implementing more stu- development and support teachers skills but also how dent-led instructional activities. More received to assess the role it had than half of teachers reported an played in reported student benefits. to facilitate change increase in having students teach or The data indicate that the more in teachers’ beliefs help other students. Close to half instructional technology professional reported an increase in having stu- development and support a teacher and preconceptions. dents work on long-term projects and receives, the more the teacher incorpo- work in collaborative teams. This shift rates technology in the classroom. is aligned with the National Teachers who use technology to a Educational Technology Standards greater degree observe and report (NETS) as well as the Common Core greater benefits to students. Clearly, State Standards that require students increasing the amount of professional to use a variety of and development and support to teachers environments to communicate and is key to increased benefits to students. work collaboratively.

Implications Impact on Student Learning As Joellen Killion (2003) points out, it This study examined perceptions relat- is widely believed that if teachers attend ed to the impact of the uses of technol- a workshop they can begin to immedi- ogy on student learning. While this is a ately implement new strategies in their difficult variable to consider separately, classrooms. It may be thought that close to 40 % of teachers would attri- increasing the teacher’s knowledge and bute technology use to higher student skills related to technology integration engagement and excitement about will lead automatically to a change in learning. Approximately 30% believe behavior. However, as Killion notes, that students appeared better able to professional development is

E d u c a t o r ’ s V o i c e n V olume I V n P age 4 8 most successful in increasing student teachers need to differentiate instruc- learning when it targets changes over tion for students, professional learning Just as teachers time — not only in knowledge and needs to be differentiated to meet the need to differen- skill, but also in attitude, aspiration, needs of teachers. and behavior. Therefore, a successful tiate instruction professional development program Technology can make a difference in for students, must consider how to facilitate change supporting student learning, however, in teachers’ knowledge, as well as this cannot happen by merely providing professional teachers’ beliefs and preconceptions. It classrooms with the latest equipment. learning needs to Instructional technology integration will is difficult, if not impossible, to impact be differentiated teacher beliefs in a one-time workshop. occur across all grade levels and in all That is why ongoing professional content areas when it is supported by to meet the professional development that is differ- development is essential. The over- needs of teachers. arching goal of technology professional entiated and sustained over time. development should be to provide teachers with opportunities to observe, practice and reflect on new technolo- References gies and it should be conducted over Fishman, B. J. (2006). It’s not about the technology. Teachers College Record. extended periods of time. doi:12584.

Because of the rapid rate of technologi- Intel Teach Program (2009). Leadership Forum (Version 3.6). cal change, instructional technology Killion, J. (2002). Assessing impact: professional development should focus Evaluating staff development (pp. 55-57). on helping teachers develop skills that Oxford: National Staff Development enable them to continually explore Council. new and unfamiliar tools instead of Killion, J. (2003). Solid footwork makes eval- concentrating only on specific hard- uation of staff development programs a song [Electronic version]. Journal of Staff ware and software. It must be focused Development, 24(4), 15-21. not only on the equipment but also on Measurement Incorporated Evaluation the strategies that support student Services (2010). Teaching and learning learning — strategies that enable teach- with technology: UFT Teacher Center. Unpublished Independent Evaluation ers to teach differently and support Report. inquiry and collaboration. Mouza, C. (2009). Does research-based pro- fessional development make a difference: A As this study indicates, teachers are at longitudinal investigation of teacher learn- varying levels of expertise in technolo- ing in technology integration [Electronic gy implementation. Professional devel- version]. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1195-1241. opment must be designed to meet the needs of these various levels. Just as

E d u c a t o r ’ s V o i c e n V olume I V n P age 4 9