Running head:

Design: Professional Advancement all-day in-service proposal

1

Design: Professional Advancement all-day in-service proposal

Running head: THEN USE ALL CAPS HERE

 

 
 

Introduction

Education administration has common ground on the professional development for indispensable positive impacts on learners, teachers, and influence on the 21st-century workforce requirements. Constant application of novelty techniques and approach in education by instructors, provide universal integration in education pedagogy, knowledge content, and cooperative relationship between teachers, learners, and institutions management (Amadi, 2013). Additionally, there is robust acclaim of government, international policies, and institutions on the College of Education (COE) redesign and career development, including technological simulation and application. The papers of this proposal paper there seek to address the responsibilities of the curriculum coaches, achievable, and tools resources for simulation. Comment by Jamie: Thak you for citing.

Roles and responsibilities for the Curriculum leader

Despite few curriculum heads and instructors remain repulsive on changes in professional development and teaching; there are fundamental roles and responsibilities concerning deliverables for training, motivation, and collaboration (Archambault. Let al. 2010). Roles and responsibilities vary from one form of application to another. The following are defined roles and responsibilities of the curriculum leaders: Comment by Jamie: comma Comment by Jamie: (Archambault et al., 2010).

Training Roles
: Curriculum leaders and teachers have a role in the teaching of the leaser to appreciate changes in professional and simulation approaches, particularly in acknowledging the roles of technological advancement in shaping education direction in College of Educations. For instance, an instructor teaching economics appreciates other technical consideration in learning through assimilation of a different modern model in the comprehension of the concept. Through dimensional teaching roles, teachers acknowledge professional development in roles changes. Comment by Jamie: Well organized. Comment by Jamie: ?
clarify

Collaboration role: Administrator coaches in professional development endorse a change in parts; thus, being students of their won class with the learners. The curriculum heads, therefore, collaborative work with educators as a student since some of the learners are technology savvy providing fundamental guidelines in the learning process. Comment by Jamie: clarify

Motivation roles: Educators changes role form instructors to facilitators in professional development by inspiring learners to appreciate social networks in learning and communication. Communication platforms and information sharing are fundamental in novelty advancement in education sectors. Therefore, in coaching, educators are not only able to instruct learners but also facilitate them in appreciation of professional development and motivation roles. Comment by Jamie: change roles

Achievable, measurable school
-wide goals Comment by Jamie: Effective use of headings.

Additional to the defined role change in professional development, the proposal focuses on the possible quality measures and objectives of the changing structure in education due to professional development, especially in appreciation of technology. Researches indicate that there are a significant achievement and measurement in restructure of education by educators on teachers, students, content, and knowledge (Amadi, 2013). Enhancement of the quality of the product production is one fundamental positive impact of professional advancement and changes in appreciation technology. Educators can motivate learners to become creative in commination, technical simulation; thus, creative and innovative in learning output measures. Comment by Jamie: Researchers

Furthermore, by employing facilitation and instruction, learners in pedagogy, peers, and educators can provide assessment in the application of professional development and the right communication strategies thus, resulting in effective and efficient information sharing among the learning participants. Moreover, students can work autonomously in the learning process due to social networking and technological application in the acquisition and utilization of the information. Therefore, the redesign of the COE programs in appreciation of professional development presents achievable and quality measures with quantifiable outcomes on learners, educators, and education stakeholders.

Resources, Technology, and Models

Professional development and change in the structure of education is a systematic approach involving models, support, and techniques to assist learners, educators, and education stakeholders in myriad ways. For instance, by application of the TPACK model in learning, there is a collaboration among technology, education content, and knowledge

Models: TPACK model is applicable in professional development in multiple ways, especially to students, learners, and educators (Archambault, L et al. 2010). Model establishes cohesive interaction among fundamental factors such as technology, pedagogy, content, and knowledge with prepares educators and learners in responding to 21st-century professional demands. Comment by Jamie: et al., Comment by Jamie: The TRACK Model

Technology: Application of technology, such as social networks, provides professional development by an elimination communication gap between the participants (Burke & Brigid, 2013). For instance, virtual platforms counterbalance the challenges of time and resource in appreciation of technology. The strategy leads to consistent individual improvement and effective communication within academic discourse.

Resources: Tome and fund availability are indispensable resources in program implementation within professional development and technological application in education structure. Redesign of the COE requires a time factor. Therefore, to eliminate constraints, there is a need for strategic techniques in industrial uses in education restructure. Consequently, funds are crucial. Therefore, educational stakeholders should avail adequate monetary resources for implementation and appropriation of a redesign in professional development. Comment by Jamie: Time?

Conclusion Comment by Jamie: Thank you for including a conclusion.

The proposal is fundamental in the answerable and further direction in implementation and appreciation of both professional development and technological simulation in COE programs. Motivation, training, and collaboration on both instructors’ deliverables and measures of outcomes are essential in decision making. Furthermore, resources, technology, and models are vital elements to ensure success in redesign and implementation of the strategies in professional development and technological appreciations.

References

Amadi, M. (2013). In-Service Training and Professional Development of Teachers in Nigeria: Through Open and Distance Education. Retrieved from:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567172

Comment by Jamie: Remove colon

Archambault L., Ketzel K., Foulger, T and Williams M. (2010). Professional Development 2.0: Transforming Teacher Education Pedagogy with 21st Century Tools. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. Vol.27 No.1 Comment by Jamie: T., & Comment by Jamie: No caps. Comment by Jamie: 27(1), page numbers.

Burke, B. M. (2013). Experiential Professional Development. Journal of Experiential Education, 36(3), 247-263. DOI: 10.1177/1053825913489103 Comment by Jamie: No caps Comment by Jamie: doi

Rubic_Print_Format

Not addressed.

25.0% Not addressed.

Not addressed.

10.0% Not addressed.

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
EDU-537	EDU-537-O501	Benchmark – Professional Development In-Service Proposal	300.0
Criteria	Percentage	No Submission (0.00%)	Insufficient (69.00%)	Approaching (74.00%)	Acceptable (87.00%)	Target (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Criteria	100.0%
Roles and Responsibilities InTASC: 9(o), 10(f), 10(g), 10(i), 10(k), 10(s), 10(t)] COE: 3.1	30.0%					Not addressed.	Roles and responsibilities for the curriculum leader or coach are weakly addressed. Deliverables are inappropriate and do not address all categories: professional development, training, collaboration, and motivation.	Roles and responsibilities for the curriculum leader or coach are mostly defined. Deliverables based on the professional development, training, collaboration, and motivation are included, may not closely fit with the defined roles and responsibilities.	Defined roles and responsibilities for the curriculum leader or coach are clear and appropriate. Deliverables related to the professional development, training, collaboration, and motivation are clear and appropriate for the audience and task.	Defined roles and responsibilities for the curriculum leader or coach reflect the needs of the school and synthesized content from this course. Deliverables related to the professional development, training, collaboration, and motivation are clear and meaningful for the audience and task.
Goals		25.0%	School-wide goals do not address all required areas: professional development, training, collaboration, and motivation or address all areas ineffectively. The goals measurable outcomes are highly questionable.	School-wide goals mostly address professional development, training, collaboration, and motivation, but need further revision to be clear and feasible. The goals have some measurable outcomes.	Relevant, practical school-wide goals for professional development, training, collaboration, and motivation are clear and appropriate. Within the scope of the school, the goals are measurable.	Achievable, purposeful school-wide goals for professional development, training, collaboration, and motivation are clear and representative of the needs of all parties involved. Within the scope of the school and district, the goals are meaningful and measurable.
Tools ISTE-T: 2b InTASC: 6(i), 8(a), 8(g), 8(o), 9(e), 9(f), 9(k), 10(g) COE: 3.4	Anticipated tools and resources, including technologies, might assist the curriculum leader or coach and teachers in achieving coaching goals, but seem unnecessary in the process or a waste of resources. The tools may also be inappropriate for the tasks. The explanation of how these tools will be used seems illogical and superficial.	Anticipated tools and resources, including technologies, might assist the curriculum leader or coach and teachers in achieving coaching goals, but seem unnecessary in the process. The explanation of how these tools will be used seems far-fetched or lacking sound reason.	Anticipated tools and resources, including technologies, which will assist the curriculum leader or coach and teachers in achieving coaching goals are relevant and appropriate. The explanation of how these tools will be used is clear and logical.	Anticipated tools and resources, including technologies, which will assist the curriculum leader or coach and teachers in achieving coaching goals are efficient and demonstrate and effort to lead by example. The explanation of how these tools will be used is purposeful and meaningful.
Paper Format		10.0%	Appropriate section titles are used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.	Appropriate section titles are used, and formatting is correct; some minor errors may be present.	Appropriate template is fully used; there are virtually no errors in formatting style.	All format elements are correct.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Total Weightage	100%

Copyright © 2010, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191
(U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@iste.org, www.iste.org. All rights reserved.

4 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 27 Number 1

Abstract

This paper discusses the outcomes of
a professional development project of-
fered to faculty of Arizona State Uni-
versity’s College of Teacher Education
and Leadership. The goal of this proj-
ect was to assist instructors with pro-
gressing technologies and to help them
transform their pedagogy to leverage
the affordances provided through the
integration of Web 2.0 tools. Through
the redesign of an instructional
unit to incorporate social network-
ing, instructors experienced positive
outcomes. Findings suggest that the
benefits of integrating social network-
ing tools used in a meaningful way
while carefully considering how they
fit within specific content areas and
teaching methodologies included in-
creased feedback for students and a
more student-centered approach to
teaching. These are important con-
siderations for teacher education pro-
grams of the 21st century. (Keywords:
professional development, social net-
working, and technological pedagogi-
cal content knowledge, TPACK)

W
ith an understanding of the
collaborative possibilities
provided by Web 2.0, progres-

sive university instructors have begun
to dabble with how to make use of the
myriad of social networking tools in
their teaching. However, it is difficult
for faculty to imagine what possibili-
ties of implementing such technology
exist when they are constrained by old
paradigms of teaching (Kuhn, 1970).
Even with these confines, Garrison and
Akyol (2009) note a recent shift toward
collaborative constructivist approaches
in university coursework, possibly

because “the idea of sustained learning
communities made possible with new
and emerging instructional technologies
is challenging passive learning envi-
ronments in higher education” (p. 20).
It is true that university instructors
who adopt this way of thinking about
teaching and learning are pioneering
the movement toward a collaborative
pedagogy. At this early stage, little exists
in the literature to help them proactively
address transformative changes in their
teaching as they work to build and sus-
tain learning communities through their
coursework (Hemmi, Bayne, & Land,
2009). This is why professional devel-
opment opportunities to assist faculty
with benefits of increasing their techno-
logical pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) are
important in transforming teaching
practices in order to capitalize on the af-
fordance of social networking tools.

Mary Lou Fulton Teachers’ College
(MLFTC) (formerly know as the College
of Teacher Education and Leadership)
at Arizona State University has a rich
history of supporting faculty efforts to
integrate and implement future educa-
tors’ technology, pedagogy, and content
area knowledge. According to Mari Ko-
erner, Dean of MLFTC, “We understand
the importance of technology being in-
tegrated into the very fabric, if you will,
the DNA, of what we do” (AACTE Best
Practices Award Entry for Innovative
Use of Technology, 2009). Faculty devel-
opment has been supported through the
efforts of a series of large federal grants,
including a recent Preparing Tomor-
row’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3)
grant. In addition, the Professional
Development School Teacher Education
Network of Excellence through Technol-
ogy (PDS TENET) project has enabled

the college to be able to offer state-of-the
art distance learning opportunities for
state, regional, and national audiences,
including the cutting-edge use two-way
video and online distance education to
positively affect practicing teachers in
high-need content areas. These efforts,
supported by the administration and
mission of our college, are a part of an
ongoing endeavor to assist faculty with
increasing their ability to effectively inte-
grate technology into their teaching.

Although Mary Lou Fulton’s Teach-
ers College has a distinguished history
of efforts to integrate technology into
the curriculum, it became evident to the
educational technology faculty that the
college as a whole was not keeping up
with the latest in the use of new technolo-
gies, and especially with the pedagogical
possibilities made achievable by the de-
velopment of Web-based social network-
ing tools. Consequently, the educational
technology faculty applied for an internal
Excellence in Research Award (ERA) to
support the college to refocus attention
on maintaining the school’s identity as a
progressive college that infused technol-
ogy throughout the curriculum.

The ERA grant was based on the as-
sumption that, although faculty may not
be digital natives to social networking
technologies, they must become wise
digital immigrants who plan for them in
effective instruction. For example, more
than half of our students have Facebook
or MySpace accounts. Students have
embraced new technologies, but, largely,
MLFTC faculty have not. Technology
is a compelling mechanism to facilitate
learning of content and applied skills,
and its use will be instrumental in
realizing every aspect of a 21st century
education system (Vockley, 2008). Stu-
dents will not develop 21st century skills

Professional Development 2.0: Transforming Teacher Education Pedagogy with 21st Century Tools

Leanna Archambault, Keith Wetzel,
and Teresa S. Foulger
Arizona State University

Mia Kim Williams
University of Northern Colorado

Copyright © 2010, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191
(U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@iste.org, www.iste.org. All rights reserved.

Volume 27 Number 1 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | 5

Professional Development 2.0

without the use of technology, however,
and making sense of the importance of
integrating these skills and developing
appropriate uses of tools in the content
present great challenges for teacher
educators.

How do these technologies become
part of the teacher education program?
What are the possibilities for social net-
working tools in education? To address
this issue, the grant provided optional
professional development opportunities
for the education faculty at our univer-
sity. The two goals of this professional
development were to (a) provide models
for faculty to keep up with rapid changes
in technology, and (b) promote trans-
formation of pedagogy. Thus, the ERA
leadership team designed a series of
summer workshops and follow-through
activities to engage faculty in examining
21st century skills, learning Web 2.0 or
social networking technologies, design-
ing or redesigning a lesson or unit to be
taught the following semester, and as-
sessing student achievement, all in a way
that would emulate the tenants of social
constructivism philosophy.

Twenty-six out of 70 full-time faculty
agreed to participate in this professional
development opportunity. Participants
included 10 tenured or tenure-track fac-
ulty and 16 clinical teaching faculty who
did not have research responsibilities.
They represented a wide array of teach-
ing education content areas, including
early childhood, elementary education,
secondary education, and graduate stud-
ies, and each had at least three years of
K–12 teaching experience. These faculty
attended an 8-hour initial exploratory,
“working” workshop where they would
use the professional development leaders
and each other as resources to develop
a unit of study for one of their courses;
implement the unit in the fall semester;
evaluate the unit implementation through
a project-provided survey administered
to their students; and attend a capstone
workshop to reflect on their efforts,
changes in teaching, and suggestions for
future college-wide directions. Twenty
faculty were able to fulfill all of the
requirements, and they received a small
stipend provided by the ERA grant.

The goal of the professional develop-
ment plan was to enable faculty to create
and implement a course-embedded unit
that addressed the 21st century skills
of collaboration, communication, and
problem solving. The workshop was
facilitated by the educational technology
faculty who modeled the potential uses
of social networking tools and created
an environment in which colleagues
could serve as resources to one another.

An outline of workshop topics
included:

• An overview of 21st century learners
and the workplace environment

• An overview of Web 2.0 tools and
participant outcomes/products

• Demonstration of curricular uses of
Web 2.0 tools

• Time to plan curriculum; select a tool
or tools; discuss the roles of teacher
and students; and connect curricu-
lum, tools, and 21st century skills

• Time to plan for action research on
the implementation

• Time to share curriculum plans on
the project wiki

Participants in the workshop experi-
enced a variety of Web 2.0 tools through
hands-on exploration, an introduction
to the ways the technology could benefit
learning, the chance to explore the
integration of technology into the cur-
riculum, and collaborative conversations
about potential uses. Examples of tools
included: Google products (e.g., Google
Docs, Calendar, Sites), social bookmark-
ing/Web-based information resources
(e.g., Delicious, PB Wiki), audio/video
tools for project-based learning (e.g.,
VoiceThread, Audacity), and reference
tools (e.g., RefWorks).

Perspective/Theoretical Framework
Koehler and Mishra (2005) define
TPACK as the connections and interac-
tions between and among pedagogy,
content, and technology, which are the
components needed to ensure qual-
ity instruction. TPACK incorporates
an understanding of the complexity of
relationships among students, teachers,
content, technologies, practices, and
tools. In crafting professional develop-

ment programs, the areas of pedagogy,
content, and technology need to be ad-
dressed to ensure that the experience is
as transformative as possible. This model
is useful in addressing professional
development, as it integrates technology
with the domains of content and peda-
gogy rather than allowing technology to
be taught in isolation. As Harris, Mishra,
and Koehler (2009) articulate:

… typical approaches to technol-
ogy-related professional develop-
ment are based on the assump-
tions that it may be enough to just
expose teachers to particular edu-
cational technologies and possible
curriculum-based uses of those
tools and resources. Approaches
that teach only skills (technol-
ogy or otherwise) are insufficient.
Learning about technology is
different than learning what to do
with it instructionally. (p. 402)

This lens offers a way to begin look-
ing at how these domains are currently
addressed within teacher education
and professional development pro-
grams, and how they need to be
altered to meet the needs of teachers
entering 21st century classrooms (see
Figure 1, page 6).

Using TPACK as a framework for
effective professional development and
concentrating on helping instructors
leverage the affordances of technology
to most effectively teach their curricu-
lum, faculty can use social networking to
capitalize on the social aspects of learning
and allows students to move beyond the
acquisition of foundational knowledge
to a depth that enables implementation
in teaching and learning. This kind of
learning requires active participation of
the sort that binds participants together
in meaningful ways (Vygotsky, 1978;
Wenger, 1998). The recent surge of col-
laborative online tools takes advantages
of a social learning paradigm, because
faculty couple collaborative actions with
the read-write capabilities of Web 2.0
tools to provide a level of connectivity
among users not available in the static era
of the Web 1.0. The inherent possibilities
have been referred to as “architecture of

Copyright © 2010, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191
(U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@iste.org, www.iste.org. All rights reserved.

6 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 27 Number 1

Archambault, Wetzel, Foulger, & Williams

participation” because these technol-
ogy systems are designed with social
connectivity in mind, making it possible
for users to contribute to their collec-
tive intelligence (O’Reilly, 2004), which
creates new possibilities in the collab-
orative landscape. This ties closely with
the notion of TPACK, working to take
advantage of the power of technology to
transform the pedagogy and content to
provide a richer, more meaningful learn-
ing experience for students.

Methods
This paper discusses the results of
a constructivist-based professional
development model and its capability
to transform pedagogy among educa-
tion faculty, as evidenced by instructors’
first attempts at teaching the units they
created that melded 21st century goals
and social networking technologies. The
following questions guided our analysis
of outcomes of the professional develop-
ment experience:

• What were instructors’ perceptions
of the Web 2.0–infused curriculum
project?

• How did these curriculum projects
address TPACK?

• How did instructors view the impact
of their redesigned instructional units
on student achievement?

• How did instructors perceive a
change in their role as a result of the
ERA workshops/activities?

All instructors were asked to reflect
about the curriculum revision process
and the impact of their teaching on
student achievement. With regard to
the former, this involved responding in
writing to a series of questions provided
by the faculty researchers. These writing
prompts were open-ended questions
delivered in a Web-based questionnaire
so that the researchers could capture re-
flections electronically and analyze them
systematically. We gathered responses to
a Web-based survey we administered at

an exit meeting of all participants at the
end of the semester.

The research team developed the
questions collaboratively with an aim
of addressing the research questions
concerning instructors’ perceptions of
the Web 2.0–infused curriculum project,
the redesign process, and the change in
their role as a result of the professional
development. Questions included the
following:

• What was the most difficult part of
creating a unit of study that relied
upon social networking tools?

• How did you overcome it?
• Was the use of social networking

tool(s) successful?
• What data or other information leads

you to believe this?
• If you were to teach this same unit

over again, what would you do differ-
ently?

• What data or other information sug-
gests this?

• How are you different now as a tech-
nology user? As an instructor?

• Has your role as a teacher changed in
any way?

• How do your students see you now?
• How do your colleagues see you now?
• What teaching goals do you have now

as related to the use of technology?
As related to pedagogical shifts?

A requirement for receiving the
stipend associated with this professional
development opportunity was that
participants would survey all of their
students to obtain feedback concerning
the use of the social networking tool(s)
during the unit of study. The research
team developed a Web-based survey tool
made it available for faculty to admin-
ister to their students at the conclusion
of the unit. Faculty reviewed the results
and then summarized student percep-
tions in a written activity during the exit
meeting.

Analysis of Data
One strategy for conducting qualitative
analysis is homogenous sampling, in
which a group of similar cases is ex-
amined in depth in order to describe a
particular subgroup (Patton, 1990). In

Figure 1. Graphic representation of Technical Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK).

Copyright © 2010, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191
(U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@iste.org, www.iste.org. All rights reserved.

Volume 27 Number 1 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | 7

Professional Development 2.0

this study, teacher educators redesigning
a unit of their curriculum to include Web
2.0 tools were considered a group because
they participated in the professional
development opportunity and faced
similar issues of technology integration
within a parallel context. Using this
approach, we used a content analysis
strategy to make sense of the resulting
open-ended response data. We analyzed
all of the data from the Web-based
survey, including faculty perceptions
regarding the unit redesign, the impact
of the integration on teaching and learn-
ing, and faculty impressions of student
achievement. We examined and reex-
amined these artifacts, noting prevalent
themes from each of the key areas of the
TPACK framework. According to Glesne
(1999), “Coding is a progressive process
of sorting and defining and defining and
sorting those scraps of collected data” (p.
135). Because coding provides the foun-
dational framework between raw data
and analyzed data (Charmaz, 2006), we
analyzed survey responses using open
coding to provide a means of identify-
ing critical concepts and themes (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998). The following section
discusses the results.

Results
Participants involved with the profes-
sional development opportunity identi-
fied changes in their teaching along
the TPACK framework. The following
section describes overall findings related
to technological pedagogy, technological
content, and technological pedagogi-
cal content knowledge. We gathered all
referenced quotations throughout this
article from faculty responses to open-
ended survey questions administered on
January 15, 2009.

Shifts in Technological Pedagogy
According to Mishra and Koehler
(2006), technological pedagogical
knowledge is “knowledge of the exis-
tence, components, and capabilities of
various technologies as they are used
in teaching and learning settings, and
conversely, knowing how teaching might
change as the result of using particular
technologies” (p. 1028). As with the

codified themes found in the trans-
formations of overall pedagogy, nine
instructors (45%) found that the incor-
poration of technology within their cur-
ricula facilitated the process of providing
feedback as well as communicating. One
instructor commented:

My students used Google documents
in order to draft and write their Shel-
tered Instruction Observation Protocol
(SIOP) unit plan throughout the course.
Rather than wait until the end of the
course, the students worked on the unit
plan throughout the course—receiving
feedback from the members of their
Professional Learning Community in
order to constantly reflect and improve
their plan before turning in the final
draft.

Another faculty member shared a
similar experience:

I think having a peer review pro-
cess encouraged most students to
work on major assignments earlier
and conduct more revision. I also
think that having students share
to the learning community (blog
activities) provided examples of
relevance that enhanced student
interest throughout the course.

This comment from another instruc-
tor is also in line with a shift in techno-
logical pedagogy:

The pedagogy changed from more
instructor led learning to students
helping and leading each other.
Also, they learned from each other
by using the social networking
tools.

These reflections illustrate the advan-
tage instructors experienced through
the integration of Web 2.0 technologies.
Faculty reported that their students now
provide feedback to one another and
learn from their fellow classmates rather
than relying solely on the instructor.
According to the faculty, this review
process resulted in additional reflection
and refinement of student work. This
is a major benefit to student learn-
ing through the integration of social

networking tools into teacher education
curriculum units.

Another theme related to techno-
logical pedagogy was allowing students
to take ownership of their learning,
to teach one another and collaborate
together to share their learning experi-
ences through the use of social network-
ing technologies. One faculty member
stated:

Through this workshop, I in-
creased the use of innovative
technologies by allowing students
to take over class, teach, and work
with each other to explore topics
and gain their own understand-
ings using technologies…. I’m also
planning on doing this with my
doctoral course this semester.

Another instructor echoed this
sentiment:

According to my overall course
evaluation, they still see me as
a good-excellent instructor, but
mentioned very often on this
instrument that the best part of
this class was this unit, they were
excited about teaching it them-
selves and being allowed and free
to do so, they appreciated my
responsiveness especially because
I was now a resource.

Through the integration of social
networking tools, instructors were able
to provide more feedback to students,
and students were able to collaborate ef-
fectively with one another, which repre-
sented a shift in technological pedagogy.

Shifts in Technological Content
Technological content knowledge is the
understanding of how representing and
presenting content is transformed through
the integration of technology. According
to Mishra and Koehler (2006), “Although
technology constrains the kinds of
representations possible, newer technolo-
gies often afford newer and more varied
representations and greater flexibility in
navigating across these representations.
Teachers need to know not just the subject
matter they teach but also the manner in
which the subject matter can be changed

Copyright © 2010, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191
(U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@iste.org, www.iste.org. All rights reserved.

8 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 27 Number 1

Archambault, Wetzel, Foulger, & Williams

by the application of technology” (p.
1028). Five participants (25%) in the ERA
grant found that their content changed in
meaningful ways with the integration of
social networking tools. One instructor
commented:

The content of the unit changed
in the following ways: 1. Instead
of focusing on the relationship
between reading and writing po-
etry, I focused on the importance
of creating images for students as
they read poetry. 2. Instead of fo-
cusing on pedagogy (how to teach
poetry and the writing of poetry),
I focused more on content (stu-
dents selected a poet, described
his/her life, and taught two poems
using voicethread).

Other instructors saw technology as
a vehicle to allow their students to more
fully concentrate on the content at hand.
The increase of technological content
knowledge afforded them the ability to
focus on the content itself:

It was easier to teach because I
was able to adapt the unit builder
template from TaskStream to more
accurately represent the reality of
planning a thematic unit for early
childhood students. There was
much less teaching time devoted
to how to use the unit builder
feature of TaskStream so I was
able to spend more time teaching
content rather than how to use a
web-based productivity tool.

Another instructor noted a similar
experience:

The content and theory of the unit
remained the same. Reliance upon
social networking tools allowed
my students to concentrate more
on the quality of the product than
how to use the technology.

Shifts in Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK)
TPACK involves an understanding of
the complexity of relationships among
students, teachers, content, technolo-

gies, practices, and tools. According to
Koehler and Mishra (2005), “We view
technology as a knowledge system
that comes with its own biases, and
affordances that make some tech-
nologies more applicable in some
situations than others” (p. 132). We
asked instructors to give their feed-
back regarding how their pedagogy
shifted as a result of implementing
Web 2.0 tools in their teaching. The
majority of instructors (n = 10, 50%)
reported that their teaching became
more collaborative through the use of
technology. As one participant stated,
“Last year, I did not have the students
collaborate with each other and give
feedback on unit plans. They did their
own plan and turned it in to me to be
the sole provider of feedback.” This
theme was echoed concerning the
amount of feedback students were able
to give one another when collaborate
tools, such as Google Docs and Sites,
were used. The notion of being able to
communicate more effectively between
class meetings was one of the major
shifts that occurred as a result of the
implementation of Web 2.0 tools. As
one participant indicated, “I have
experienced a pedagogy shift away
from the traditional forms of commu-
nication among all of the populations
of the education community (teachers,
students, other resources, etc…).” An-
other participant commented, “The in-
put into the unit focused more on time
spent on task rather than time trying
to exchange information. The inputs
were more meaningful, and students
were shocked by the fact that it was so
easy to complete the task.” Overall, the
change in technological pedagogical
content knowledge as an outcome of
the curriculum unit redesign resulted
in increased feedback on the part of
both the students and instructors and
the ability to more effectively and eas-
ily communicate with one another.

Several instructors realized the level
of transformation of their teaching and
the nature of the content as a result of
the inclusion of Web 2.0 tools. One
instructor commented on the shift in
teaching and the way in which technol-

ogy was used to present content:

With the Google sites group web
page project the content changed
in a positive way because students
included much more on the web
page than they had in previous
semesters with a presentation
in class. They were able to more
easily embed videos, websites, etc.
Also, I used the comments area of
the Google site for the class peers
to add and comment on other
group’s sites. This added content
by students in different groups
adding resources to the site.

Another faculty member specifically
mentioned the relationship between
pedagogy, content, and technology:

I want to design a unit on the
teaching of poetry that reflects
a smooth relationship between
pedagogy, content and technology
so that pre-service and in-service
teachers feel empowered to use
their final projects in their second-
ary English classrooms. It may
take a couple of semesters—but
we’ll get there.

Finally, a third instructor relayed her
experience:

I think the students knew ahead
of time that I was trying a new
technology. I assured them that
although the assignment would
take additional time for us all, we
would all learn content and tech-
nology in ways that would benefit
us as educators and learners.

Impact on Student Achievement
In addition to analyzing data along
the TPACK framework, we were also
interested in how instructors viewed
the impact of their redesigned instruc-
tional units on student achievement.
Sixteen of the twenty participants
(80%) believed that the integration of
social networking tools had a posi-
tive impact on student achievement.
Justifications included improvements
in the quality of the products that
students created. When asked, “Did
the use of social networking tool(s) ef-

Copyright © 2010, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191
(U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@iste.org, www.iste.org. All rights reserved.

Volume 27 Number 1 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | 9

Professional Development 2.0

fect student achievement? What data or
other information leads you to believe
this?” one instructor commented:

Definitely. By working on the unit
plans throughout the course and
getting feedback from each other,
their unit plans were incredible—
very well rounded and well thought
out for English language learners.

Other reasoning echoed the transfor-
mation in pedagogy, citing the increase
in students and instructors being able
to provide additional feedback and
the ability to communicate more ef-
ficiently. Two instructors shared related
thoughts. One stated, “Again, we had a
high response from students that being
able to communicate encouraged their
understanding and completion of the
work. Another faculty member com-
mented, “Peer reviews and ongoing
feedback from the instructor pushed
student achievement.” One instruc-
tor, representing 5% of the responses,
had a mixed response when it came to
student achievement. This was primar-
ily due to that faculty member’s limited
technological skills and the inability of
some students to post their work using
a wiki. It was difficult to gauge a positive
or negative reaction, but this participant
conveyed both elements:

Some of the techy students served as
helpers when others got stuck and I could
not help. I found that those with more
web experiences were able to figure out
the next steps by themselves. They liked

that we had class time to begin the proj-
ect. Several students were unable to post
their information on class wikis.

Finally, 3 of the 20 respondents
(15%), did not feel that the implementa-
tion of social networking tools had an
effect on student achievement. As one
participant put it, “I do not believe that
use of social networking tools effected
student achievement. However, it was
easier for me to grade the work because
I had control of the form the project
took.” Another instructor comment was
focused more on student perception: “In
the 598 [course], students explained in
surveys that they felt that it was just one
more thing to do, and did not change
their achievement.” One instructor took
a more methodological approach to the
question in her response:

Not significantly different (not that
I ran the statistics but pretty sure). The
end of the course final showed no sub-
stantial difference; however, the final is
comprehensive and was not focused on
just this unit. What might be an exten-
sion to this study is to take comparable
classes, teach the unit traditionally vs.
the new way, pre/post the students, and
then see if student achievement differed.

Instructor Role
Although 15% of grant participants did
not see an impact on student achieve-
ment, the majority of instructors did see
benefits regarding the change of their
role in the classroom as a result of being
involved with the professional develop-
ment. The Web-based survey asked fac-

ulty, “Did the use of social networking
tool(s) change your roles and respon-
sibilities as an instructor? If so, in what
way?” Based on open coding of instruc-
tor responses to this question, we identi-
fied five profiles, which are displayed in
Table 1. The distribution of responses is
displayed in Figure 2 (page 10).

Eight (42%) saw themselves more in a
facilitator role after they experienced the
professional development, which was
the largest response. One participant
commented, “Yes. I often felt more like
a facilitator than the focus. I believe stu-
dents took more responsibility for their
own learning, and in general, worked
together well.” This sentiment encapsu-
lated the majority of responses. Three
instructors (16%) felt that they were able
to give more feedback as a result of the
incorporation of the social networking
tools, as demonstrated by the follow-
ing response: “These tools allowed an
opportunity for me to assess student
work on a continual basis. The exit ticket
spreadsheet feedback also allowed the
opportunity to address student concerns
and needs on an ongoing basis.”

Another way in which participants
felt their roles changed included having
their role expanded as the instructor,
reported by two individuals (11%). One
commented concerning their expansion
of both technological content knowl-
edge: “My roles as an instructor ex-
panded to include not only mathematics
but technology knowledge. I felt limited
in this role but received help from the
students who were more techy.”

Table 1. Coding Scheme Used to Classify Instructor Responses to Survey Question*

Code Definition Number of Respondents Percentage of Total

Facilitator Role has been changed such that it is less “teacher led” and is now more student centered.
Students have taken a more active role in their learning, and less emphasis has been placed on
direct instruction.

8 42%

Feedback Role was enhanced through the use of social networking tools to enable instructor and students
to provide additional and ongoing feedback.

3 16%

Expanded Role was enlarged, extended, or broadened beyond what it was before going through the
process of redesigning and teaching the updated unit.

2 11%

Learner Role has changed to include instructors becoming more student-like, acquiring new skills and
knowledge through the curriculum redesign process.

2 11%

Planning Role changed to require additional preparation time to effectively integrate the use of technol-
ogy in the teaching/redesign of the curriculum.

2 11%

No Change Role did not change as a result of the professional development/curriculum redesign process. 1 5%

* “Did the use of social networking tool(s) change your roles and responsibilities as an instructor? If so, in what way? Give an example if possible.”

Copyright © 2010, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191
(U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@iste.org, www.iste.org. All rights reserved.

10 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 27 Number 1

Archambault, Wetzel, Foulger, & Williams

Two other participants (11%) felt
that their role involved becoming a
learner themselves: “Yes, it made me a
student—I completed the same project
with my students—and some of their
projects were better than mine—it was
pretty neat to see—they [students] are so
computer savvy.”

Finally, two instructors (11%) saw
the need for planning when it came to
the use of technology and felt that the
use of technology could be a helpful tool
during the curriculum planning process.
The following comment summarized
this sentiment:

Because I asked each group to
present their powerpoints, this
took up an additional half hour
of instructional time. I often
found myself compacting my
portion of the class due to this
reduction of time. I did feel
that it was worth it but I hadn’t
thought about that before it
first happened. I had to rethink
how I would arrange the rest of
the class time and pare out less
important activities that I might
have included in the past.

The remaining participant who re-
sponded did not experience a change in
his/her role.

Discussion
Many models of professional develop-
ment are designed to help educators in-
tegrate new technologies into teaching
and learning. Our project looked at the
transformations that occur in educa-
tors’ pedagogy through integration
processes and how those transforma-
tions had a perceived impact on student
learning and instructor role. We found
that through the use of social network-
ing tools, instructors and students were
able to provide more feedback to one
another as well as communicate more
efficiently and effectively. This has
implications for the way that teach-
ers and students communicate in and
out of the classroom. Because social
networking tools allow for greater ac-
cess and communication, students can
receive more immediate and ongoing
feedback through their use. This use
of formative feedback is important for
supporting learning (Higgins, Hartley,
& Skelton, 2002). According to Boulous
and Wheelert (2007), “Web 2.0 also
encourages significantly more interac-
tion between users, a feature that many
theorists argue is vital in e-learning. In-
teraction encourages deeper and more
active learning engagement, builds
communities of learning, and enables
feedback from tutors to students” (p. 4).

Participants also saw transformations
in both their teaching and their content
as a result of the integration of Web 2.0
technology. The majority of instructors
felt that the incorporation of social net-
working tools enhanced and increased
the quality of student work within their
classrooms and saw themselves as more
of a facilitator rather than point person
when it came to teaching. This is consis-
tent with a literature base that suggests
the impact that technology can have
on influencing the role of the teacher
(Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999;
Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). As
the technology has progressed, including
changes in the ways in which it is being
incorporated in online and blended
course environments, instructors’ roles
are dramatically changing. As Beldarrain
(2006) writes, “Emerging technologies
that foster different forms of interaction
may also affect the role of the instruc-
tor.… Emerging technologies afford new
opportunities as well as responsibilities.
Besides being a resource manager, the
future instructor may have to be more of
a ‘partner in learning’ than a facilitator.
The instructor must view the students as
contributors of knowledge, and thus al-
low them to participate in the creation of
content” (p. 149). This shift in instructor
role to more of a facilitator and a learner
was evident in our study.

The increase of feedback for students,
coupled with a more student-centered
approach to teaching, is an important
benefit of leveraging the capabilities of
social networking tools for educational
purposes. The benefits of integrating
such tools in a meaningful way, mindful
of how they fit within specific content
areas and methods of teaching, are
important considerations, especially for
teacher education programs.

This study highlights the positive
outcomes of creating professional develop-
ment opportunities for faculty that center
on the affordances of social networking
tools to improve good teaching prac-
tices. Through a small, internal grant
opportunity offering a modest stipend,
we were able to offer faculty an incentive
to redesign a unit of study and provide
faculty development that was ongoing,

Figure 2. Coded responses for survey question: “Did the use of social networking tool(s) change your roles and
responsibilities as an instructor? If so, in what way? Give an example if possible.”

Perceived Change in Instructor Role

Pe
rc

en
ta

ge
o

f R
es

po
nd

en
ts

Perception of Role

Copyright © 2010, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191
(U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@iste.org, www.iste.org. All rights reserved.

Volume 27 Number 1 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | 11

Professional Development 2.0

content focused, and site based and
involved teachers as active learners. These
characteristics make for a more effective
professional development experience
(Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet,
2000). Literature also documents that
technology-related faculty development
should include an awareness of what the
specific type of technology has to offer
with relationship to learning, the chance
to explore the integration of technology
into the curriculum, time to learn the
technology and apply it to teaching, and,
finally, a reflection on the outcomes of the
teaching (Howland & Wedman, 2004).
The current study affirms that a process-
driven model, such as the one described,
can have a positive impact on the beliefs
and teaching practices of faculty.

However, additional research in this
area is warranted, specifically studies that
focus on how to help faculty transform
pedagogical practices using the power of
the read/write Web in teaching as well as
to build and sustain active learning com-
munities to assist in these efforts. Also,
the current study was limited by relying
on faculty perceptions of how student
achievement was affected rather than
being able to gather this data directly.
Specific studies related to the ways in
which these tools can be used to increase
student achievement would be beneficial.

Our findings may have important
implications for teacher education
programs that are seeking to prepare
teachers to teach in 21st century class-
rooms. Through providing professional
development opportunities that tackle
the effective use of social networking
tools, instructors can begin to reap the
benefits of their changing roles as they
work with their preservice teachers, who
in turn might expand these possibilities
as they adopt social networking tools
with their K–12 students.

Author Notes
Leanna Archambault is an assistant professor in the
Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State
University. Her current research interests include online
education, particularly with regard to K–12 teacher
preparation for online settings, and the measurement
and exploration of technological pedagogical content
knowledge in online environments. She teaches gradu-
ate coursework in educational technology and recently

developed a graduate certificate program at ASU
focused on K–12 online teaching. Correspondence
regarding this article should be addressed to Leanna
Archambault, Arizona State University, P.O. Box
37100, Mail Code 3151, Phoenix, AZ 85069. E-mail:
leanna.archambault@asu.edu

Keith Wetzel is a professor of educational technol-
ogy in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at
Arizona State University, where he specializes in the
integration of technology in K–12 curriculum and
teacher education programs and is the technology
coordinator for teacher preparation programs. His
research interests include teacher professional devel-
opment, electronic portfolios in teacher education,
educational uses of social networking software, and
the integration of technology in teacher education
programs. Correspondence regarding this article
should be addressed to Keith Wetzel, Arizona State
University, P.O. Box 37100, Mail Code 3151, Phoe-
nix, AZ 85069. E-mail: k.wetzel@asu.edu

Teresa S. Foulger is an associate professor in the
Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State
University. Her research interests focus on educational
technology, specifically professional development, col-
laborative work environments, organizational change,
and the influence of technology on teaching and
learning. Correspondence regarding this article should
be addressed to Teresa S. Foulger, Arizona State
University, P.O. Box 37100, Mail Code 3151, Phoenix,
AZ 85069. E-mail: teresa.foulger@asu.edu

Mia Kim Williams is an assistant professor of
educational technology and social foundations at the
University of Northern Colorado. She teaches under-
graduate and graduate teacher preparation courses
and coordinates the EdD program in educational
studies. She has been an active member of ISTE
and SIGTE for more than 10 years. Her research
interests include innovative and critical pedagogies
and teacher identity development. Correspondence
regarding this article should be addressed to Mia
Kim Williams, University of Northern Colorado,
McKee Hall, Campus Box 107, Greeley, CO 80639.
E-mail: mia.williams@unco.edu

References
American Association of Colleges for Teacher

Education (AACTE) Best Practices Award
Entry for Innovative Use of Technology
(2009). Retrieved from http://web.mac.com/
teresa.foulger/iWeb/AACTEaward/CTEL_
AACTE2008.html

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends:
Integrating new technologies to foster student
interaction and collaboration. Distance
Education, 27, 139–153.

Birman, B., Desimone, Garet, M., & Porter, A.
(2000). Designing professional development that
works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33.

Boulos M. N., & Wheeler, S. (2007) The emerging
Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of
sociable technologies in health and healthcare
education. Health Information and Libraries
Journal, 24(1), 2–23.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded
theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Dexter, S., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999).
Teachers’ views of computers as catalysts for
changes in their teaching practice. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 31, 221–239.

Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2009). Role of
instructional technology in the transformation
of higher education. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 21(1), 19–30.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative
researchers (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009).
Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types:
Curriculum-based technology integration
reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 41(4), 393–416.

Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1). 19–30.

Higgins, R., Skelton, A., & Hartley, P. (2002). The
conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the
role of assessment feedback in student learning.
Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64.

Howland, J., & Wedman, J. (2004). A Process
Model for Faculty Development: Individualizing
Technology Learning. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 12(2), 239–263.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens
when teachers design educational technology?
The development of technological pedagogical
content knowledge. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific
revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological
pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for integrating technology in teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

O’Reilly, T. (2004). Open source paradigm shift:
The architecture of participation. Retrieved
September 20, 2009, from http://tim.oreilly.
com/articles/paradigmshift_0504.html

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and
research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C.
(1997). Teaching with technology: Creating
student-centered classrooms. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of
qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Vockley, M. (2008). Maximizing the impact:
The pivotal role of technology in a 21st century
education system. Retrieved August 16,
2009, from http://www.setda.org/web/guest/
maximizingimpactreport

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:
Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Copyright of Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education is the property of International Society for

Technology in Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv

without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email

articles for individual use.