how can teacher professional development modify teacher beliefs to improve technology integration?

Running Head: HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

How Can Teacher Professional Development

Modify Teacher Beliefs to Improve Technology Integration?

Robinder Kahlon

University of Ontario Institute of Technology

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS 2

How Can Teacher Professional Development

Modify Teacher Beliefs to Improve Technology Integration?

The integration of technology into the mathematics classroom is governed by a complex set of

factors, two of which are teacher beliefs and teacher professional development. This literature review

will describe the impact of these two factors on technology integration, as well as the exploring the

relationship between the two factors, in an attempt to answer the question: how can teacher professional

development modify teacher beliefs to improve technology integration?

Teachers’ beliefs and technology integration

With regards to technology integration, several studies have shown that poor integration of

technology in the classroom is correlated with teachers’ beliefs regarding technology’s usefulness.

Thomas (2006) conducted a 10-year longitudinal study of 339 mathematics teachers in New Zealand,

surveying them in 1995 and 2005, to determine the change over time. In the course of ten years, the

proportion of teachers who said that they used computers did not change (67.2% in 1995, 68.4% in

2005). Teachers did use computers more frequently, with 5.9% reporting at least once a week use in

1995, and 13.3% reporting at least once a week use in 2005. The most frequent use of the computers

was for spreadsheet programs and graph-drawing programs, but there was actually a decrease in the use

of mathematical programs and statistical packages. Also, computers were being used frequently for

skills development, and computer use was teacher-directed 80% of the time. For the author, this pattern

of use indicated a poor adoption of technology, and was linked to teacher beliefs. In 2005, very few

teachers believed that computers aided understanding (8%). In fact, significantly more teachers felt that

technology impeded understanding of concepts in mathematics (16%). Instead of using technology to

promote understanding of mathematical concepts, teachers were more inclined to use technology


because they felt it made working quicker or more efficient. Teachers felt that the benefits of using

technology were small, that claims about technologies use were exaggerated, and that students relied on

technology too much.

10 years later, more studies show the same pattern: teachers that possess limiting beliefs about

technology and resist the integration of technology in the classroom. In a study by Thomas (2014),

many teachers espoused espouse the belief that technology’s usefulness is limited to “visualisation,

speed and accuracy of calculation, saving of time and student motivation” (Thomas, 2014). They

overemphasized the technical features of technology use and under-emphasize mathematical ideas. The

author characterized these teachers as having ‘low-confidence’ in the use of technology, and

correspondingly, their technology use in the classroom was low. Another group of teachers espoused

another set of beliefs about technology: believing that technology could help to emphasize the

mathematical ideas present in the lesson, allow students to explore conceptual ideas in mathematics, use

techniques of prediction and testing, instead of calculation and skills practice (Thomas, 2014). These

teachers were termed ‘high-confidence’ by the author, and demonstrated significant use of technology in

the classroom.

Other studies indicate that the connection between teacher beliefs and classroom practice can be

more complicated than this, however. Teachers may espouse some beliefs about the benefits of

technology use, yet may still be reluctant to use technology in the classroom. Bretscher (2014) found

that teachers were making extensive use of interactive whiteboards but using them as chalkboards or

projectors, and that teachers were only infrequently using computer labs, and when they did use

computer labs with their students, it was often for skills practice. Surprisingly, teachers expressed

positive opinions on the usefulness of technology to improve student engagement, though they were

using technology in a very limited manner. The author speculates that many teachers had a teacher-


centered view of the teaching and learning. Because teachers had a preference for traditional, teacher-

centered practices, they were more willing to incorporate interactive whiteboards into classroom

practice, using them in the same manner as chalkboards had been used in the traditional classroom. The

IWBs were used in a whole-class context with control rarely given to students, supporting the teacher-

centered model, though by design, IWBs were intended for student interactivity. School computer labs

were used infrequently, seen by teachers as leading to classroom-management problems, giving teachers

a loss of control in the classroom. Even when computers were used, the teachers often provided precise

instructions for their use and had students practice skills instead of investigating mathematical problems

and concepts. Teacher beliefs about technology use were not enacted in actual practice because other

teacher beliefs about pedagogy trumped them.

Bretscher’s findings concord with the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2014): in the more basic

levels of technology use (substitution and augmentation), technology is used to perform the same

functions in the classroom as the old methods of teaching, leading to little or no increase in student

learning outcomes. These are the methods Bretscher found applied by ‘teacher-centered’ teachers, or

that Thomas (2014) found used by ‘low-confidence’ teachers. The higher levels of technology use

(modification and redefinition), in which technology is used to conduct activities that could not be done

without the use of technology, were done by the ‘student-centered’ teachers in Bretscher’s study, or by

the ‘high-confidence’ teachers in Thomas’ study.

Bretscher’s study highlights that teachers may have conflicted beliefs so that their teaching

practice does not encompass all of their beliefs, in this case the belief that computer labs are useful for

students. Other studies demonstrate even more strongly teachers who possess beliefs in innovative

teaching practices may not even have the intention to incorporate these innovative practices in their

teaching. Liljedahl (2008), has explored the inconsistencies between teacher beliefs and teacher


intentions. In a study of preservice and inservice secondary school mathematics teachers, Liljedahl

found that though teachers espoused innovative views on teaching and learning mathematics, when

asked how they would plan their lessons, they allocated their classroom time to traditional, rule- and

algorithm-based activities. Though Liljedahl did elicit teacher intentions, a shortcoming of his study is

that he did not analyze teachers actual practice in the classroom, leaving open the possibility that

teacher’s beliefs were eventually realized in classroom practice, despite lack of intentions to do so.

The role of teacher beliefs in affecting teacher practice appears to be poorly understood. While

Thomas (2014) has indicated that negative teacher beliefs about technology integration are correlated to

lack of technology use in the classroom, Bretscher (2014) and Liljedahl (2008) suggest that even

positive teacher beliefs may not lead to changes in teacher practice.

Professional development and Technology Integration

Goos and Bennison surveyed teachers on their use of three technologies in the mathematics

classroom, computers, internet and graphing calculators (Goos and Bennison, 2008). The authors found

that technology-related professional development is positively correlated to use of teachers’ use of these

three technologies in the classroom but did not establish a causal link between the two. It is possible

that teachers who intend to use technology in the classroom seek out more professional development

than other teachers. However, the importance of professional development to technology integration

was demonstrated by teachers’ qualitative responses: many teachers in the study expressed the need for

more professional development regarding technology.

While the 2008 study focused on teacher use of technology, a follow-up study, conducted by

Bennison and Goos in 2010, narrowed in on the role of teacher professional development in promoting

the use of technology, and level of teachers’ confidence levels regarding technology use. Bennison and

Goos surveyed teachers at all 456 secondary schools in Queensland, Australia. Teacher responses were


returned from 127 schools, a 28% response rate. used Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

(ZPD) model to understand teachers application of technology in the classroom. The authors describe a

teacher’s ZPD as “a set of possibilities for development that are influenced by their mathematical and

pedagogical knowledge and beliefs.” (Bennison and Goos, p. 33, 2010). Teacher beliefs, therefore,

define the limits of teacher innovation. Though the authors were hesitant to ascribe a causal relationship

between professional development and teacher confidence, the study found that a correlation exists

(Bennison and Goos, 2010).

Not all technology-focused professional development is successful in motivated technology

integration, however. Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK model (Mishra and Koehler, 2006) provides an

effective lens through which to view teachers’ knowledge in technology integration.

Technology Knowledge, or TK (i.e. how to use technology) is not sufficient to cause successful

technology integration in the classroom. Teachers must have Pedagogical Knowledge, PK (i.e. how to

teach), Content Knowledge, or CK (in this case, mathematical knowledge), and the combination of all 3

types of knowledge, termed ‘Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge’, or TPCK’.

Recent surveys of teachers support this idea that professional development that focuses on


proficiency with technology is insufficient. Handal (2013) surveyed 280 secondary school math

teachers in New South Wales, Australia to determine their proficiency in TCK, TPK and TPCK.

Teachers reported a high TCK, that is in their ability to apply technology to mathematical tasks,

Significantly, their proficiency was in the use of PowerPoint, Excel and Paint. While these 3 software

applications can play a more or less effective role in the teaching of mathematics, there are many more

education-specific technologies in which teachers did not report proficiency, for example: graphing

calculators, interactive whiteboards, dynamic geometry software and computer algebra software.

Teachers’ TPK scores were lower than their TCK scores. Teachers were less able to use their

knowledge of technology to apply their technology skills for pedagogical purposes (fostering research

skills, fostering collaborative learning, conducting assessment). Finally, teachers’ TPCK scores were

lower still, meaning that teachers were even less able to guide students in using technology to achieve

learning goals in mathematics (e.g. problem solving, identifying trends in data and predicting, presenting

mathematical concepts).

Many teachers reported their professional development had been too technology-driven, not

pedagogy-driven. The training that teachers desired “seemed to be more relevant to identifying

applications for each technology, integrating content and pedagogy.” (Handal, p. 33, 2013).

[there is much more in Handal, if needed]

The same division between pedagogically-focused professional developing and technologically-

focussed professional development is made in Law (2009). The author analyzes the results of the

Second International Information Technology in Education Study 2006 (SITES 2006) which included a

survey of technology use by grade 8 mathematics teachers in 18 countries. The primary factors reported

by teachers was availability and usefulness of professional development opportunities. Teachers who


exhibited a higher adoption of technology had participated in pedagogically-focused professional

development, in contrast with teachers with a lower rate of adoption, who had participated in more

technologically-oriented professional development. Moving forward, teachers exhibited more of an

interest in participating in pedagogically-focused professional development. Citing Mishra and Koehler,

the author summarizes the results by recommending that professional development should ensure that

“technological and pedagogical skills are not developed in isolation (Mishra and Koehler 2006).” (Law,

2009)

In line with the conclusions reached by the authors above who applied the TPACK model,

Thomas (2014) applies an alternative model, the PTK model (pedagogical technology knowledge).

Though using much of the same terminology, Thomas describes creating the PTK model independently

of Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK model, though his description of PTK encompasses the same concepts:

“PTK includes the need to be a proficient user of the technology, but more importantly, to understand

the principles and techniques required to build didactical situations incorporating it, to enable

mathematical learning through the technology.” (Thomas, p. 75, 2014). Thomas’ analysis has two

implications for teacher professional development: to develop teachers’ mathematical knowledge and to

develop teachers’ capacity to use digital technology specifically for the teaching of mathematics.

The Impact of Professional Development on Teacher Beliefs

Goos and Bennison’s study, discussed above, proposes a model for the impact of various factors

on technology integration:


Figure 1: Factors Affecting Technology Integration

While Goos and Bennison’s analysis includes both professional development and pedagogical beliefs as

factors that influence the adoption of technology, the relationship between these factors is not explored

and they appear to be independent of each other.

If professional development could be shown to have a direct impact on pedagogical beliefs,

Figure 1 would be altered as follows:


Figure 2 Professional development impacts pedagogical beliefs

Research has found, however, that the relationship between professional development and teachers’

pedagogical beliefs is more complex than this.

Guskey’s model

A model that describes the connection between professional development, change in teacher

practice, and change in teachers’ beliefs was described by Guskey (2002). Guskey proposes that when

teacher professional development is unsuccessful in changing classroom practice, it may be because of a

lack of appreciation of the motivation for teachers to participate in professional. Teachers are motivated

to improve practice because they want to be better teachers; being a better teacher means improving

student learning outcomes. If a teacher understands that a particular form of professional development

with improve student learning outcomes, that teacher will be motivated to participate in professional

development.

Guskey states that the change process has been misunderstood. Teacher beliefs cannot directly


be modified through professional development, which will then translate to a change in classroom

practices, which leads to a change in student learning outcomes. The order of these events is incorrect.

Guskey proposes that teacher professional development gives teachers strategies with which to

experiment in the classroom. If the experiment is successful, i.e. if student learning outcomes improve,

then the teacher’s beliefs are changed. “teaching procedures or classroom format. The crucial point is

that it is not the professional development per se, but the experience of successful implementation that

changes teachers’ attitudes and beliefs.” (Guskey, p. 383, 2002).

The model proposes that the feedback provided by improving student achievement is key in the

changing of teachers’ beliefs, that teachers derive their beliefs about teaching from their classroom

experience. Guskey presents his model in a linear fashion, as follows:

Figure 3 Guskey’s model of the indirect relationship between

professional development and pedagogical beliefs

However, employing Goos and Bennison’s conclusions that pedagogical beliefs influence classroom

practice, our original model in Figure 1 becomes modified to the following:


Figure 3 Professional development impacts pedagogical beliefs indirectly

Showing a cycle in which changes in classroom practice impact student achievement, which changes

teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, which in turn changes classroom practice.

Guskey suggests several implications of this model for professional development:

● Recognize that Change is a Gradual and Difficult Process for Teachers

● Ensure that Teachers Receive Regular Feedback on Student Learning Progress

● Provide Continued Follow-Up, Support and Pressure

Rogers’ development of Guskey’s model

Building upon Guskey’s model, Rogers (2007) employs the lens of reflective practice and makes

key modifications. At each stage in the process, a teacher is reflecting on his or her own practice,

causing that teacher to engage in more professional learning. Rogers modifies


Building reflective practice into professional development echoes what many of the teachers in

the studies discussed above desired about having enough time to digest the new technical skills and a

new mindset. When Bennison and Goos (2010) surveyed teachers regarding their needs around

technology professional development, many teachers (20%) indicated that they needed more time. In

their comments, some teachers expressed that time was even more important than professional

development opportunities. In Thomas’ 2014 study, teachers also indicated that both they and their

students needed more time to become familiar with new technologies.

Rogers (2007) discussion regarding “the development of a professional learning community as

teachers critically examine and reflect on their practice individually, in groups and as a whole staff.” (p.

633) also echoes Law’s findings. In Law’s (2009) study, the success of technology integration was

dependent on the “perceived presence of a community of practice” (p. 310). Thomas (2014) contends

that “that teaching practice PD is best constructed around such a supportive community of inquiry in a

manner that gives teachers the opportunity to observe, practice and reflect on the use of digital

technology in a classroom environment. This last factor is usually missing from the current PD.” (p.

86).


References

Bennison, A., & Goos, M. (2010). Learning to teach mathematics with technology: A survey of professional development needs, experiences and impacts. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(1), 31-56.

Bretscher, N. (2014). Exploring the Quantitative and Qualitative Gap Between Expectation and Implementation: A Survey of English Mathematics Teachers’ Uses of ICT. In The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era (pp. 43-70). Springer Netherlands.

Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers’ use of technology in secondary mathematics classrooms.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 102-130.

Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers & teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.

Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 22-40.

Law, N. (2009). Mathematics and science teachers’ pedagogical orientations and their use of ICT in teaching. Education and Information Technologies,14(4), 309-323.

Liljedahl, P. (2008). Teachers’ insights into the relationship between beliefs and practice. Beliefs and attitudes in mathematics education: New research results, 33-44.

Puentedura, R. (2014) Learning, Technology, and the SAMR Model: Goals, Processes, and Practice. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/06/29/LearningTechnologySAMRModel.pdf

Rogers, P. (2007). Teacher professional learning in mathematics: An example of a change process. Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice, 631-640.

Thomas, M. O. J. (2006). Teachers using computers in mathematics: A longitudinal study. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the International Group Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 265-272). Prague: PME.

Thomas, M. O., & Palmer, J. M. (2014). Teaching with Digital Technology: Obstacles and Opportunities. In The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era(pp. 71-89). Springer Netherlands.

how can teacher professional development modify teacher beliefs to improve technology integration?

Documents