Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 123–146 | Cite as

Examining the factors of a technology professional development intervention

  • Kelly L. UngerEmail author
  • Monica W. Tracey


This article discusses technology integration literature used to guide the design and implementation of a technology professional development intervention (TPDI) for secondary education teachers. Qualitative multiple-case research methods were used to examine teachers’ perceptions of the TPDI factors to provide a deeper understanding of which factors teachers’ perceived to be beneficial to the quality of the TPDI. A content analysis methodology was used to compare teachers’ perceptions at two different phases throughout the study: Phase 1: while participating in the TPDI and, Phase 2: after transferring the knowledge and skills taught in the TPDI to teaching practice. The results demonstrated seven beneficial factors to include when designing technology curriculum for adult learners: relevant, learning, access, reactions, interactions, clear and easy, and instructor. While this study examined a specific TPDI, the instructional design incorporated factors rooted in constructivist design principles, making the implications of the findings relevant to the instructional design of technology learning environments for higher education and business environments.


Technology learning environments Technology integration Situated cognition Instructional design 


  1. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Di Benedetto, O. (2005, June). Does technology influence teaching practices in the classroom? Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference 2005, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  3. Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 263–286.Google Scholar
  4. Ehman, L., Bonk, C., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2005). A model of teacher professional development to support technology integration. AACE Journal, 13(3), 251–270.Google Scholar
  5. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2007). Exemplary technology-using teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), 55–61.Google Scholar
  7. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193–204.Google Scholar
  10. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 34–38.Google Scholar
  12. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools: Implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holland, P. E. (2001). Professional development in technology: Catalyst for school reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 245–267.Google Scholar
  15. Hsu, P. S., & Sharma, P. (2008). A case study of enabling factors in the technology integration change process. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 213–228.Google Scholar
  16. iNACOL. (2011). Fast facts about online learning. Retrieved from:
  17. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.Google Scholar
  18. Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233–263.Google Scholar
  20. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Macdonald, R. J. (2008). Professional development for information communications technology integration: Identifying and supporting a community of practice through design-based research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 429–445.Google Scholar
  22. Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Mierzejewski, C. S. (2009). The impact of professional development on technology integration in high school classrooms. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3393705).Google Scholar
  24. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2003). Not “what” but “how”: Becoming design-wise about educational technology. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), What teachers should know about technology: Perspectives and practices (pp. 99–122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(3), 40–42.Google Scholar
  27. Richey, R. C. (2005). Validating instructional design models. In J. M. Spector & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 171–185). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, knowledge, and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Rieber, L. P., & Welliver, P. W. (1989). Infusing educational technology into mainstream educational computing. International Journal of Instructional Media, 16(1), 21–32.Google Scholar
  31. Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 433–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruona, W. E. A. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations, foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 233–263). San Fransico: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Unger, K. (2012). Examining the factors of a technology professional development intervention. (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Accession Order Number 3503933).Google Scholar
  34. Watson, J. (2007). A national primer on K-12 online learning. Washington, DC: North American Council on Online Learning. Retrieved from
  35. Wells, J. G. (2007). Key design factors in durable instructional technology professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 101–122.Google Scholar
  36. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationWSUDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Wayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations