Journal of Computers in Education

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 1–20 | Cite as

Twenty-first-century technology integration staff development: a phenomenology

  • Christopher ClarkEmail author
  • Dawn D. Boyer


The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to understand how in-service teachers with 3 to 5 years of experience perceived staff development related to the integration of twenty-first-century technology. Twenty teachers from southeastern North Carolina were selected. This study attempted to describe: How do third- through fifth-year teachers in one public school district in North Carolina describe the staff development initiatives aimed at training them to integrate twenty-first-century technology into their instruction? Interviews, and a focus group, were utilized to identify themes that described participant perceptions of staff development regarding the integration of twenty-first-century technology. Participants reported that: (a) they were more effective teachers due to staff development and (b) staff development seemed to lack focus and purpose. In turn, the identified themes were used for developing a list of best practices as articulated by the participants.


Staff development Technology integration TPAC 


  1. Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers and Education, 39(4), 395–414. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00075-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructive-compatible computer usage (Report No. 7). Irvine, CA: Teaching, Learning, and Computing. Retrieved from
  3. Chenoweth, T., Carr, C., Ruhl, T. (2005). Best practice in educational leadership preparation programs. Paper presented at the Administrator Licensure Planning Forum, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  4. Cifuentes, L., Maxwell, G., & Bulu, S. (2011). Technology integration through professional learning community. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of educational technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Green, M., & Cifuentes, L. (2008). An exploration of online environments supporting follow-up to face-to-face professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3), 283–306.Google Scholar
  10. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75–91.Google Scholar
  11. Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holton, E. F., Swanson, R. A., & Naquin, S. S. (2001). Andragogy in practice: Clarifying the andragrogical model of adult learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(1), 118–143. doi: 10.0000/j.1937-8327.2001.tb00204.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277–302.Google Scholar
  15. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use. Computers and Education, 55(3), 937–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2010). On learning to subvert signs: Literacy, technology and the TPACK framework. The California Reader, 44(2), 12–18.Google Scholar
  17. Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 76–85.Google Scholar
  18. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Englewoods Cliff, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.Google Scholar
  19. Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In ACTE Committee on Innovation & Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers and Education, 59(4), 1109–1121. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawler, P. A. (1991). The keys to adult learning: Theory and practical strategies. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.Google Scholar
  23. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-based classrooms: A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Llorens, S., Sllanova, M., & Grau, R. (2002). Training to technological change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., & Strahl, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed? Educational Media International, 45(3), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meagher, M., Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Edwards, M. T. (2011). Preservice teachers’ experiences with advanced digital technologies: The interplay between technology in a preservice classroom and in field placements. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(3), 243–270.Google Scholar
  27. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1321–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Polkinghorne, D. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. Valle & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41–60). New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reynolds, C., & Morgan, B. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of technology in-service: A case study. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2001(1), 982–986.Google Scholar
  34. Roberts, B. S. (2003). Using computers and technology in the social studies classroom: A study of practical pedagogy. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  35. Schrier, L. (2010). Developing teacher capacity and best practices: Achieving balance with inservice teacher development. Foreign Language Annals, 43(2), 181–182. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01070.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Retrieved from
  37. Smith, S. J., & Smith, S. B. (2004). Technology integration solutions: Preservice student interns as mentors. Assistive Technology: Benefits and Outcomes, 1(1), 42–56.Google Scholar
  38. Swan, B., & Dixon, J. (2006). The effects of mentor-supported technology professional development on middle school mathematics teachers’ attitudes and practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 61(1), 67–86.Google Scholar
  39. Tearle, P. (2003). Enabling teachers to use information and communications technology for teaching and learning through professional development: Influential factors. Teacher Development, 7(3), 457–472. doi: 10.1080/13664530300200209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. United States Department of Education. (2010). U. S. Department of Education releases finalized national education technology plan. Retrieved from
  41. VanFossen, P. J. (2001). Degree of Internet/WWW use and barriers to use among secondary social studies teachers. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  42. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does is compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center.Google Scholar
  43. Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools. Portsmith, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  44. Zhao, Y., & Bryant, F. L. (2006). Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to high levels of technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers’ technology integration after state mandated technology training. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 53–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Beijing Normal University 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Public Schools of Robeson CountyRed SpringsUSA
  2. 2.D. Boyer ConsultingVirginia BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations