Framing the assessment of educational technology professional development in a culture of learning

Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 126-131

  Pierson, Melissa ^a   Borthwick, Arlene ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

^b NATIONAL LOUIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Action research; Assessment; Professional development; TPACK

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859566871     PISSN: 21532974     EISSN: 23327383     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10402454.2010.10784645     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Borthwick, A. (2007-2008). Action research as alternative assessment. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24,39,64.
2. Borthwick, A., & Pierson, M. (Eds.). (2008). Transforming classroom practice: Professional development strategies in educational technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
3. Borthwick, A., & Risberg, C. (2008). Establishing an organizational climate for successful professional development: What should we do? In A. Borthwick & M. Pierson (Eds.), Transforming classroom practice: Professional development strategies in educational technology (pp. 35-48). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
4. Cunningham, C.A., McPherson, S., Lawless, K. A., Radinsky, J., Brown, S. W., & Zumpano, N. (2008). In A. Borthwick & M. Pierson (Eds.), Transforming classroom practice: Profesional development strategies in educational technology (pp. 149-167) Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
5. Dall'Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models. Review of Educational Research, 76,383-412.
6. Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2008, June). Establishing acceptable evidence: Taking technology-related action research beyond the classroom. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, San Antonio, TX.
7. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38,181-199.
8. Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crévola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. 'Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
9. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. 'Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
10. Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495-500
11. Ham, V., Wenmoth, D., & Davey, R. (2008). Teachers doing IT for themselves: Action research as professional development. In A. Borthwick & M. Pierson (Eds.), Transforming classroom practice: Professional development strategies in educational technology (pp. 133-148). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
12. Harris, J. (2007, June 25). Educational technology professional development models: A taxonomy of combinable choices. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Atlanta, GA.
13. Hill, H. C. (2009). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 470-476.
14. Hirsh, S., & Killion, J. (2009). When educators learn, students learn: Eight principles of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 464-469.
15. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614
16. Linn, M. C. (2006). WISE teachers: Using technology and inquiry for science instruction. In E.A. Ashburn & R.E. Floden (Eds.), Meaningful learning using technology: What educators need to know and do (pp. 45-69). New York: Teachers College Press.
17. Mishra, P, & Koeher, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054
18. Niles, R. (2008). Technology apprentices, SWAT teams, and using students for professional development. In A. Borthwick & M. Pierson, (Eds.), Transforming classroom practice: Professional development strategies in educational technology (pp. 69-83). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
19. Nolan, A. L., & Putten J. V. (2007). Action research in education: Addressing gaps in ethical principles and practices. Educational Researcher, 36, 401-407
20. Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B.K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109-119
21. Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-429
22. Pierson, M., Shepard, M., & Leneway R. (2009). Distributed Collaborative Research Model: Meaningful and responsive inquiry in technology and teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(4), 127-133
23. Schrum, L., Thompson, A., Sprague, D., Maddux, C., McAnear, A., Bell, L., & Bull, G. (2005). Advancing the field: Considering acceptable evidence in educational technology research. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(3/4), 202-209
24. Zhao, Y., Frank, K. A., & Ellefson, N. C. (2006). Fostering meaningful teaching and learning with technology: Characteristics of effective professional development. In E.A. Ashburn & R.E. Floden (Eds.), Meaningfu1 learning using technology: What educators need to know and do (pp. 161-179). New York: Teachers College Press.