The limits of programmed professional development on integration of information and communication technology in education

Abstract

In the framework of a development cooperation program on quality of education in Vietnam, a professional development trajectory for teacher educators on the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in education was developed and implemented over the course of a three-year program. We describe how the framework on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge inspired the development of the program. In a longitudinal panel study, we followed a group of 1191 teacher educators (the "total accumulated popluation"). We describe the trainees' reaction to training and learning outcomes and we compare the use of ICT by educators who participated in the program with those who did not participate. Data was collected from self-reported questionnaires and focus group interviews. Comparison of the use of ICT for teaching over the course of the program shows that an ICT core group of enthusiasts made significant progress in integrating ICT into teaching practice. Exploratory multiple regression analysis highlights technological pedagogical knowledge and membership of a community of practice as significant factors for improved use of ICT. Nevertheless, the elements of the professional development program explain only 26.2% of variance. We discuss the extent to which programmed professional development can have an effect on integration of ICT in education and reflect on how to make training programs more effective.

Teachers’ professional development for ICT integration: Towards a reciprocal relationship between research and practice

“…The program focused on the interplay between technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) (Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya 2007) of teacher educators. Even though the learning transfer was efficient, the impact of the training program as such was limited (Peeraer & Van Petegem 2012). A significant part of variance in the application of ICT for teaching and support of student learning was explained by additional engagement in action research and communities of practice.…”

ICT Coordinators’ TPACK-based Leadership Knowledge in their Roles as Agents of Change

“…Alongside the massive penetration of technologies into education systems (Wan, Fang, & Neufeld, 2007), and in the light of research findings, there seems to be dissatisfaction with the results of the implementation of these technologies (McGarr & McDonagh, 2013;Peeraer & Petegem, 2012;White, 2007). As we recognized in previous research, we saw that studies attempt to define the key factors impacting the effectiveness of the implementation of innovative technologies in schools (e.g., Teo & Noyes, 2011) and present the elements that enable successful ICT integration into the school culture .…”

Central practitioners’ developing legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice for changing schools

“…A number of analogous frameworks have been developed to describe these types of practitioners, who have been coined as romantics (Postman & Weingartner, 1969), champions (Allan & Lewis, 2006), cognitive masters (Collins, 2006), coaches (Fishman & Davis, 2006), change agents (Hsu & Sharma, 2008), mentors (Kopcha, 2010), technology stewards (Wenger et al, 2010), motivated teachers (Peeraer & Van Petegem, 2012) and ICT focal point people (Dionys, 2012), among other names. While these frameworks differ to degrees, they share similarities.…”

“…Institutions often operate alone in their capacity building, but sometimes they cooperate with similar institutions. For instance, the literature provides several examples of cooperation between higher education institutions in Cambodia (Dionys, 2102), Australia (Romeo, Lloyd & Downes, 2012), Vietnam (Peeraer & Van Petegem, 2012), and Greece (Jimoyiannis, Tsiotakis, Roussinos & Siorenta, 2013). This literature limits understanding of capacity building through LPP in communities to formal categories, for instance, school roles, schools and nations.…”

“…There is also a need to understand building technological pedagogical capacity not only in a single institution or similar institutional categories but within a diverse range of organisations. A more holistic, broader or metacognitive approach to foster support structures and networks (Peeraer & Van Petegem, 2012) which could support educators' learning beyond their involvement in categorical silos, or formal communities is warranted.…”