You are here:

Teacher Participation in Online Professional Development: Exploring Academic Year Classroom Impacts

, , George Mason University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Washington, D.C., United States ISBN 978-1-939797-32-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


The purpose of this mixed methods case study research was to investigate the reasons teachers chose online professional development (OPD) focusing on technology integration and how this OPD impacted teachers’ classroom practices over a six month period. Data was collected from surveys, interviews, and classroom observations. Survey data came from a pre-survey, post-survey, and follow-up survey completed by 18 teachers. Survey data was analyzed quantitatively using dependent sample t-tests and a one-way ANOVA test. The case study data was collected throughout six months after OPD and came from interviews and three classroom observations of each of the two participating teachers. Quantitative data analysis results indicated that participants believe OPD is beneficial to professional growth, believe OPD provides and enhances their skills, feel comfortable transferring the OPD content knowledge into instructional practices, and believe OPD is as beneficial as or more beneficial than traditional professional development. Five themes emerged from qualitatively analyzing the observation and interview data: (1) OPD provides hands-on opportunities, (2) OPD is practical for classroom implementation, (3) technology supports instruction, (4) classrooms are flexible and focus on student engagement, and (5) strong classroom management and organization are necessary.


Opfer, T. & Sprague, D. (2018). Teacher Participation in Online Professional Development: Exploring Academic Year Classroom Impacts. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 551-557). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 16, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Alvermann, D. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents' online literacies for classroom practice and research?. Journal of Adolescent& Adult Literacy, 52, 8–19. Http://,L.(2015).Goblended! A handbook for blending technology in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  2. Brody, D., & Hadar, L. (2011). I speak prose and I now know it. Personal development trajectories among teacher educators in a professional development community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1223-1234.
  3. Chapman, L., Masters, J., & Pedulla, J. (2010). Do digital divisions still persist in schools? Access to technology and technical skills of teachers in high needs schools in the United States of America. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36, 239-249. Http://,J.W.(2008).Educationalresearch: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  4. Crockett, C.C. (2010). The impact of online professional development on the instructional practices of K–12 mathematics teachers (Doctoral dissertation) Available from ProQuest Education Journals. Retrieved from Duffy, T., Kirkley, J.R., Del Valle, R., Malopinsky, L., Scholten, C., Neely, G., … Chang, J. (2006). Online teacher professional development: A learning architecture. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online professional development for teachers (pp.175-197). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  5. Duran, M., Brunvand, S., Ellsworth, J., & Sendag, S. (2012). Impact of research-based professional development: investigation of inservice teacher learning and practice in wiki integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44, 313-334. Http://, T., & Hollingsworth, M. (2013). The implementation and assessment of a shared 21st century learning vision: A district-based approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45, 201-228.
  6. Hofer, M., Grandgenett, N., Harris, J., & Swan, K. (2011). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration observation instrument. In C.D. Maddux (Ed.), Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2011 (pp. 39-46). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education (SITE).
  7. Holland, P.E. (2001). Professional development in technology: Catalyst for school reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 245-267.
  8. Husby, V. (2005). Individualizing professional development: A framework for meeting school and district goals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  9. Kazemi, E., & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the design and study of professional development: Attending to the coevolution of teachers’ participation across contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 428-441.
  10. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  11. Lock, J.V. (2006). A new image: Online communities to facilitate teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 663-678.
  12. Lucilio, L. (2013). What secondary teachers need in professional development. Journal of Catholic Education, 13, 53-75.
  13. Marable, M. (2011). Transforming teachers: Restructuring technology professional development in a one-to-one laptop school (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.3463578)
  14. Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  15. Means B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 285-307. Http://,M.(2005).Preparingteachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509–523.
  16. Plair, S. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and fluency. The ClearingHouse: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82, 70-74.
  17. Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between what preservice teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 191203.
  18. Rentie, V. (2008). A case study of the digital divide: A study of teacher awareness and efforts to bridge the gap in underserved communities. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3296841)
  19. Rowsell, J., & Burke, A. (2009). Reading by design: Two case studies of digital reading practices. Journal of Adolescent& Adult Literacy, 53, 106–118. Http://,A.,Newby,T., & Ertmer, P. (2012). Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers’ intentions to use web 2.0 technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45, 171-195.
  20. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  21. Samaras, A. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaboration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  22. Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research& Evaluation, 7(17), 1-6.
  23. Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2011). Technology integration barriers: urban school mathematics teachers perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 17-25. Http://
  24. Wells, J. (2007). Key design factors in durable instructional technology professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 101-122.
  25. Yin, R. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford.
  26. Zeig, J., & Ronzetti, T. (2015). Literacy assessments in the digital age. In T. Rasinski, K. Pytash, & R. Ferdig (Eds.), Using technology to enhance reading: Innovative approaches to literacy instruction (pp. 207-214).

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact