What do Science Teachers Expect from a Technology-Based Professional Development Program?: Reflections from a Pilot Study

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 6, 66 - 88, 01.11.2022

Şule Elmalı , Fatime Balkan Kıyıcı

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.129.9.6

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This study aimed to reveal science teachers’ expectations from a technology-based professional development program and designate the said program accordingly. The case study was carried out with 12 science teachers of gifted students. In order to identify the needs of the teachers for effective technology integration in the classes, interviews were conducted. The interviews unearthed that the use of technology in classes was mainly at a basic level, and resorted to with a view to providing visualization, make presentations, or web-search. The teachers declared that they would like to attend technology-based training programs to improve their technology competencies. After determing the teachers’ needs, the researchers developed a technology-based professional development program based on the ASSURE model and implemented the pilot study. After the pilot study, the participants put forth that the program was beneficial for enriching classes with technology in various ways. It is thought that the dissemination of this training by making extensive applications to teachers in different fields will contribute to the development of their technological competencies and help overcome the difficulties in the use of technology. In order to enhance the technological competence of teachers, technology-based trainings need to be designed and thereupon overcoming the barriers to technology usage can be made possible. It is recommended to carry out studies to evaluate teachers' technological abilities and efficiencies in other ways and pursue them according to their developmental characteristics.

Keywords

science teachers, teacher education, technology-based professional development program

Project Number

2019-7-25-145

References

• Ağaoğlu, O. & Metin, N. (2015). A survey study on the 4th – 8th graders in the science and arts centers who play violent PC games comparing to their school only peer group. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 3(2), 11-25. http://uyad.beun.edu.tr
• Ajjan, H. & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002.
• Altun, T. & Vural, S. (2012). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezinde görev yapan öğretmen ve yöneticilerin mesleki gelişim ve okul gelişimine yönelik görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the views of teachers and administrators of a Science and Art Center (SAC) about professional development and school improvement]. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(42), 152-177. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/esosder.
• Bangel, N. J., Enersen, D., Capobianco, B. & Moon, S. M. (2006). Professional development of preservice teachers: Teaching in the super saturday program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(3), 339-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320602900305.
• Bangel, N. J., Moon, S. M., & Capobianco, B. M. (2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210369257.
• Baran, B. (2010). Experiences from the process of designing lessons with interactive whiteboard: ASSURE as a road map. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(4), 367-380.
• Batanero, J. M. F., Rebollo, M. M. R., & Rueda, M. M. (2019). Impact of ICT on students with high abilities. Bibliographic review (2008–2018). Computers& Education, 137, 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.007.
• Benny, N., & Blonder, R. (2016). Factors that promote/inhibit teaching gifted students in a regular class: Results from a professional development program for chemistry teachers. Education Research International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2742905.
• Besnoy, K. (2007). Creating a personal technology improvement plan for teachers of the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 30(4), 44-49. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.4219/gct-2007-491.
• Besnoy, K. D., Dantzler, J. A., & Siders, J. A. (2012). Creating a digital ecosystem for the gifted education classroom. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(4), 305-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12461005.
• Brigandi, C. B., Gilson, C. M., & Miller, M. (2019). Professional development and differentiated instruction in an elementary school pullout program: A gifted education case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(4), 362-395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219874418
• Buckenmeyer, J. A. (2010). Beyond computers in the classroom: Factors related to technology adoption to enhance teaching and learning. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 3(4), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v3i4.194
• Burg, B. (1992). Gifted education in Israel. Roeper Review, 14(4), 217-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199209553434
• Cetin, N. I. (2016). Effects of a teacher professional development program on science teachers' views about using computers in teaching and learning. International Journal Of Environmental And Science Education, 11(15), 8026-8039.
• Chai, C. S., Tan, L., Deng, F., & Koh, J. H. L. (2017). Examining pre-service teachers’ design capacities for web-based 21st century new culture of learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3013
• Chen, J., YunDai, D., & Zhou, Y. (2013). Enable, enhance, and transform: How technology use can improve gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(3), 166-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.794892
• Chikasanda, V. K. M., Otrel-Cass, K., Williams, J., & Jones, A. (2013). Enhancing teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge and practices: A professional development model for technology teachers in Malawi. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 597-622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9206-8
• Gustafson, K. L., Branch R. M., & Maribe R. (2002). Survey of Instructional Development Models (3rd ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Technology mode, Syracuse, NY. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477517.pdf
• Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (1999). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
• Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2018). Examining the technology integration planning cycle model of professional development to support teachers’ instructional practices. Teachers College Record, 120(10), 1-44.
• Jones, W. M., & Dexter, S. (2014). How teachers learn: The roles of formal, informal, and independent learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 367-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9337-6.
• Kahveci, M. (2010). Students' perceptions to use technology for learning: Measurement integrity of the modified fennema-sherman attitudes scales. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 9(1), 185-201. (EJ875782) ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ875782
• Kim, D., & Downey, S. (2016). Examining the use of the ASSURE model by K–12 teachers. Computers in the Schools, 33(3), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2016.1203208
• Kontaş, H. & Yağcı, E. (2016). BİLSEM öğretmenlerinin program geliştirme ihtiyaçlarına ilişkin geliştirilen programın etkililiği. [The effectiveness of the in-service training program developed based on the needs of the teachers of science and art centers in the area of curriculum development] Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(3), 902-923. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/229546.
• Lambert, J. L., & Lane, S. C. (2004, September). Technology integration expertise among middle school teachers. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 48, No. 3, ss. 463-467). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
• Lindvall, J., Helenius, O., & Wiberg, M. (2018). Critical features of professional development programs: Comparing content focus and impact of two large-scale programs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.013
• Lavonen, J., Juuti, K., Aksela, M., & Meisalo, V. (2006). A professional development project for improving the use of information and communication technologies in science teaching. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(2), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390600769144
• Lee, J. & Jin, S. (2015).Teachers recognition on enhancing ICT related capabilities of gifted students. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 25(2), 261–277. https:// doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2015.25.2.261
• Lemons, G. (2011). Diverse perspectives of creativity testing: Controversial issues when used for inclusion into gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(5), 742-772. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211417221.
• Little, C. A. & Housand, B. C. (2011). Avenues to professional learning online: Technology tips and tools for professional development in gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 34(4), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217511415383
• Liu, M., Horton, L., Olmanson, J., & Toprac, P. (2011). A study of learning and motivation in a new media enriched environment for middle school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9192-7
• Liu, M., Toprac, P., & Yuen, T. (2009). What factors make a multimedia learning environment engaging: A case study. Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 173-192). IGI Global.
• Loucks‐Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17484.x.
• Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1893-1906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.003
• Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2005). A dynamic scaffolding model of teacher development: The gifted education consultant as catalyst for change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 222-230. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900304
• McGuire, M. S. (2012). Technology as a tool: Uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. (Publication No. 3551714) [Doctoral dissertation, University Of Southern Calıfornia]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
• Mohammadi, M., & Moradi, K. (2017). Exploring change in EFL teachers' perceptions of professional development. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 19(1), 22-42.
• MoNE (2016). Bilim ve sanat merkezleri yönergesi. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Tebliğler Dergisi. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar /2017_01/02031535_tebligler_dergisi.pdf.
• Öngöz, S. & Aksoy, D. A. (2015). Özel yetenekli öğrenciler bilişim teknolojileri dersinden ne bekliyorlar? [What do gifted students expect from information technologies courses?] Journal of Education & Special Education Technology, 1(1), 34-47.
• Pan, S. C., & Franklin, T. (2011). In-Service Teachers' Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, and Web 2.0 Tools for Integration. New Horizons in Education, 59(3), 28-40.
• Periathiruvadi, S., & Rinn, A. N. (2012). Technology in gifted education: A review of best practices and empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782601
• Peyser, M. (2005). Identifying and nurturing gifted children in Israel. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 27(2), 229-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-005-3183-5
• Posnanski, T. J. (2002). Professional development programs for elementary science teachers: An analysis of teacher self-efficacy beliefs and a professional development model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 189-220. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016517100186
• Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029001004
• Reid, E. & Horváthová, B. (2016). Teacher training programs for gifted education with focus on sustainability. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 18(2), 66-74.
• Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-184. (EJ190430) ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ190430
• Renzulli, J. & Reis, S. (2007). A technology based resource for challenging gifted and talented students. Gifted Children, 2(1), 6. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren/vol2/iss1/6/
• Rosenberg, J. M., Greenhalgh, S. P., Wolf, L. G., & Koehler, M. J. (2017). Strategies, use, and impact of social media for supporting teacher community within professional development: The case of one urban STEM program. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 36(3), 255-267.
• Satmaz, I, & Evin Gencel, I. (2016). Bilim sanat merkezlerinde görevlendirilen öğretmenlerin hizmet içi eğitim sorunu. [Issue of in-service training of the teachers assigned in science and art centers] Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (42), 59-73. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/deubefd/issue/35757/399520
• Shahid, F., Aleem, M., Islam, M. A., Iqbal, M. A., & Yousaf, M. M. (2019). A review of technological tools in teaching and learning computer science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(11), em1773. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/109611
• Shaharabani, Y. F., & Tal, T. (2017). Teachers’ practice a decade after an extensive professional development program in science education. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 1031-1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9539-5
• Shaunessy, E. (2007). Implications for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207299470
• Sheffield, C. C. (2007). Technology and the gifted adolescent: Higher order thinking, 21st century literacy, and the digital native. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 10(2), 1-5.
• Shelly, G. B., Gunter, G. A. & Gunter, R. E. (2012). Teachers discovering computers: Integrating technology in a connected world. Cengage Learning.
• Shin, S., Park, P. & Bae, Y. (2013). The effects of an information-technology gifted program on friendship using scratch programming language and clutter. International Journal of Computer and Communication Engineering, 2(3), 246. http://www.ijcce.org/papers/181-J028.pdf
• Siegle, D. (2019). Seeing is believing: Using virtual and augmented reality to enhance student learning. Gifted Child Today, 42(1), 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518804854.
• Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., Russell, J. D., & Mims, C. (2015). Instructional technology and media for learning (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., Russell, J. D. & Mims, C. (2008). Instructional technology and media for learning. Pearson, 330 Hudson Street.
• Smaldino, S. E., Russell, J. D., Heinich, R. & Molenda, M. (2005). The ASSURE model: Creating the learning experience. Instructional Technology and Media for Learning, 4-5.
• Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Publisher.
• Tallent-Runnels, M. K., & Yarbrough, D. W. (1992). Effects of the future problem solving program on children's concerns about the future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 190-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600404.
• Torkar, G., Avsec, S., Čepič, M., Ferk Savec, V., & Juriševič, M. (2018). Science and technology education in Slovenian compulsory basic school: Possibilities for gifted education. Roeper Review, 40(2), 139-150. : https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1434710
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Yun, K., Chung, D., Jang, B., Kim, J. H. & Jeong, J. (2011). Mathematically gifted adolescents have deficiencies in social valuation and mentalization. PloSone, 6(4), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018224
• Zhang, M., Parker, J., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2015). Understanding in service science teachers’ needs for professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(5),471-496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9433-4
• Zimlich, S. L. (2016). Motivating gifted students: Technology as a tool for authenticity and autonomy. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(13), 1-11.