Effects of a computerized professional development (PD) program for a concept teaching routine were investigated in two studies. For each, teachers were randomly assigned to either a virtual workshop group that used a multimedia software program for PD or an actual workshop group that participated in a live PD session. In Study 1, the teachers’ knowledge about the routine and planning for the routine significantly improved after completing either workshop; no significant differences were found between the groups. Both teacher groups were satisfied with the PD. In Study 2, the teachers’ performance of the routine in their classrooms improved, as did student performance on tests of concept knowledge. Students were satisfied with the instruction provided by both groups of teachers. No differences were found between the posttest scores earned by the teacher groups or by students of the teachers. Implications regarding computerized PD for teachers are discussed.
Abbott, M., Greenwood, C.R., Buzhardt, J., & Tapia, Y. ( 2006). Using technology-based teacher support tools to scale up the classwide peer-tutoring program. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22(1), 47-64.
2.
Appana, S. ( 2008). A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of the student, the instructor, and the tenured faculty. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 5-22.
3.
Archibald, S., & Gallagher, H.A. (2002, May 31). A case study of professional development expenditures at a restructured high school. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(29). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n29.html
4.
Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. ( 1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.
5.
Boudah, D.J., Logan, K.R., & Greenwood, C.R. (2001). The research to practice projects: Lessons learned about changing teacher practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(4), 290-303.
6.
Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. ( 1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 3-17.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. ( 1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.
9.
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D.J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E.M. (2009). A research agenda for online professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8-19.
10.
De La Paz, S., Hernandez-Ramos, P.F., & Barron, L. ( 2004). Multimedia environments in mathematics teacher education: Preparing regular and special educators for inclusive classrooms. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(4), 561-575.
11.
Desimone, L.M. ( 2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
12.
Elges, P., Righettini, M., & Combs, M. ( 2006). Professional development and recursive e-learning. Computers in the Schools, 23(1), 45-57.
13.
Fisher, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1999). The effects of an interactive multimedia program on teachers’ understanding and implementation of an inclusive practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(2), 127-142.
14.
Fisher, J.B., & Schumaker, J.B. (2008). The professional development program for the Concept Mastery Routine. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
15.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. ( 2001). Realities of translating research into classroom practice . Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(2), 120-130.
16.
Ginsburg, A., Gray, T., & Levin, D. ( 2004). Online professional development for mathematics teachers: A strategic analysis. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
17.
Harlen, W., & Doubler, S. (2007). Researching the impact of online professional development for teachers. In R. Andrews (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 466-486). London, UK: Sage.
18.
Harris, J., & Grandgenett, N. (2002). Teachers’ authentic learning with e-learning. Learning and Leading With Technology , 30(3), 54-58.
19.
Kirkpatrick, D. ( 2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
20.
Kleiman, G.M. ( 2004, July). Meeting the need for high quality teachers: E-learning solutions. Paper commissioned for the U.S. Department of Education National Technology Plan and the U.S. Department of Education Secretary’s Leadership Summit on e-Learning, Orlando, FL.
21.
Knight, J. ( 2004). Instructional coaches make progress through partnership . Journal of Staff Development, 25(2), 32-37.
22.
Knight, J. ( 2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
23.
Laferriere, T., Lamon, M., & Chan, C.K.K. ( 2006). Emerging e-trends and models in teacher education and professional development. Teaching Education, 17(1), 75-90.
24.
Laiw, S.S. ( 2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers and Education, 51(1), 864-873.
25.
Leach, J., Patel, R., Peters, A., Power, T., Ahmed, A., & Makalima, S. ( 2004). Deep impact: A study of the use of handheld computers for teacher professional development in primary schools in the global south . European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 5-28.
26.
Liaupsin, C.J. ( 2003). The comprehensive evaluation of professional development software: A critique of methodology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(1), 29-37.
27.
Peterson, C.L., & Bond, N. ( 2004). Online compared to face-to-face teacher preparation for learning standards-based planning skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 345-360.
28.
Shih, M., Feng, J., & Tsai, C.C. ( 2008). Research and trends in the field of e-learning from 2001-2005: A content analysis of cognitive studies in selected journals. Computers and Education, 51(2), 955-967.
29.
Snow-Renner, R., & Lauer, P.A. ( 2005). McREL insights: Professional development analysis. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Warren, L.L., & Holloman, H.L. , Jr. (2005). On-line instruction: Are the outcomes the same? Journal of Instructional Psychology , 32(2), 148-151.
32.
Wells, J., Lewis, L., & Greene, B. ( 2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2005 (NCES 2007-020). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
33.
Wentling, T.L., Waight, C., Gallaher, J., La Fleur, J., Wang, C., & Kanfer, A. ( 2000). E-learning: A review of literature. Champaign: University of Illinois, Knowledge and Learning Systems Group.
34.
Whitehouse, P.L., Breit, L.A., McCloskey, E.M., Ketelhut, D.J., & Dede, C. ( 2006). An overview of current findings from empirical research on online teacher professional development. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods (pp. 13-29). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
