The Effects of a Computerized Professional Development Program on Teachers and Students with and without Disabilities in Secondary General Education Classes
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2010
The Effects of a Computerized Professional Development Program on Teachers and Students with and without Disabilities in Secondary General Education Classes
Effects of a computerized professional development (PD) program were investigated in two studies. For each, teachers were randomly assigned to either a Virtual Workshop (VW) group that used a computerized program for PD or to an Actual Workshop (AW) group that participated in a live PD session. In Study 1, the teachers' knowledge about and planning for use of a concept comparison routine significantly improved after completing either workshop. Further, Knowledge Scores earned by the VW group were significantly higher than those of the AW group. In Study 2, both groups of teachers' knowledge about the routine, planning for the routine, and implementation of the routine in classrooms significantly improved, as did the concept acquisition of their students with and without learning disabilities. Implementation scores earned by the VW teachers were significantly higher than those of the AW teachers. Students were satisfied with the instruction provided by both teacher groups. All teacher groups in both studies were satisfied. Implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottM.GreenwoodC. R.BuzhardtJ.TapiaY. (2006). Using technology-based teacher support tools to scale up the classwide peer-tutoring program. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22 (1), 47–64.
2.
AppanaS. (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.
ArchibaldS.GallagherH. A. (2002, May 31). A case study of professional development expenditures at a restructured high school. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (29). Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n29.html.
4.
BoyleJ.ScanlonD. (2010). Methods and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
5.
BulgrenJ. A.LenzB. K.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (1995). The Concept Comparison Routine: Instructor's manual. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
6.
BulgrenJ.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. 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.
7.
BulgrenJ. A.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1993). The Concept Mastery Routine. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
8.
BulgrenJ. A.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D.LenzB. K.MarquisJ. (2002). The use and effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 357–371.
9.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
ColemanJ.MinnettA. (1993). Learning disabilities and social competence: A social ecological perspective. Exceptional Children, 59 (3), 234–246.
12.
CookB. G.LandrumT. J.TankersleyM.KauffmanJ. M. (2003). Bringing research to bear on practice: Effecting evidence-based instruction for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 26 (4), 345–361.
13.
DedeC.KetelhutD. J.WhitehouseP.BreitL.McCloskeyE. M. (2009). A research agenda for online professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60 (1), 8–19.
14.
De La PazS.Hernandez-RamosP. F.BarronL. (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.
15.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38 (3), 181–199.
16.
ElgesP.RighettiniMCombsM. (2006). Professional development and recursive e-learning. Computers in the Schools, 23 (1), 45–57.
17.
FisherJ. B.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. 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.
18.
FisherJ. B.SchumakerJ. B.CulbertsonJ.DeshlerD. D. (in press). Effects of an e-learning professional development program on teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education.
19.
GerstenR.DiminoJ. (2001). Realities of translating research into classroom practice. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16 (2), 120–130.
20.
GinsburgA.GrayT.LevinD. (2004). Online professional development for mathematics teachers: A strategic analysis. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
21.
GreenwoodC. R.AbbottM. (2001). The research to practice gap in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24 (4), 276–289.
22.
HarlenW.DoublerS. (2007). Researching the impact of online professional development for teachers. In AndrewsR. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp. 466–486). London: Sage Publications.
23.
HarrisJ.GrandgenettN. (2002). Teachers' authentic learning with e-learning. Learning and Leading With Technology, 30 (3), 54–58.
24.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 188–189.
25.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Public Law 108–446, 118 U.S.C. (2004).
26.
KirkpatrickD. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
27.
KleimanG. 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.
28.
LaferriereT.LamonM.ChanC. K. K. (2006). Emerging e-trends and models in teacher education and professional development. Teaching Education, 17 (1), 75–90.
29.
LeachJ.PatelR.PetersA.PowerT.AhmedA.MakalimaS. (2004). Deep impact: A study of the use of hand-held computers for teacher professional development in primary schools in the global south. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27 (1), 5–28.
30.
LiaupsinC. J. (2003). The comprehensive evaluation of professional development software: A critique of methodology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18 (1), 29–37.
31.
PetersonC. L.BondN. (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.
32.
SchumakerJ. B. (2004). Professional development program for the Concept Comparison Routine. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
33.
Snow-RennerR.LauerP. A. (2005). McREL insights: Professional development analysis. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
34.
WalkerD. A.DowneyP. M.SorensenC. K. (2008). E-learning modules for teacher development: Project REAL. Techtrends, 52 (5), 59–62.
35.
WarrenL. L.HollomanH. L.Jr. (2005). On-line instruction: Are the outcomes the same?Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32 (2), 148–151.
36.
WellsJ.LewisL.GreeneB. (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.
37.
WentlingT. L.WaightC.GallaherJ.La FleurJ.WangC.KanferA. (2000). E-learning: A review of literature. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Knowledge and Learning Systems Group.
38.
WhitehouseP. L.BreitL. A.McCloskeyE. M.KetelhutD. J.DedeC. (2006). An overview of current findings from empirical research on online teacher professional development. In DedeC. (Ed.), Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods (pp. 13–29). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
