Running Head: HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

How Can Teacher Professional Development

Modify Teacher Beliefs to Improve Technology Integration?
Robinder Kahlon
University of Ontario Institute of Technology

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

How Can Teacher Professional Development

Modify Teacher Beliefs to Improve Technology Integration?
The integration of technology into the mathematics classroom is governed by a complex set of
factors, two of which are teacher beliefs and teacher professional development. This literature review
will describe the impact of these two factors on technology integration, as well as the exploring the
relationship between the two factors, in an attempt to answer the question: how can teacher professional
development modify teacher beliefs to improve technology integration?
Teachers beliefs and technology integration
With regards to technology integration, several studies have shown that poor integration of
technology in the classroom is correlated with teachers beliefs regarding technologys usefulness.
Thomas (2006) conducted a 10-year longitudinal study of 339 mathematics teachers in New Zealand,
surveying them in 1995 and 2005, to determine the change over time. In the course of ten years, the
proportion of teachers who said that they used computers did not change (67.2% in 1995, 68.4% in
2005). Teachers did use computers more frequently, with 5.9% reporting at least once a week use in
1995, and 13.3% reporting at least once a week use in 2005. The most frequent use of the computers
was for spreadsheet programs and graph-drawing programs, but there was actually a decrease in the use
of mathematical programs and statistical packages. Also, computers were being used frequently for
skills development, and computer use was teacher-directed 80% of the time. For the author, this pattern
of use indicated a poor adoption of technology, and was linked to teacher beliefs. In 2005, very few
teachers believed that computers aided understanding (8%). In fact, significantly more teachers felt that
technology impeded understanding of concepts in mathematics (16%). Instead of using technology to
promote understanding of mathematical concepts, teachers were more inclined to use technology

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

because they felt it made working quicker or more efficient. Teachers felt that the benefits of using
technology were small, that claims about technologies use were exaggerated, and that students relied on
technology too much.
10 years later, more studies show the same pattern: teachers that possess limiting beliefs about
technology and resist the integration of technology in the classroom. In a study by Thomas (2014),
many teachers espoused espouse the belief that technologys usefulness is limited to visualisation,
speed and accuracy of calculation, saving of time and student motivation (Thomas, 2014). They
overemphasized the technical features of technology use and under-emphasize mathematical ideas. The
author characterized these teachers as having low-confidence in the use of technology, and
correspondingly, their technology use in the classroom was low. Another group of teachers espoused
another set of beliefs about technology: believing that technology could help to emphasize the
mathematical ideas present in the lesson, allow students to explore conceptual ideas in mathematics, use
techniques of prediction and testing, instead of calculation and skills practice (Thomas, 2014). These
teachers were termed high-confidence by the author, and demonstrated significant use of technology in
the classroom.
Other studies indicate that the connection between teacher beliefs and classroom practice can be
more complicated than this, however. Teachers may espouse some beliefs about the benefits of
technology use, yet may still be reluctant to use technology in the classroom. Bretscher (2014) found
that teachers were making extensive use of interactive whiteboards but using them as chalkboards or
projectors, and that teachers were only infrequently using computer labs, and when they did use
computer labs with their students, it was often for skills practice. Surprisingly, teachers expressed
positive opinions on the usefulness of technology to improve student engagement, though they were
using technology in a very limited manner. The author speculates that many teachers had a teacher-

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

centered view of the teaching and learning. Because teachers had a preference for traditional, teachercentered practices, they were more willing to incorporate interactive whiteboards into classroom
practice, using them in the same manner as chalkboards had been used in the traditional classroom. The
IWBs were used in a whole-class context with control rarely given to students, supporting the teachercentered model, though by design, IWBs were intended for student interactivity. School computer labs
were used infrequently, seen by teachers as leading to classroom-management problems, giving teachers
a loss of control in the classroom. Even when computers were used, the teachers often provided precise
instructions for their use and had students practice skills instead of investigating mathematical problems
and concepts. Teacher beliefs about technology use were not enacted in actual practice because other
teacher beliefs about pedagogy trumped them.
Bretschers findings concord with the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2014): in the more basic levels
of technology use (substitution and augmentation), technology is used to perform the same functions in
the classroom as the old methods of teaching, leading to little or no increase in student learning
outcomes. These are the methods Bretscher found applied by teacher-centered teachers, or that
Thomas (2014) found used by low-confidence teachers. The higher levels of technology use
(modification and redefinition), in which technology is used to conduct activities that could not be done
without the use of technology, were done by the student-centered teachers in Bretschers study, or by
the high-confidence teachers in Thomas study.
Bretschers study highlights that teachers may have conflicted beliefs so that their teaching
practice does not encompass all of their beliefs, in this case the belief that computer labs are useful for
students. Other studies demonstrate even more strongly teachers who possess beliefs in innovative
teaching practices may not even have the intention to incorporate these innovative practices in their
teaching. Liljedahl (2008), has explored the inconsistencies between teacher beliefs and teacher

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

intentions. In a study of preservice and inservice secondary school mathematics teachers, Liljedahl
found that though teachers espoused innovative views on teaching and learning mathematics, when
asked how they would plan their lessons, they allocated their classroom time to traditional, rule- and
algorithm-based activities. Though Liljedahl did elicit teacher intentions, a shortcoming of his study is
that he did not analyze teachers actual practice in the classroom, leaving open the possibility that
teachers beliefs were eventually realized in classroom practice, despite lack of intentions to do so.
The role of teacher beliefs in affecting teacher practice appears to be poorly understood. While
Thomas (2014) has indicated that negative teacher beliefs about technology integration are correlated to
lack of technology use in the classroom, Bretscher (2014) and Liljedahl (2008) suggest that even
positive teacher beliefs may not lead to changes in teacher practice.
Professional development and Technology Integration
Goos and Bennison surveyed teachers on their use of three technologies in the mathematics
classroom, computers, internet and graphing calculators (Goos and Bennison, 2008). The authors found
that technology-related professional development is positively correlated to use of teachers use of these
three technologies in the classroom but did not establish a causal link between the two. It is possible
that teachers who intend to use technology in the classroom seek out more professional development
than other teachers. However, the importance of professional development to technology integration
was demonstrated by teachers qualitative responses: many teachers in the study expressed the need for
more professional development regarding technology.
While the 2008 study focused on teacher use of technology, a follow-up study, conducted by
Bennison and Goos in 2010, narrowed in on the role of teacher professional development in promoting
the use of technology, and level of teachers confidence levels regarding technology use. Bennison and
Goos surveyed teachers at all 456 secondary schools in Queensland, Australia. Teacher responses were

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

returned from 127 schools, a 28% response rate. used Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD) model to understand teachers application of technology in the classroom. The authors describe a
teachers ZPD as a set of possibilities for development that are influenced by their mathematical and
pedagogical knowledge and beliefs. (Bennison and Goos, p. 33, 2010). Teacher beliefs, therefore,
define the limits of teacher innovation. Though the authors were hesitant to ascribe a causal relationship
between professional development and teacher confidence, the study found that a correlation exists
(Bennison and Goos, 2010).
Not all technology-focused professional development is successful in motivated technology
integration, however. Mishra and Koehlers TPACK model (Mishra and Koehler, 2006) provides an
effective lens through which to view teachers knowledge in technology integration.

Technology Knowledge, or TK (i.e. how to use technology) is not sufficient to cause successful
technology integration in the classroom. Teachers must have Pedagogical Knowledge, PK (i.e. how to
teach), Content Knowledge, or CK (in this case, mathematical knowledge), and the combination of all 3
types of knowledge, termed Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, or TPCK.
Recent surveys of teachers support this idea that professional development that focuses on

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

proficiency with technology is insufficient. Handal (2013) surveyed 280 secondary school math
teachers in New South Wales, Australia to determine their proficiency in TCK, TPK and TPCK.
Teachers reported a high TCK, that is in their ability to apply technology to mathematical tasks,
Significantly, their proficiency was in the use of PowerPoint, Excel and Paint. While these 3 software
applications can play a more or less effective role in the teaching of mathematics, there are many more
education-specific technologies in which teachers did not report proficiency, for example: graphing
calculators, interactive whiteboards, dynamic geometry software and computer algebra software.
Teachers TPK scores were lower than their TCK scores. Teachers were less able to use their
knowledge of technology to apply their technology skills for pedagogical purposes (fostering research
skills, fostering collaborative learning, conducting assessment). Finally, teachers TPCK scores were
lower still, meaning that teachers were even less able to guide students in using technology to achieve
learning goals in mathematics (e.g. problem solving, identifying trends in data and predicting, presenting
mathematical concepts).
Many teachers reported their professional development had been too technology-driven, not
pedagogy-driven. The training that teachers desired seemed to be more relevant to identifying
applications for each technology, integrating content and pedagogy. (Handal, p. 33, 2013).

[there is much more in Handal, if needed]

The same division between pedagogically-focused professional developing and technologicallyfocussed professional development is made in Law (2009). The author analyzes the results of the
Second International Information Technology in Education Study 2006 (SITES 2006) which included a
survey of technology use by grade 8 mathematics teachers in 18 countries. The primary factors reported
by teachers was availability and usefulness of professional development opportunities. Teachers who

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

exhibited a higher adoption of technology had participated in pedagogically-focused professional

development, in contrast with teachers with a lower rate of adoption, who had participated in more
technologically-oriented professional development. Moving forward, teachers exhibited more of an
interest in participating in pedagogically-focused professional development. Citing Mishra and Koehler,
the author summarizes the results by recommending that professional development should ensure that
technological and pedagogical skills are not developed in isolation (Mishra and Koehler 2006). (Law,
2009)
In line with the conclusions reached by the authors above who applied the TPACK model,
Thomas (2014) applies an alternative model, the PTK model (pedagogical technology knowledge).
Though using much of the same terminology, Thomas describes creating the PTK model independently
of Mishra and Koehlers TPACK model, though his description of PTK encompasses the same concepts:
PTK includes the need to be a proficient user of the technology, but more importantly, to understand the
principles and techniques required to build didactical situations incorporating it, to enable mathematical
learning through the technology. (Thomas, p. 75, 2014). Thomas analysis has two implications for
teacher professional development: to develop teachers mathematical knowledge and to develop
teachers capacity to use digital technology specifically for the teaching of mathematics.
The Impact of Professional Development on Teacher Beliefs
Goos and Bennisons study, discussed above, proposes a model for the impact of various factors
on technology integration:

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

Figure 1: Factors Affecting Technology Integration

While Goos and Bennisons analysis includes both professional development and pedagogical beliefs as
factors that influence the adoption of technology, the relationship between these factors is not explored
and they appear to be independent of each other.
If professional development could be shown to have a direct impact on pedagogical beliefs,
Figure 1 would be altered as follows:

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

10

Figure 2 Professional development impacts pedagogical beliefs

Research has found, however, that the relationship between professional development and teachers
pedagogical beliefs is more complex than this.
Guskeys model
A model that describes the connection between professional development, change in teacher
practice, and change in teachers beliefs was described by Guskey (2002). Guskey proposes that when
teacher professional development is unsuccessful in changing classroom practice, it may be because of a
lack of appreciation of the motivation for teachers to participate in professional. Teachers are motivated
to improve practice because they want to be better teachers; being a better teacher means improving
student learning outcomes. If a teacher understands that a particular form of professional development
with improve student learning outcomes, that teacher will be motivated to participate in professional
development.

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

11

Guskey states that the change process has been misunderstood. Teacher beliefs cannot directly
be modified through professional development, which will then translate to a change in classroom
practices, which leads to a change in student learning outcomes. The order of these events is incorrect.
Guskey proposes that teacher professional development gives teachers strategies with which to
experiment in the classroom. If the experiment is successful, i.e. if student learning outcomes improve,
then the teachers beliefs are changed. teaching procedures or classroom format. The crucial point is
that it is not the professional development per se, but the experience of successful implementation that
changes teachers attitudes and beliefs. (Guskey, p. 383, 2002).
The model proposes that the feedback provided by improving student achievement is key in the
changing of teachers beliefs, that teachers derive their beliefs about teaching from their classroom
experience. Guskey presents his model in a linear fashion, as follows:

Figure 3 Guskeys model of the indirect relationship between

professional development and pedagogical beliefs

However, employing Goos and Bennisons conclusions that pedagogical beliefs influence classroom
practice, our original model in Figure 1 becomes modified to the following:

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

12

Figure 3 Professional development impacts pedagogical beliefs indirectly

Showing a cycle in which changes in classroom practice impact student achievement, which changes
teachers pedagogical beliefs, which in turn changes classroom practice.
Guskey suggests several implications of this model for professional development:
Recognize that Change is a Gradual and Difficult Process for Teachers
Ensure that Teachers Receive Regular Feedback on Student Learning Progress
Provide Continued Follow-Up, Support and Pressure

Rogers development of Guskeys model

Building upon Guskeys model, Rogers (2007) employs the lens of reflective practice and makes
key modifications. At each stage in the process, a teacher is reflecting on his or her own practice,
causing that teacher to engage in more professional learning. Rogers modifies

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

13

Building reflective practice into professional development echoes what many of the teachers in
the studies discussed above desired about having enough time to digest the new technical skills and a
new mindset. When Bennison and Goos (2010) surveyed teachers regarding their needs around
technology professional development, many teachers (20%) indicated that they needed more time. In
their comments, some teachers expressed that time was even more important than professional
development opportunities. In Thomas 2014 study, teachers also indicated that both they and their
students needed more time to become familiar with new technologies.
Rogers (2007) discussion regarding the development of a professional learning community as
teachers critically examine and reflect on their practice individually, in groups and as a whole staff. (p.
633) also echoes Laws findings. In Laws (2009) study, the success of technology integration was
dependent on the perceived presence of a community of practice (p. 310). Thomas (2014) contends
that that teaching practice PD is best constructed around such a supportive community of inquiry in a
manner that gives teachers the opportunity to observe, practice and reflect on the use of digital
technology in a classroom environment. This last factor is usually missing from the current PD. (p.
86).

HOW CAN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODIFY TEACHER BELIEFS

14

References

Bennison, A., & Goos, M. (2010). Learning to teach mathematics with technology: A survey of
professional development needs, experiences and impacts. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 22(1), 31-56.
Bretscher, N. (2014). Exploring the Quantitative and Qualitative Gap Between Expectation and
Implementation: A Survey of English Mathematics Teachers Uses of ICT. In The Mathematics
Teacher in the Digital Era (pp. 43-70). Springer Netherlands.
Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers use of technology in
secondary mathematics classrooms.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 102-130.
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers & teaching: Theory and
Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.
Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (2013). Technological pedagogical
content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 13(1), 22-40.
Law, N. (2009). Mathematics and science teachers pedagogical orientations and their use of ICT in
teaching. Education and Information Technologies,14(4), 309-323.
Liljedahl, P. (2008). Teachers insights into the relationship between beliefs and practice. Beliefs and
attitudes in mathematics education: New research results, 33-44.
Puentedura, R. (2014) Learning, Technology, and the SAMR Model: Goals, Processes, and Practice.
Retrieved from
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/06/29/LearningTechnologySAMRModel.pd
f
Rogers, P. (2007). Teacher professional learning in mathematics: An example of a change process.
Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice, 631-640.
Thomas, M. O. J. (2006). Teachers using computers in mathematics: A longitudinal study. In J. Novotna,
H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of
the International Group Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 265-272). Prague: PME.
Thomas, M. O., & Palmer, J. M. (2014). Teaching with Digital Technology: Obstacles and
Opportunities. In The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era(pp. 71-89). Springer Netherlands.