Long-Term Educator Professional Development in Online Instruction and Assessment during Pandemic Teaching

Abstract

Educators were forced into emergency remote teaching due to COVID-19. Educational grants through the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) fund provided assistance. A regional university partnered with a local educational service center to use GEER funds to prioritize P-12 teacher professional development in online instruction. The partnership revamped a 12-credit hour four-course graduate certificate program in online learning and assessment, co-taught by university faculty and K-12 community partners, enrolling 58 local educators across 42 school districts in free graduate courses during the 2020-2021 academic year. With a 95% completion rate, this long-term professional development met educators’ needs, including how to simultaneously teach face-to-face and at-home students in changing school environments. This descriptive study gathered educator perceptions regarding how the courses impacted their ability to learn and use best practices in technology integration with their students, and support colleagues as they created district-specific professional development and developed into technology leaders.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced educators into emergency remote teaching exposing a knowledge gap in how to integrate technology in online teaching, learning, and assessment (Hodges et al., 2020; Lepp et al., 2021). Teachers scrambled to quickly learn new technologies and pedagogies in order to deliver educational content in a remote, blended, or hybrid manner (Crompton et al., 2022). As P-12 schools prepared for the 2020–2021 academic year, teacher professional development (PD) was less prioritized as school leaders focused on health and safety procedures.

Educational grants through the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) fund provided assistance. State governors had wide discretion in determining how funds could be utilized (Office of Elementary & Secondary Education, 2021). The governor of the state where this study occurred determined funds could be used to purchase devices, improve Internet connectivity, or train teachers in remote instruction. Any P-16 public or private school could apply for a GEER grant, but the application timeline was short with the call coming out in June and applications due in July (Smith, 2020). The local educational service center leader in this study surveyed their school superintendents regarding the need for professional development programming in virtual instruction practices, and with 24 responses, this item averaged 4.125 with 5 being strongly agree. The educational service center partnered with a regional university, submitting a GEER grant proposal to revamp a mothballed university graduate certificate in online learning and assessment (COLA).

A GEER grant was awarded in August 2020 allowing 58 educators across 42 P-12 school districts to enroll in the first COLA course. The certificate included four 3-credit hour graduate courses, fully funded by the GEER grant, in online learning and assessment with synchronous and asynchronous components, co-planned and co-taught by university faculty and K-12 community school partners, providing just-in-time professional development to educators who were simultaneously instructing in-person and at-home P-12 students due to the pandemic. The first course began in October 2020 and the fourth ended in July 2021, with 95% of participants completing all four courses and earning the certificate. The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine P-12 educators’ perceptions of this nine-month professional development and how it impacted technology integration in their teaching and their growth as technology leaders.

Review of literature

COVID and P-12 challenges

The COVID-19 pandemic upended P-12 education (Crompton et al., 2022). During the spring 2020 shut-down, teachers quickly made instructional decisions based on available technology tools and the ability to use them in homes. Other considerations included meeting short-term goals of student motivation and supporting their social emotional needs (Lepp et al., 2021). This was a reaction to emergency teaching, not a need for teacher preparation in the pedagogy of online teaching (Hodges et al., 2020). As the 2019–2020 school year concluded, the pandemic continued.

Uncertainties and unknowns plagued school leaders as they planned for the 2020–2021 school year. Educational aid became available to fund technology, connectivity, and student remediation from problems caused by the spring 2020 shutdown (Belsha, 2021). Administrators time was spent on health and safety measures as guidelines were frequently changing. Lacking federal and state guidelines, districts were on their own to decide how schools would operate and in what modality such as face-to-face, online, blended, or a combination, also allowing for family choice. To meet social distancing requirements, schools created hybrid schedules with student groups attending 2–3 times per week while closely monitoring COVID cases that would warrant quarantines. The pandemic created one of the greatest instructional challenges as teachers simultaneously taught face-to-face and at-home children in changing school environments due to quarantines, yet teacher training needed for the variety of teaching modes was lacking (Belsha, 2021; Natanson & Strauss, 2020; Trust & Whalen, 2020). The pandemic was not the sole cause of this, but shone a light on technology integration issues.

P-12 teachers and technology integration

Technology integration in teaching has been an important topic for quite some time as schools purchased desktop computers, laptops, and tablets for student use (Cuban, 2001). More recently, technology rollouts in K-12 education meant one-to-one devices first for high school students, then for lower grade levels (Barbour, 2014). COVID-19 rushed and expanded these rollouts as the need for one-to-one devices and Internet connectivity became apparent for all P-12 children to learn remotely. However, teachers learning best practices of online assessment and instruction was not prioritized as administrators focused on safety measures for reopening buildings. Previous research on technology integration in teachers’ pedagogy is complex, and a decision to take action to integrate technology is based on that person’s experiences, and change over time.

Technology integration and professional development

When adopting technologies, an often overlooked and undervalued component of integrating new instructional models in schools is providing classroom teachers with PD to maximize the benefits (Christensen & Alexander, 2020). New technologies can include recently adopted one-to-one devices, new district software, or purchased applications and programs; in other words, very specific technology needs. The pandemic impacted almost every teacher and learner revealing a need for overall PD in online teaching, learning and assessment and going beyond stand-alone PD for specific technology devices or products. The need to address “tech-equity” issues of devices, connectivity, tools, accessibility and support is important too, but simply providing these has little impact if the skills needed by teachers to maximize the quality of virtual instruction are not adequately addressed (Bushweller, 2020; Natanson & Strauss, 2020; Rauf, 2020). Ruggiero and Mong (2015) found simply increasing the amount of classroom technology was not enough to change teachers’ pedagogical practices. Research indicates technology integration is one area where providing PD to teachers makes an important difference in student learning experiences and the effectiveness of instruction (Kopcha, 2012; Matzen & Edmunds, 2007).

How to teach academic content with technology is complicated. Teachers need to understand the material, or possess the content knowledge, and know how best to present it to their students. Educators need to choose an appropriate tool to integrate it in the learning process while differentiating instruction to meet a variety of learner needs, thus playing a key role in teachers’ pedagogical knowledge (Lepp et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2018). Due to cost, some teachers must use free versions of tools or apps making it more challenging with limited choice and advertisements. Added to this during the 2020–2021 academic year, teachers were simultaneously teaching in-person and at-home students while dealing with changing school environments and health concerns. Additionally, participants in this study chose to enroll in four graduate courses during the same time period, emphasizing the importance of examining their perceptions of the need for PD in online learning and assessment.

Theoretical framework

TPACK

Teaching is challenging, requiring more than content knowledge and delivery skills. Since the abrupt start of emergency remote teaching, the integration of technology moved from teacher choice to a requirement (Hodges et al., 2020). The TPACK framework of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge is critical for teachers to instruct effectively with technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Having these bodies of knowledge both in theory and in practice allows educators to purposefully integrate technology.

Seasoned educators possess strength in the content they teach as it has generally remained the same. Over time, teachers perfect their skills in delivering academic content as they learn to anticipate student misconceptions and address them before they occur. Technology, however, continuously evolves. New technology in the 1920s meant the addition of films and radio in classrooms, whereas today students need not be present in brick-and-mortar buildings for learning to occur (Cuban, 1993; Delgado et al., 2015). Therefore, teachers need to reach students through technology. Unlike the comfort and stability of content knowledge; devices, applications, and technology use are constantly changing, challenging teachers to stay current (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Technologies need to be vetted, examined for biases, and aligned with educators’ pedagogical beliefs (Ertmer, 2005). It is time consuming to do this and build a knowledge base, so if teachers believe their traditional practices are adequate without technology, and they lack the professional development needed to integrate technology, then changes will not occur (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). This understanding forcibly changed as the pandemic abruptly moved education fully online.

Participants in the COLA courses had varying comfort levels and experience using and integrating technology; encompassed a variety of grade levels (P-12) and content areas, and included classroom teachers, technology leaders, and administrators. Therefore; for the purpose of this study, the connection to TPACK focused less directly on academic content knowledge and instead on Technological Content Knowledge or knowing how digital tools can enhance content, by how it is delivered to students or how they interact with it; and pedagogy with the intention of building integration with content knowledge to understand best practices. In other words, there was a need to draw on Content Knowledge while emphasizing and building up Technology Knowledge and gradually scaffolding to Technological Pedagogical Knowledge for participants to know when and what digital tools to use as a mechanism for student learning experiences and outcomes.

Data collection in this descriptive study sought to address the following questions:

1. What motivated participants to enroll in a graduate certificate program in online learning and assessment during the 2020–2021 academic year?

2. Following each course, how satisfied were participants in their ability to integrate technology?

3. After completing each course, what do participants still want to know in regard to technology integration?

4. How did participants perceive the courses to meet their professional development needs in technology integration?

5. How did participants perceive the courses to aid their development as technology leaders?

This study provides an overview of the COLA coursework, how this long-term PD met participants’ needs of integrating technology in their instruction, and how they developed into technology leaders by supporting colleagues and planning targeted PD for their school districts.

The next section provides information on the grant, courses, and participants in the study; as well as methods for data collection and analysis.

Methods

Grant overview

To ensure research-based, relevant models for developing and delivering learning opportunities surrounding virtual instruction and technology integration for area educators, the educational service center partnered with a regional university’s school of education (SoE) and jointly submitted and were awarded a GEER grant. Grant funds provided educators in the service area region an opportunity to earn a graduate certificate in online learning and assessment at no cost to them or their school district, and met a GEER grant requirement to provide teachers training in remote instruction. As described by the SoE leadership in the grant proposal, the COLA program had been previously open for enrollment at the university but “mothballed” since 2013, requiring updates to ensure current best practices in P-12 online learning and assessment.

Graduate certificate in online learning and assessment

The 12-credit hour graduate certificate, comprised of four 8-week courses, was revamped under the educational service center and SoE leaders, four university faculty members with educational technology expertise, and four practicing P-12 community partner educators considered technology specialists within the educational service center’s region. Coursework was informed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards, the foundational concepts from the Quality Matters framework, and the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model of technology integration framework to ensure participants gained a strong understanding of the characteristics of effective online learning and technology integration. The first course began in October 2020 and continued throughout the academic year, with the fourth and final course ending in July 2021.

Course descriptions

All four courses included both asynchronous and synchronous components. Courses were organized by module and included weekly readings, videos, assignments, and participant interaction. Asynchronous connections occurred with technology tools such as discussion boards, Padlet, Jamboard, Wakelet, etc. to model technology integration. Synchronous meetings were held twice per course and led by course instructors (further referred to as cohort coaches) to build community and networking opportunities and model social learning experiences in a virtual environment.

Course one

The first course focused on online planning and assessment, where participants learned how to develop and implement assessments effectively in a virtual context and through the use of technologies. They learned to evaluate online formative and summative assessment techniques and programs.

Course two

The second course introduced participants to an array of instructional delivery means and learner interaction options utilized by cohort coaches in online environments. Participants learned to evaluate technologies such as applications and learning management systems.

Course three

The third course focused on the foundations of online learning theory and the design elements of effective instruction, supporting participants in identifying essential characteristics of effective virtual instruction and technology integration. Participants designed learning experiences to use in their current classroom or applied it to their school role to differentiate, motivate, and support students’ social emotional needs by implementing principles of organization, communication, interaction, accessibility and relevance.

Course four

The final course was a culmination of the previous three and participants received a complimentary copy of The Distance Learning Playbook Grades K-12: Teaching for Engagement and Impact in Any Setting (Fisher et al., 2021) to use as they developed mini professional developments applicable to their school district. The final project was individualized as participants learned to assess their school or district’s needs, planned professional development, and measured the impact. Although each PD was differentiated, all incorporated course content learned while earning the COLA. Alignment of course learning objectives to technology integration frameworks are in Table 1.

Table 1. Alignment of COLA course objectives to technology integration frameworks.

Course-Level Learning Objective	ISTE Standard	SAMR	TPACK	Quality Matters K-12 Standards
Describe the various learning models (in-person, blended, and virtual).	2.5.c	S, A	TK, PK	2.4
Design instructional lessons with various learning models.	2.5a, 2.5c, 2.5c	S, A	PK	5.1
Synthesize personal and student goals for virtual assessments.	1.1a, 2.5 b		TK, PK	3.3
Determine viable assessment methods.	2.1		PK	3.4
Explain assessment results.	2.7b		CK, PK	3.1
Articulate philosophy of technology integration.	2.1a	A	TPK	1.2
Analyze strengths/ weakness of district LMS integration.	2.1		TK	4.1
Identify purposes of online collaboration.	2.1, 2.4	A, M	PK	5.2, 5.3
Identify ways to differentiate.	2.5	A, M	CK, PK	5.1
Create a teaching philosophy for virtual instruction.	2.2, 2.5	A, M	TPK	1.2
Utilize the elements of design and instruction to create an effective virtual learning environment for students.	2.5	A, M	TPK	4.1, 5.1
Balance synchronous and asynchronous instruction to maximize student outcomes.	2.5, 2.6	A, M	TCK, TPK	5.1, 6.2
Develop a collaborative, interactive learning experience for virtual learners.	2.4, 2.5	M, R	TPK	5.1, 6.2
Articulate the benefits of social emotional learning.	2.2		PK	5.2, 5.3
Apply strategies/techniques of effective classroom management for face to face, virtual, and hybrid environments.	2.4, 2.5, 2.6	M, R	TPK	5.1, 5.5, 6.2
Identify/analyze research-based resources for use in creating professional development in virtual learning.	2.1, 2.2	A, M	CK, TPK	4.2, 6.1
Develop professional development materials to meet district needs and learning objectives.	2.1, 2.2, 2.4a	A. M	CK, TPK	4.2, 6.1, 6.4

Participants

The educational service center offers PD to educators in 42 school districts within one region of a Midwestern state. At the time of the grant the districts employed 4,521 teachers charged with educating 67,478 P-12 students. By partnering with the SoE, more teachers could be reached by utilizing a “train-the-trainer” model where a select group of educators receive specialized training which they implemented in their classrooms and shared with school faculty through PD opportunities.

The grant provided funding for up to 62 educators to earn the graduate certificate free of charge. A total of 58 participants enrolled across 42 school districts within the educational service center’s region. Participants represented a variety of school roles including preschool, elementary, secondary and fine arts teachers in general and special education classrooms; technology leaders of schools and districts; and school administrators. Fifty-five participants completed all four courses and earned the certificate in online learning and assessment. To build relationships, all eight cohort coaches led the same group of 6–8 participants through the four courses. Each course was co-planned and co-taught by a university faculty member and a K-12 community school cohort coach. Two of the university faculty members are participant researchers of this study. Additional characteristics of the COLA participants are in Table 2.

Table 2. Characteristics of COLA program participants.

Characteristic	Percentage of Participants
Grade Level Taught
Elementary	26%
Middle	23%
Secondary	33%
Mode of Instruction
Face-to-Face	88%
Hybrid	5%
Virtual Only	7%
Years of Teaching Experience
1-5 Years	33%
6-10 Years	26%
11-20 Years	16%
21-30 Years	9%
Subject Taught
Elementary Generalist	19%
Special Education/Special Services	12%
ELA	11%
Science	16%
Math	5%
Social Studies	7%
Fine Arts/Elective	9%
Technology Coach or Administrator	12%
ELL/Migrant	4%

Data collection and analysis procedures

End-of-course questionnaires

To gather educator perceptions, online questionnaires were distributed following the conclusion of each course. These online questionnaires were distributed by an administrative assistant to guard against any sense of coercion by the researchers, informed consent was obtained, and survey data was not shared with the researchers until after course grades had been submitted. Each questionnaire used a combination of Likert-style scaled items and open-ended items. The scaled items remained the same across the four courses. One open-ended item was used across all four courses, and different open-ended questions were otherwise posed for each of the four courses.

The total number of responses for each online questionnaire ranged from 20 to 31, with the number of respondents declining gradually from the first course to the last. In an attempt to improve response rates, reminder messages were emailed to participants to complete the questionnaires. The final course ended in July after participants had completed their P-12 school year, making it especially challenging to receive responses as educators needed a break following the 2020–2021 pandemic teaching year. An overarching trend was participants rated all items quite favorably across all four courses, with mean scores ranging between 2.81 and 3.95 on a four-point scale. One implication of these mean differences was participants viewed the selection of course readings, course activities, and use of synchronous/asynchronous experiences more favorably as the program progressed. Another notable trend in the data was participants indicated steady, if modest, growth in their development of peer relationships across these four courses. Because of the small sample size, data were also analyzed using a Pearson correlation, though virtually all scaled items showed statistically significant correlations of high magnitude. This high degree of correlation was likely attributable to the aforementioned favorability with which respondents rated all items across all four administrations of the questionnaire. One observable exception was that no correlation was found between cohort coaches facilitating a positive learning environment and any of the other items. Further, Items 1, 2, 6, and 7 all showed significant (p < 0.01), positive correlations of moderate-to-high magnitude with coefficients ranging from .641 to .944. A complete overview of the total responses and mean scores for each scaled item appears in Table 3.

Table 3. Mean scores from Likert-type items on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

Survey Item	Course 1 N = 31	Course 2 N = 25	Course 3 N = 23	Course 4 N = 20
1. The activities for this course helped expand my knowledge of the topics being studied.	3.19	3.43	3.42	3.65
2. The readings/media provided were appropriate for the course.	3.10	3.43	3.46	3.70
3. My cohort coach facilitated a positive environment for online learning.	3.87	3.87	3.81	3.95
4. My cohort coach provided adequate support to my cohort group.	3.77	3.87	3.81	3.95
5. The assignments I submitted were graded fairly.	3.84	3.91	3.73	3.90
6. I have formed relationships with peers that can lead to us collaborating in the future.	2.81	3.04	3.08	3.25
7. This course utilized an appropriate balance of synchronous and asynchronous experiences.	3.35	3.39	3.50	3.80
8. I feel prepared to share what I have learned with colleagues in my school/district.	3.52	3.65	3.50	3.70

Open-ended questionnaire items were independently coded by the researchers to generate themes inductively using methods recommended by Creswell and Creswell (2017). A summary of topics about which participants were surveyed and the prominent themes emerging from their responses appears in Table 4.

Table 4. Topics addressed in end-of-course questionnaires and prominent themes from participants’ responses.

Topic	Emerging Themes	Post-Course Survey
Motivation to participate	Free; desire to pursue graduate degree; seeking increased proficiency with technology integration; directly asked by peer or supervisor	1
Progress with technology integration	Room to improve; seeking specific apps; balancing technology with human connection; application to practice; tailoring to students; aligning with content area; eager to try new things	1, 2, 3
Growth as leader in technology integration	Gaining confidence; viewed as leader by peers and students; sharing resources with peers; seeking further technology resources; view of education is expanded	2, 4
Needs for professional development	Need direct experience; seeking collaboration or exchange; value expert input or guidance; webinars; LMS tutorials; need time to implement and develop	3, 4
Confidence in creating or implementing professional development	Prepared; some had experience already; concerns about compatibility with LMS; felt COLA gave ample practice; eager to share with peers	4
Context of education	Blended learning likely to continue; expecting more hybrid approaches; concerned about reception by peers; focused on student engagement; pondering details of organization and instructional design	3, 4

Focus group interviews

Two focus group interviews occurred, one in August 2021 and one in September 2021. A total of three participants took part in these focus groups, lasting approximately 60 minutes each. Focus group questions included:

1. What motivated you to participate in the COLA courses?

2. What did you expect from doing this and were your expectations met?

3. What has been the impact of the coursework?

4. How do you teach differently than you did pre-pandemic? Compared to educators that did not participate in COLA courses?

5. What does tech integration look like this school year (2021–2022)?

Although limited in scope and participation, the focus groups were used as an opportunity to pose questions related to these themes and seek some degree of corroboration from participants. These interviews were conducted via Zoom and recorded, then transcribed later with the help of a third-party transcription service. A more robust account of notable themes from the focus group interviews appears in the Discussion, as part of the larger portrait of participants’ experiences in the COLA program.

Results

Participant motivation to enroll in COLA courses

Participants were employed by school districts during 2020–2021; a year filled with uncertainties related to the pandemic. Educators were charged with teaching children with a variety of social emotional needs in multiple modalities in a climate of constant change. The researchers were unsure how many educators would want to take on graduate coursework, even if it was free.

The first end-of-course questionnaire distributed after the conclusion of the first course asked participants to describe their motivation for enrolling in the certificate program. A substantial number of responses highlighted the urgency of technology integration in the context of the pandemic, with statements like “I want to be the best teacher I can be for my students in this new environment.” Another major theme that emerged was participants intended to pursue a graduate degree, and many respondents noted that the grant-funded nature of this series of courses removed a heavy financial barrier. Several respondents were also directly selected by administrators or asked personally to enroll in the program, which represented another motivating factor.

The three focus group participants largely indicated that the COLA courses presented a clear opportunity to formally complete a graduate degree. One student intended to use the courses as electives in a doctoral program, and another stated that the focus of the program and cost reduction motivated them to finally pursue the Master’s degree they had been contemplating. Essentially, data from both the questionnaires and the interviews demonstrated that the combination of technology integration coursework, grant-funded credit hours, and opportunity to complete part of a graduate degree were substantial, intersecting factors in motivating participants to be part of this certificate program.

Satisfaction in integrating technology

Participants were asked the same open-ended question at the conclusion of each course, prompting them to reflect on their progress in technology integration and what they still wanted to learn. The first course in this sequence focused largely on creating a frame for technology integration, with an emphasis on blended models and deliberate use of assessment methods. Although respondents were largely satisfied with their progress in technology integration, the prevailing trend at the conclusion of the first course was they wanted more direct exposure to applications and techniques. As a point of comparison, the second course in the sequence featured extensive use of web-based apps, and participants largely indicated higher degrees of satisfaction. However, this exposure to a wider array of applications also sparked some apparent reflection on how many options existed, how quickly programs and resources change, and how complex the integration of technology with content and pedagogy can truly be.

These open-ended responses also provided evidence of questions participants were still working to resolve, many of which were rooted in specifics of content areas or district policies. For example, one participant expressed some mild frustration about the emphasis on virtual breakout rooms since, “Our district doesn’t allow unsupervised video conferencing, so I'm still not sure how to effectively facilitate small groups.” The participants from content areas like physical education or the visual and performing arts similarly served as a reminder that integrating technology must take different forms and fundamentally requires teachers have familiarity with technological options and the discretion to marry these tools to their locations, materials, and purposes. This theme, along with the vital recognition that technology integration requires sustained practice, was summed up by the following educator’s comment:

I have much more to learn to become comfortable. I need to use resources often to become confident on them. Some areas don’t work as well in my subject area, since mine is a performance class. I can use resources online more for enrichment than I can for my content area as a whole.

Relevant to the statement above, one focus group interviewee stated that direct exposure to various tools helped give “purposeful practice.” As they put it, they were passingly familiar with tools like Wakelet or Jamboard, but the structured activities of the COLA courses provided a vehicle and motivation to explore these tools and apply them to professional practice. Another participant described being highly conscious of effective pedagogy across both online and face-to-face modalities. Evidence obtained from participants generally demonstrated increased fluency with technological tools, but also an important and emerging sense that effective technology integration relies on deliberate decisions and attention to specifics of content, pedagogy, and local conditions.

Professional development

End-of-course questionnaires posed several opportunities for participants to reflect on professional development. Specifically, participants were asked to describe their own continuing PD needs related to technology integration, as well as to reflect on their culminating COLA experience of creating a PD opportunity to share with colleagues or other school stakeholders.

When asked to identify PD opportunities that participants viewed as most useful to themselves and their schools, three major themes emerged: more access to apps, opportunities for direct experience, and avenues for collaboration or exchange. Several participants expressed wanting clearer guidance on how to use tools already available, such as “I think PD opportunities where we learn about how to effectively use our digital content for our textbooks would be the most helpful.” There was also a sentiment of seeking guidance and PD with clear relevance, as expressed by statements such as wishing for PD “where you actually sit down and USE it… you cannot learn technology by reading ABOUT it.” Although some sought collaboration with peers, participants expressed a desire for either expert guidance or not feeling alone in implementing technology. This was best represented by the statement, “Having a professional come in and train us would be the most effective. Often times we are told to play around with the new tool and figure it out on our own.”

In the concluding COLA course, participants were required to create a PD experience of their own, with the intention of implementing it in their school or district as part of the train-the-trainer model that informed this program. When directly surveyed on the degree to which they felt prepared to create and implement PD, the vast majority of participants indicated feeling well-prepared or somewhat prepared. However, participants provided limited elaboration on specific ways they felt confident in providing PD. The statement “I feel okay about creating and implementing PD. However, I don’t feel I'm 100% confident, but I think that comes with practice, not anything that can be learned from a course” typifies the responses offered by COLA participants. Lingering concerns were slightly more apparent than strengths, with participants indicating some remaining questions about how to translate their COLA experience (which was Canvas-based) to a different LMS, or even wanting the direct support of the university to lend legitimacy to their local PD efforts. Coupled with the evidence presented in the prior paragraph, information received from participants on the topic of PD hinted at an embedded sense that both receiving and providing PD hinged largely on expertise and on meaningful, direct practice.

Discussion

COVID-19 presented unique challenges as educators were forced into emergency remote teaching in the spring of 2020, then into an uncertain 2020–2021 school year of different modes of teaching in changing school environments due to quarantines and unforeseen circumstances. The transition to remote teaching revealed teachers lacked knowledge in technology integration, yet did not receive professional development in online learning and assessment prior to the 2020–2021 school year as administrators focused on safety guidelines for reopening and did not have clear state or federal guidelines to follow (Natanson & Strauss, 2020; Trust & Whalen, 2020). Prior to the pandemic, research consistently found a lack of PD for teachers related to technology integration (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Kopcha, 2012; Ruggiero & Mong, 2015; Walsh & Farren, 2018). Results from this study indicate educators valued this long-term PD in online learning and assessment during the year of pandemic teaching because they were learning the course information and immediately applying it to their teaching and in their classrooms.

Teachers are creative and were willing to find ways to cope with the challenging situation caused by COVID-19 as demonstrated by the participants in this study who chose to enroll in a fully-funded graduate certificate program in online learning and assessment to include technology integration (Gudmundsdottir & Hathoway, 2020). This included preschool and elementary teachers; a group where research in online teaching and assessment is severely lacking, and online learning theories are generally not included when developing online teaching methods (Wagner, 2021). Yet teachers who believe the process of integrating technology is second nature find weaving tech tools into curriculum and teaching techniques a scaffold for all children (Ruggiero & Mong, 2015). Teachers’ decision making in technology integration is influenced by their purposes, beliefs, and professional knowledge (Lepp et al., 2021). Since these courses took place over the 2020–2021 academic year, educators had time to implement best practices and will be more likely to retain what they learned.

Participants in this study completed coursework as a cohort. Thus, this followed best practice in professional development learning, highlighting the importance of shared peer experiences and collaboration (Christensen & Alexander, 2020; Kopcha, 2012; Polly & Hannafin, 2010; Schrum & Levin, 2013; Tondeur et al., 2013; Wagner, 2021). Cohorts were purposefully grouped to include participants from different school districts to allow for networking and to learn from one another. Wagner (2021) specifically found that PK-5 teachers need to learn from each other, a practice supported by COLA’s synchronous meetings and weekly discussion assignments that included traditional discussion boards as well as the inclusion of tech sharing tools such as Padlet, Wakeboard and Jamboard, allowing participants to see the tool modeled; and practiced using it while learning with and from each other. The cohort model supported participants’ growth as technology leaders.

During the second COLA course, participants were surveyed on which Learning Management System (LMS) their district used. Google Classroom was most mentioned, yet it is not an LMS, but widely and similarly used; thus, many teachers view it as such as Google regularly adds new features and syncs with educational administration software such as Skyward 2.0 (McGinnis, 2021). Teachers say it is user friendly, allows for easy organization of course materials, supports communication, and provides timely feedback through the use of Google Forms. It is also free. During one of the synchronous meetings, participants in one researcher’s cohort expressed fear of Google starting to charge for their products as they would lose access to all of Google’s tech tools in which they heavily used. Other concerns turned to how Google uses their students’ personal data. Technoethics, or the social implication of technologies, are important to consider when exposing children to the long-term impact of educational technology as what is technically free may not actually be (Krutka et al., 2019). This is just one example of a technology issue that organically emerged during a synchronous meeting discussion, further supporting and building participants’ knowledge base and their development as technology leaders.

Analysis of the data from this study shows participant growth in how they integrated technology in their teaching, and shared what they learned to support colleagues as all were navigating a new teaching environment. With a 95% completion rate, this is evidence participants valued these courses. Participants returned to their districts with professional development targeted for their schools with plans to measure impact. This research is important as most educators include technology in their pedagogy, yet it might not be fully integrated or grounded in best practice.

Participants’ progression through the COLA courses, and the related evidence from end-of-course questionnaires, also showed glimmers of an emerging, organic experience with the TPACK model and the more holistic view of technology that TPACK provides. At the end of the first course, the great majority of COLA participants were framing technology integration (both their progress and continuing needs) around specific apps or tools. In other words, participants were arguably recognizing a gap in their Technological Knowledge, but potentially emphasizing this at the expense of integration with Pedagogical Knowledge and Content Knowledge. After finishing the second COLA course, which heavily emphasized exploration and evaluation of apps for instructional purposes, the feedback provided by participants suggested they were recognizing the need to reconcile Technological Knowledge with the other dimensions in a TPACK model. One unprompted example of a connection to Content Knowledge was the statement that “Some of the things we’re doing are difficult to integrate into HS PE, but I still want to be more knowledgeable so that I'm able to help my fellow teachers.” Similarly, an example of deeper reflection related to Pedagogical Knowledge was the following:

The vocabulary is becoming something I use more often, and the principles of an effective online classroom are something that I consider more now than I did before. I am excited to see how to set up a more user-friendly online classroom that engages students more than our LMS of Google Classroom.

It should be noted that COLA participants did receive exposure to the TPACK framework during at least one of the four courses. However, they were not required to explicitly or consistently draw upon TPACK. As may frequently be the case in teacher education coursework for technology integration, the COLA participants were presented with models for application or integration, like TPACK and SAMR, and asked to first encounter these models in a broad, holistic fashion. An implication of the data acquired as COLA participants proceeded through these four courses was, they may have been organically, perhaps intuitively, generating their own understanding of the concepts underlying TPACK as they recognized gaps in their own practice and sought to rectify this. This may further suggest that designing or revamping sequences of technology integration courses, like those within the COLA program, could be more effective in conveying the fundamentals of TPACK by deliberately creating a series of experiences to foster a more experiential and constructivist approach to integrative technology integration.

Schools within the educational service center region opened for face-to-face instruction during the 2021–2022 school year, although some experienced a temporary shift back to remote instruction, or e-learning, as COVID cases spiked and schools lacked personnel to staff classrooms. Through the GEER-funded COLA courses, participants returned to their classrooms better equipped to purposefully integrate technology. Further, for their capstone project, each teacher planned a targeted professional development for their school or district with plans to measure the impact. This was not a one-size fits all PD that has been found to be ineffective (Desimone et al., 2002; Meyers et al., 2016; Sugar, 2005). Instead, participants utilized best practices for tech-PD using a needs assessment by gathering data from district teachers and stakeholders (Karlin et al., 2018). It included clear objectives, was grounded in research, differentiated for teacher-learners, included collaboration, had frequent assessment pieces, and had a plan to measure impact. The PD created by participants was individualized and tailored to school or district needs, thus impacting many more educators and students than the original GEER funding of 58 educators across 42 districts.

The leadership team in this study recognized the timeliness of providing educators with needed courses in how to integrate technology in online learning and assessment, grounded in research and best practices, just-in-time. Not all recipients of federal CARES Act funding, that in turn funded GEER grants, were willing or able to provide the needed resources so quickly. For example, Texas received nearly $20 million dollars from the U.S. Department of Education toward developing teacher training and building out virtual courses for P-12 students; however, they were not ready to provide this by the time school began in fall 2020 (Natanson & Strauss, 2020). It will be important to continue to offer professional development in blended learning for teachers to focus on technology integration instead of the technology tool alone (Wear, 2021). With technology devices now in P-12 children’s hands and as technology continuously evolves, this must be done in a timely and consistent manner.

Initial survey results indicate participants perceive an improved ability to evaluate technology tools and assessments and use them in their practice. This was achieved through course content and interactions with classmates and cohort coaches through bi-weekly synchronous Zoom meetings. Emerging themes from open-ended items indicate improved confidence in incorporating technology tools in practice and serving as technology leaders in school buildings and districts. This is important as some school districts continue to offer fully virtual options in addition to face-to-face instruction. Participants in this study perceived their teaching methods evolved to include a balance of technology and traditional methods, depending on the lesson and student need, and will continue to teach this way even in a fully face-to-face environment. Overall, it appears offering just-in-time PD in technology integration to educators in a teaching crisis was something participants found beneficial.

Limitations and further considerations

Due to the unique nature of the pandemic, the timeline for GEER funding was quick. This study highlights a particular way funds were used to support PD in one region of a Midwestern state.

Pandemic teaching occurred in a variety of modes. Most participants in this study were simultaneously teaching in-person and at-home students during some or all of the 2020–2021 school year. Most of the 42 districts in the educational service center region only offered face-to-face instruction during the 2021–2022 school year.

Educators must continue best practices in technology integration as students are back in face-to-face environments with one-to-one devices and limited e-learning days (Putman, 2022). Teachers need to consider the best times to integrate technology and when traditional teaching practices are more appropriate and best for their students. Educational technology changes rapidly and makes technology integration a moving target (Ruggiero & Mong, 2015). Some of the COLA participants will continue to teach in fully-online schools and must stay abreast of best practices and evaluate new technologies as they emerge to ground their teaching in research. Therefore, all educators need to have the necessary knowledge and skills to teach face-to-face, hybrid, blended, or fully online (D’Orio, 2020; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).

Conclusion

When data was collected for this study, there was hope for the COVID vaccine and an end to the pandemic. At the time of this writing, COVID is still a world-wide issue. COVID-related funding has provided devices to most P-12 students, and technology and tech integration is continuously changing in P-12 education. This mass infusion of technology has the potential to reshape student learning (Rauf, 2020).

Although GEER funding has ended, it is important to take away the successes from this university-community partnership. A strength of these courses was they were co-planned and co-taught by university faculty and K-12 community school partners. The participants in the study benefited by having two perspectives in the leadership; faculty who were aware of current research and community partner educators who were in the trenches of pandemic teaching and truly understood what our participants were experiencing. Both groups contributed so much more, and the partnerships established in this study should continue as there are many potential ways to benefit teacher education beyond this long-term PD of COLA courses. Connected to this study, one way for universities to support P-12 partners is by assisting with planning, implementing, and measuring the impact of tech-PD and allowing researchers the opportunity to study best practices in tech-PD (Karlin et al., 2018).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.