TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Technology and High-Quality Professional Development by Julia Talbert A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah March 31, 2025 Approved Katarina Anderson, Ph.D. Ryan Cain, Ph.D. Jessie Nixon, Ph.D. 1 TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2 Abstract To be successful in the workforce, students need to be taught 21st-century skills. In 2022, Pantic and Cain found that teachers were willing to implement technology into their classrooms if they were actively engaged in learning technology and they were taught in a way that did not lead to cognitive overload. As technology continues to change, teachers need access to more effective technological professional development. Nine technology specialists from Utah were interviewed to share how they engaged teachers in the learning process and how they avoided teachers’ cognitive overload while teaching. The findings show that technology instructors knew how to engage teachers while teaching technology; the main barrier they faced was the amount of time they were given in front of teachers. This paper describes how technology instructors help the teachers within their districts become more comfortable with implementing technology in their classrooms. TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 3 Acknowledgments I first want to thank my family for the support they have given me while working on my Master’s degree. My husband, Jayson, has kept me well fed, always given me a listening ear and a shoulder of support. My children, Isabella, Autumn, Evan, and Ari, have believed in me every step of the way, and I hope they know they can accomplish anything in their lives. My parents, Bob and Missy for supporting me all the way from Illinois. My second thank you goes to Dr. Katarina Anderson. If you don’t have a Dr. K in your life, you need one. She is kind, caring, and amazing. She helped me take my incoherent thoughts and turn them into the thesis it is today. I also want to thank Dr. Ryan Cain and Dr. Jessie Nixon for being part of my committee and for the feedback and suggestions they gave. Lastly, I have to thank my cats. Though they were not as helpful as they thought they were, they kept me company for the countless hours I spent completing my thesis. TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 4 Table of Contents Abstract 2 Table of Contents 4 Table of Tables 6 Table of Figures 7 Introduction 8 Literature Review 10 21st Century Skills 10 Teaching 21st Century Skills 10 Cognitive Overload 11 Effective Professional Development 13 Method 14 Research Design 14 Recruitment 15 Data Collection and Procedure 15 Sample 15 Data Analysis 17 Results 24 Barriers to Teaching Technology 24 Engaging Teachers in the Learning Process 26 Avoiding Teachers’ Cognitive Overload 31 Discussion Limitations 36 41 TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 5 Recommendations 41 Conclusion 41 References 43 Appendix A: Demographic Survey 48 Appendix B: Interview Protocol 49 TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 6 Table of Tables Table 1: Participant Demographic Information 15 Table 2: Codebook for Barriers to Teaching Technology (RQ1) 19 Table 3: Codebook for Engaging Teachers in the Learning Process (RQ2) 20 Table 4: Codebook for Avoiding Teachers’ Cognitive Overload (RQ3) 21 TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 7 Table of Figures Figure 1: Frequency of Codes for Barriers to Teaching Technology (RQ1) 17 Figure 2: Frequency of Codes for Engaging Teachers in the Learning Process (RQ2) 18 Figure 3: Frequency of Codes for Avoiding Teachers’ Cognitive Overload (RQ3) 18 TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 8 Introduction With the turn of the new century came the need for a new way of teaching, including implementing technology and instructing how to use technology as it continues to change (Ainley et al., 2016; Geisinger, 2016; González-Pérez, & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022; Hursen et al., 2023; Ramaila, & Molwele 2022; Shafie, 2019; Sweller, 2008). In a 2022 study, Pantic and Cain found that most teachers in Utah, a western US state, were willing to implement technology into their classrooms if they were actively engaged in the learning of that technology. Pantic and Cain (2022) also found that teachers being introduced to new technology often experience cognitive overload and have a hard time applying old pedagogical knowledge to new technologies. According to the American Psychological Association (2018), cognitive overload is “the situation in which the demands placed on a person by mental work are greater than the person’s mental abilities can cope with” (para. 1). With technology constantly growing and evolving, something needs to change in how teachers are taught new technologies (Blundell et al., 2020; Carpenter et al., 2020; Chiu, 2022; Durff & Carter, 2019; González-Pérez, & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022; Martinez, 2021; Pantic et al., 2023). Teachers need more effective and efficient access to technological professional development, one that is designed to give them the opportunity to learn how to use the technological tool through direct engagement while not leading to cognitive overload (Durff & Carter, 2019; Fernández-Batanero, et al., 2022; González-Pérez, & RamírezMontoya, 2022; Martinez, 2021; Pantic & Cain, 2022). While the children of this generation do not know a world without technology, they still need explicit instruction in how to use it and a great place for that to happen is within the classroom (Ainley et al., 2016; Lucas et al., 2021; Shafie, 2019; Szymkowiak et al., 2021). Szymkowiak et al. (2021), for instance, found that student-age children are interested in using technology and they are more willing to use technology that their teachers introduce to them. TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 9 This puts teachers in a position where they not only need to be able to teach their content specific curriculum, but they need to teach the skills that students need to be successful in the 21st century (Ainley et al., 2016; Geisinger, 2016; González-Pérez, & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022; Hursen et al., 2023; Martinez, 2021; Shafie, 2019). As a teacher, I see how technology continues to change, and while I would not consider myself an expert in technology, I have taken on the role of technology support in grade level teams in my school. There is a disconnect when it comes to technology in education: teachers want to learn and implement the technology, but they lack the ability to do so when not engaged in the technology being taught, or when they experience cognitive overload while they learn it (Chiu, 2022; Durff & Carter, 2019; González-Pérez, & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022; Martinez, 2021; Pantic & Cain, 2022). This in turn affects their students’ abilities to learn and use new technologies that will be needed in the future (Lucas et al., 2021; Shafie, 2019). Pantic and Cain (2022) made the following recommendations regarding teachers’ development in using technology; (a) providing space for demonstration and practice; (b) chunking sessions in order not to overwhelm working memory of teachers; and (c) modeling self-exploration strategies using online and peer resources. This project looks to build on the research of Pantic and Cain by continuing to improve technological professional development by posing the following research questions: RQ 1: When introducing a new technology tool to teachers, what are the barriers that technology instructors encounter? RQ 2: When introducing a new technology tool to teachers, how do technology instructors engage teachers in the learning process? RQ3: When introducing a new technology tool to teachers, how do technology instructors avoid teachers’ cognitive overload? TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 10 Literature Review 21st Century Skills The skills students need to be taught in this century go beyond the typical subjects taught in schools, these specific skills are commonly called 21st century skills (Ainley et al. 2016; Geisinger, 2016; Hursen, 2023; Shafie et al., 2019). Gaining these skills in school will help students be more prepared when they enter the workforce (González-Pérez & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022). Two skills that all students need, no matter what century they were born into, are the ability to communicate and collaborate with other people (Care et al., 2016). Students will need to be taught how to work with groups while within the classroom, but they will also need to be taught how to be good digital citizens by learning how to interact with people safely and positively while online (Ainley et al., 2016; Larson & Miller, 2011). Teaching students how to be good digital citizens is important, because digital citizenship is not limited to location but is becoming more global. Having this understanding will help students understand that being able to solve bigger problems on their own is not typical and they will need to work with others while in the workforce (Care et al., 2016). In order for students to be able to effectively use technology, they need to have basic knowledge about what the technology does and how to use it (Ainley et al., 2016). After students have a basic understanding of how to use technology, they can use it to create and collaborate (Ainley et al., 2016). To be successful after high school graduation and in the workforce (Ainley et al., 2016), students need to be taught how to use technology “to research, organize, evaluate, and communicate information,” (Larson & Miller, 2011, p.122). Teaching 21st Century Skills TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 11 Teaching students in this century can be quite demanding (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2022) and it requires some teachers to change their mindsets, especially when it comes to teaching technology to students (Durff & Carter, 2019). What makes technology difficult is that teachers need to be competent in their knowledge and usage of technology before they can be expected to teach it to their students (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2022). Unfortunately, studies show that some teachers are not prepared to teach technology to digital native students (Allen & van der Velden, 2012). For teachers to be effective in teaching 21st century skills, they need access to high-quality professional development (Martinez, 2021) that doesn’t result in high cognitive load (Pantic & Cain, 2022). Cognitive Overload When learning something completely new, the brain can only handle a certain amount of new information before it becomes overwhelmed. This phenomenon is known as cognitive overload (Garnett, 2020; Sweller, 2008; Sweller, 1988). This is especially true when teachers learn new technology. Teachers can feel cognitive overload because they are overwhelmed by the amount of information they are being introduced to (Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Sweller, 2008), which can lead to them not being able to learn and apply the information, and how the information is being taught to them (Garnett, 2020; Sweller, 2008). Cognitive load lessens when teachers have time to practice what they are learning and as more knowledge is gained, teachers can process information in a more effective way requiring less effort mentally (Feldon, 2007). Types of Cognitive Load Cognitive load can be classified into two different types: intrinsic and extraneous. Intrinsic cognitive load refers to the difficulty of what is being learned (Feldon, 2007; Garnett, 2020). Applying this definition to learning new technology, the intrinsic cognitive load would TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 12 result from how difficult and complex the technology being taught is to navigate or use. Extraneous load refers to the way in which the information is being taught (Feldon, 2007; Garnett, 2020). When learning new technology, extraneous cognitive load would result from being taught in a way that does not actively engage the learner. If the technology being taught is highly complex and the instructor is teaching the technology through direct instruction, without giving teachers the opportunity to engage in the technology, this may result in both forms of cognitive overload being experienced. When teaching new technology, technology instructors should be aware of how cognitive overload can affect the teachers they are teaching and look for ways to reduce it (Pantic & Cain, 2022). Ways to Reduce Cognitive Overload One way to reduce cognitive overload is by having teachers participate in pre-task activities by learning the basics of what will be taught to them before they are taught (Warrick, 2021). This could include having teachers watch a video that will introduce the technology that they will be learning about, so they can have a general idea of what the technology offers. Another way to reduce cognitive overload is by having teachers collaborate while they are learning (Warrick, 2021). Collaboration with the knowledgeable other has long been proven to support learning (Doolittle, 1995). As the teachers are learning new technology, they could be put into groups with other teachers also learning the technology so they can help each other troubleshoot and learn how to use it. Professional development instructors can help to lower the cognitive load of teachers by being aware of the teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the technology prior to teaching the technology (Westlake, 2019). Instructors could survey the teachers before instructing to see what they know and adapt their instruction accordingly. Another way to help lower the cognitive TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 13 load of teachers is by remembering that the working memory can only handle so much information and if that capacity is reached or goes beyond its capacity, the ability for the learner to retain the information lowers (Sweller, 2008). Instructors can keep in mind the limits of the working memory and have the lesson time longer to be able to teach a small amount and then give teachers a break to process the information. Effective Professional Development Participation in professional development (PD) is an important part of being a teacher, and while sometimes it can be perceived as negative, PD can help teachers be more current with the content they teach, be aware of instructional methods that are successful in the classroom, and positively increase their teaching skills (Luneta, 2012). When PD is presented effectively, it can help teachers’ instruction be more effective which can lead to higher student achievement, but not all professional development is created equal (Luneta, 2012; Pharis et al., 2019). Highquality PD has been linked to high job satisfaction, high expectations for students, and a greater willingness to implement curriculum (Song et al., 2017). According to Song et al. (2017), highquality PD needs to include the following criteria: content-focused learning, active learning, and collaborative learning. Content Focused Learning The first criterion for high-quality PD is that the instruction being taught to teachers must be focused on strategies for a specific part of the content they teach (Luneta, 2012; Song et al., 2017). That specific focus helps teachers gain more knowledge in that content area, which can lead to more effective instruction for their students (Song et al., 2017). This explicit instruction should also occur when introducing technology to use in the classroom. PD instructors should TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 14 teach how to implement technology into specific content areas, giving explicit examples of how the technology can be used within the curriculum. Active Learning Studies show that students, no matter the age, take more ownership of their learning if they are actively engaged while being taught (Ramaila & Molwele, 2022; Song et al., 2017). Teachers especially are able to get more out of PD if they are actively engaged while learning (Blank, 2013; Song et al., 2017). This means teachers are involved in the instruction and not just taught in a lecture format. Therefore, teachers get to participate, firsthand, in the strategies being introduced and see how the strategies can be implemented within their classrooms. When teaching a new technology, PD should be introduced in the same way, teachers should have firsthand access to the technology being taught. Collaborative Learning When teachers work together, students do better in school (Blank, 2013; Song et al., 2017). When teachers work together, the school environment changes and results in teachers who feel valued and safe to share their ideas with their peers (Song et al., 2017). If teachers are learning together, they can work together to build and reinforce the skills they learned (Blank, 2013). When teachers participate in collaborative learning, they are able to share their ideas with their peers and learn from each other. This is true when learning new technology, when teachers learn new technology together, they are able to help each other become more proficient and better able to implement the technology they learned (Warrick, 2021). Method Research Design TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 15 This study was designed as a qualitative research study. Qualitative research includes the study of social meanings through the use of interviews and observations (Merriam & Grenier, 2019). In this study, I collected demographic data (see Appendix A) and then conducted semistructured interviews (see Appendix B) to study the process and instruction used by technology instructors when teaching new technology to teachers. Recruitment For this study, I recruited technology instructors through email, using convenience sampling, after being introduced to them by my advisor, and purposeful sampling, after finding their information on their district website (Patton, 2002). After the technology instructors responded, I set up meetings through Zoom. Once the interviews were completed, the participants received a $10 Amazon e-gift card. Data Collection and Procedure Before conducting the interviews, I had the technology instructors answer questions on their demographics (Appendix A) via a Google form. This survey had six questions asking the instructors their educational level, and their training and/or certifications they have in technology. The remainder of the questions focused on the number of years the instructors worked in a school, as a classroom teacher, as an instructional coach, and finally as a technology instructor. During the interview, I followed the interview protocol (Appendix B) to conduct semistructured interviews (Patton, 2002). The interviews lasted approximately 20-30 minutes and were conducted online, via Zoom. Each interview was audio recorded via Zoom with the data saved in a secure location to protect private information. Sample TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 16 I recruited nine technology instructors to participate in the interviews. The technology instructors worked in schools from six to 26 years (M=13.6, SD=3.5). The amount of time the technology instructors have worked as educational technology coaches ranged from three to 21 years (M=5.8 years, SD=5.8). See Table 1 for demographic information for all nine participants. Names used in the table are pseudonyms. Table 1 Participant Demographic Information Participant District pseudonym Este Davis Educational Training Level Master's Apple Learning degree Coach, Microsoft Innovative Educator Expert, Adobe Creative Educator, Canva Educator, Chat for Schools/AI Certified Dorthea Ogden Master's degree Marjorie Betty Government Organization Weber Willow Jordan YS* YCT YIC YTI 8.5 5.5 4 4 EdTech Endorsement, Multiple Google Certification, Canva Certified, Adobe Certified, Nearpod Coach 13 8 3 3 Master's degree Master's degree M.Ed in Ed Tech and Instructional Design Google certified, Adobe, Nearpod Coach, SchoolAi, Canva, Canvas, and Utah EdTech Endorsement 6 10 3 3 17 14 3 9 Master's degree Educational Technology Endorsement 16 6 10 4 TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 17 Daisy Granite Master's degree Ed Tech 12 Endorsement, Google Certified Coach, in progress ISTE certified educator 5 7 7 Cassandra Iron Bachelor's degree EdTech Endorsement, several badges/certificates from various EdTech Tools 14 14 3.5 3.5 Clara Weber Master's degree Nearpod Advanced Certified Educator, Adobe Creative Educator Level 1 & 2, Adobe Creative Educator District Leader, School AI Certified Educator Level 1 & 2, Ed Tech Endorsement (in progress) 10 10 4 4 Peter Jordan Master's degree Google Level 1, 26 5 21 21 Admin over Learn Platform, Digital Learning Specialist over Classroom Management Software and Nearpod, Train on Canvas, Google, Mastery Connect, Canva and SchoolAI. Note. YS=Years in Schools; YCT= Years as Classroom Teacher; YIC=Years as Instructional Coach; YTI=Years as Technology Instructor. Data Analysis After the interviews were conducted, I transcribed the audios verbatim and looked for the utterances where the interviewees answered my research questions. Those instances were highlighted using an open coding (Patton, 2002) approach by two separate researchers. Their TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 18 length varied and ranged from a few words to a few sentences. This process resulted in 347 codes. Identified codes were then grouped into related themes using a thematic analysis (Patton, 2002) approach. This process resulted in two themes for RQ1, three themes for RQ2 and four themes for RQ3. See Figures 1, 2 and 3 for frequency counts per RQ. All the themes were organized per RQ and described in Tables 2-4 below. Figure 1 Frequency of Codes for Barriers to Teaching Technology (RQ1) 70% 60% 27 (57.4%) 50% 40% 20 (42.6%) 30% 20% 10% 0% Time Barriers Other Barriers The total of codes for barriers to teaching technology to teachers. TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Figure 2 Frequency of Codes for Engaging Teachers in the Learning Process (RQ2) 40% 35% 87 (37.8%) 77 (33.5%) 30% 66 (28.7%) 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Diverse Instructional Strategies Provide Relevance and Get Teacher Buy In Provide Scaffolds The total of codes for how teachers are engaged in the learning process. Figure 3 Frequency of Codes for Avoiding Teachers’ Cognitive Overload (RQ3) 19 TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 20 35% 30% 23 (32.90%) 21 (30%) 25% 16 (22.90%) 20% 15% 10 (14.20%) 10% 5% 0% Be Flexible, Mindful, and Approachable Differentiate Get Them Started Chunk Information into Smaller Units/Goals The total of codes for avoiding teachers’ cognitive overload. Table 2 Codebook for Barriers to Teaching Technology (RQ1) Code Definition Example Time barriers Technology instructors mentioned how the amount of time they are given to teach during professional development can limit what they were able to teach. Peter: “Usually you get one setting because you get faculty meetings that are usually either once a month or twice a month, and they're usually before school. So they have 30 minutes, and or they get an hour, and they have so much they've got to cram into that hour.” Other barriers Betty: “we have a couple of our schools where the principals will not let us into their building, and that to me is, doesn't hurt my feelings, I have plenty of work to do, but that hurts the teachers that are in that building.” Technology instructors mentioned how being able to teach technology to the teachers in their district is difficult due to teachers fearing the technology they learn will change faster than they can learn it, some administrators do not allow the technology instructors to teach within their schools, and some districts only want teachers to focus on Cassandra: “currently in our district, any professional TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT professional development in core subjects. 21 development that's not math or language arts, especially on the elementary umbrella, is deemed as optional or at the school's request. So that means that I very rarely have an opportunity to provide some skills and competence in digital tools in a bigger, bigger vein or bigger group.” TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 22 Table 3 Codebook for Engaging Teachers in the Learning Process (RQ2) Code Definition Example Provide relevance and get teacher buy-in Technology instructors mentioned that before they teach a new technology, they need to make teachers feel comfortable, they need to show teachers how to use technology to teach their standards, and help build teachers’ buy-in by showing them how technology can help them with their teaching. Daisy: “if the teacher is saying, ‘Oh, I want to use tech.’ I might be asking like, ‘Okay, what's going well in your classroom? Where are their struggles? You know. Like, give me more context.’ Maybe I'll go in and observe, and then we'll have a conversation of like. ‘Oh, it seems like engagement is a struggle. Let's talk about that,’ and that's how we're kind of tying those in.” Diverse instructional strategies Technology instructors mentioned using various types of instructional strategies while teaching technology to teachers including, direct instruction, demonstration/modeling, handson teaching, discussions, reciprocal teaching, and having teachers self-reflect. Provide scaffolds Betty: “we really try to do like at least a 50:50, if not less so, you know, like we talk half the time, and they're talking and collaborating and working on a tool half the time… sometimes it looks like us just spitting out as much information as we can, and you guys drinking from the fire hose and hoping for the best. It really depends on administrators and what they want.” While teaching, technology Marjorie: “whenever possible, even instructors encouraged teachers though as a participant I hate it to work together while learning sometimes, working in teams really, new technology. After the really, just helps people help, helps technology was taught, the people learn helps people help each technology instructors other learn. In nearly every class, I mentioned ways for teachers to mean, a teacher it's second nature to help reach out to them or other teach right, and I was just at a instructional coaches for support, conference this past weekend (…) and I or refer to their newsletter, or presented at every session and nearly website for additional support. every activity I did, teachers stepped in and kind of started working in groups without even being told to help each other co-learn and get past the stop, steps that are really hard. So, definitely, you know, having teachers, working groups putting in that end of lesson discussion has been really helpful.” TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 23 Table 4 Codebook for Avoiding Teachers’ Cognitive Overload (RQ3) Code Definition Example Be flexible, mindful, and approachable Technology instructors mentioned being willing and able to help teachers in all settings, professional development, PLCs, one on one, and be open to what technology the teacher is wanting to be trained on. Daisy: “we're listening to our participants, and then we're adjusting our instruction monthly based off of what we're hearing from them, and that's, it's really important for us to model that at the district level.” Differentiate Technology instructors try to survey where teachers are in their knowledge and understanding of a technology at the beginning of the training and then differentiate their instruction to the level that the majority of the teachers were on. When meeting with teachers one on one, they tried to meet the teachers where they were. Dorthea: “usually I take the time before I start the training just to get feedback from them and just asking the teachers themselves, you know, just a simple thumbs up you’re advanced, middle or down, you just are beginner level. So then from there I can gauge kind of where I need to hit and where to start, and I, and I tell them I don't want to waste their time.” Get them started Technology instructors mentioned a way to make professional development easier by helping teachers get started by knowing what technology they have access to and having the teachers get signed in before the training happens. Willow: “I just kinda try to set them up for success on that, because if you do not, and you try to get there that day and then now you're going through, get logging on, now you've just taken up your time you don't have. You don't have the time, especially if you're in a PLC, which is 45 minutes, max. You don't have you, you're gonna spend 1520 min of that getting them on.” Chunk information into smaller units/goals Technology instructors mentioned that teaching an entire technology can be overwhelming, so they try to teach just one or a few aspects at a time. Betty: “we've gone into a couple of schools where we do a tiny bit of direct instruction, and then we put the teachers into a space or into a tool that's in that with you that uses that technology and we have them practice. And then we, you know, we'll do some rotations sometimes, so that they get to see all of the tools.” TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 24 Results Barriers to Teaching Technology Research Question One focused on barriers that technology instructors encountered when teaching technology to teachers. This does not refer to teaching the actual technology, but barriers that make teaching technology difficult. Those barriers include lack of time given by administrators to teach the technology to faculty, districts wanting teachers to focus on core subjects only, technology instructors not being invited to teach in certain schools, and teachers’ anxiety towards technology changing before they learn how to use it. The findings for RQ1 will be organized in two sections: Time Barriers and Other barriers. Time Barriers Throughout the interviews, the technology instructors mentioned time being a barrier to teaching technology 20 times. This barrier was the amount of time they were given to introduce and instruct teachers on how to use a specific technology during staff meetings. Betty shared the following: It really depends on the on the administrator, we can take the full hour if they want us to, and we can take 10 minutes if they want us to. (…) a lot of the times it looks like, you know, 20 or 30 minutes, that's our normal teaching time is that 20 or 30 minutes. The problem with that is that doesn't give teachers a lot of practice time, because it takes us almost that long to, even, you know, introduce a new technology. (Betty) As it can be seen from this excerpt, the amount of time Betty was allotted to teach was dependent on how much time an administrator gave them. In the cases when technology instructors were given 20 to 30 minutes, they explained that that was only enough time to “teach the basics,” and “doesn’t give teachers a lot of practice time.” This showed that technology instructors were not TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 25 given the proper amount of time to teach the technology, and means teachers do not have time within the technology to try things out while the instructor was present to help when needs arise. Cassandra explained the following: Because so often they get an hour of something or a newsletter with a link to click, and they don't have time to get in and get lost in the tool or try to build something and not be successful, and then they don't have somebody there to help them kind of back out and get back into where they need to go. (Cassandra) As illustrated above, without an appropriate amount of technology instructional time, teachers had to rely on learning the technology on their own, and “it’s just something else that they [had] to do,” and “it’s just a matter of them being able to have the time to do it, which is the struggle.” Without time, teachers struggled to learn the new technology and have the willingness to stick with the technology. Other Barriers Besides time, other barriers to teaching technology to teachers were mentioned 27 times. These barriers included not being allowed to teach within certain schools, training being deemed optional, trying not to overwhelm teachers with too much training, and teachers either being unwilling or unprepared to participate in technology instruction. I think that's kind of another reason why a lot of the trainings are optional is district leadership kind of gets a lot of pushback from teachers, and they've got a lot going on, and they've got a lot of responsibilities. (Cassandra) As illustrated by this story, because technology was “not a core content,” and “a lot of teachers look at my technology as more of if you have time,” teachers were not required to learn new technology. Technology was sometimes “oh, not one more thing,” which could lead to “burnout TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 26 with teachers,” and “people feeling overwhelmed.” Teachers might have felt hesitant to learn new technology because “it’s going to be gone,” or “if it doesn’t align to the stuff that they need to teach then it’s not worth a teacher’s time to go to that extra effort.” Clara experienced that teachers sometimes came unprepared to training: Sometimes it's teachers, are, they’re like one of the other problems. Sometimes teachers don't come prepared with, like a Chromebook, something as simple as that, and so it's like you plan time for that, and then it's like, hey, make this Nearpod, and they're like, “I have a paper and pencil,” and it's like, “Oh, well, let me show you other things that Nearpod can do.” And so, it just kind of depends on the audience as well. (Clara) This example illustrates an issue Clara faced when giving teachers the opportunity to test out technology, but the teacher could not participate because they did not bring a device to the training. Teachers had a lot going on, and sometimes technology became more of a hassle for them. Engaging Teachers in the Learning Process Research Question Two looked at the ways technology instructors engaged teachers before, during, and after teaching a new technology. These strategies included showing teachers how using technology could benefit them, how to use technology to teach their standards, using various types of instructional strategies when teaching, having teachers work together while learning technology, and providing support to teachers after the technology had been taught. The findings for RQ2 will be organized in three sections: Provide Relevance and Get Teacher Buy In, Diverse Instructional Strategies, and Provide Scaffolds. Provide Relevance and Get Teacher Buy-in TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 27 Before teaching new technology, the technology instructors mentioned the need to provide relevance and get buy-in from teachers. This included showing teachers why using technology is beneficial. Providing relevance and teacher buy-in was mentioned 66 times. Cassandra explained her approach: I always really think about the why, and why they should be using the tool, how it it's going to help support them in their everyday, what they're doing, and I really try and lean into that, that why. Because so often, we're given tools, and we're like, it's the new shiny toy, and there's lots of new shiny toys so really expressing that, why, to the teachers, when we kind of jump into things, I think is really important. (…) If I'm doing a training for school on Canvas, I will build whatever professional development is for the group as an adult in Canvas, but then I'll also find ways for them to engage in their standards in that medium. So, they'll have an opportunity to engage as an adult learner, but also they can see it from the perspective of their students and their standards. (Cassandra) As seen from this excerpt, there was more to teaching technology than simply showing teachers where to click. There was also the importance of “encouraging teachers and modeling for them that we’re not just using a tech tool for tech tools sake.” Having teachers see how technology worked on the student side “gives them more buy-in because they [could] then apply it to their own” work. Being able to use technology on both the student and teacher side was important for teachers to be able to apply the technology in their own classrooms. Having technology instructors show how different technology can be used to enhance lessons was an important step in having teachers see the relevance of technology. Peter explained his approach as follows: Say, what are you teaching right now and get them, well, I'm teaching this. Okay, what are you, how are you gonna be presenting your lesson? And they take a few minutes to TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 28 say, well, we're gonna be doing this, we have a Powerpoint, or we have a Google slideshow, or whatever they're gonna be using. And you're like perfect, look, this is a tool that you have been using, and when you present it, it's just a picture, and you're talking about it. How about we go in and show you how to use this tool that's a little bit more dynamic, and it actually brings the students in to where they're actually going to be typing, or they're going to draw, or they actually have to answer some questions based on it. So they're getting actual feedback. Their students are actually doing something in the presentation. And that's how you do it, because you're connecting it to something that they're already doing. (Peter) In this case, helping teachers with technology can include “look[ing] at instructional strategies and then talking [to] teachers about what tech tools might fit with those.” This, in turn, becomes “not just learning the tech itself but how [was] that tech going to actually be implemented into your classroom.” As teachers see how beneficial technology could be in their classrooms, they were more willing to continue to use such technology. Diverse Instructional Strategies Another way technology instructors were found to engage teachers in the learning process was to use a variety of instructional strategies when they teach technology to teachers. This theme occured 87 times, and it shows a conscious intention to vary the type of instructional strategies used. However, when introducing a new technology, direct instruction was used the most frequently. This choice depended on the amount of time the instructors were given. Time available was that dictated if they were able to use other instructional strategies to guide teachers in learning a new technology. Este explained her instruction approach as: TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 29 If I was going in like and presenting at a faculty meeting, let's say I would do more of an I do, we do, you do type setup. If we're teaching like how to do, you know how to do something in a certain program like for example, if I'm teaching them how to build something in Canvas, I would show them, and then we would do it together, and then I would have them do it, that type of a strategy. (Este) In other words, the instructional strategies described and used depended on what type of training is being given. In many cases, “there’s always a portion of the facilitation that’s just direct instruction,” but “it’s also important to give them time to explore the tool,” and “the main thing about teaching technology with teachers is you’ve got to be hands-on.” When it comes to using direct instruction, technology instructors “really tr[ied] to do like at least 50:50”, which was not always possible to do. If given more time, Clara described doing the following: When I have a little bit more time, one of my favorite things is to give them a little bit of time, where it's like, almost like the flipped classroom model, where I do a little bit of direct instruction, but then, really a good portion of their time is them creating stuff with a resource there. And so I think that's something that's valuable. (…) A lot of times I find that teachers are there, they want to just get the information fast and then have more time to play with it, because they kind of know what they're doing, and they know how it's like appropriate, like, how it's going to be applicable to their class, and so they just want time and to get the as much content as they can as quickly as possible. (Clara) As can be seen from this excerpt, Clara found that it was important to give the teachers time to “let them practice it.” If there was enough time, “this kind of force[d] them and [gave] them that chance to actually get in and play around with the tool and try it out.” If teachers were able to have time to use the technology, then they could “start coming up with the ‘what if’ questions or TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 30 ‘how do I” questions before [they] leave each other.” This helped them get the answers they needed and be more willing to keep using the technology, especially if they were having a difficult time with the technology tool. Provide Scaffolds After technology was taught, the learning did not stop, and the technology instructors knew this. They explained that they encouraged teachers to work together while learning the technology, and they discussed ways teachers could reach out to them for support or the resources they had that teachers could access for quick tips and suggestions. While teaching technology, the instructors liked to have teachers work together. Dorthea described how she had teacher work together as: I, I call probably 2 to 3 of them just to share out, and then I'll go into the next step of a tool or the next tip that I want to give them chance to practice, and then we kind of share out how they can see using this in their classrooms, or what they discovered, how they've used it, give them that chance, because I find teachers love learning from each other, and so I think anytime you can tie in where they can learn from each other is gonna benefit what the PD you're doing. (Dorthea) This example illustrates how important it was to have teachers learn together because they were able to share ideas with each other. When teachers were not able to learn together, sometimes instructors tried to introduce technology to a few teachers in a school, “planting that seed with one or 2 individuals in a school, and then they like fall in love with it, and then they share that out with their teachers.” Doretha also described how she reaches out to teachers using a newsletter: TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 31 My department, we send out like an updates newsletter kind of reminding them of things, letting them know of different things. Kind of depends on the school, but I'm always just constantly trying to give them, like one school I put a weekly tech tip in their memo. Their Monday memo is what they call it, which has their whole week of things going on at the school, so all the teachers look at it, so I give it. I have a little spot for me, and in there I have a link to my personal calendar where they can schedule a time to meet with me if they want to learn more about it. But it's usually just a quick, quick tip with a link to more detailed information that they can learn about it. (Dorthea) As it can be seen from this excerpt, teaching technology was not something that happened in one setting. Many of the technology instructors mentioned “send[ing] out a newsletter,” or having “a tech tips page.” This gave teachers an extra resource to help them troubleshoot their issues with technology. When professional development was over technology instructors “always end[ed] with [their] contact information, and [a clear message that they were] more than willing to come meet with them.” Besides the extra resources, the technology instructors were available to help support teachers, even though getting teachers to reach out for help was not always the easiest task to achieve. Avoiding Teachers’ Cognitive Overload Research Question Three looked at how technology instructors avoided teachers feeling overwhelmed when learning new technology. The instructors mentioned being flexible, mindful, and approachable when it came to teaching technology. They also explained how they differentiated their instruction depending on who and how they were teaching. To help facilitate more effective professional development, the instructors talked about how they helped get teachers started in technology before the PD occurred. Finally, the instructors mentioned how TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 32 technology was easier to understand if it was taught in smaller chunks. The findings for RQ3 will be organized into four sections: Be Flexible, Mindful, and Approachable; Differentiate; Get Them Started; and Chunk Information into Smaller Units/Goals. Be Flexible, Mindful, and Approachable A teacher’s time is valuable and sometimes very sparse. Because of this, technology instructors knew that they would need to be creative in how they helped teachers. There were times when the instructors taught a whole school professional development; sometimes, they taught teams of teachers during Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), or sometimes, they taught technology to a teacher one-on-one. No matter how they were instructing, they had to be flexible in how they taught, mindful of who they were teaching, and approachable in how they taught. The following shows how Betty’s schedule allows for her to meet teachers: So, our whole job was, is just created so that we can go and help teachers in any capacity. So we have, you know, like our district hours, however. We are usually working from about 7:30 in the morning until about 4-4:30 in the afternoon, and that's just because we want to be able to work one on one, we want to go into PLC meetings during the day, we'll do faculty meetings, so the whole staff. We do our, the PD days that we have on you know, throughout this school year. We do, we train in community Council meetings, which is kind of strange sometimes. But you know, when you're trying to get the whole, the community involved in what you're doing sometimes that is necessary. So really, we're just, whatever is asked of us, we try to make it happen. (Betty) As illustrated by this story, the setting in which technology instructors taught varied from staff meetings and facilitated conversations to PLC meetings. Many technology instructors believed that when teachers had time, and needed support in technology, that was when they needed to be TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 33 available to teachers, and the instructors made sure they were available. In order to meet the differing needs of their teachers, technology instructors had to be willing to work with teachers on their terms and during their timeframe. Willow explained how she approached this flexibility: Something I like to do is I, I like to do it during lunch, and it's completely optional, because before and after school is really hard, but what I'll do is I'll set up a, give me 10 minutes of your time, and then I go in and I spend, I said, tell them, bring their lunch to the conference room, we'll sit down, and then we'll do it, and now how can we make that work together? (Willow) In other words, technology instructors needed to “[meet] teams like where they’re at,” and that included a time that works for teachers. Sometimes the instructors had to be creative and incentivize teachers in different ways, such as having “a drink station” or during a lunch break. Differentiate Just as teachers had to differentiate for their students, technology instructors had to differentiate how they taught technology. If there was time, instructors tried to survey teachers at the beginning of the training and then differentiate their instruction to the level the majority of the teachers were on. Este explains her method of surveying teachers: If I come in, I kinda you know, we'll take a survey like a fist of 5 like, where are you at with this? You know, I'm feeling a 5, I'm really comfortable with it, or just a 1, if that's it, with a group that I am just coming into, and I haven't met or done anything with, and I've just been asked to present at a school or something that's kind of where that's kind of how I start, all of them. Just so I know where to, where to focus my attention. (..) I kind of try to just focus on like the main middle, you know, I mean depending on who we have. (Este) TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 34 In other words, knowing where the teachers were in their comfort with technology, instructors could tailor their instruction accordingly. In some cases, “it [was] just a quick review. Here’s how we get on,” and then “probably mainly focus in on that middle area. That’s gonna hit the majority.” That’s not to say they leave the teachers with more advanced comfort out, “but then point out some advanced features towards the end of the PD to help those other teachers.” Some instructors mentioned having two technology instructors in the room “so that one can help the advanced and the ones that are ready to move forward.” Such organization helped them because an additional person “[could] address questions while we move on with the rest of the class.” Get Them Started To make professional development go smoother, technology instructors mentioned having teachers log in and access the technology during the session. Getting them started could also mean showing teachers how they could integrate one technology they already knew into another technology. The priority for many seemed to be to allow time for teachers to have an account with the new technology and “play” with it. Willow explains how she has teachers use an unfamiliar technology: I kind of trick them. So like, I was really trying to get them to use Canvas, and in order to get them to use Canvas and Mastery Connect, which is my product, then I created, I created a Canvas homepage that was kind of easy to, for them to manipulate, they could see it, but then I also told them that Mastery Connect would best be using Canvas, they were already familiar with Mastery Connect. (…) I said, let's just link it, for now and then, when you feel comfortable, we'll come back and use Canvas, but right now let's just put this Mastery Connect, that they're already familiar with, let's put this in your Canvas, and we'll link it all, and then I'll show you how to use it. (…). (Willow) TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 35 As illustrated by this story, helping a teacher use technology sometimes looks like tricking them into using it, and that led to more comfort and capability. Technology instructors explained their belief that this approach was the way to reduce any anxiety towards the new technology, because “once [the teachers] got that down, then they start[ed] planning” on how they could use it further in their own teaching. Chunk Information into Smaller Units/Goals Most technologies that were taught had a lot of components to them and the more components they had, the harder it could be for teachers to learn. Technology instructors mentioned needing to slow down and only teach the most important parts of technology and adding on as teachers became more comfortable. I always tell them like Canvas is like this big, it's huge, you only need to learn this little sliver, that's all we're worried about right now. Don't worry about the millions of other things that it does. We're going to talk about just this one thing, and that's what you're gonna master. And then once you're comfortable with that, then we'll take another slice, and we'll introduce the next thing. Or you might hear of a teacher, what they're doing, and you're like, hey, can I learn this next? And then that's what we'll do. And then those slices become more often and larger chunks, because they're now more comfortable with the initial product. And then they're like, oh, I want to learn this tool. Now I want to learn this aspect of it. (Peter) As illustrated from the quote above, Peter understood that he had to teach technology in a way that was “broken down into very simple things, like or very simple learning objectives” to reduce cognitive overload for teachers. Technology instructors understood that teachers would have varying comfort levels when it came to technology. In other words, as one technology instructor TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 36 said: “it [didn’t] matter if they’re brand new, or they’re at their 30th year, we [took] baby steps with them.” Similarly, they were not opposed to reteaching things “multiple times”, “going (…) at [their] pace,” or starting at “wherever they’re willing to start.” Discussion In summary, the results for all three RQs (aka Barriers to Teaching Technology (RQ1), Engaging Teachers in the Learning Process (RQ2), and Avoiding Teachers’ Cognitive Overload (RQ3)) were organized into themes. The following section will discuss how the results do or do not align with existing research. Research Question One RQ1 asked the technology instructors what barriers they experienced when teaching technology to teachers. The results for RQ1 showed that technology educators experienced time barriers most frequently but had experience with some other barriers as well. The most prominent types of barriers to teaching that the technology instructors mentioned was the lack of time they are given in front of teachers. Many stated they were given anywhere between 10 to 60 minutes to introduce and teach technology, and because of the lack of instructional time, technology instructors were mostly able to use direct instruction to teach. This does not align with the literature that shows teachers want to be actively engaged when learning and not just lectured, especially when being taught technology (González-Pérez, & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022; Pantic & Cain, 2022; Ramaila & Molwele, 2022; Song et al., 2017). Such limited time is not sufficient to avoid teachers’ cognitive overload, because the teachers are not given enough time to process what they are learning and then apply it to their teaching (Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Garnett, 2020; Martinez, 2021; Sweller, 2008). What was interesting TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 37 in my study was that in most cases, the person who decided how much time was given to the technology instructors was the administrator of the school. Besides time, technology instructors discussed other barriers to teaching technology. Those other barriers included teachers fearing the technology will change faster than they can learn it, administrators not allowing technology instructors into their schools to teach technology to teachers, and some districts only wanted teachers to focus on professional development in core subjects. The research shows that technology is ever changing, which does not negate the fact that the best place for students to learn technology is within the classroom from their teacher(s) (Ainley et al., 2016; Durff & Carter, 2019; Geisinger, 2016; Hursen et al., 2023; Ramaila, & Molwele 2022; Shafie, 2019; Szymkowiak et al., 2021). This means that teachers need access to high-quality professional development in technology to meet the needs of their students (Ainley et al., 2016; Durff & Carter, 2019; Fernández-Batanero, et al., 2022; González-Pérez, & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022; Hursen et al., 2023; Martinez, 2021; Pantic & Cain, 2022; Pharis et al., 2019). Research Question Two RQ2 investigated how technology educators engaged teachers in the learning process. After the interviews, there were three themes that became apparent and they included: providing relevance and getting teacher buy-in, using diverse instructional strategies, and providing scaffolds. Before teaching new technology to teachers, the technology instructors mentioned they needed to make teachers feel comfortable, show teachers how to use technology to teach their standards, and show teachers how using technology can benefit them. Once teachers felt comfortable with technology and saw the benefits, then they were more open to learning technology. This aligns with the research that says teachers are more willing to implement TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 38 technology into their classrooms after they moved past their technophobia (Durff & Carter, 2019), were made to feel comfortable by the technology instructors (Chiu, 2022; Lucas et al., 2021), and participated in PD that aligned with the curriculum they taught (Luneta, 2012; Song et al., 2017). I found that the technology instructors attempted to use a variety of instructional strategies whenever time allowed. These included direct instruction, demonstration/modeling, hands-on teaching, discussions, reciprocal teaching, and having teachers self-reflect. Technology instructors mostly used direct instruction to introduce the technology but if they were able, they also had teachers work together to learn the technology. If there was enough time, the instructors had the teachers “play in the technology.” This practice is aligned with prior research that found that to be willing to implement technology into their classrooms, teachers wanted and needed to be directly engaged when they learnt technology (Blank, 2013; Blundell et al., 2020; Pantic & Cain, 2022; Ramaila & Molwele, 2022; Song et al., 2017). To help support teachers while learning technology, I found that, when able, the technology instructors encouraged teachers to work together. This aligns with the research that shows that when they worked together, while learning, teachers were able to not only learn better what was being taught but also retain the information to then implement into their classrooms (Blank, 2013; Song et al., 2017; Warrick, 2021). I also found that the technology instructors had many resources for teachers to refer to when they needed additional support. This aligns to the research that said teachers need resources to help them continue their learning with technology (Chiu, 2022; Durff & Carter, 2019; González-Pérez & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022; Pantic & Cain, 2022). Research Question Three TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 39 RQ3 investigated how technology educators avoided teachers’ cognitive overload while teaching technology. This RQ analyzed how technology instructors tailored their instruction to each teacher, or a group of teachers they taught depending on the technology being taught and the level of comfort the teacher or group of teachers had. The findings for RQ3 were organized into four sections: being flexible, mindful, and approachable, differentiate, get them started, and provide scaffolds. I found that many technology instructors had to be creative in how and when they taught teachers. If teachers reached out, technology instructors were willing to teach them during PLCs, one-on-one, or during other meetings. Teaching technology one-on-one to teachers aligns with the research because the instructors could be aware of a teacher’s prior knowledge and understanding of a technology (Westlake, 2019), they were able to go at the teacher’s pace which would help lessen that teacher’s cognitive load (Sweller, 2008), and it could be applied to the teacher’s specific content area (Luneta, 2012; Song et al., 2017). All of this can lead to a teacher feeling more actively engaged in their learning (Blank, 2013; Ramaila & Molwele, 2022; Song et al., 2017). When it came to teaching technology during faculty meetings, I found that technology instructors tried to survey teachers on their knowledge and understanding of the technology being taught at the beginning of the professional development and then differentiated their instruction accordingly. Most of the time this meant that the instruction was tailored to some of the teachers and not all of the teachers. While surveying teachers at the beginning of the instruction could be helpful, this does not align with the research. The research shows that if the instructor knows what the teacher’s knowledge and understanding of a technology is before they TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 40 plan their lesson, then they can plan their lesson accordingly and that can help lower teachers’ cognitive overload (Westlake, 2019). To help make instruction during faculty meetings, PLCs, and/or individual sessions go smoother, my findings show that technology instructors would try to help teachers access the technology being taught beforehand. Having teachers signed up and logged in before the training started meant that technology instructors could spend their time introducing and teaching the technology. While having teachers get signed in beforehand does align with the research, having teachers complete a pre-task activity before the training would be more beneficial according to research (Warrick, 2021). If teachers went into the training already knowing the basics of how a technology works, then the instructor could focus on giving teachers the opportunity to be actively engaged in their learning by “playing” around in the technology (Blank, 2013; Ramaila & Molwele, 2022; Song et al., 2017) and/or giving the teachers the opportunity to work with their peers (Blank, 2013; Song et al., 2017). Most technology specialists interviewed in this study, however, were convinced that teachers did not have time for pre-task activities. My findings show that technology instructors understood that teaching an entire technology to teachers can be overwhelming and so they would chunk what they taught. This meant teaching only the most important parts of a technology and then gradually adding more as teachers became comfortable. These findings align with the research because the working memory could only handle so much information (Sweller, 2008), and if that limit was reached it would lead to teachers experiencing cognitive overload (Pantic & Cain, 2022). With time, and practice in a technology, teachers would be able to understand what they were taught and then move onto learning other aspects of the technology (Feldon, 2007; Martinez, 2021; Pantic & Cain, 2022). TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 41 Limitations When I created the interview protocol, I did not include a question that asked the technology instructors what barriers they faced when teaching technology to teachers. While the barriers to time did come up, more barriers might have been present and they were not spoken about, because it was not a question that I asked. The technology instructors I interviewed were limited to one state in the United States and so interviewing instructors from different states might have given a different perspective. Another limitation was my sample within Utah. Out of 42 districts in Utah, I only had six represented, with two districts having two people interviewed. The last limitation I had is based on my time and availability as a fulltime teacher which might have limited my sample pool because I was only able to complete interviews after school hours. Recommendations Besides more time in front of teachers, I have two main recommendations for technology instructors. The first is to survey teachers’ prior knowledge of technology before designing their instruction so they can plan their instruction accordingly. The second recommendation is to have teachers participate in pre-task activities. While many teachers might not be willing to watch a video or go through a set of slides to get familiar with the technology being taught, participating in this type of pre-task activity might mean that they can have hands-on practice within the technology during the training, instead of just being shown the basics of that technology. As for continuing the research, the next step should be to interview administrators to see what they can do to increase the time given to technology instructors to teach technology to teachers. Conclusion Overall, the greatest takeaway from my research is the fact that technology instructors do not have the time they need in order to teach technology to teachers. Without time, technology TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 42 instructors fall back on direct instruction, which does not allow teachers the opportunity to be directly engaged with the technology or avoid teacher cognitive overload. The instructors knew what good instruction looked like, but without time in front of teachers, they could not apply those instructional strategies to their lessons. TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 43 References Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., & Gebhardt, E. (2016). Conceptualizing and measuring computer and information literacy in cross-national contexts. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209205 Allen, J. P., & van der Velden, R. K. W. (2012). Skills for the 21st century: Implications for education. Researchcentrum voor Onderwijs en Arbeidsmarkt, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen. ROA Research Memoranda No. 11. https://doi.org/10.26481/umaror.2012011 American Psychological Association. (2018). APA dictionary of psychology. American Psychological Association. https://dictionary.apa.org/cognitive-overload Blank, R. K. (2013). What research tells us: Common characteristics of professional learning that leads to student achievement. The Journal of Staff Development, 34(1), 50-53. Blundell, C., Lee, K., & Nykvist, S. (2020). Moving beyond enhancing pedagogies with digital technologies: Frames of reference, habits of mind and transformative learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(2), 178-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1726235 Care, E., Scoular, C., & Griffin, P. (2016). Assessment of collaborative problem solving in education environments. Applied Measurements in Education, 29(4), 250-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209204 Carpenter, J. P., Rosenberg, J. M., Dousay, T. A., Romero-Hall, E., Trust, T., Kessler, A., Phillips, M., Morrison, S.A., Fischer, C., & Krutka, D. G. (2020). What should teacher educators know about technology? Perspectives and self-assessments. Teaching and Teacher Education, 95, 103124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103124 TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 44 Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2 Chiu, T. K. F. (2022). School learning support for teacher technology integration from a selfdetermination theory perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(3), 931-949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10096-x Doolittle, P. E. (1995). Understanding Cooperative Learning through Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ED384575). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED384575.pdf Durff, L., & Carter, M. (2019). Overcoming second-order barriers to technology integration in K-5 schools. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 9(1), 246-260. https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2019.09.1.18 Feldon, D. F. (2007). Cognitive load and classroom teaching: The double-edged sword of automaticity. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701416173 Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Montenegro-Rueda, M., Cerero, J. F., & García-Martínez, I. (2022). Digital competences for teacher professional development. Systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45(4), 513-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1827389 Garnett, S. (2020). Cognitive load theory: A handbook for teachers. Crown House Publishing Ltd. Geisinger, K. F. (2016). 21st century skills: What are they and how do we assess them? Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 245-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209207 TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 45 González-Pérez, L. I., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2022). Components of education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493 Hursen, C., Paşa, D., & Keser, H. (2023). High school students’ use of information, media, and technology skills and multidimensional 21st-century skills: An investigation within the context of students, teachers, and curricula. Sustainability, 15(6), 12214. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612214 Larson, L. C., & Miller, T. N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121-123. Lucas, M., Bem-Haja, P., Siddiq, F., Moreira, A., & Redecker, C. (2021). The relation between in-service teachers’ digital competence and personal and contextual factors: What matters most? Computers & Education, 160(2021), 104052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104052 Luneta, K. (2012). Designing continuous professional development programmes for teachers: A literature review. Africa Education Review, 9(2), 360-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2012.722395 Martinez, C. (2021). Developing 21st century teaching skills: A case study of teaching and learning through project-based curriculum. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2024936. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2024936 Merriam, S. B., & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Introduction to qualitative research. In Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis (pp. 3–18). https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505056_1 TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 46 Pantic, K., & Cain, R. (2022). Designing professional development for sustainable educational technology usage: Lessons learnt from Utah K-12 teachers. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 26(2), 38-54. https://doi.org/10.26522/jiste.v26i2.4023 Pantic, K., Gonzalez, N., & Cain, R. (2023). Utah K-12 teachers’ perspective: Challenges and changes with technology integration during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 27(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.26522/jiste.v27i1.4338 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (2nd ed.). SAGE. Pharis, T. J., Wu, E., Sullivan, S., & Moore L. (2019). Improving teacher quality: Professional development implications from teacher professional grown and effectiveness system implementation in rural Kentucky high schools. Educational Research Quarterly 42(3), 29- 48. https://doi.org/10.26522/jiste.v27i1.4338 Ramaila, S., & Molwele, A. J. (2022). The role of technology integration in the development of 21st century skills and competencies. International Journal of Higher Education, 11(5), 917. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v11n5p9 Shafie, H., Majid, F. A., Ismail, I. S. (2019). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in teaching 21st century skills in the 21st century classroom. Asian Journal of University Education, 15(3), 24-33. Song, K., Hur, E., & Kown, B. (2017). Does high-quality professional development make a difference? Evidence from TIMMS. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(6), 954-972. https://doi.org./10.1080/03057925.2017.1373330 Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 47 Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and the use of educational technology. Educational Technology, 48(1), 32-35. Szymkowiak, A., Melovic, B., Dabic, M., Jeganathan, K., & Kundi, G. S. (2021). Information technology and Gen Z: The role of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. Technology in Society, 65(May 2021), 101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565 Warrick, A. (2021). Strategies for reducing cognitive overload in the online language learning classroom. International Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(2), 2537. https://doi.org/10.33422/ijsfle.v1i2.124 Westlake, S. (2019). Cognitive load theory and multimedia. Technology and the Curriculum: Summer 2019. Power Learning Solutions. https://pressbooks.pub/techandcurr2019/ TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 48 Appendix A: Demographic Survey Demographic Survey 1. What is your educational level? a. Bachelor’s degree b. Master’s degree c. Ph.D. d. Other 2. What type of training/certifications do you have in technology? 3. How many years have you worked in a school? 4. How many years of classroom teaching experience do you have? 5. How many years of instructional teaching coach experience do you have? 6. How many years of technological professional development teaching experience do you have? TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 49 Appendix B: Interview Protocol Interview Protocol 1. When teaching technology to teachers, what type of instructional strategies do you use? Follow-up: direct instruction (lecture, recordings), indirect instruction (teachers discover on their own), collaborative learning (teachers work with their peers), individual learning (teachers learn the technology on their own). 2. How do you help teachers make the connection between how to use technology and the content they teach? 3. How do you have teachers collaborate as they learn new technology? 4. Before teaching a new technology, how do you survey teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the technology you will be teaching? Follow-up: How do you differentiate for those different ability levels? 5. To combat teachers feeling overwhelmed when learning new technology, what types of pre-task activities do you have teachers participate in before teaching them a new technology? 6. When teaching a new technology, what is the ratio of PD instructor talk time to teacher work time? 7. What is the length and frequency of the instructional time when teachers are taught technology? 8. Once teachers are taught the technology, what type of support do teachers have access to after being taught? 9. How receptive are the teachers in your district to learning new technology? TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 10. Would you be willing to give me access to the training you use to instruct teachers in technology? 50