Leaders Fostering Teachers’ Learning Environments for Technology Integration

  • Sarah K. HowardEmail author
  • Jen Scott CurwoodEmail author
  • Kelli McGrawEmail author
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


This chapter addresses how school leaders can support teachers’ professional learning and technology integration through a learning design perspective. Through this perspective, teachers engage in sensemaking to enact policy through teaching and learning. This can afford an authentic and contextualized approach to teachers’ professional learning. To do this it is necessary for school leaders to create a culture of learning and experimentation. School leaders can do this through fostering teachers’ engagement in contemporary professional learning, such as developing personal learning networks and communities. These can be online or face-to-face in local schools, or a mixture of the two, formal or informal, and structured or unstructured. The chapter highlights that professional learning should be flexible and personalized to teachers’ contexts. This is increasingly possible as teachers have access to diverse networks and communities, which support engagement with a wide range of professionals, resources, and experiences that may not be available in local schools. The chapter concludes with recommendations on how school leaders can employ a learning design perspective to create this includes opportunities for teachers to make sense of technology integration and experiment and continuously learn to support digital technology use in their school context.


Professional learning School leadership Culture of experimentation Learning design process Technology integration 


  1. Allen, C. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2014). Studying teachers’ sensemaking to investigate teachers’ responses to professional development focused on new standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 136–149. Scholar
  2. Biddolph, C., & Curwood, J. S. (2016). #PD: Examining the intersection of Twitter and professional learning. In M. Knobel & J. Kalman (Eds.), Literacies, digital technologies, and teachers’ professional development (pp. 195–218). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  3. Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 3–7. Scholar
  4. Bulfin, S., Parr, G., & Bellis, N. (2016). Literacy teacher education and new technologies. In C. Kosnik, S. White, C. Beck, B. Marshall, A. L. Goodwin, & J. Murray (Eds.), Building bridges: Rethinking literacy teacher education in a digital era (pp. 119–133). Rotterdam: SensePublishers. Scholar
  5. Cameron, S., Mulholland, J., & Branson, C. (2013). Professional learning in the lives of teachers: Towards a new framework for conceptualising teacher learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 377–397. Scholar
  6. Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Engagement through microblogging: Educator professional development via Twitter. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 707–728. Scholar
  7. Chen, Y., Chen, N.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). The use of online synchronous discussion for web-based professional development for teachers. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1155–1166. Scholar
  8. Ching, C. C., & Hursh, A. W. (2014). Peer modeling and innovation adoption among teachers in online professional development. Computers & Education, 73, 72–82. Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2012). Analyzing educational policies: A learning design perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(4), 487–521. Scholar
  10. Curwood, J.S., & Biddolph, C. (2017). Understanding Twitter as a networked field site: Implications for research on teacher professional learning. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Researching new literacies: Design, theory, and data in sociocultural investigation (pp. 81–104). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers College Press. Retrieved from Scholar
  12. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. Scholar
  13. Desimone, L., Smith, T., & Phillips, K. (2013). Linking student achievement growth to professional development participation and changes in instruction: A longitudinal study of elementary students and teachers in title I schools. Teachers College Record, 1115(5), 1–46.Google Scholar
  14. Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(73), 252–263. Retrieved from
  15. Dexter, S., Barton, E., Morgan, M. A., & Meyer, J. P. (2016). Relative uses, impact, and possibilities for teachers’ uses of formal, informal, and independent learning to integrate technology. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education international conference (pp. 1195–1202). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Savannah, GA.Google Scholar
  16. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.|A221849729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. Scholar
  18. Esterman, M. (2013). A historic moment for TeachMeets. Teaching History, 47(2), 51–52.Google Scholar
  19. Gorozidis, G., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers’ motivation to participate in training and to implement innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 1–11. Scholar
  20. Howard, S. K. (2013). Risk-aversion: Understanding teachers’ resistance to technology integration. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(3), 357–372. Scholar
  21. Howard, S. K., & Gigliotti, A. (2016). Having a go: Looking at teachers’ experience of risk-taking in technology integration. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5), 1351–1366. Scholar
  22. Howard, S. K., & Thompson, K. (2016). Seeing the system: Dynamics and complexity of technology integration in secondary schools. Education and Information Technologies, 21(6), 1877–1894. Scholar
  23. ISTE Standards for Teachers. (2017). Retrieved from
  24. Jones, W. M., & Dexter, S. (2014). How teachers learn: The roles of formal, informal, and independent learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, M., & Dexter, S. (2016). Conceptualizing school-based teacher learning from teachers’ points of view: Holistically leveraging formal, informal, and independent learning activities. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 25(3), 251–268.Google Scholar
  26. Karpova, E., Correia, A.-P., & Baran, E. (2009). Learn to use and use to learn: Technology in virtual collaboration experience. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 45–52. Scholar
  27. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2010). An approach to participatory instructional design in secondary education: An exploratory study. Educational Research, 52(1), 45–59. Scholar
  28. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., & Mascall, B. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement/University of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, 42, 50.Google Scholar
  29. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Scholar
  30. Morrison, K., & van der Werf, G. (2016). Large-scale data, “wicked problems”, and “what works” for educational policy making. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(5–6), 255–259. Scholar
  31. Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art – Teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231–256. Scholar
  32. Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: Some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 373–384. Scholar
  33. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. Scholar
  34. Organization for Economic Collaboration and Development. (2016). What makes a school a learning organisation? Paris. Retrieved from
  35. Parr, G. (2010). Inquiry-based professional learning: Speaking back to standards-based reforms. Teneriffe: Post Press.Google Scholar
  36. Perrotta, C. (2013). Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital technology? A critical analysis of teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 314–327. Scholar
  37. Phelps, R., & Graham, A. (2010). Exploring the complementarities between complexity and action research: The story of Technology Together. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(2), 183–197. Scholar
  38. Salomon, G. (2016). It’s not just the tool but the educational rationale that counts. In E. Elstad (Ed.), Educational technology and polycontextual bridging (pp. 149–161). Rotterdam: SensePublishers. Scholar
  39. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. Scholar
  40. Stout, R. T. (1996). Staff development policy: Fuzzy choice in an imperfect market. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 4, 2. Scholar
  41. Tallvid, M. (2014). Understanding teachers’ reluctance to the pedagogical use of ICT in the 1:1 classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 503–519. Scholar
  42. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  43. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. Scholar
  44. Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). “Together we are better”: Professional learning networks for teachers. Computers & Education, 102, 15–34. Scholar
  45. Vanderlinde, R., Aesaert, K., & van Braak, J. (2015). Measuring ICT use and contributing conditions in primary schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(5), 1056–1063. Scholar
  46. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47–59. Scholar
  47. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, National Staff Development Council.Google Scholar
  48. Zhang, S., Liu, Q., Chen, W., Wang, Q., & Huang, Z. (2017). Interactive networks and social knowledge construction behavioral patterns in primary school teachers’ online collaborative learning activities. Computers & Education, 104, 1–17. Scholar
  49. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social ScienceUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  2. 2.University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Sara Dexter
    • 1
  1. 1.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations