Page 143 - Innovative Professional Development Methods and Strategies for STEM Education

Teachers’ Professional Development in the Digitized World

on the ‘Pedagogical Models for Tech Integration’ and teachers were introduced with TPACK Framework
(Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) by Mishra & Koehler (2006), the SAMR model (Pu-
entedura, 2012). Having investigated these models teachers were trying to be more careful and focus on
the teaching goals more than the technological tools to be used. One of the main goals of this digitized
course was to make teachers aware of these models and to be more meticulous. That’s why they started
to question more, think more before using any kind of technological tool in their lessons. In line with
this, Weinbaum, A., Allen, D., Blythe, T., Simon, K., Seidel, S., & Rubin, C., (2004 as cited in Lock,
J, 2006) mention that when teachers develop and work from an inquiry stance and in collaborative in-
quiry groups, it opens them to questioning, exploring issues as they believe as important, making their
work public, gaining new ideas on their work and students’ work and providing avenues for intellectual
growth and renewal as the teacher. This study supports this view as most of the teachers reported greater
growth as a professional teacher who is able to share experience and knowledge particularly in an ex-
periential way within their own context. The professional and social growth gained during the training
led to greater awareness and further needs for creating opportunities to benefit from their developing
experience. The while- and post-training sharing in the specific context made the outputs of the training
program pedagogically more valuable especially because the participants became agents of change and
development through their personal attempts to disseminate the new ideas and innovative practices. A
further study in which the participants of the course are planned to be surveyed after a longer time to
see if the impacts of the training have undergone any change.

REFERENCES

Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ views of computers as catalysts for
changes in their teaching practice. Journal of research on computing in education, 31(3), 221-239.
Duran, M., Fossum R. (2010). Technology Integration into Teacher Preparation: Part 1—Current Practice
and Theoretical Grounding for Pedagogical Renewal. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi,Cilt
11,Sayı 2,Agustos, Sayfa 209-228
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66.

Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall/Cambridge.
Lock, J. V. (2006). A new image: Online Communities to Facilitate Teacher Professional Development.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663–678.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Orhun, E. (2002). Information and Communication Technologies in Education. In E.P.A. Orhun M., &
Kommers (Ed.), Ege Üniversitesi: İzmir.

124