I had AI create this post based on a chapter I wrote a few years ago.
If you have ever sat through a school professional development (PD) day focused on “technology integration,” you might be familiar with the following scenario: A room full of educators with wildly different skill levels are forced to watch a vendor demonstrate a new software platform. The tech-savvy teachers are checking their emails out of sheer boredom, while the beginners are completely lost, frantically trying to figure out how to simply log in.
As one curriculum coordinator aptly described this exact phenomenon: “We offer ‘technology workshops’ and we get some high-fliers who attend, and others who are just starting out… We end up frustrating faculty who make the effort to attend workshops, but they leave feeling it was a waste of their time”.
Despite decades of integrating computers into classrooms, delivering effective professional development for educational technology remains a massive hurdle for educational leaders. The solution to this widespread problem requires moving away from an ad hoc approach—where technology PD lacks consistency and direction—and moving toward a structured, purposeful framework.
Recently, leaders in a rural school district partnered with a panel of educational technology experts to redesign their professional development approach. Through a rigorous, iterative design process, they identified three critical dimensions of technology PD, which ultimately form a powerful typology of professional development: Training, Planning, and Design.
For school administrators, curriculum coordinators, and instructional coaches, understanding the differences between these three phases is the key to transforming technology PD from a frustrating waste of time into a dynamic, teacher-empowering engine for student success.
——————————————————————————–
The Three Dimensions of Technology Professional Development
Before differentiating the three specific types of professional development, it is essential to understand the three underlying dimensions that school leaders discovered during their research. Every professional development activity varies along these three continua:
1. The Focus on Technology Technology PD varies based on how contextualized the tool is. On one end of the spectrum, technology is completely decontextualized; the focus is solely on the basic operation of hardware and software, and the skills apply broadly to any teacher regardless of their grade or subject. On the other end, technology is highly contextualized; it is used to solve specific teaching problems for very narrow, targeted audiences. Leaders realized there is a massive difference between teaching teachers “which buttons to push” and helping them understand “which features are useful for students”.
2. The Source of Expertise Who is leading the room? Expertise also exists on a continuum. At one extreme is technology expertise, held by IT professionals or vendors who know exactly how a system works but have absolutely no background in pedagogy or student learning. In the middle is technology specialization, usually held by tech-savvy teachers who act as “technology stewards” to bridge the gap between IT and the classroom. At the other extreme is teaching expertise, held by veteran educators whose core competency is pedagogy, independent of the specific technology being used.
3. The Role of Students Perhaps the most profound revelation for the school leaders was realizing how often students are entirely left out of professional development planning. This dimension ranges from having no direct consideration of students, to planning based on predictions of student interaction, and finally, to adjusting lessons based on direct feedback and actual student reactions to the technology.
By analyzing PD through these three dimensions, the school district defined three distinct types of learning experiences for teachers: Training, Planning, and Design.
——————————————————————————–
Phase 1: Training (The Foundation)
Training is professional development characterized by an exclusive focus on how to operate hardware and software.
If your school is rolling out a brand-new Student Information System (SIS) or deploying new interactive whiteboards, Training is where you must begin. In this phase, the technology is entirely decontextualized. Participants are essentially being told what to do and which buttons to click to perform clear, specific tasks.
- Focus on Technology: Highly decontextualized. The goal is basic operation, and any data created during the session (like a fake class roster) can be safely discarded at the end. Because it focuses purely on universal functionality, Training is suitable for large, diverse audiences. Every teacher, whether they teach kindergarten art or AP Physics, needs to know the exact same sequence of clicks to take attendance.
- Source of Expertise: Led almost exclusively by individuals with technology expertise. These might be outside vendors, district technicians, or specially trained paraprofessionals. They do not need to know how to teach; they just need to know how the software functions.
- Role of Students: Students are physically absent and completely unconsidered in this phase. The focus is on the teacher interacting with the machine, not the student interacting with the lesson.
The Goal: Training should have a clear set of outcomes. Once a teacher masters the basic operations, they should never have to take that specific Training session again. They are now ready to graduate to the next level of professional development.
——————————————————————————–
Phase 2: Planning (The Application)
Once teachers have achieved a sufficient baseline of technical skill from Training, they are ready for Planning. Planning is the phase in which teachers collaborate to prepare lessons and activities that use technology to accomplish specific curriculum goals.
This is where the magic of pedagogy enters the equation. You cannot mix Training and Planning without frustrating your staff. As one principal noted, veteran teachers who are highly skilled in pedagogy but lack basic tech skills will become deeply frustrated if they are forced to figure out how to log in while simultaneously trying to build complex grading rubrics.
- Focus on Technology: Highly contextualized. Teachers are no longer learning how the tool works; they are deciding why they should use it. The audience narrows significantly. For example, while every teacher needs basic SIS training, only English and History teachers might attend a Planning workshop focused on advanced digital bibliography tools for long research papers.
- Source of Expertise: Led by teaching expertise and mediated by technology specialists. It takes the form of a teacher-led workshop where educators create, assess, and edit actual materials they will use in their classrooms. The technology must adapt to the teaching needs, not the other way around.
- Role of Students: Students are considered, but only theoretically. Teachers build lessons based on assumptions and general predictions about how their students will interact with the technology.
The Goal: The outcome of a Planning session is a set of polished materials ready to be deployed in the classroom. However, because it is based purely on predictions, the curriculum team noted that “at some point, they need to stop planning and try it with students in the classroom”.
——————————————————————————–
Phase 3: Design (The Iteration)
The final, and perhaps most innovative, type of professional development is Design. Design is the iterative process where teachers reconsider and revise their technology-based lessons after they have been deployed with students.
During the district’s research, they realized that educators frequently talk about “using data,” but rarely rely on direct student feedback to iterate on their technological pedagogy. Teachers often inaccurately predict how effective a technology lesson will be—sometimes students get distracted by an unimportant feature of the software, or perhaps the tool makes the lesson vastly more efficient than expected. Design solves this disconnect.
- Focus on Technology: Shifts from highly contextualized back toward finding broader generalizations. Teachers look for troubleshooting tips or systemic fixes that can improve similar lessons across other classrooms.
- Source of Expertise: A heavy collaboration between teaching experts and technology specialists. If a lesson fails, these experts must determine if it was a failure of the technological infrastructure or a failure of the pedagogy, because the solutions for each are vastly different.
- Role of Students: The student is the driving force of the Design phase. Immediately after a lesson is implemented, teachers conduct debriefings to capture students’ actual reactions and experiences. The central question of Design is: “How can this plan be improved with these specific students?”.
The Goal: Design transforms professional development into an ongoing, dynamic discussion directed entirely by teachers. It creates a continuous loop of implementing, gathering student feedback, and revising the curriculum to ensure technology actually enhances learning.
——————————————————————————–
Why This Typology Matters: Building Conceptual Artifacts
Why should school leaders take the time to implement this rigid differentiation between Training, Planning, and Design? The answer lies in the creation of conceptual artifacts—shared understandings and shared vocabulary within an organization.
When a school district lacks conceptual artifacts, communication breaks down. Teachers sign up for a “technology workshop” having no idea what they will actually learn, leading to the dreaded scenario of half the room surfing the web while the presenter tries to get the other half logged in.
By adopting this typology, a school’s leadership team can build standardized templates for all future PD. If a technology specialist wants to host a workshop, they must explicitly state the intended audience, the required baseline skills, and the expected outcomes. As one principal noted after understanding this framework: “I used to see all technology workshops as the same, but now I discriminate them, and we are all using the same vocabulary… we know what to expect”.
Furthermore, this framework perfectly aligns with the widely respected TPACK Model (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge). Training handles the baseline Technological Knowledge. Planning and Design, meanwhile, allow teachers to develop their Technological Pedagogical Knowledge and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge.
Conclusion
Effective professional development in educational technology cannot be a passive, one-size-fits-all event led by outside vendors. To truly build capacity, schools must recognize the deep differences between teaching someone how to operate a machine and empowering them to teach with it.
By categorizing professional development into Training, Planning, and Design, school leaders can provide targeted, meaningful support. They can ensure that beginners get the foundational hardware skills they need, while veteran teachers are given the space to collaboratively plan curriculum and iterate on those designs using real student feedback. When teachers are given an active role in defining their own professional learning, the ultimate beneficiaries are the students sitting in their classrooms.