Collaborative professional development for science, technology, and mathematics teachers in designing iPad-integrated lesson plans

Siriwan Chatmaneerungcharoen

doi:10.31893/multirev.2025170

Keywords:

teacher education

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)

iPad based STEM

collaborative professional development program

Abstract

This study presents a teacher development program designed to enhance STEM teaching skills through the integration of iPad-based technology, emphasizing the advancement of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). The program utilizes a blended learning approach, combining online modules with hands-on, school-based sessions to develop teachers' expertise in content, pedagogy, and the effective application of digital tools. Structured into three phases—preparation, collaboration, and classroom implementation—the program supports teachers in creating and delivering interactive, inquiry-driven STEM lessons using iPad applications to boost student engagement and learning outcomes. A mixed-methods research design was employed to study and refine the program, involving 444 school teachers in ongoing collaborative work, with a focused analysis of 36 selected participants. Data was collected through teacher focus group interviews, classroom observations, TPACK surveys, and direct collaboration in classrooms. Analysis was conducted using both content analysis and statistical methods. The findings indicate that the blended professional development program offers teachers flexibility to participate and apply learned strategies in their classrooms during the research process. The involvement of school administrators and educational supervisors was crucial in fostering a Professional Learning Community (PLC), enabling continuous collaboration, reflective practices, and iterative lesson design through activities like lesson study, co-teaching, peer observations, and joint lesson planning. The study highlights the program's impact on teachers’ instructional practices, their ability to integrate technology effectively, and student engagement in STEM learning. Collaboration among various stakeholders—teachers, school administrators, supervisors, and academics—emerged as a key factor for success. The findings suggest that this approach enhances teachers' digital and pedagogical skills while offering a scalable model for professional development in technology-rich educational environments. This model demonstrates the potential for sustained improvements in STEM education by bridging theory and practice through collaborative and flexible learning opportunities.
References
1. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168.
2. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11.
3. Cajkler, W., & Wood, P. (2015). Lesson study for professional development: A systematic review of the evidence from Japan, the UK and beyond. Professional Development in Education, 41(5), 824-845.
4. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
5. Dejarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77-84.
6. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively?. Computers & Education, 51(1), 187-199.
7. Dudley, P. (2015). How lesson study works and why it creates excellent learning and teaching. Lesson Study: Professional Learning for Our Time, 1-24.
8. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
9. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2012). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
10. Galanouli, D., Murphy, C., & Gardner, J. (2004). Teachers' perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competence training. Computers & Education, 43(1-2), 63-79.
11. Henderson, K., & Tilbury, D. (2004). Whole school approaches to sustainability: An international review of whole school sustainability programs. Macquarie University.
12. Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1499-1509.
13. Jones, M., & Dexter, S. (2013). How teachers learn: The roles of formal, informal, and independent learning activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 611-624.
14. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-263.
15. Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional communities and student achievement—a meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121-148.
16. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
17. Office of the Basic Education Commission. (2015). 21st-century skills and Thai curriculum development. Ministry of Education.
18. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51-74.
19. Pitakkeukung, S. (2015). Integrated STEM education in the Thai curriculum. Educational Studies, 18(3), 201-202.
20. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.
21. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2011). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1033-1043.
22. Sarnsorpisut, S. (2015). The role of STEM education in modern curriculum development. STEM Education Journal, 14(2), 1-5.
23. Smith, T., Cobb, P., Farran, D., Cordray, D., & Munter, C. (2018). Evaluating the impact of STEM-focused professional development on teacher and student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 23-48.
24. Tanak, A. (2020). Teacher’s digital technology integration: Barriers and solutions for effective practice. Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 213-229.
25. Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057-1060.
26. Ward, L., & Parr, J. M. (2010). Revisiting and reframing use: Implications for the integration of ICT. Computers & Education, 54(1), 113-122.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to cite

Chatmaneerungcharoen, S. (2024). Collaborative professional development for science, technology, and mathematics teachers in designing iPad-integrated lesson plans. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(6), 2025170. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025170

[1] Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168.

[2] Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11.

[3] Cajkler, W., & Wood, P. (2015). Lesson study for professional development: A systematic review of the evidence from Japan, the UK and beyond. Professional Development in Education, 41(5), 824-845.

[4] Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

[5] Dejarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77-84.

[6] Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively?. Computers & Education, 51(1), 187-199.

[7] Dudley, P. (2015). How lesson study works and why it creates excellent learning and teaching. Lesson Study: Professional Learning for Our Time, 1-24.

[8] Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.

[9] Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2012). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.

[10] Galanouli, D., Murphy, C., & Gardner, J. (2004). Teachers' perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competence training. Computers & Education, 43(1-2), 63-79.

[11] Henderson, K., & Tilbury, D. (2004). Whole school approaches to sustainability: An international review of whole school sustainability programs. Macquarie University.

[12] Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1499-1509.

[13] Jones, M., & Dexter, S. (2013). How teachers learn: The roles of formal, informal, and independent learning activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 611-624.

[14] Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-263.

[15] Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional communities and student achievement—a meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121-148.

[16] Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

[17] Office of the Basic Education Commission. (2015). 21st-century skills and Thai curriculum development. Ministry of Education.

[18] Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51-74.

[19] Pitakkeukung, S. (2015). Integrated STEM education in the Thai curriculum. Educational Studies, 18(3), 201-202.

[20] Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.

[21] Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2011). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1033-1043.

[22] Sarnsorpisut, S. (2015). The role of STEM education in modern curriculum development. STEM Education Journal, 14(2), 1-5.

[23] Smith, T., Cobb, P., Farran, D., Cordray, D., & Munter, C. (2018). Evaluating the impact of STEM-focused professional development on teacher and student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 23-48.

[24] Tanak, A. (2020). Teacher’s digital technology integration: Barriers and solutions for effective practice. Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 213-229.

[25] Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057-1060.

[26] Ward, L., & Parr, J. M. (2010). Revisiting and reframing use: Implications for the integration of ICT. Computers & Education, 54(1), 113-122.

Abstract

References

How to cite